This page uses content from Wikipedia and is licensed under CC BY-SA.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Ealdgyth—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.


Iwan Roberts

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk), The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Something of a journeyman Welsh footballer, and certainly held in high esteem, nay legend status, by Norwich City supporters, the push on this article has been a joint effort between the two nominators, one of whom is not a Norwich supporter so was able to introduce some balance. It's been a long time in the making, we first started expansion around nine years ago, but we're hoping to finish the job properly and push it over the FAC line. Both Dweller and I will do our utmost to address every comment and query raised here, and we both thank you in advance for your time and effort. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sleepless (comics)

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a fantasy romance comic released by Image Comics a few years ago. The story features a princess, a magical knight, and a conspiracy to replace the throne with democracy. The article was promoted to GA last October and has been stable since then. After some tweaks today and a search for new sources/commentary, I'm confident the article is as complete as it can be. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslav destroyer Beograd

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Beograd was the lead ship of her class of destroyers built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in the late 1930s. During WWII, she saw action under the Yugoslav, Italian then German flags. This article went through Milhist ACR in 2017, and I have recently smartened it up in preparation for a run at FAC. This article is part of a Good Topic I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Only image is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Per MOS:LEAD both the "Background" and the "Description and construction" sections are not included in the lead.
  • Italy and the Aegean and North Africa North Africa is too common to link.
  • increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load --> "increasing to 1,655 t (1,629 long tons) at full load"
  • bridgehead being established at Zara, an Italian enclave Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • Link Dalmatian.
  • six motor torpedo boats were dispatched to Šibenik What's Šibenik?
  • She was commissioned in the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) Italian is too common to link.
  • between Italy and the Aegean and North Africa Unlink North Africa.
  • in September 1943, the German Navy (German: Kriegsmarine) Like above German is too common to link.
  • According to Roger Chesneau, she was sunk at Trieste What's Trieste?
  • by Yugoslav Army artillery fire on 30 April 1945 Mention here that they weren't the royalists but were the communists. Officially Yugoslav Army was the in-exile-government in the UK.
  • Her standard displacement was 1,210 tonnes (1,190 long tons), increasing to 1,655 tonnes (1,629 long tons) at full load Link both standard and full load.
  • "1,210 t (1,190 long tons) (standard)" Link both tons and standard and full load bellow too.
  • Anti-aircraft guns in the body vs AA in the infobox. I know they're the same but you didn't mention that AA the abbreviated is of anti-aircraft.
  • "Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-185-0116-22A, Bucht von Kotor (-), jugoslawische Schiffe.jpg" When was this?
  • she was damaged by a near miss during an air attack --> "she was damaged by a near-miss during an air attack"?
  • Oh really? I have searched for the noun and it looks like by Ngram a lesser known term.
  • Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built --> "Although three large destroyers were not going to be built"
  • idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted --> "idea that Dubrovnik might operate with several smaller destroyers persisted"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Hey PM. all look good except for the lead. Personally I do not prefer adding a background in the body nor lead in warships' articles. But if it's in the article then we should also use it in the lead. An example of things that should be included in the lead are: was she and her class part of a modernisation plan (programme), strengthen the Navy or did Yougoslavia made (and/or buy) ships to protect itself for a future invasion by someone? Or was it because the new kingdom had no ships so it decided to make a navy and her class is part of the programme? The lead itself says "during the late 1930s, designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik", does this mean her class was the reaction of the expansions by Italy and Germany before or even in the early stages of WWII and was part of the defence plan? Another comment here is to link WWII. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nb, it is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

For what it is worth, I have no issues with the choice and order of section headers; and it does not concern me htat it is different from those adopted in some other warship articles.

  • It may just be me, but the opening sentence reads much more smoothly with a comma after "destroyers".
  • "Re-armed" means to me to be equipped with armament once again after a period of having none. Do you not want 'up-armed', or a more felicitous variant thereof?
  • "which gave her a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Is it known at what speed?
  • "Yugoslavia's gold reserve, 7,344 ingots". Is it known what weight the ingots were? 12.4 kg?
  • "and 20 mm (0.79 in) L/65 Breda Model 35 guns were added to her armament" Is it known how many?
  • "in order to augment her anti-aircraft armament". Do they mention with what?
  • Should Preston et al not have an ISBN? (978-1844860036).

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

1998 Football League First Division play-off Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so this one really is a good 'un. Outside of the ultimate classic (I may be biased), this play-off final is stuff of legend. It has been called possibly the most exciting match ever played at the old Wembley. Three apiece after regulation time, 4–4 after extra time and then penalties. I had the luxury of watching this all unfold in a pub near Loughborough (nothing better to do with myself at that time), and I remember it almost like it was yesterday. I will work tirelessly to address any constructive comments, and as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Game of Thrones

Nominator(s): -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the highly popular HBO fantasy drama series that ran from 2011 until 2019. The article was nominated and not promoted back in 2016. After the series finale, the article underwent an extensive update to include critical reception, viewership numbers, piracy issues, and related media. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria. I appreciate all constructive feedback and suggestions for the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Heartfox

I've never reviewed a featured article nominee before (so take my comments with a grain of salt I guess), but I just wanted to make a few constructive suggestions if that's okay. I do feel that the "Viewership" section is kind of lacking at the moment. I know the season articles have info in their own viewership sections, but for a highly successful series that ran for eight seasons, two paragraphs seems insufficient. Not that it is even a Good Article, but the viewership section for American Idol, for example, gives about one paragraph for most seasons. I do feel like more research could be done for this section on Game of Thrones.

Is there a specific citation that says "it was considered a ratings success for HBO throughout all eight seasons"? Are there any sources mentioning the high level of 18–49 viewers in the United States or anything about overall DVR viewership patterns? Should something be said about the apparent viewership decline midway through the fifth season? I also think the separation between the gross figures from the HBO press releases and the graph and table showing the TV viewership only should be more clearly noted. Also, I know the colours for each season are based on the posters so I don't think it could be changed, but I just wanted to comment that it was kind of hard for me to delineate on the graph the difference between the seventh and eighth seasons' columns. Heartfox (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Heartfox, thank you for the comment. I believe you stated the reason for only two paragraphs for the Viewership section. The specific season articles detail the viewership numbers in detail so only a summary is best. I'm currently researching the DVR viewership and key demographic numbers. Thank you again for your suggestions. -- LuK3 (Talk) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So I did add some material about time shifting views and key demographic viewership. Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources about the season 5 viewership dip, I'll continue to look for any mentions. Thank you again Heartfox. -- LuK3 (Talk) 11:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
LuK3 Yeah, that looks better. I like that you included the interesting strong female viewership info. You might want to add a url-status=live to the first two refs, though :) Heartfox (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The references should be formatted correctly now. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Hermaeum

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000. Strangely, the sources are thin, but I believe that there is enough to make it FA-worthy. I have written it from scratch, so its no doubt many blemishes are all down to me. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • "What, if any, the Roman losses.." Sounds wrong to me.
That's PAW Patrol, not me. Nope, I'm really not seeing any problem. But there must be other ways to phrase it. How would 'It is not known what the Roman losses were ...' suit you?
  • "The modern galley expert John Coates.." This is probably something over nothing, but I was momentarily thrown about whether he was a modern galley expert or a modern galley expert. It could possibly be rephrased "John Coates, a modern expert on galleys, ..", but that might not be an improvement.
You are correct. ;-) I have tweaked it to "The modern expert on galleys John Coates"
It is indeed. You can tell, 'cus it is linked at first mention. :-)
  • The lang template for "Ras ed-Dar" should use "ar-latn" rather than just "ar".
Ah. Makes sense. Done. Cheers.
  • "Polybius is critical of what he considers the poor judgement and seamanship displayed immediately prior to the storm." This raises more questions than answers for me: is there anything more about what that poor judgement and seamanship was? They had just defeated the Carthaginians in a naval battle, the seamanship couldn't have been that poor?
*OR alert* It (almost certainly) wasn't. Which is why the next sentence includes "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship". You could found an entire department on explaining Polybius' point. There is really no end to it - one reason why I haven't gone there. See, the sea itself turned on the victorious Roman fleet and destroyed it. To the Romans these things didn't just happen - someone or something had to have angered the gods. Or, if you were a rational Greek, there had to be a hubristic human failing. Entire fleets don't sink for no reason, surely. Except even the incorrigibly religious/superstitious Romans didn't seem to buy that at the time. And perhaps Polybius expected the more worldly of his audience to nod knowingly at his fudging of the religious/philosophical implications. Und so weiter.
Just to complicate things, years later (still in the 1PW) a Roman consul lost 120 warships and 800 transports at the Battle of Phintias. Driven ashore by bad weather due to disregarding expert advice says Polybius; outfought by the Carthaginians says another source.
I really didn't feel that I could skip Polybius' opinion, but I have come as close as I dare to pointing out that the view of the consensus of Rome's military experts of the day was "Just one of those things old boy, could have happened to anyone".

That's it on a first pass; somewhat distracted by kids and PAW Patrol at the moment; will need to give it another read through later. Harrias talk 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias for disturbing your domestic tranquility to delve into this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

Per my review at the ACR (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Per MOS:LEAD the lead doesn't mention the background and aftermath sections.

Will come later back after this is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Good to see you again :-). "a battle of the First Punic War" and "The Romans were attempting to rescue the survivors of an invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) that had failed with their defeat in the Battle of Tunis, while the Carthaginians were attempting to intercept them." covers the "Background". I have added a sentence to cover the two-sentence "Aftermath". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) American northeastern?
  • What, if any, the Roman losses were is not known; most modern historians assume there were none. The "what" makes it a question?
No. It is allowable, honest. Eg, see these 5 mn (!!) Google hits here.
  • 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52] vs "when it differs with any of our other accounts".[11][note 2]" First notes or should citations be first?
IMO notes. Fixed. Thanks.
  • only 16 km (10 mi) from Carthage --> "only 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage"
  • I think we better can remove "of Carthage" in the Xanthippus's article's title if sources don't say that.
Feel free to do so. I rarely mess with other articles'titles. I don't even mess with my own, even when they are wrong; as with Mercenary War or Battle of the Bagradas River.
  • more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] Double 61 citation?
Grr. I copied instead of cutting when I put them in order. Fixed.
  • was a battle of the First Punic War fought in 255 BC between Remove the extra space.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers CPA-5. You are letting me off lightly. Or else I am getting better :-) . Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog, finally got back to this, sorry for delay. I've been back to my original comments and all changes since... Firstly I'll deal with the older comments

No worries Jenny. I only posted this one three days ago!
  • grapple - I had asked about this because I searched "corvus grapple" and found many sources linking the two ie end of corvus was a spike/grappling hook... but also the corvus enabled grappling. No bother, pls ignore.
  • ship handling skills - hyphen was added then lost?
D'oh! Re-added.
  • This comment of mine "The Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and - need to mention year 254 BC somewhere in this para to match map?" - since then you have amended the year 254 to 255 elsewhere... the map has "6: Romans retreat to Aspis and leave Africa. (254 BC)" but retreat was 255BC? Tweak caption date?
That is embarrassing. Corrected.
  • per same comment ... in text "Later in 355 BC the Romans sent a fleet of 350 quinqueremes and more than 300 transports to evacuate their survivors" - 355 BC should be 255?
Groan. I think that I was confusing the year with the number of ships. Clearly I need putting out to grass. Done.
  • author link for Scullard didn't happen?
That is very odd. Done.
  • author link for Peter Jones (classicist) happened but didn't work - needs a "2" (ie second author)
It does? I guess that makes sense. Done.
  • You've added to lede "... more generous than those proposed by Regulus." - add consul and pipe wlink Regulus here?
Actually, re-reading, the last bit of that sentence relates to nothing, and isn't that relevant. Shortened. What do you think?
  • ref orders (yeah, yeah... humour me) 290,000 crew and marines[note 4][49][45][52]
For you, anything.
  • more than 100,000 men were lost.[61][63][71][61] - 2 times 61
Already deleted with prejudice. I copied when I wanted to cut while ordering them.
  • Category 254 BC - 255

That's it for now, JennyOz (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jenny, you are a star. I don't know what I would do without you. All done and, this time, checked. Awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • All images are free.
  • Sandwiching between infobox and first images. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Transcluding a significant prose section into a FAC seems questionable to me, and it prevents you from fixing the sandwiching problem. (t · c) buidhe 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Introduction_into_superheavy_elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.
@R8R: What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?
@Buidhe: +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all edits made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.
I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ComplexRational

I have made a few substantive edits to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support.

  • The atomic number is the number of protons in an atomic nucleus. – anyone reading the article should know this; at most, a parenthesized definition such as "atomic number (number of protons)" is enough.
    Addendum: to avoid breaking the text flow (as pointed out by R8R, the next sentence should be shortened or cut as well; we don't need to define the more common terms in this article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    Changed to a parenthesis. Double sharp (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    I've given it more thought and I don't see what can be done to help this without removing important information, but I'd like to hear from you if you think otherwise. You see, I want to mention the following points:
    • The heaviest element in nature is uranium;
    • Elements can be referred to by their atomic numbers;
    • The first element heavier than uranium was synthesized in 1940;
    • Elements through 101 were discovered in Berkeley;
    • Starting with element 102, a new contender emerged in Moscow/Dubna;
    • and so on.
    The current text seems optimal to me to make those points. Note j could be remade to also differentiate elements through 101 from elements 102 onward by their synthesis method.--R8R (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • was discovered in 1940 at the University of California in Berkeley, California, United States. – I do not believe the detail in note [j] is necessary. Since this section does not provide background information on the topic, the exact details of how neptunium was discovered are not important to this topic.
    OK, I've removed note j. Double sharp (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Let's talk about it some more. The point of that note was that that reaction was different from what we've described so far ("combines two other nuclei of unequal size" -- a neutron is not a nucleus, and the reaction itself isn't precisely in the same category, as I have described in that note), and a note seems suitable to point out this small difference.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'd prefer appending the sentence Elements through 101 were discovered... and stating there that neutron capture and alpha irradiation were used in these discoveries, and that they are not nuclear fusion per se. I feel this would flow better than a note, and not drop this extra bit of context.
    Sounds good but alpha particles do qualify as nuclei, so technically that is nuclear fusion?--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Technically it is, this change is just to differentiate these techniques from light-ion bombardment. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Now that I've thought more about it, I think the important distinction here is that elements through 100 were discovered by having uranium absorb neutrons, and then we hit a wall that prevented from more discoveries in that manner, and element 101 had to be discovered via bombardment by whole nuclei. In fact, even the first publication on synthesis of element 100 followed after a bombardment of uranium by oxygen, rather after endless absorption of neutrons. I think I'd rather highlight that; what do you think?--R8R (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The more nucleons there are in a nucleus, the more energy there is for binding the nucleons. – I'm unsure about this. To an uninformed reader, it would suggest that heavier nuclei are more stable, not less stable (after 62Ni). This could be removed together, a link to an article such as nuclear binding energy should be sufficient.
    I've copyedited a previous sentence to make it clear enough.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's better, though I'd also suggest changing this to "the more total energy" to make it obvious that more nucleons have more total energy, but are not more stable as a result. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    I did some more copyediting; please see the results.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Clearer now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • hypothesized a different mechanismproposed or suggested would read better in my opinion, as these experiments were soon conducted, and hypothesized connotes greater uncertainty than I understand from the source.
  • More equal atomic numbers of the reacting nuclei – I suggest adding somewhere, perhaps in parentheses, that this refers to symmetric fusion, so that readers have a short and to-the-point connection.
    I have my doubts about that, though I'm eager to see what I could be missing. You see, "symmetric fusion" is also rather vague, and there's nothing to link that to, so I wonder if it's going to create even more confusion instead (it would need an explanation in the likes of what we already have: "more equal atomic numbers").--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    True, we should keep it as simple and straight-to-the-point as possible. I think we can leave this one as is. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • including one around Z = 108. – note [t] is definitely not needed; these symbols are introduced and used earlier in the article. I suggest removing it entirely.
    That the note was misplaced is clear enough, but have the terms really been introduced by the time we first use those letters? if so, where?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    They're not all consistent (Z is introduced in the infobox, the others are thrown around). To make it unambiguous, I suggest adding them to the transcluded short introduction if possible. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    My understanding has been that the infobox doesn't matter (it's more of a data sheet rather than article text). It appears to me that the note is best restored at the first occurrence of these letters in the text (currently "the vicinity of Z = 110–114"). I also think that there is no room for these symbols in our short introduction.--R8R (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Only thing is they're not all introduced in one place. Atomic number is introduced in the context of uranium (discovery section), mass number could be added in the note dealing with nuclide notation (note [k]), and I don't see neutron number anywhere before the isotopes section. Working with these is doable, it's just not as consistent as we'd like. ComplexRational (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Well, I guess we have to play with the cards we've been dealt. Since that appears to be okay with you, I have restored the notation note at the first occurrence of this notation in the text.--20:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Looks good now. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No results have been released. – citation needed, and date needed. Otherwise, some more definite statement should be made in the article (if necessary, about the fact that no results have been released, structured similarly to hassocene at the end).
  • Atomic nuclei show additional stability...indicate closure of "sub-shells". (4 sentences) – since the sections have been rearranged, I suggest moving these sentences up to the isotopes section, and introducing the island of stability and the nature of 292Hs differently here.
    Good one; please see my edit. Comments are welcome.--R8R (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    The flow is much better now. The island of stability is appropriately introduced, and the part about 292Hs in nature is both contextualized and focused. ComplexRational (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This in turn increases the gravitational attraction – a {{dubious}} tag was added, and looking at it, I also am inclined to question because gravitational attraction isn't the dominating force at the atomic scale. This could perhaps be simplified as well, as a more thorough explanation would require more jargon and stray off topic. ComplexRational (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    That's actually a very good tag, and I'll address it below.--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Responded there.--R8R (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should we have alt text for the last two images? The diagrams are pretty straightforward, but the captions should at least be converted to alt if not supplemented by something else explanatory.
    But they do, don't they? What pictures are you referring to exactly?--R8R (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Never mind, I missed the way it was formatted. My mistake. ComplexRational (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced. – how come you re-added this? I removed it because it is outdated and inaccurate; a more recent source says that ~100 flerovium atoms have been synthesized in total, many of which decay to hassium, not including the many hassium atoms directly synthesized and/or used for chemical studies. I think we're better off without it unless a very recent (2019 or 2020) source gives a number; someone else will inevitably comment that this is outdated or note the inconsistency across articles. ComplexRational (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this has to do with Hurricanehink's comments below about how much Hs has ever been produced. I personally think it makes some sense to make it clear to the reader what kinds of quantities we're talking about. (If you can count the atoms, you have basically nothing.) However maybe it's better to instead stress that you get only one atom at a time (as the events are surely widely spaced apart in time): it doesn't quite make sense to ask how much Hs has been produced because by the time you produce the second atom, the first is long gone. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Indeed, this idea came to me after I saw the comment a comment by Hurricanehink below. It appears to me that it's a good idea to have a crude estimate to get some sense of how research there has been into the element. To me, it doesn't seem like 2011 is that long ago given that I don't find it reasonable to have a precise estimate in the first place, but if it helps, I've seen some similar estimates dated 2019: one, two.
I'm sorry, I genuinely don't remember us discussing this before.--R8R (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The 2019 estimate might be a better place to start if you believe it's a good idea. I feel it's already emphasized that several experiments were performed, and it seems clear to me (but maybe not all readers) the contrast between the amount of research done on hassium vs. all heavier elements (as noted in their respective articles). And you're right, I don't think we discussed it. I removed it in this edit, which I surprisingly remember, and was genuinely convinced I did it much more recently than December 2018. I still feel the same way about it now, though, but I'm open to a less crude estimate to give a general idea if there is a recent source available. ComplexRational (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I've put in the two references I mentioned above and modified the sentence somewhat. Does it look good for you?--R8R (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
This looks better. It leaves room to account for what I mentioned, and you're right that if there were over 1,000 atoms, the word choice would reflect that (rather than simply over 100). Also, for future reference, we say "on the order of" rather than "in the order of"; I made that correction. More English language peculiarities... anyway, I think we can consider this resolved. I'll review the rest of the comments hopefully tomorrow or over the weekend. ComplexRational (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.

  • The lightest isotopes, which usually have shorter half-lives, were synthesized by direct fusion between two lighter nuclei and as decay products. The heaviest isotope produced by direct fusion is 271Hs; heavier isotopes have only been observed as decay products of elements with larger atomic numbers. - source?
    That phrase is covered by the table in that section, and the table is well-referenced.
  • have shown greater than previously anticipated stability against spontaneous fission, showing the importance of shell effects on nuclei. - ditto
    This one is covered by the references earlier in that sentence. I put them there for the convenience of the reader who may want to check the sources so they could see which part of the sentence is covered by what.
  • and the fact that hassium (and its parents) decays very quickly. A few singular chemistry-related properties have been measured, such as enthalpy of adsorption of hassium tetroxide, but properties of hassium metal remain unknown and only predictions are available. - I'm guessing these refs are already elsewhere in the article.
    Yes. The decay part is covered by the table in the Isotopes section, and the chemistry part is covered by the Experimantal chemistry section.
  • Are you dealing with the dubious - discuss tag in the Relativistic effects section?
    Yes, I have responded to it below.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding that you mean re-adding the reference for the first point you raise?
Correct. I notice a few sections that don't have any citations at the end: 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion", 2nd and 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes", and the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", which... I noticed "No results have been released." IDK what's appropriate for chemistry articles, but maybe add a "As of {{currentyear}}" in this sentence? Tough to cite a negative though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
As for lack of citations at the end of paragraphs: I have generally applied my common sense and the Wikipedia policy (luckily, the two coincide): I put citations wherever the information could actually be challenged by a curious reader. I generally doubt it that somebody is actually going to question the nomenclature (as in the 2nd paragraph of "Cold fusion") when the physics behind it is cited. Sometimes, paragraphs end on statements that I expand on in the following paragraphs (2nd paragraph of "Isotopes"). The sentence ending the 3rd paragraph of "Isotopes" is referenced, it's just the references for the convenience of a curious reader willing to check the sources are not at the end of the sentence. As for the 5th paragraph of "natural occurrence", it is indeed hard to cite a negative but luckily there's something coming our way, so I'll expand on this statement regardless of whether the report has actually been released.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
There is one vague estimate which has been reproduced a few times. I don't know the ultimate origin of the estimate (the book I found it in doesn't use in-line citations) but it's rather believable. Added it in the beginning of the Isotopes section.--R8R (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that bit, but could you improve the wording of the bolded part - "As of 2011, only "more than 100 atoms" of hassium have been produced" - grammatically it could be stronger. For instance, "As of 2011, the amount of Hassium atoms ever produced numbered in the hundreds." I hope that still implies the same meaning, and it could still be written stronger. It's a shame the source wasn't more specific, like giving a range, or giving some cap. More than 100 could be 1,000 or a million, which is different when it comes to microscopic quantities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I went for the time being for "As of 2019, the quantity of all hassium ever produced was in the order of hundreds of atoms." This seems good enough for me. I frankly rather doubt it that anyone would assume that if it there were a few thousands of atoms that anyone would mention merely "more than 100". That is mathematically correct but that's not how real language usually works :) but the combination of sources makes me even confident in the statement as I gave it.--R8R (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Readded the particular source citing the sentence.--R8R (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9

As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects. [1]

Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Comments from DePiep

  • About section title "#Introduction". It is the first section, depth h2 (==). This is confusing since the lead (top) section performs this task already implicitly (see WP:LEAD for example: Introduction is a synonym even). Also, as it stands it suggests or states that it is an introduction to the article topic (i.e., hassium). This confusion can easily be removed by changing this section title into "Introduction to the heaviest elements", "Introduction to heavy elements", or something alike. A similar issue is likely to appear in all articles with this introduction transcluded. (Noted before [1]). -DePiep (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    A heading such as Introduction to superheavy elements or similar would be fine with me, and avoid this ambiguity. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    That would be fine if we didn't use the same introduction for elements 102 and 103, too. Does Introduction to the heaviest elements work for you?--R8R (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    Ah yes, there's that. Introduction to the heaviest elements works. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
    OK for this appreciation. I note, just a note, that the reuse of the section now implies a sub-optimal outcome (compromises to keep the whole). For a TOC, these section titles are very long (trying to squeeze too much into it?).
About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail—as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).
I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
To clarify my preference: I prefer any of the two proposed here (not using [ ] brackets); actual choice should be short, but in no way incorrect or confusing (up to the specialists). Changing between the transcluding articles may occur AFAIK. -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't worry about getting a sub-optimal outcome because I'm certain what we got isn't one. There is at the highest count one small part of the text which could in principle differ at all, and the difference would be very small anyway. And even at that, that's not a distinction I'd want to draw anyway.
    Note that the notion of "superheavy elements" is explained in a note. Regardless, the "heaviest" elements that we're talking about is not a well-defined term like "superheavy elements"; it's merely used for convenience for as many elements as it could reasonably take. In our case, the defining principle that highlighted the need of this introduction in the first place is the synthesis method. The introduction focuses on synthesis and the general principle used for elements 102+.
    To me, it seems like "Introduction" is just fine. I'll also note that we have articles like Introduction to quantum mechanics or Introduction to genetics, which go beyond their respective lead sections. If we are to make a longer title, then we should be accurate about it. "Introduction to heavy elements" would be plain confusing: when I think of heavy elements, I think of mercury or lead, not rutherfordium or hassium. "Introduction to superheavy elements" is better but again, we use the same text in nobelium and lawrencium. "Introduction to the heaviest elements" avoids this problem and is about as long anyway.--R8R (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Why do you think "Introduction" is fine, wrt my objections? The example "Introduction to quantum mechanics" is not applicable here, as the title is a higher level instead; sections titles do not conflict. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    You see, I have never really thought of the lead section as of an introduction. From my (writer's) perspective, you first write an article and then you summarize it in no more than four paragraphs which is as much as most people will read. Hence to me, that's what it is: a summary.
    That being said, I do not want to dismiss your objections entirely, which is why I am trying to consider other possible section titles.--R8R (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    FWIW, I like "Introduction to the heaviest elements". After all, it is not just about element 108. Double sharp (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
    @R8R:: OK for the writing process, but in this case the result has this flaw: an "==Introduction==" only can refer to the title (to mean: 'Introduction of hassium' then). Which does not cover the content of the section correctly. Secondary , the (possible, partial) overlap with the implicit concept of the lede is adding up to the confusion. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
    The "Introduction to hassium" meaning wouldn't at all be wrong. The whole point of this section is that it applies not only to the heaviest elements in general, but also to each element individually. It's only an introduction to the heaviest elements as much as it is an introduction to hassium, an introduction to copernicium, to flerovium, and so on. It's just that it's easier to take this introduction to hassium into context of that it applies also to many other elements, but the idea that this text is an introduction to hassium alone is also completely correct. This, come to think of it, is another thing I like about the shorter section title.
    "Introduction to the heaviest elements" is also fine by me. I still don't see the advantage "Introduction to superheavy elements" compared to it. It narrows the scope by including two elements (or even more, depending on how you count) for which this introduction also applies perfectly well, which goes against the very point of generalization which is why we can't have "Introduction" in the first place. That is because "superheavy elements" is a chemical concept, and the introduction is not about chemistry, so there's no reason to stick to it in its title. And "Introduction to superheavy elements" is not really shorter either, see for yourself:
 Introduction to the heaviest elements
 Introduction to superheavy elements
So since Double sharp also likes this idea, I'll change the title to "Introduction to the heaviest elements" for the time being, although if you have another reason to have a different title, I'll gladly consider it.--R8R (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Now that I've made the change, the longer title seems rather clumsy but we can live with that if considering the lead section an introduction is actually a thing.--R8R (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Groundhog Day (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made, up along the likes of Some Like it Hot and Annie Hall, this article has had a major overhaul, a copy edit and has now passed GA. Please impart your wisdoms so it can be elevated to FA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Driveby comment: The Epoch Times has been deprecated as a source, so it should be removed, and any information sourced to it that cannot be sourced elsewhere should be removed with it. I am getting a lot of potentially useful hits on Google Scholar. Have these been dug through? Josh Milburn (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Dug through for what? There is an extensive Themes section if that is what you mean. I've removed the Epoch source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not asking if there is an extensive themes section. I am asking if you have hunted down and read the scholarly analysis of and academic research about this film, and incorporated material from it where appropriate. If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have. If you have, perhaps you could quickly explain why there is no (very little?) scholarly work cited in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example of what is not already covered in the article? I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. There is no rule that I have to cite a student essay to say what I have found on a website elsewhere. There's a deep analytical themes section. Please advise on what is absent. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I have asked what I take to be a straightforward question, but I can try to rephrase it if you do not understand. You are putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on whether the Themes section is or is not extensive. I have not made any claim about what is or is not covered in the article. I have not asked you to cite a student essay. I have asked you whether you have delved into at the scholarly literature on this film. If you have not, I have advised you to withdraw the nomination. If you have, I have asked why the scholarly literature is not (as far as I can see) cited in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you get the time to read the article, the term "groundhog day" is heavily abused and misused. I have gone through Google Scholar because of what happened at the Ghostbusters II FAC and have found nothing that was either relevant to the film itself or not already covered. That is why there is not an exhaustive referencing of google scholar links. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A quick sample of sources that could be cited: [2][3][4][5][6]. While there are sources that use the term for unrelated things, there are definitely relevant ones out there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And which of these say something that is not already said in the article? When did it become a default that Featured Articles must cite these spurious essays by nobodies? This is the third(?) time now that J Milburn has drove by to derail an FA nomination, such that I preemptively prepared a thorough analysis of the themes in the film this time and yet still this is not enough because I have not cited *cough*
Life on a loop: The enduring appeal of groundhog day

Abstract: Few films have entered the cultural imagination as pervasively as Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993). The title itself has become a kind of linguistic shorthand, referring to the sense of being trapped in some kind of undesirable recurring situation. Yet while the central narrative conceit may seem overwhelmingly familiar by now, the film itself remains a tangled web of contradictions: a high-concept romantic comedy with a surprising amount of pathos and a genuinely dark undercurrent. In hindsight, it represents a career highlight for its stars, Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell, as well as for its director. It is also a work of rich thematic depth, and provides a useful entry point for considerations of altruism, happiness, and deeper existential and metaphysical concerns.

All of which is already present in the article. Or Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture, the contents of which from searching through it, are funnily enough, already present in the article.
And the worst thing is that it's always paid material, like the months you give up to write the article are not sufficient toil. But DWB I hear you remark, you can ask on the Resource Exchange for these. I know, I reply. And you get the contents and for something like Memory and Movies the film is probably mentioned in passing once in the entire book like with the Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II "scholarly" articles suggested by yourself or others. OR you're waiting 3 months on for a Variety article for Scrooged. BUT, there's still Revisiting Groundhog Day (1993): Cinematic depiction of mutative process; Its contents from that abstract are already covered in the article. Which is to say, I have pre-empted this argument because I expected the attempt at derailment again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You could have effectively pre-empted this argument by writing what WIAFA refers to as "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which in this case includes scholarly literature. What leads you to believe that these materials are "spurious essays by nobodies" and the sources you have chosen to cite are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I raised these concerns on your first Ghostbusters II FAC (or "drove by to derail an FA nomination", as you put it) purely because the first person to raise these concerns "declin[ed] further involvement/help" because they could not "work in the environment created by the nominator here". Had that oppose stood (i.e., had the editor in question, who is one of the FAC directors, not been forced out of the review), I would not have contributed. I don't think your badgering of opposers and your disdain for scholarly sources (and, I add, the "nobodies" who write them...) has any place at FAC. As I have said before: such apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Analysis is included and I've just laid out that the sources Nikkimaria invoked are already covered in the article by documents other people can actually check. The analysis is incorporated, you're just unhappy that it isn't from student essays. That is not a complaint, it's a preference. The sources I was forced to include for Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, written by people who can't even get the names of the characters right, are not vital or enlightening articles, they are things I would have been asked to write for a 6th form media studies essay. And I wouldn't include my 6th form media studies essay here either. The analysis in this article is comprehensive and thorough, the entire article is thorough, it is MORE thorough than Ghostbusters II. If the pair of you cannot say what is missing from the article (because you have clearly not actually read it) then kindly stop involving yourselves in these nominations and/or attempting to bully me at every nomination into doing things that are not required. If you're unable to do a proper review, you shouldn't be here. When one of your first statement's is "If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have." you are clearly not here for any purpose but to push your own agenda, an agenda that is not required to pass FA. It is It's not possible to say the article is not comprehensive and contains an academic analysis, because it does, it passes all FA metrics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I've written quick stubs about two of the nobodies students senior professors who authored some of the work Nikki referred to above: Jude Davies and John Seamon. As Nikki has said, criterion 1c is a part of the featured article criteria. In my view (and as Nikki said above), the "relevant literature" referred to in 1c (in cases like this) includes the the journalistic and academic literature. I don't think that this is in any way an unusual or unreasonable view: I do not think this is a mere eccentric "preference", I do not think there's some secret "agenda", and I do not think raising questions about it constitutes "bullying". If you don't want to engage with academic literature, that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised if you meet resistance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) DWB, you're not doing yourself any favours here. You're free to disagree with reviewers' comments and ask them for specifics but pls do so in a collegial manner. I see no attempt at "derailment", no "agenda", and none of the condescension and arrogance in Josh or Nikki's points that I've seen in some of your responses. It's common for a coord to archive a nom when an experienced reviewer has recommended withdrawal but I haven't done so yet because I wanted to give you the chance to discuss it civilly -- I hope I won't have cause to regret that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? I have said at least 5 times that the information they want included is ALREADY in the article. They have said, in essence "ok, but why aren't you citing that same information to Josh's friends?". Neither of them have said that they have read the article. If you have not read the article, and have ignored my comments that the information you want including in the article is already in the article, what am I meant to do here Ian? If you want to understand why your quality FA noms are going down and no one bothers, this right here is why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I had never heard of any of these people before you nominated the article here. With no disrespect meant, they are not my friends. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There, I've included even more content specifically from academic sources including John Seamon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I am pleased that you have done this. I'll leave reference formatting to the source reviewer, but two quick comments about the new additions: 1) The Pick is a student journal. It has roughly the shape of an academic journal, and its content is (apparently) peer-reviewed, but I do not think that it counts as a high-quality reliable source. 2) Mass Market Medieval is an edited collection. You should cite the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. See Template:Cite book#Examples for an example of how to use that template to do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added the chapter. I can't say I am familiar with The Pick, the editorial process sounds pretty thorough but I am not familiar with the university to say if it can be relied on to uphold that standard. Would you recommend removing the reference and associated information then? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I would, but others may have a different view. It seems that this is the kind of "student paper" you were objecting to above; The Pick a journal for students to publish their coursework in, not an outlet for peer-reviewed research. (Proper peer-reviewed journals will sometimes publish students' coursework, of course, but only if it's gone through the usual review process.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - If you made the Ghostbusters II article worse by including bullshit academic texts to pander to FAC reviewers, you should remove them. I know how many people read the New Yorker and how reliable and influential it is. Whereas it looks like no-one read or cited "Immigrants as aliens in the Ghostbusters films". Including academic work just because it exists is WP:UNDUE. I trust your judgement here, as long as you've read the texts, you needn't include them. - hahnchen 13:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

One of my favorite films, though I've always considered the ending a bit forced. I'll wait to do a full review until you've addressed the above comment, but preliminarily:

  • I think in the plot summary, some mention should be made of the homeless old man, whose recurring deaths teach Phil that he is not a god and that there are limits to what he can do, that man is going to die no matter what Phil does.
  • Many years ago, I leafed through one of the early scripts (I looked at it well after the movie came out) and it contained an explanation of why this happens to Phil, that he has been placed under a curse by a former girlfriend. You mention that having such a scene was considered. Does the source go further than merely considered?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a line in the plot mentioning his failed attempts at helping the old man already. Did you mean to add more?/
The only mention I can find on a website about the girlfriend being in the script is from someone who was not involved in the film but claims to have read the script. There is mention in the article that they would put something in if needed to satisfy the studio but that they were never going to include and/or film that scene because they did not want it in there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Argento Surfer

I'll probably add more comments as I read and digest, but the line "It can be argued that the length of time is not important." strikes me as too vague. I assume at least one person actually made this argument? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm at work so I'd have to have a thorough read through of the source, but the quote that stands out to me is "It could be 10 years or a thousand, however long it takes him to memorise the personal histories of Punxsutawney's townsfolk, and to become, among other things, a pianist, an ice-sculptor and a doctor ("It's kind of an honorary title," he shrugs)." I could change "argued" to "said" if its a semantics issue. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
I took a stab at re-framing the sentence. Feel free to tweak it. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s. I'm nominating this because there has been a spike in page views due to the TV series Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Based on my review at ACR. (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • British or Australian English?

Will do this soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mark83

Extended content

Really solid article. A few comments on a first pass (Lead up to and including "Aboriginal affairs"). Items with questions mark are more probing questions/suggestions.

  • I am not a nuclear expert, but I am used to seeing kT, but not TJ. Is this standard? Or maybe too much info?
    TNT equivalent is what is universally used for nuclear weapons tests. WP:UNITS: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic. Hence kilotons of TNT is the primary unit here, with a conversion to the SI unit for energy (the joule). A kiloton is 4.184 TJ by definition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing Second World War > World War II for consistency with that article title?
    World War II is an Americanism. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • United States Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act) > The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (McMahon Act). The former is not the title of the act, and the way it's linked suggests it is.
    In this article, the assumption would be an Australian act, so "United States" is used to make this clear. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Adjusted to "US Atomic Energy Act of 1946" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "At the time Britain was still Australia's largest trading partner," - at what time? I assume ~1946. And how is this directly relevant?
    Changed to "in the 1950s". The relevance is in why the Australian government granted permission to the British government to conduct nuclear tests in Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Robert Menzies, who came to office in 1949, was strongly pro-British" - I looked at his article and see he was PM from 1949 to 1966, this needs to be explained in this article to show the relevance.
    Changed to "Robert Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia from 1949 to 1966". He was previously in office from 1939 to 1941. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What do free passage and subsidised passage mean, specifically? Of course I can guess but I shouldn't have to. e.g. from where to where.
    Added "on ships from the UK to Australia" and inked to the article on Ten Pound Poms. This is before the era of air travel. The trip cost about £120 in 1945, but immigrants were charged only £10. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The 1948 Modus Vivendi" - no idea what this is even after clicking the link.
    I should write an article on it. Added "the nuclear agreement between the US and UK which superseded the wartime Quebec Agreement" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How is Australia's exclusion from NATO relevant? "Western Alliance" is a bigger term than just NATO and Australia very much in that sphere of influence.
    You'll find "Western Alliance" links to "NATO". This left Australia without allies in an uncertain post-war world. Hence the desire to re-kindle ties with the UK, and to acquire nuclear weapons. Australia's exclusion had long-effects that are still being felt today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Did signature of ANZUS in 1951 not secure Australia's place in the Western Alliance? Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    ANZUS secured Australia's agreement to the signing of a peace treaty with Japan. It is a non-binding co-operation agreement between Australia, New Zealand and and the United States. Unlike NATO, ANZUS has no integrated structure, no dedicated forces, no secretariat or formal structure, no mutual obligations, and does not involve any of the Western Alliance countries other than the US. Far more important was the US designating Australia a major non-NATO ally in 1989, which has some tangible benefits, but still falls a long way short of what NATO countries get. In the 21st century, long after the period cover by the article, there are some intelligence-sharing agreements in place with Western Alliance nations, and as a result of the debacle in Afghanistan, NATO entered into a series of partnership agreements with Australia. This is still a long way short of NATO membership, but it is hoped that it will at least head off a repeat of what happened in Afghanistan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • When reading "Neither the Montebello Islands nor Emu Field were considered suitable as permanent test sites" it makes you think why not? The site selection criteria is further down (bulleted list) so perhaps this can be reorganised slightly?
    Added "Montebello could be accessed only by sea, and Emu had problems with its water supply and dust storms." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "the area north of Emu Field.... was on the axis of the Long Range Weapons Establishment" - leaves me questioning what the problem is?
    Added "which meant that there would be a competing claim on the use of the area." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "a temporary airstrip was created in two days by land rovers pulling a length of railway line" - I'm guessing this just means they dragged it along the surface to level and clear the site? But is this clear and/or relevant? Maybe just "a temporary airstrip was created in two days"?
    I think this gives the reader a clearer picture of the rough and ready nature of the strip. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained boring" > 10 megalitres.. per annum could be obtained by boring". And are all the conversions necessary?
    Added. Removed additional conversions. We only need imperial gallons and litres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In line references should be after punctuation. Some examples where this is not the case.
    Found and fixed one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • J. M. Wilson - not linked so are they relevant?
    Indicates the level of the mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • UKMOS doesn't seem like an accepted abbreviation? Should be UK MoS or just MoS after first instance
    Used in the sources. Changed to "MoS". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • although Cabinet did not give its assent until 4 May - when reading this I thought it meant British Cabinet. It's linked to Australian Cabinet so that needs to be clearer.
    Added "Australian". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The British government welcomed Australian financial assistance, and Australian participation avoided the embarrassment that would have come from building a UK base on Australian soil. On the other hand, it was recognised that Australian participation would likely mean that the Australians would demand access to even more information than in Operation Totem. This had implications for Britain's relationship with the United States." Is this all covered by the next reference? Sorry don't have immediate access to it to check. Seem like important points.
    Yes, it is a summary of what the reference says. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "the wartime nuclear Special Relationship" - that article is about much more than just nuclear weapons, so not sure the way it's linked is appropriate?
    It has both a general and a specific meaning. In works about nuclear weapons it always specifically refers to the access to nuclear weapons technology. I've consistently qualified it with "nuclear". It is only meaningful in the narrow sense. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • bush track from Watson to Emu became the main line communications for the project. - main line of communications?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • near the 42-kilometre (26 mi) peg?
    Hmmm? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    Peg is just not a term I'm familiar with? Maybe just me. Mark83 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "just finished the construction of an oil refinery near Fremantle" when? The delay from this to cabinet approval is unclear. The reader is just asked to accept it.
    Yes. Changed to "The need to create a new work force caused a cascading series of delays." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In the whole Development section there are numerous dates without years. I found this confusing.
    Added "1956" in a couple of places to make it clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Magee prepared Blomfield a list of stores and equipment" - A quibble, but "provided Bloomfield with a list" would be better.
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Bores > Boreholes?
    We always refer to them as "bores" in Australia.
  • WL "brackish" because I hadn't a clue what this is. User familiarity will vary massively on this based on geography.
    Oh. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Two Army skid-mounted 11-kilolitre-per-day (3,000 US gal/d; 2,500 imp gal/d) Cleaver-Brooks thermocompression distillation units" - Could this be trimmed/simplified?
    Simplified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "towed by a Caterpillar D8 tractor." Relevant?
    Sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Geofex needs explanation/context.
    Changed to "plastic explosive". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Camp at 11 miles needs explanation/context.
    The 11-mile peg? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove red link to Arthur Gillespie Wilson?
    Generals are normally presumed notable. (WP:SOLDIER) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Range commander being sacked could benefit from a reference.
    The article is fully referenced. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "one of less than five" is clunky.
    Changed to "such a small committee". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • generally in groups of about 25 or so - is not FA-standard language.
    Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
    I'd suggest just removing general & or so. Makes it more defintive while still clear it's an estimate.Mark83 (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • LRWE not explained.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why was the decision to establish the Giles Weather Station a "complicating factor"?
    Expanded in this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I continue to be impressed with the quality of this article. A few comments from review of Operation Buffalo - Operation Antler#Planning and purpose (inclusive):

  • "sitting as Mosex or Buffalex as appropriate." confused me. So Mos- and Buff- refer to Mosaic and Buffalo. And then -ex is for Executive? I just feel it should be explained a bit more?
    Yes. Expanded this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In One Tree "Which was more important..." > What was more important..?
    Buffalo or Grapple . Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Conditions were suitable but "by no means ideal"." - for me this begged the question what are the factors that make it less than ideal? I can make assumptions (clear skies and no precipitation?) but a sentence setting ideal conditions would sit well here.
    Added a bit about this. The main defect was the winds. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • theoretical predictions group - just checking if this should be "Theoretical Predictions Group"? Not previously explained.
    Just the group responsible for the calculations. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The main cloud crossed the east coast about 18 hours at about > 18 hours later
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No. 49 Squadron RAF > No. 49 Squadron - as it's clear in the sentence it's about the RAF
    Be that as it may, I would prefer to keep it this way, as the default in this article is RAAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should TAA be spelt out? I had to click the link. If it was Trans Australia Airlines it may be better.
    Another one of those corporate abbreviations that is far better known than what it stands for. (Most people thought it stood for "Try Another Airline".) Added the name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion of fallout travelling west to east made me wonder why an eastern seaboard option wasn't chosen to avoid this. (I note at least one northern option was discounted). Not a deal breaker in terms of FA, just thinking out loud.
    Because the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggestion that the AWTSC reconstituted - was it disbanded? Sorry if I've missed something here.
    It continued, but as a smaller committee, with fewer functions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The failure of the first round of Operation Grapple tests" hasn't been previously explained in this article so should it say "The first round of Operation Grapple tests was unsuccessful in demonstrating a working hydrogen bomb design which left plans for Operation Antler in disarray."? (It's a quibble but it doesn't assume any knowledge of Grapple).
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This section says use of barrage balloons was logistically simpler, but then says "six hours to set up a tower test and eight for a balloon test." - just seems like a contradiction?
    I think it just says that the barrage balloons had advantages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Last batch:

  • You replied above "the eastern seaboard of Australia is where the major population centres are. So they wanted the test sites in the desert to the west. The same logic as location the US test sites in the west instead of on the east coast." But I've looked up maps of population density for both Australia and USA and while the latter has populations spread down the majority of its eastern seaboard, there are areas of Australia comparatively uninhabited - for example North of Cairns. Just important to stress again (as I did above) I'm just thinking out loud and this will not get in the way of my supporting FA status for the article. Also it may not be in the references and of course I'm not asking you to introduce original research.
    The Cape York Peninsula is a jungle with monsoonal rains. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The UK didn't tell Australia formally about the cobalt tests - did this cause any friction?
    The UK informed Titterton, as noted in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Minor trials - it's noted "Maralinga was ordered to suspend all testing, including minor trials." - I assume by Australia and not UK?
    No, by the UK. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should curies be linked?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The UK could conduct a series of Kittens as part of Operation Buffalo." - should this be "a series of Kittens tests"?
    Changed to "kitten trials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Minor prose suggestion for your consideration - "Tim experiments were concerned with the measurement of how the core..." > "Tim experiments investigated how the core..."
    Not doing that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "TM100 and TM101 areas" isn't fully explained in the text - perhaps refer to the image by way of explanation?
    They can look at the map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vixens - "for a successful test subjects the core fuel to high explosives in the hope that it simply scatters" -- missing word(s) here?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fallout - "Although the 1958 Operation Grapple thermonuclear tests had a measurable effect in the UK, none was detected in Australia." -- I just wonder if it should say something like "had a measurable effect in servicemen returning to the UK"?
    Not talking about service personnel. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This augured poorly for the future of Maralinga, if there was a change of government, and the 1961 Australian federal election reduced Menzies' majority to just one seat. -- Slightly clunky. Maybe just remove the first comma?
    Re-worded without comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Legacy - I wonder why the Australian government rejected the recommendation that the British government should pay all the costs of a clean up? Foreign relations must have outweighed internal politics? I note "prolonged negotiations" are mentioned in the Media coverage section. Another example of just me thinking out loud.
    Perhaps Mexico should have paid for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up is a book by Alan Parkinson about the clean-up following the British nuclear tests at Maralinga, published in 2007. Parkinson, a nuclear engineer, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga " feels a bit redundant.
    Maybe "Alan Parkinson's book, Maralinga: Australia’s Nuclear Waste Cover-up, explained that the clean-up of Maralinga..."
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also he's introduced in this section (as a nuclear engineer). Should this not be at his first mention in the section above?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark83 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support from me. Mark83 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hearst Castle

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hearst Castle is quite an interesting building. Designed by Julia Morgan, "America's first truly independent female architect", for the media mogul William Randolph Hearst, in the 1920s and 30s it became a gathering place for many of the Hollywood stars. Trashed by Orson Welles in 1941 as the phantasmagorical Xanadu, home of Citizen Kane, in the 21st century it is one of California's major tourist attractions. It's also got quite a collection of antiques, along with a lot of poured concrete. A very helpful peer review ironed out many errors. All comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • File:HearstAbout1910.jpg —not found at source, needs verifiable source for being published before 1925 or being PD for some other reason.
  • File:Marion Davies Argentinean Magazine AD.jpg — it's unclear whether this image was created or published in 1932. Since both links are dead, needs verifiable source (issue, page number would help). Additionally, I suspect that the magazine has a copyright notice; although it would be possible to check whether it has been renewed.
  • File:Another room in Hearst Castle 1.jpg — FoP-US only applies to exteriors. Is the copyright status of the artworks, rug, etc. known?
  • File:Refectory - Hearst Castle - DSC06312.JPG File:A room in Hearst Castle.jpg — ditto; ceiling and wall paneling may well be protected.
  • File:The Three Graces by Antonio Canova (copy) - Hearst Castle - DSC06413.JPG — although the original is PD, it's unclear if the copy may be protected. No FoP for statues in US.
  • File:Hearst castle 1.jpg File:Image taken of Doge's Sitting Room from SE Corner.jpg — elaborate interior elements which may be protected by copyright

There are several images which are breaking across sections for me (Roman Pool, Sculptures, Gothic suite, Refectory sections). Could be fixed by scaling down images and/or moving them to the right. buidhe 08:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - Thanks very much for taking a look at these. I've switched the two portraits (Hearst and Davies) for two that are from the Library of Congress, which I hope sorts these. I've also tried to iron out the section breaking. The problem is with the three interior shots and the Three Graces. Is the rationale provided by one of the uploading editors insufficient; "Photograph[y] was permitted without restriction in and around the castle. All artwork is old enough so that it is in the public domain"? The article would be seriously diminished if we had no interior shots of the castle. I'm really keen to keep these if possible and would greatly appreciate any suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
For Another_room_in_Hearst_Castle_1.jpg It would be sufficient to show that the two large paintings are free, other elements could probably be considered de minimis. For the sculpture, are there other sculptures on the property that would be free of copyright considerations? I am not sure about the other interiors, you might want to consult Nikkimaria who knows more than I do about copyright. Just being OK to photograph does NOT mean that all elements are necessarily copyright free and usable for all Wikipedia purposes. buidhe 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed. I shall check for other sculptures, I’m not set on The Three Graces. For the interiors, of which there aren’t many good shots, I’ll ask Nikkimaria for their take. I absolutely get that we don’t want to infringe copyright on an FAC, but an article on a building without interior shots, when the interiors are arguably more significant than the exteriors, would be a poor thing. KJP1 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
US FoP does actually cover public interiors; however, it doesn't extend to artworks inside that are not part of the building itself, whether 2D (eg File:Stag_hunt,_Franco-Flemish_Gothic,_mille-fleurs_tapestry,_woven_c._1500_AD_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06346.JPG) or 3D (File:Greek_rhyton_in_Library_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06807.JPG). If these elements are PD due to age then they should include an explicit PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - Thanks very much indeed for taking a look. I’m pretty sure that the items showing in the interior shots will be of such age that PD will apply (although not sure of The Three Graces as that’s a later copy). I’ll check them out with my sources and then put the appropriate tags on. Thanks again - it would be a real shame to lose the interior images. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Partisan Congress riots

Nominator(s): buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia, primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. I would like to thank @Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, and Vanamonde93: for their feedback and copyediting of the article. buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Nb, I intend to use these reviews to claim points in the WikiCup.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I copy edited this for GoCE and reviewed it at ACR. It looked pretty good both times. Let's see if I can find anything new to say.

  • "and political prisoners". Possibly you mean 'ex-political prisoners'?
    • Done
  • Is it worth mentioning whether "Colonel Rudolf Viktorín" was from the army, the police, or whatever?
    • Done
  • "the security agency erred in". Has this agency been previously mentioned?
    • Fixed
  • "The Czechoslovak police". Is "Czechoslovak" not redundant? If not, perhaps this could be explained? Elsewhere police are described as "police"; is there a distinction?
    • I was trying to link Czechoslovak police at first mention to avoid easter egging. Now moved up.
  • "According to the intelligence reports" I am not sure what the word "intelligence" is communicating here. Reports from security agencies?
    • Changed to "police report".
  • Caption: "17 Židovská Street, now Museum of Jewish Culture". Should that be '17 Židovská Street, now the Museum of Jewish Culture'?
    • Done
  • "a crowd described as mostly partisans". Is it known by whom?
    • Fixed
  • "a crowd reported to be 300 strong". Similarly.
    • Done
  • "people pretending to be partisans" → 'people pretending to be ex-partisans. or similar?
    • Done
  • "the difficulty of arresting armed persons". I think that the fact that the partisans were armed should be mentioned earier.
    • Done
  • "although this was soon called off". Which was called off: the suspension, or the idea of an executive order?
    • Clarified (the former)

Superb work. It reads even better than it did at ACR; you've been tweaking it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! I believe I've addressed everything. buidhe 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You have indeed. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

Following on from my Milhist ACR comments:

  • suggest "and other cities and towns in the autonomous Slovak region of Czechoslovakia between 1 and 6 August 1946"
    • Done
  • suggest "of businesses that had been Aryanized, or confiscated, from Jews by the wartime Axis client state known as the Slovak State,..." with links
    • Done
  • suggest "Rioting began on 1 August with the robbery of František Hoffmann's apartment. A national congress of former Slovak partisans was held in Bratislava on 2–4 August 1946, and many of the rioters were identified as former partisans. Rioting continued until 6 August."
    • Done
  • suggest "by economic antisemitism, the stereotypical view of Jews as exploiters of poor Slovaks. National antisemitism strongly associated Jews with the Hungarian state and accused them of sympathizing with Hungarian national aims at the expense of Slovak ambitions."
    • Done
  • suggest "The Slovak State, a one-party state of the far-right clerofascist Hlinka's Slovak People's Party (HSĽS)" with links
    • Partly done, the clerical fascist label is rejected by the majority of historians
      • Really, could you detail this rejection? I easily found plenty of quality reliable sources that call it that. Examples include [7][8][9]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Ward says, "“Clerical fascist” became the preferred category for understanding him [Tiso]. Often describing a fusion between fascism and religious politics, it has been used by scholars for decades. 157 In Stalinist Czechoslovakia, however, it justified the persecution of Catholics and Ľudáks. The term “clerofascism,” a variant, became pejorative. The postwar dean of Slovak historians, Ľubomír Lipták, likened it to “Judeo-bolshevism,” which also aimed “to compromise one [component] with the other and both mutually.” (Priest, Politician, Collaborator p. 267) Elsewhere Ward writes that "clerical fascist" is a "Communist reduction" and that "I take issue in my conclusion with the concepts of “clerical fascist” and “conservative-authoritarian,” proposing instead a novel category that highlights the conflicted attitude toward revolution that typified politicians such as Tiso."
          • Why should their view take precedence over other academics? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Ward wrote the #1 book in English about the Slovak State, linked above, whose reviews were almost unanimously positive. The idea that Slovak state was clerical fascist is rejected by most Slovak historians post-1990. The books you cited only mention the ideology of the Slovak State in passing, and their authors are not experts on the history of the Slovak State. The entire concept of clerical fascism is also very fuzzy as pointed out here. I just don't see how one could classify the Slovak State as clerical fascist in Wikipedia voice when it's a minority position among recent historians. (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
              • It hasn't been shown that it is "a minority position among recent historians". Recently published books discussing Slovakian history, politics and religion use the term. I've already linked three, one from Cambridge UP (2016), one from SUNY Press (albeit 1998), and one from Routledge (2018). There are also others, like this one (2018), this one (already used in the article, 2013). In reviewing your articles on Slovakia I'm becoming concerned that you are giving undue weight to sources that take a particular stance on the status of the Slovak State and that you are failing to represent the academic consensus and compare and contrast when the academic sources differ on a topic. It is one reason I am not supporting the Holocaust in Slovakia article's promotion to FA, and I am thinking of opposing the promotion of this article for the same reason. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
                • The books cited above include one which is philosophy/memoir and another which refers to "German, Hungarian and Slovak clero-fascist regimes" (I am not aware of many historians who consider Nazi Germany clerical fascist). More importantly, I just don't see how characterizing the Slovak State as clerical fascist helps the reader's understanding of this article subject, which is not about the Slovak State. Any discussion of this issue which adequately represenents the nuances and different perspectives, without overbroad characterizations in Wikipedia voice, would be undue in this article, so I think it should be dealt with elsewhere. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
                • I have changed it to "far-right fascist", as I think that is adequately supported to say in Wikipedia voice. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • for "German-occupied Poland" link Occupation of Poland (1939–1945)
    • Done
  • suggest "and at least another 10,000 Jews were deported" as this was the second lot of deportations
    • Done
  • is there any info in sources as to why there were so many non-Bratislavan Jews in the city after the war?
    • Added a note, since Cichopek does not discuss this specifically with relation to Bratislava.
  • could "veterans of the Czechoslovak armies abroad" be linked to Czechoslovak government-in-exile?
    • Done
  • was there any particular strain of antisemitism amongst the partisans, or was it just general Slovak antisemitism?
    • Sources don't elucidate this question any more than I put in the third paragraph of the background section.
  • what does ÚSŽNO stand for?
    • Added
  • explain that the SRP represented non-religious Jews not covered by ÚSŽNO
    • Done
  • Topoľčany pogrom is duplinked
    • Fixed
  • suggest "The restitution law triggered a resurgence of popular anti-Jewish sentiment which led to the riots at the Partisan Congress." as the latter part of the sentence belongs in a later section
    • Not done, this section specifically discusses the events that precipitated the riots.
  • link Kapucínska Street, and I am just wondering, are these streets and squares named because they are in the former Jewish quarter, or what?
    • Yes, I will look for a source for that later.
      • Now done—note added to the map. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • place 2–4 August 1946→place between 2 and 4 August 1946
    • Done
  • Masariak? first name?
    • Not stated in either source
  • was František Hoffmann a Jew?
    • Not stated explicitly in the source
  • "a group including former partisans stopped passersby" where?
    • Source doesn't say, Cichopek gives the locations for the riots overall but not this particular incident.
  • link rabbi
    • Done
  • was Pavol Rybár a Jew and Ružena Dobrická a Slovak?
    • Strongly implied by the source, but would be WP:OR as it's not stated explicitly
  • 5,000 Kčs
    • done
  • supporters of the former Slovak People's PartyHSĽS regime
    • Done
  • "Winterstein criticized the police response, arguing that law enforcement tended to arrive late and release detained persons quickly, who then went on to make additional attacks.[k]" really needs to be properly footnoted, not rely on a footnote in a note
    • done
  • move link to Topoľčany to first mention
    • Done
  • Eeastern Slovakia

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 21:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the link to News Agency of the Slovak Republic appropriate given the target org was only created in 1992? Also, was this state-controlled? If so, add.
    • Redlinked Zpravodajská agentúra Slovenska, appears to be an unrelated organization. Added state-controlled.
  • is Interior Ministry Commissioner Michal Ferjencik the same as the commissioner of internal affairs of the autonomous Slovak government?
    • No, Ferjencik is a federal official—clarified.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann (American football)

Nominator(s): Gonzo_fan2007 and Cbl62 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann was an American football player in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He was a star end (wide receiver in today's terminology) for the University of Michigan, where he teamed up with future Hall of Famer Len Ford to form a dynamic pass-catching duo. He entered the NFL with the Detroit Lions, where he played for two seasons. After a salary dispute, he was released and signed with the New York Yanks (not to be confused with the baseball team), although he never played for the team in the regular season. After being released by the Yanks, he claimed NFL owners blackballed him by all agreeing to not sign him. After a few months, the Green Bay Packers signed Mann, where he would play parts of five seasons until a knee injury ended his career. Mann would go on to become a lawyer in the Detroit area until he died in 2006.

The quick overview above would make it seem like Mann was just another college football star who played in the NFL for a few seasons before professional football became what it is today. However, Mann's legacy goes far and above his statistics and physical abilities. Mann was a black player in football during a time of great racial prejudices. He broke the color barrier for both the Lions and Packers, he was cut by the Lions for not taking a pay cut (and possibly for supporting a boycott by the black community of a beer that he was a spokesperson for), even though he led the NFL in receiving yards the prior season. He was (arguably) blackballed by the NFL for his race and for not agreeing to take the pay cut from the Lions. Then he played for Green Bay, a town at the time that had only a handful of black residents. He has been called a pioneer for the dignified way he handled himself is such difficult situations.

This article has a fun history. Cbl62, as a fan of the University of Michigan, expanded this article in 2010! For the next 8 years, it received only a handful of minor edits. Then Gonzo_fann2007 came across it in 2018 and as a Green Bay Packers fan, they decided to work on it. In 2019, we decided to collaborate on this article and bring it to GA-status, and then, hopefully, to FA-status. This is Gonzo_fan2007's second FAC (after Packers sweep) and Cbl62's 1st FAC. The article received a pre-FAC review and WP:NFL was given a chance to review it, with at least one editor reviewing it. Thanks to Eagles247, Casliber, and MWright96 for your help in developing this article. Thank you all for your time in reviewing this nomination. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) and Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

I know almost nothing about American football, so am coming at this with what could be optimistically termed fresh eyes. Here are my comments:

  • "Mann transferred to Michigan in 1944, with his father hoping that he would attend the school's medical program" - which school?
  • " Mann took a year off for military service" - this sounds rather odd. People volunteered or were drafted for the duration of the war, so didn't take time off from their civilian lives.
    • It is somewhat colloquial language in sports for the era. I reworded. No source mentioned whether he was drafted or volunteered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • "Mann left the university for a year to serve" still is unlikely to be correct - I very much doubt that the US Navy was offering one year periods of enlistment. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
        • The key here is that his college "career" was delayed while he served in the military. Both sources for this statement just note that "he served" from 1944 until the end of the war. Nothing about volunteering or draft. I reworded a little bit more, let me know if this satisfies your concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what he did in the Navy?
White newspapers of the day tended to give minimal coverage to military service by African Americans. Some of the old African-American press is available online, but I've been unable to find details there of his military service. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "McMillin thought it would be best for everyone to not incite any further racial issues in the city." - this is euphemistic (e.g. what racial attitudes are being referred to and why did McMillan think this?). Can clearer language be used?
    • I deleted the sentence. It doesn't say much more than the previous sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • " Despite a good training camp" - I'm not sure what this means. Should it be "Despite performing well during the team's training camp" or similar?
  • " John Rauch, a rookie quarterback, told Mann that he had been ordered not to throw to him." - do we know who issued this order, and why?
    • I think I addressed this. It was the Yanks coach, and Mann understood it to be racially motivated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "He claimed that, despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." - is 'claimed' needed here given that this is stated as a fact earlier in this article?
    • I changed to "asserted". I am trying to make the point that these were Mann's claims, but I kind of see your point. Let me know if this makes sense or if it should be reworded still. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm still not sure why this is being presented as anything other than a fact? Surely Mann was correct in stating this? Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I see what you mean. The pay cut part is fact, the claims after that were assertions. I revised it Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "He married in 1956" - the article earlier describes him as being married in 1949?
    • Welp, this may take a second. I have two sources, one saying "his wife Dorothy" in 1949, and one saying he he had a wife named Vera who he had been married to for 45 years in 2002. Let me do some digging. In the meantime, Nick-D, let me know if you are good with the other responses and if you have any other comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I found a reference in Jet (magazine) saying that him and his first wife Dorothy were divorced. No clear timeframes on the marriage though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can anything more be said about his legal career?
    • Honestly, we have tried but the sources just aren't out there. You can see a little of this discussion on tha talk page in the various reviews. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Just to check, but have you checked online archives of newspapers in Detroit? He might well have been the type of lawyer who doesn't get in the media though (e.g. by only handling routine matters) Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, about 3/4 of our sources are articles from a fairly diverse number of newspapers. There just isn't much said about his later life and career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
          • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Have sports historians and/or historians of desegregation in the US written much about Mann? Given his pioneering status and the barriers he faced despite being an elite player the amount of analysis and discussion in the article feels a little thin. Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think this really speaks to the times. There just wasn't much written about him at the time (racially speaking). What was written is included in the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, I have resolved or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Those changes all look good, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination on prose, noting again that I can't comment on comprehensiveness, etc, due to my near total ignorance of American football (and all other kinds of football other than Australian rugby league for that matter!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the review, Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from TRM

WikiCup review

  • I don't know why "professional" is in the pipe to American football. There are lots of codes of football with professionals.
    • This came from a discussion at WP:NFL. Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO says a person's nationality should be in the opening paragraph. NFL bios routinely say "Person was an American football player." In this case, "American" refers to the type of football, not nationality. And since non-Americans play in the NFL, the sentence would have to say "Person was an American American football player" or something similar. I am definitely open to suggestions, but this was my way of clarifying that "American" was his nationality". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "l football player in " why not "footballer who played in"?
  • As a non-expert, I'm mildly bemused by terms like "receiving yardage", "undrafted", "yards per reception" etc.
  • Surprised to see that List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders isn't linked here in the prose.
  • "a lawyer and practiced law " repetitive, probably don't need "law".
  • The link in the infobox is dead.
    • Fixed. likes to change their url linking every few years for fun. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hampton's final game" of the season or ever?
  • "with his father hoping" -> "where his father hoped"
  • "African-American players" that wasn't hyphenated in the lead.
  • "ended up being" not really encyclopedic in tone.
  • "he caught three passes for 74 yards and two touchdowns and als..." and and run-ons, presumably something like "he caught three passes for 74 yards, scored two touchdowns and als" would be marginally better?
  • Similar, following sentence follows a near-identical structure/wording so it's got the same problem and is repetitive.
  • "a nickname as the "fifth man" in Michigan's backfield" I suppose this is meaningful to those "in the know" but to me it's meaningless.
  • Is it "at left end" or "at the left end"?
  • East-West needs an en-dash in this context.
  • Any reason Associated Press isn't linked?
    • It is already linked in the first instance of its use "Mann was also selected by the Associated Press as a first-team end for its All-Big Nine team" and in each ref. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "America, and Michigan coach " I would stop after America, new sentence then relating to his acclamation from coach and subsequent induction into that state's HoF.
  • " receive feelers " is that encyclopedic?!!
  • "(NFL).[25] In April 1948, Mann signed with the Detroit Lions of the NFL;[26] his first NFL " NFL overdose, perhaps mix it up a little to reduce reptition.
  • "He was also hired to a sales position..." curious, so this wasn't a fully professional football career at this stage?
    • It was very common back in the day for AmFootball players to have second jobs, especially ones related to the NFL (in this case, working for a beer company that was owned by the Lions' president. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "became the first African American to play for the Lions" the source doesn't back that up. "one of the Detroit Lions’ first black players".
    • Reworded to match the source more closely (basically including Mel Groomes in the discussion). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although team owners denied the existence of a ban, no African American had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945" very close paraphrasing to the source: "Although team owners denied the existence of a color ban, not one black player had played in the NFL between 1933 and 1945".
  • "African American players. Even after African American players" repetitive.
    • I reworded a bit, but not sure how I can get around not having "African Americans" in each sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "began appearing"-> "began to appear".
  • "Mann appeared in all 12 games for the Lions," + in the 1948 season...
  • It's worth noting how Detroit did that season, coming bottom of the Western Division.
  • "He had played two years of college basketball at Hampton" who? Mann? We know. Owens? Not clear.
  • "not be able to play in the game.[2]..." no reaction from Mann? Or any of his teammates?
    • The source just notes the event and says that Mann doesn't dwell on the racial issues that he faced in that era. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mann objected and held out" and "Mann became a hold out when" repetitive use or are they different things?
  • Link quarterback, free agent etc.
  • "October 1950, Mann was jobless. At the end of October 1950," repetitive.
  • "Despite leading the NFL in receiving yards in 1949, the Lions had asked him to take a 20 percent pay cut." haven't you already said all this?
    • Reworded so that this sentence is more of a callback to the previous explanation of the pay cut. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "colluded to avoid signing", "colluded to avoid signing" repetitive.
  • "ending his suit against the NFL" was it a condition or did he just decide that because he'd been signed the misdemeanours of the past were forgotten?
    • The couple sources that mention this just note that the suit ended. Speculating, since he was signed he no longer had claims against the NFL for blackballing, so it was dropped. Let me know if you think I need to reword this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "becoming the first African-American to play for the team.[7][53] It was later determined that Walt Jean, an offensive lineman for the Packers in the 1920s, was African American.." well, odd. I guess "what was thought to be" should be in there really, this is an encyclopedia so we shouldn't make an assertion to then immediately nullify it.
    • Reworded to clarify he was the first "known" African American to play for the team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we link the 1950 and 1951 NFL seasons in the prose? And the subsequent ones?
  • "three or less " fewer.
  • "2–9–1" what does that mean to a non-expert?
  • " racial diversity, Mann's time with the Packers was largely free of overt racial incidents.[69] However, racial " racial x3 in quick succession, repetitive.
  • "Green Bay Gazette" this was called something different last time and already linked.

That's a first pass. As noted, I am certainly no expert, so I may have misunderstood some things. Having said that, if I have, maybe some of our other non-expert readers will too... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, I believe I have either addressed or responded to all of your comments above. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
No worries, happy with the above and just removed one instance of overlinking. Good work, good luck. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
As always, thanks for your thorough review The Rambling Man. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem, I'm just here for the cookies! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Ismail I of Granada

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the fifth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, following the first four whose articles have been reviewed in FAC (Muhammad I, II, III and Nasr). He took the throne after deposing his uncle Nasr in a civil war, which continued after his ascension as Nasr tried to retake the throne with help from their Christian neighbor Castile. Not only he repulsed repeated invasions from the larger Castile, he managed to snatch some border territories in a counter attack. He seemed destined for a successful rule, but he was murdered at the age of 46 by a relative. I've tried to find all relevant information about him, mostly about the geopolitical conflicts, domestic administration, background and legacy, and I hope it's ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Re the intro, shouldn't that be 'the first four'?

  • Done, you're right. HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Shout if I have messed anything up.

  • "defeated the unpopular Nasr and he was proclaimed sultan". "he" → 'Ismail'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "Castile, who then secured". "who" → 'which'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "despite being surrounded by two larger neighbours" They didn't surround it. Maybe different phraseology? And a colon after "neighbours".
    Replaced with "located between" and added the colon. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "and Muhammad I, for instance, on other occasions" I don't think that you need "other". (Other than when?)
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "while Harvey rejected this explanation". "rejected " → 'rejects'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "and wrote that". "wrote" → 'writes'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "The historian Antonio Fernández-Puertas linked". "linked" → 'links'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk)
  • "On the other hand, according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry". Suggest deleting "On the other hand".
    Done. I added to emphasise that the timeline in EoI is different from the timeline from Vidal Castro described in the same paragraph, do you think it is not needed?
Personally, no. It's not as if it were a fundamental difference. I have tried to think of a way you could emphasise it, but I really think that it is better as it is.

HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Done, looking forward to working with you. HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Likewise. Are you going to work your way through all of the Nasrids? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I don't know. There are about 20 sultans so it's not going to be that that easy :) I'll probably keep doing it as long as it's still enjoyable. HaEr48 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "his promise of guaranteeing". A guarantee is a promise. Suggest 'his guarantee of'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "the help of his relatives and servants to regain the throne" → 'to attempt to regain ...'.
    Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "securing an agreement and support for a military campaign". Optional: delete "an agreement and".
    Done, you're right we don't have to say "agreement". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "who also authorised the use of funds levied by the church" Maybe add 'to support the war'? (I assume that was the case?)
    Done, yes this is correct. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Peter invaded Granadan territories in May 1319 and captured Tíscar on the 26th. Peter was joined by his co-regent, Infante John, and they advanced to Granada in June. Ismail's troops under Uthman ibn Abi al-Ula began engaging the invading army's rearguard on 25 June." Suggest mentioning that the Castilians had stopped advancing and were withdrawing, and that's why the Granadans were attacking their rearguard.
    Good point, I had missed that detail. Added now, as well as the number of troops on both sides which I found while re-reading the source. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "killing and capturing the enemy as well as taking their property" This, IMO, doesn't read well. Maybe 'killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp' or similar?
    done ('killing and capturing many Castilians and looting the camp'). I was worried about saying "Castilians" too many times, but I guess it's better than saying "the enemy". HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "and the thorough defeat of their forces ended the threat to Ismail's throne" I don't know what the sources say, but do you want to specify 'external threat', or Castilian threat'?
    Castilian threat. There was still Aragon (which was technically also in a crusade but actually didn't do anything significant at this point), which is explained later in the paragraph.
  • "Nasr's death eliminated his claim to Ismail's throne" This seems a bit of a statement of the obvious!
    Replaced by "eliminated a rival claim". The idea is that Ismail's rule is now uncontested. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In which case can I suggest going with the explanation you have just given above? Eg 'Nasr's death meant that Ismail's rule was now uncontested and ...'.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is his death covered before his domestic policy?
    Good point, reordered. HaEr48 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have. An excellent piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thank you very much for your feedback and support. HaEr48 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free and appropriately referenced. buidhe 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aza24

Support: Based on my readthrough in GA and the final product there. - Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from SnowFire

Nice work as usual.

The ensuing Battle of the Vega of Granada resulted in a complete Muslim victory. Both Peter and John died, apparently from natural causes, demoralising the Castilian troops whose remaining commanders began a disorderly retreat.

Is this O'Callaghan's eccentric opinion, or is there new scholarship on this? This appears to contradict other articles. Peter of Castile, Lord of Cameros says the Infantes "were killed in the ensuing rout" with a reference, and es:Pedro_de_Castilla (1290-1319)#Desastre de la Vega de Granada y muerte del infante Pedro (25 de junio de 1319) says:

Et el Infante Don Pedro metió mano á la espada por los acapdillar, et nunca pudo: et á golpes se tollió todo el cuerpo, et perdió la fabla, et cayó del caballo muerto en tierra.

Falling off a horse doesn't sound like "natural causes" to me.

Indeed, he fell off his horse, I was using "natural causes" more broadly, as in "not killed by the enemy". There seemed to be different versions of how John and Peter died, I was trying to avoid delving too much as this is Ismail's biography but I can see now the original passage can be misleading. Added more details now, please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If it's too much irrelevant content feel free to scale it back, I just think we shouldn't say "natural causes" when at least one version of the story has Peter falling off the horse only after receiving wounds / blows first, which is enemy action. Even if it was an accident-in-combat, that's still functionally a combat fatality not natural causes. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
It was the first recorded military use of cannon on the Iberian Peninsula

This is an impressive claim. Did the sources elaborate on how exactly the Granadans got the cannons? Build them themselves? Buy them? From who? How reliable is this? According to Cannon#Islamic_world, it calls this usage "vague" and only denotes it as a "a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s and 1330s, though evidence is inconclusive." I can understand the historical skepticism here - is it possible that the word for cannon was used here, but was actually describing some earlier proto-artillery piece, such as Harvey apparently thinking it was Greek Fire instead? This does seem a little early for cannons, honestly. I think including either some more skepticism of the claim, or else explaining why these historians think the skeptics cited in the Cannon article (also a FA!) are overly suspicious.

Indeed, I initially found it curious and might be suspicious too, which was why I found it worth checking in various sources, and I added them in the footnote. I now expanded the footnote into its own section, explaining what each historian said. Basically we have Vidal Castro, O'Callaghan, and Harvey saying cannon, and Arié saying Greek fire. I think it's fair to treat Arié's opinion as the minority, and additionally her work (1973) is the oldest. Among these four, Harvey is only one to bother discussing both points of view, and he too decides to argue for cannon. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think having a separate section to explicitly discuss this and the clashing historical views forward is a step forward, thanks. I'll buy that "this was really cannons" is the consensus among scholars of Granada, I just wonder if that's the consensus of scholars of cannons. If cannons didn't reach Iberia until decades later, it doesn't matter what sources seemingly indicate they were there earlier, similar to a hypothetical report of fixed-wing aircraft in the Napoleonic Wars from an otherwise trustworthy source; it's impossible. Cannon#Islamic_world cites at least some scholars arguing for a much later date of cannons reaching this far. Checking "The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History" which the Cannon article cites...
In Iran and Central Asia, firm evidence of firearms emerges only in the late fourteenth century. In India the first clear references do not occur until around 1442. In the Middle East and other western Islamic areas, the earliest reliable references are from the 1360s or 1370s, although some evidence suggests that guns were present in Andalusia as early as the 1330s. Russian chronicles seem not to have reliable mentions of firearms until 1382. (...) We will probably never know precisely when or how guns arrived in Europe, but what is clear is that it had happened by the 1320s, which is when the first unambiguous references to guns appear in European sources. The most famous is an illustration found in an illuminated manuscript of 1326–1327: Walter de Milemete’s De Nobilitatibus, sapientii et prudentiis regum (Concerning the Majesty, Wisdom, and Prudence of Kings). It shows what is unmistakably a gun with a large arrow emerging from it. A man has lowered a long stick to the touchhole to light it off.
Hmm, so some form of proto-cannon might have been in Europe in the 1320s, although 1326 is right at the edge. Unsure whether the author using "1330s" is a typo or is referring to some other incident involving cannons in Andalusia a decade later. Anyway, I suppose I'm just rambling at this point: this source isn't sufficiently on-point as to not be a potential SYNTH violation, but it's a general issue with Wikipedia sometimes when skeptical sources are all on the general topic ("astrology doesn't work"), and only credulous sources talk about specific claims ("the power of the Scorpius constellation can cure cancer") - the historians saying "this didn't happen until decades later" need to actually talk more specifically about the alleged cases that it maybe happened earlier. So I suppose the new article content is fine as is, especially since the 1340s usage seems pretty uncontroversial and that would indicate that the above passage simply wasn't including Granada within the "Islamic world." SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Something not in the article currently: while Ismail's issue are mentioned, I don't see any mention of his wife and/or mistresses. I know that the time period was not exactly very interested in women, but is there truly no record left of them, not even a name? (I know I've asked this on an earlier FAC, but worth checking again, maybe the story will be different for Ismail.) SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we have better luck for Ismail. Added this information now, in the #Family section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SnowFire for the feedback, I have responded and adjusted the article accordingly. Please take a look and let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition of the Family section. Support. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

William Edward Sanders

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about William Edward Sanders, a New Zealander who was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions as the commander of a Q-ship during the First World War. Q-ships were merchant ships that acted as bait for U-boats which would approach on the surface but then be targeted by hidden guns. It was hazardous work and in this manner, he and his crew engaged U-boats on a number of occasions. He and his crew was killed in action in 1917. The article was put through the GA process in 2014 and then a Milhist A-Class review in 2018. I just found a new source and freshened up the article in preparation for FA. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide feedback. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

  • File:HMS Prize Q-ship attacking U-93.jpg — Which of the PD-US conditions is met? It's not clear from the image description.
  • File:Ambrose McEvoy - Portrait of Lieutenant William Edward Sanders.jpg — My understanding is that if the author died in 1927, the work would not have been free on the URAA date. Is there any evidence that the work was publicly displayed before 1925?
  • Other images are free. buidhe 12:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, unfortunately I don't know enough to correct the issues with those two images (both added by another editor after the A-Class review) so have removed and replaced with one that I think is OK. Zawed (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The image you added is good so I'm passing this review. Nice article! buidhe 23:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, thanks for the review, much appreciated! Zawed (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

Support: G'day, Zawed, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few comments/suggestions below: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • in the lead, suggest splitting the second paragraph at "Sanders was awarded the VC..."
  • He transferred to NZGSS Hinemoa in 1906 as an ordinary seaman. Hinemoa was a government steamer servicing lighthouses along the New Zealand coast and depots on offshore islands --> "In 1906, as an ordinary seaman, he transferred to NZGSS Hinemoa, a government steamer servicing lighthouses along the New Zealand coast and depots on offshore islands"
  • with the Craig Line: probably don't need both mentions of this
  • Once Sanders, now wounded, gave the order to fire: probably don't need "now wounded" as this has already been mentioned
  • During this engagement, Sanders: suggest using a different word to "engagement" here to vary the language with the previous sentence
  • At dawn it surfaced but no trace --> "At dawn on 14 August, D6 surfaced but no trace"?
All good here AustralianRupert, trust the same is true for you as well. Thanks for the comments, I have actioned these and my changes are here. I found another instance of close repetition of "engagement" so rephrased that one as well. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fairfax 1996 appears to be showing as a harvnb citation error in the References section (sorry, I missed this earlier). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That may be a hangover from when I originally cited the print version of Fairfax. I have deleted Fairfax from the references section as I now cite the online version. Does it still show up as an error? Zawed (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems to have done the trick. Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

An interesting looking character. I may do a little copy editing as I go; let me know if I mess anything up.

Nb, I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • Link "master's" to Sea captain.
  • "and damaged his own ship" I am not sure that "own" adds anything here.
  • "the blame for which was placed on the master". Reading master (naval) I am not sure that it is the appropriate link - "the rank gradually fell out of use from around 1890". Maybe Sea captain?
  • Link Second mate.
  • "the first by the British in the war". The first what?

That's all. A first class piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, thanks for the feedback, I have dealt with the above points. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

I looked this over at Milhist ACR, and couldn't find much to quibble about there. On reading through again, I have some comments:

  • just a suggestion, but given he was of field rank, you could go with "Lieutenant Commander William Edward Sanders, VC, DSO (7 February 1883 – 14 August 1917)..." and add rank and postnoms to the top of the infobox
  • suggest "was a First World War [[List of New Zealand Victoria Cross recipients|New Zealand recipient]]"
  • the Victoria Cross isn't "the highest award for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces." since the introduction of the separate VCs. Suggest "the highest award for gallantry "in the face of the enemy" that could be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces at the time."
  • for master's certificate, link Master (naval)
  • for Takapuna School link Takapuna#Education
  • drop italics and replace with quotes in "He earned the nickname "Gunner Billy""
  • link cabin boy
  • "of the availability of the position, and he promptly applied"
  • link Union Company for Union Steam Ship Company
  • for India link British Raj
  • link Ordinary seaman
  • for the sailing ships, is there indication what types of ship they were? schooner, brigantine etc?
  • for SS Willochra link RMS Fort Victoria
  • After Sanders' repeated pleas
  • the Q-ship's guns would become operationalbe revealed and open fire, as they were always "operational"
  • could you add Prizes armament when she is described?
  • for "formally commissioned" link ship commissioning
  • Kapitänleutnant Edgar von Spiegel von und zu Peckelsheim
  • from the U-boat's deck guns, as the Type 93 only had one 88 mm deck gun
  • "After 20 minutes of shelling, Prize appeared to the Germans to be sinking"
  • "in which Prize encountered the UC-35 on the surface"
  • link Oberleutnant
  • the captain of the UB-48
  • struck the Prize and exploded
  • link Milford Haven
  • is there something that can be added to the lead and body about the fact that his was the only naval Kiwi VC of the war and how many VCs were received by Kiwis during the war?
  • could something be added about the colour of the riband on his VC, even if it is a note?
  • suggest trimming the caption to "Victoria Cross & DSO awarded to Sanders" (no full stop as it is not a sentence)
  • the MID in the infobox is not mentioned in the body
  • add [[Merchant Navy (United Kingdom)|Merchant Navy]] to the Service/branch in the infobox and increase the Years of service to 1915–1917 to take it into account

That's all I could find. Nice work as always! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Masters (snooker)

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2020 edition of the Masters, an invitational event for the 16 best snooker players in the world. Seven-time winner Ronnie O'Sullivan decided not to play, and was replaced by Ali Carter, who reached the final where he played Stuart Bingham. Bingham won the event 10-8, winning his second Triple Crown event, having won the world championship in 2015. He was the oldest winner of the event. The event was one of the best Masters event in recent history, with world champion Judd Trump scoring a century break in every frame he won. The tournament was one of the final ones before the break due to COVID-19. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

1990 Tour de France

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 77th running of the Tour de France. I am hoping that this nomination will attract enough reviewers. Looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:Route of the 1990 Tour de France.png needs a source in the image description
@Buidhe: Added. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Images appear to be correctly licensed. buidhe 07:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Worden

Al Worden was the command module pilot of Apollo 15. That was only a small part of a life that included being a test pilot, scientist, engineer, businessman, and public speaker, promoting the space program and STEM education. His 88 years left us the richer; hopefully we do not squander what he has left us. This article has passed a MilHist A-Class review.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass
  • Per my review at ACR. buidhe 12:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review—pass

Comments by PM

I looked at this closely at the recent Milhist ACR, and all of my comments were addressed there. Just a couple of nitpicks on another read through:"Worden was a Boy Scout and earned the *rank of First Class Scout"

  • suggest "F-86D Sabres" as the aircraft is better known as the Sabre, same for F-102 Delta Daggers
  • Colonel Chuck Yeager
  • "raising the age limit from 34 to 36" could you add what age Worden was at the time as this had been previously noted as a possible issue for him?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the pause, he remained on the support crew for the second Apollo mission, which involved the testing of the CM and Lunar Module (LM) in Earth orbit."
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • led by Pete Conrad
Not done. I tend to sometimes repeat first names (or in this case, nickname) when someone's last name is also a first name if that makes sense. Pete Conrad has possibly become obscure (at a pub quiz on a cruise ship, they asked us "Who was the third man to walk on the Moon?" Ours was the only team to get it right ...)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • suggest using Template:As of for the uses of "as of" to flag them as potentially dated statements
  • ...He was 88.[11][98][108][109] seems citation overkill for some pretty basic facts about his death
Probably stems from the talk page discussion. Cut back to two.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • for "tweeted" link Twitter?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Is Note [b] supposed to cite "Worden became the first astronaut to divorce during the program and thereafter fly in space"? The note is uncited, and I can't see material to fully support that sentence in the Telegraph obit. It says "He was also the first astronaut whose career survived a divorce" and "Worden was selected to fly on Apollo 15 in late 1969 just after his divorce"

That's all I could find this time around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Al-Hafiz was the eleventh Fatimid caliph, and the last to actually exercise any power. His accession was disputed, and his reign was tumultuous to say the least, with even his sons turning on him and one another in pursuit of power. This is my first Fatimid caliphal biography FAC, and hopefully not the last. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and have tried to present the complex circumstances of rise to the throne as well as I could, given that the modern sources are often themselves contradictory in their assertions. Any suggestions for further improvement are, as usual, welcome. Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • All images are free and relevant. However, the "plan of Fatimid-era Cairo" and "Victory Gate in Cairo" break across sections. buidhe 01:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


Welcome back Constantine. My initial thoughts:--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I would remove any citation from the lead, but thats just my personal taste
    • I put it in for the numbering, but I guess it is redundant. Removed.
  • I think a short section about the name should be added (maybe add it in the origin section which can be renamed name and origin). Readers need to understand what is the Kunya and what is the regnal name and what is the actual name...etc. I mean more about the naming traditions of those monarchs. A lead should not contain information not mentioned in the body of the article and right now this is the case as his full name and Kunya are mentioned only in the lead.
    • I added mention of the kunya in the initial section, but am wary of doing more: the full name given in the lede should be easy to understand from his parentage, and the regnal title is explained later on.
  • "As an adult, he is reported to have shown a strong interest in astronomy". By whom reported? a old or contemporary historian who wrote his biography for example? Obviously we may not know this so its not a must to include who reported this.
    • Walker just writes "One report credits al-Ḥāfiẓ with a strong interest in astronomy", and I haven't been able to find any more details on this.
  • "al-Amir had resumed the personal direction of government affairs". There should be a sentence about the background of this (like the caliphs formerly lost direct power and al-Amir restored it..etc)
    • Clarified.
  • "all-powerful Armenian viziers Badr al-Jamali and al-Afdal Shahanshah". Mention that they are related? Later we read that Kutayfat held the "titles of his father and grandfather" but we dont know that Badr is his grandfather as it is not mentioned before.
    • Duh, thanks, of course this should be mentioned
  • "the army, assembled at the Bayn al-Qasrayn square". Mention in which city (it is in the caption but should also be in the text)
    • I thought it was obvious from the "...carried through the streets of Cairo" that follows
  • "the appointment of Kutayfat, the only surviving son of al-Afdal Shahanshah". Maybe a note on how Kutayfat still had power in the army after his father's death (and the year of the latter's death should be mentioned in the text). Ofcourse if this information doesnt exist then there is nothing we can do.
    • I don't think it was personal influence, just the attachment of the army to the memory/legacy of Badr and al-Afdal. This is beyond the scope of this article, however.
  • "guarded by Ridwan ibn Walakhshi". Introduce Ridwan (the vizier, the leader...etc)
    • Done
  • "Fatimid claims to the imamate". Maybe a short note about the immamate concept and the Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism. Most readers understand that a caliph is a monarch but Imam and other concepts are not really familiar. Maybe a small background in the origin section could be of help.
Seconded. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Attar-Aram syria and Gog the Mild: I sort of knew this would be asked, but dreaded it TBH. After several drafts, I have a version which I think conveys the essence without being an article in its own right. Have a look, and feel free to criticize it as much as necessary until I get it right.
Looks good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mu'tamid al-Dawla as head of the bureau, and his brother as naqīb al-ashrāf". An explanation between two brackets of what that title means should be good here.
  • " just as the Seljuk rulers had been vis-à-vis the Abbasid caliphs since the time of Tughril", mention when he reigned.
  • "Ridwan also continued correspondence with the Burids," Its not clear who they are. Introduce the dynasty (like the Burids who ruled southern Syria).
  • "In 1142/3, Fatimid envoys visited the court of Roger II of Sicily, whose fleet had captured the old Fatimid capital of al-Mahdiya on the coast of Ifriqiya" A note here is helpful mentioning that the Fatimids no longer controlled that city by that time since it was under the Zirid dynasty, which was only nominally under the authority of Cario (if at all). Otherwise its weird for readers to read that the Fatimids were Okay with the capture of their old capital (I know its in note "g" but many readers wont read it I believe).

Thats it for me, cant see anything else that can be improved. The article's weak point is the complicated nature of Islamic concepts: imamate, Ismailism as a state doctrine (many readers wont know this- they would know that the Fatimids were Shia but not much more, or maybe I dont give the general reader much credit and need to work on that), the divisions of Ismailism...etc. In the articles about the Seleucids, I tended to have long background sections that summarized the history of that dynasty so I dont have to introduce it bit by bit in the body of the article. Maybe this article can benefit from that approach. For example, we read: "As a result, al-Hafiz's accession produced a major schism in the Musta'li branch of Isma'ilism".... If I was a reader without a background in this, I would be totally lost. Few sentences later, we read about what the Musta'li schism was about... I think this article would benefit from summarizing or moving these paragraphs to a background section where the events are told chronologically. This is just a suggestion ofcourse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "and ultimately unable to halt the evolution" → 'and was ultimately unable to halt the evolution'.
    • Done
  • "Hasan's reign proved tyrannical". Did viziers "reign"?
    • For lack of a better word, yes. Viziers, especially by this time, were effectively viceroys, rather than simply chief executives.
It was an open question. I am aware of some of the nuances around this. I am happy for you to decide on the most appropriate phrasing. I note that viceroys of India, for example, were "appointed" and their 'reigns' were "terms" or "periods in office".
  • "caused a severe reaction by the Muslim public opinion". You can't phrase it like that in English. 'caused a severe reaction among the Muslim population'; 'caused a severe reaction in Muslim public opinion'? Or something else.
    • Thanks, done.
  • Some slightly long sentences, eg "Although largely accepted by the Isma'ili faithful in the Fatimid domains in Egypt, Nubia, and the Levant, al-Hafiz's highly irregular accession and claims to the imamate were rebuffed by some communities, chiefly in the only other major Isma'ili realm, Yemen: there the hitherto staunchly pro-Fatimid Sulayhid dynasty broke up, with the Sulayhid queen, Arwa, upholding the rights of al-Tayyib, whose birth had been announced to her in a letter by al-Amir, while the regional dynasties of the Hamdanids and the Zurayids recognized al-Hafiz's claims." Not the only possible example.
    • Went through the article a couple of times and tried to fix this.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "dismount when passing by a mosque, prohibiting them from riding horses" There seems to be a contradiction here.
    • They were still allowed to ride donkeys, mules, etc. Clarified.
  • "brought forth one of the Caliph's sons". "brought forth" seems stilted and archaic. Maybe recast in modern phraseology?
    • Done. In my defence, Tolkien's works were among the first English books I ever read :)
Ah. That explains a lot ;-) .
  • "but was repulsed before the city gates" Maybe 'in front of the city gates'?
    • Done.
  • "For the remainder of his reign, al-Hafiz no longer appointed any viziers" That's almost a triple negative. Maybe 'Al-Hafiz did not appoint another vizier for the remainder of his reign' or similar?
    • Done.
  • "whose fleet had subdued". What does "subdued" mean? Captured, sacked, blockaded?
    • Clarified.
  • "while mine and pestilence ravaged Egypt". "mine"?
    • Famine.
  • "which survived more thanks to inertia and the vested interests of large sections of society in keeping it running." Delete "more".
    • Replaced with "mostly".
  • "and the dynasty's very legitimacy was increasingly challenged". Optional: delete "very".
    • Done.
  • "Al-Hafiz was the last Fatimid caliph who rose to the throne as an adult; the last three Fatimid imam-caliphs until the end of the dynasty". "last twice in quick succession. Suggest changing the second to 'next'.
    • Done.
  • Note c: "His historicity is now considered as established by surviving reports of festivities ordered by al-Amir to celebrate his birth survive". This is not grammatical.
    • Rewritten.

Overall I found this heavy going. Much of this is of course due to the hopelessly tangled events you are trying to unpick. However, I feel that a reader is not helped by:

  1. Too many overlong sentences. Very few of which need to be so long; they usually have obvious break points.
  2. Your fondness for semi colons and colons in the middle of long sentences. Personally, I suspect that if everyone were to be replaced by a full stop it would be a net gain.
  3. Some old fashioned language. Eg, brought forth the Caliph's son; defeated before the gate; water to the very gates. (These are from memory, not exact quotes.)
  4. Use of "he is reported to have" and similar. This causes a reader to doubt it. If it is in a RS, feel free to write it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice; if it's not. or you personally doubt it, miss it out - or name the reporter.

Finally, can I support Attar-Aram syria's request for a brief summary of "the immamate concept ... Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism", ideally in line.

All of that said, I enjoyed my visit to the disintegrating dynasty and it is good to see you back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, as usual, for your thoroughness, Gog the Mild. I've addressed most of the points you raised. The topic is indeed very complex, but there's no need to make it difficult to read as well, so any help and criticism with the prose is welcome. Please have another look and make more suggestions, or, if you feel like it, edit the text directly. As you know, comprehensibility is always a concern of mine for niche topics like this, so a critical eye here is also appreciated. Constantine 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I will do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "his legitimacy was repeatedly challenged for the duration of his reign" Er, when else might it be challenged? Suggest deleting "for the duration of his reign". (Insert ', and his reign was troubled by ...'
  • "Given his lack of legitimation". Should it be "legitimation" → 'legitimacy'?
  • "He also did not receive the customary titles of the Fatimid viziers implying control over the Muslim religious establishment". I think that this may read better as 'He also did not receive those customary titles of the Fatimid viziers that implied control over the Muslim religious establishment'.
  • "from the Cairene street". Maybe 'from the common people of Cairo'?

I have also done a little copy editing. As usual, feel entirely free to revert any you disagree with, or to query any you don't understand. I will try to finish up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Is "head of the bureau" the same thing as ""supervisor of the bureaus" (nāẓir fi'l-dawāwīn)"?
  • "Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade". Suggest 'Roger's decision to abstain from the Second Crusade of 1147–1150 ...'.
  • "but in the end the rebellion was ended when". Is it possible to avoid "end ... ended"?

All done. Just awaiting your comments on the bits and bobs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations

University of Missouri School of Music

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This article on the University of Missouri School of Music was nominated and failed about a year ago. Despite my improvements, it failed to garner a prose review. The School of Music is at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. I have attempted to diversify sources as best as possible. Article has been stable for a year now, although I recently updated the new facilities. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • In 21 citations you reference the Budds book without providing a page number. This is not verifiable. I would also recommend using some form of short reference (such as WP:CITESHORT) to avoid duplication and inconsistency in how you are referring to this source (Is the publisher "MU School of Music" or "University of Missouri School of Music"?) buidhe 07:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe and @Therapyisgood. I have added page numbers to all 21 citations and have converted all Budds citations to short references. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hog Farm

(Will be claimed for the WikiCup)

There's 53 citations in the article. Including the Budds book, which was published by the Mizzou School of Music, I counted 33 citations being from the Mizzou School of Music (counting the 21 from Budds with no page number as 1). (I may have miscounted) Even more refs are affiliated with Mizzou and are of doubtful independence since they're from an organization that it the parent university of the article subject. Of the 53 refs, ref 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 53 are the only ones not affiliated with Mizzou. That's 12 out of 53, and when you count the 21 as 21, not one, you get 61 of 73 refs, or over 83.5%, are affiliated with Mizzou. Mizzou's reliable, but it's not an independent source when it's talking about itself. Too much reliance on sources that lack independence for me to support this right now. (Ref numbers from this revision). Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "which had become too popular for the Fraternity to manage" - not sure Fraternity needs capitalized here.
  • "In 1933 the Department of Music would become a member of the National Association of Schools of Music and in 1935 the University Concert Series would host pianist Sergei Rachmaninoff in front of a crowd of thousands" - Comma after 1933. Also, try to avoid use of the word "would" in contexts like this, it's just better to have "... the Department of Music became a member ... Concert Series hosted pianist ..." etc. There's a lot of usages of would in here, it's generally best to go ahead and state it in less passive voice.
    • Wow. That might be the best feed-back I've ever received. It was awful, I've parred it down to just one "would". Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • We really need page numbers for Budds for verification. For your sake, I hope Budds has an index. I used a book with no index at First Battle of Newtonia, not a fun time.
    • Haha yeah. Working on it. Lucky most the history section is sourced from a timeline near the beginning, that's most of the missing page numbers. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "In 1954, Bethune Bischooff became the first woman appointed to a full-time position" - I'm assuming full-time position is referring to teaching, but probably best to be explicit on that, you can also be a full-time janitor.
    • Yes that's clearly what Budds meant, but that's his wording in the book and I didn't want to stray from the sources claim. I would make the change, but would also like to stay true to the source. Any thoughts? Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Probably best to stay loyal to the source. I tried looking on Google, but even searching for "Bethune Bischoof Missou" only brought up obscure German genealogies. Hopefully there's another source out there to clarify this.
  • "and a former Unitarian church adjacent to campus" - Link Unitarian to the article about the denomination
  • "The first Jazz ensemble sponsored by the Department" - Should Jazz really be capitalized? It's lowercase in other usages.
  • "In 2015, the Sinquefield's" - Not a possessive use, so drop the '
  • "In 2019 the Mizzou New Music Initiative announced a 2.5 million gift from the Sinquefield's" - Comma after 2019 and drop the ' in "Sinquefield's"
  • "The new Music Building opened in the Spring 2020 semester.[6]" - Is not supported by the source. The source is from 2019, so there is no way to demonstrate using that source that the opening actually happened.
    • Fixed. Reworked the last two paragraphs of the history section, new sources and updates. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the big gallery in the facilities section, drop one of the images so they will fit all on one line (I'm assuming it gets split into two lines on more machines than just my laptop. The Marching Mizzou image is probably the least relevant for the facilities section.
    • My understanding is that we should let individual users setting determine how pics display. I tried it on several devices and got two lines of 4/4 on mobile and two line of 6/2 on my computer, so removing one may make it look nice on your device, but wouldn't do anything aesthetically for the two I use. Although if you think the gallery is too expansive for other reasons I'm open. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "who's large Skinner pipe organ" - Should be "whose", not "who's"
  • "Sinquefield Music Center North entrance" - I'm not entirely sure that North should be capitalized here
  • "Mini Mizzou performs at Missouri Tigers men's basketball events. Musical Theater opportunities are provided through the Department of Theater.[43]" - Mini Mizzou is not mentioned in the reference at all, and the musical theater opportunities are only mentioned obliquely in the sense that there's an announcement on the page that the Theater Department is having a musical.
    • The source for Mini Mizzou was in the prior sentence, easy fix. I found the best source I could quickly find on performance opportunities in musical theater for school of music students, does that work or should I find something less primary? Grey Wanderer (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Looks acceptable to me.
  • Esterhazy Quarter is a duplink
    • Fixed. I'm curious is this a strict rule? It seems reasonable someone could take a interest in the "Ensembles" section without ever reading the "History" section and therefore miss the Esterhazy Quartet page entirely. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the references would be better off having the publisher instead of the website in the citation. For instance, for "Chapter Listing: Tau Beta Sigma", giving a publisher of Tau Beta Sigma is more meaningful than having as the website listed.
    • Fixed? The student groups were all cited like that, I've fixed those. Do you feel that way about citing the School of Music website (or any others) as well? Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I see from a quick run-through. I'm willing to discuss any of these, and a longer look may turn up more. Hog Farm (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the independence of sources, if I can mange to pull it under 50% associated with the school, is that enough to garner support here? I totally understand the concern, it's quite difficult as all the most authoritative sources are published by the school itself. I'm sure I can dig up some news articles from the Columbia Daily Tribune to support some of the history independent of the Budds book. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally (not sure about other editors) wouldn't base it on a hard numerical line. I'd look more for balance, especially in the history section. For like the degrees offered and the specific bands the department supports, I think leaning heavy of Mizzou is acceptable, because Mizzou is probably going to be the most definitive and up-to-date source on the program's offerings. I think the history section could use having independent sources spliced in, for at least some of the facts. Maybe one of the newspapers in Columbia has done a write-up of the program's history.
@User:Hog Farm, I made a major effort to diversify sources further. I've doubled (+50 or so) the number of sources, most of which aren't affiliated with the University or School of Music. The Budds book makes up a much smaller chunk now. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

Ref 43 (BNIM) - Drop, you don't need the website when it's identical to the organization's name.


Hunt's Black and White Justice needs a publisher

Both of these Hunt books might be self published. I went to the library and looked at physical copies, No publisher listed. Both are very good local history books. Should I find alternative sources or can they be made usable somehow?
Unless Hunt has really good credentials, I don't think they can be used in a FA.
Maybe Google preview will let you see the information you need in this book. McFarland & Company looks like a reliable publisher. Hog Farm (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Unsure if it meets your credentials, but he is a Professor Emeritus of English at Mizzou, and looks to have won some national awards for writing including one for the the essay above. Take a look at his bio on Amazon and Mizzou. The book you found is awesome, but I hesitated to use it as much of the author's information came from Hunt. More importantly the author is the granddaughter of Hermann Almstedt, the dude I'm trying to find a source for, so might not be the most neutral source. This is anecdotal, but I do know Hunt is considered the authority on the historical event the book is about.
Just to be safe I've gone ahead and removed the two sources per your objection. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm doubting the reliability of Hunt's The Lynching of James Scot. It looks rather self-published.

See comment above

Check on Worldcat for OCLCs for Switzler, Lockmiller, Howard, and Underwood. Olsen may be new enough it has an ISBN, but if there isn't one, check for an OCLC on that one, too.

Done, you were right Olsen was ISBN

For ref formatting consistency, add a publisher to ref 45 (another one of the Mizzou sites)


The reference balance is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

Can give this a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I would be interested in hearing more about the partnerships, what they entail, how they are established, etc.
  • Lincoln Portrait needs to be in italics.
    • Fixed
  • America's Got Talent needs italics. Therapyisgood (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Question: Should Beethoven's 9th Symphony be treated similarly or is that different? Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Based on my reading of MOS:ITALICS Major works of art and artifice, such as albums, books, video games, films, musicals, operas, symphonies should be italicized, so yes. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Fixed
  • The students infobox label is for students, IMO not appropriate to list majors there. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I can see a case for sticking with majors. At many universities, some sort of fine arts credit is required as a graduation requirement, so most students will take a class in the music school/department at some point. The number of music majors is probably a more relevant figure. Hog Farm Bacon 04:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hog Farm, however, if it is the difference between your support or not I would gladly remove it. I originally added it I think because you said you thought it was odd nothing was in the field and I do agree that basic information is needed, but I don't think the University of NCES tracks anything but majors/minors. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Adys

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nine years into the First Punic War and the Romans carried the war to the Carthaginians by invading Africa. They established a foothold which the Roman commander Regulus was left to hold over the winter. He pushed inland and was confronted by the Carthaginians. He defeated their incompetently-generalled army at Adys. He then marched to within sight of the city of Carthage and the despairing Carthaginians sued for peace. "Wait!" you cry - the First Punic War lasted another fourteen years. Indeed, read the article to find out what happened.

This is the last of the four land conflicts from the war I will be submitting for FAC; I believe that it is there or thereabouts but would welcome all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

Hi Therapyisgood, does your labelling your comments "resolved" imply that you support the nomination? Or are there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images free + adequately sourced, only one comment: caption says "showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC", photo description says the relief is from the second century BC. buidhe 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks as always for this. Do you have anything currently on the go where I could QPQ? I am afraid that I am missing your point re "2nd C BC", could you elaborate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The caption is ambiguous as to being created in the second century or depicting second century soldiers; the image description only supports the former. (I should have been more clear). I expect to be nominating another FAC soon and will let you know when that happens—many thanks for the offer. buidhe 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I was too close to the language to see it. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

  • Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A very nice article. Well done! My comments are minor points, noted below, and shouldn't take long to address.
  • In Primary sources, the lead-in to this quote is a bit off: The modern historian Andrew Curry considers '"Polybius turns out to [be] fairly reliable". Maybe instead The modern historian Andrew Curry sees Polybius as "fairly reliable” or something similar?
  • "The immediate cause of the war was control of the Sicilian town of Messana (modern Messina)." A stickler would argue that "control" itself can't cause a war. Perhaps desire for control? Disagreement over control?
  • The temporal flow of the background jumps around a bit and may be distracting to the average reader. E.g., it starts in 264 BC and goes to 256, 260, and then 256 again. One possible way to mitigate that would be to adjust the wording at the end of the first paragraph to change “By 256 BC the war had grown into a struggle” to “Eventually the war had grown into a struggle”. Less precise, but the temporal flow of the dates is then linear through the section and you can keep the first paragraph as a summary of the war. There are other ways to handle this, of course. Just a suggestion.
You are quite right. The first 256 BC should read 260; now changed.
  • "Regulus chose to take his relatively small force and strike inland." Recommend making this the start of a new paragraph. It's both a new idea and seems as if it would be more impactful for the reader. Not a show-stopper though.
  • "Traditionally the Romans would raise two legions, each of 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry." In what context? For an Army? Overall?
I am not sure that I understand the comment. It is the second sentence of the section "Armies", does that not provide the context? In terms of numbers of legions, the Romans traditionally raised two, like it says. What am I missing?
What I was thinking is that a reader might enter the section noting the plural "Armies" title, start with the Roman paragraph (not yet seeing the Carthage paragraph below), and think that the Roman army might have had, like the US Army in WWII, for example, multiple armies within the larger army. The reader will eventually figure it out, but perhaps with some pauses. I wonder if adding "in their force" at the end of the sentence or something similar would prevent that and enable a smoother reading?
@Airborne84: Ah. I have changed it to "Traditionally, each year the Romans would raise two legions, each of ..." Does that address the issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It does indeed!
  • "Carthaginian male citizens served in their army only if there was a direct threat to the city." The city of Carthage? The closest large city within the Carthaginian Empire? The question is whether “Carthaginian” here means from Carthage or from the broader Carthaginian Empire. I'd defer to your knowledge on this.
It means Carthaginian citizens, who, like Roman citizens at the time, were (predominately) inhabitants of the eponymous cities. I have inserted "who were largely inhabitants of the city of Carthage" to clarify.
  • Are there any map images of the battle? There's text description of the split Roman armies attacking the Carthaginian on the hillside, etc., which could be supplemented by a close-up map image if there was one available. To be clear, it's not a show-stopper on my part because it's not an overly complex battle, so not that hard for the average reader to visualize with text. Just checking.
Sadly not. I know of no map in any source. Which hill it was no one has even guessed at. It would, I agree, be nice to include a battle map (eg, as with Battle of Ecnomus or Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)) but it would be pure OR.
  • Again, nice work on this one. Airborne84 (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that Airborne84, much appreciated. Your points above all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • jointly commanded by Bostar, Hamilcar and Hasdrubal Why isn't Bostar red-linked?
Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)
  • is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC) Circa template is needed to the second circa.
Ah ha! good spot. Done.
  • a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage You really like Rome so much it should be linked? :)
I must have done it once by accident and then cut and pasted. De-linked.
  • but he is known for his The Histories Odd the sentence.
  • Polybius' --> "Polybius's"
  • available warships, 350, under Hanno --> "available warships, 350, under Hanno II the Great" first mention.
No. I prefer to go with the sources and describe him as just "Hanno". Not one refers to him as 'Hanno the Great' and "Hanno II the Great" sounds like a king.
  • I disagree, that'd be MOS:EGG. The redirect of the link goes to the Hanno II the Great's section but the reader wouldn't know that and believe it goes to the Hanno the Great (which is kinda true). When they click on it they would get the surprise section instead of the lead. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
And I disagree. A reader clicks on Hanno and ends in a section about Hanno II the Great. What is EGGy about that? (Why wouldn't they know that? All they have to do is look at their screen.) If you are arguing against links to sections, then I am not aware of a policy disallowing it, and it is quite common in FAs, as I am sure you are aware.
  • I'm not saying that. We're working for a Wikipedia page on the highest level an article could get here in Wikipedia. I've recently read this WP:EASTEREGG which told me "Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles." and this "In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:" and it got my attention. There are people who print our articles into a printed version and if someone prints this article then they wouldn't know who Hanno was and they wouldn't know it was meant to be Hanno II the Great. You're telling me to click on the link well I wouldn't mind clicking on the normally-linked word in a printed book. I don't think it would work; let me know if you clicked on a word in one of your printed books and actually works. ;)
This link is not a WP:EGG. There is no requirement for a reader to open it in order to understand perfectly what is happening in the article. If they wish to obtain some further information on Hanno, not relevant to this article, then they have the option of clicking on the link, in which case they get exactly what they expect - no surprise - more information on Hanno; including the all but irrelevant detail that he was the second Carthaginian in their history called Hanno to be known as "the Great".
  • I have an idea, why don't we like (PM has asked) adding a footnote which describes that he was also known as "Hanno II the Great"?
CPA-5 Sounds reasonable. Would you be happy with "He was known as Hanno the Great, the second (of three) Carthaginians named Hanno to be awarded that sobriquet"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Let's say without my opinion and in my general perspectives; yes that looks okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar Red-link Bostar.
See above.
  • Most male Roman citizens were eligible Wait for a second this just came up but does that mean they used child soldiers or was this after their age of majority? Same for Carthage
Once they became "citizens". Same as today, there was an age of majority for citizenship. This is so universal that I don't feel that it needs to be specified. Ie "citizen" is synonymous with 'adult'.
  • Yes but, their age of majority was totally different. I'm not an expert on this topic but an adult could be different than the adult these days. An adult at the time could be maybe bellowing 16 or even bellow 13 who knows? These days that'd be a child soldier. I think a reader could get confused with a modern 18-year-old adult, like the UN that specific standardised. In my eyes, there's a difference between an ancient era adult/citizen and a modern one. For the Romans this could be 14 (which is by the UN a child soldier). Of course, I am not sure when the Romans recruited children.
I could change "citizens" to 'adults', but I really don't want to. It would be OR. The sources just say "citizens". By our standard many of them would be "children", but so what? Once we start this, there is no end; eg should I explicitly state that slaves could not be, nor become, citizens? More OR, and I don't see that it will improve the article for a reader. Most readers will understand that one becomes a citizen on reaching the local age of majority and that this varies in space and time. Eg, right now the Saudi age of majority varies because it is based on physical signs of puberty (bulugh), with age 15 as the upper limit; in Indonesia or Myanmar it is 15; in Japan or Thailand it is 20; 21 in Gabon or Samoaconsider 15 year olds to be adults, while others 21ear olds to be children. Just because 18 is the age of majority in the EU does't mean that it is that it is universal, even today.
  • Was I talking about the EU's age of majority? I'm sorry if you thought I mean that. I meant the UN's age of majority which is based on the children's rights of the UN which is signed by every country except you guessed it, the US. It indeed sounds reasonable to expect that from a reader and yes that would be OR if we change it. But how about we look at this sentence "Despite this, several Roman legionaries were known to have enlisted aged 14 in the Imperial Roman army, such as Quintus Postunius Solus who completed 21 years of service in Legio XX Valeria Victrix, and Caecilius Donatus who served 26 years in the Legio XX and died shortly before his honorable discharge.[11]" in the "History of children in the military" article with as source the "Roman Legionary AD 69–161". It wouldn't surprise me that the Old Republic would also use child soldiers like in this example. Were they citizens? Yes, they were. Were they child soldiers? Yes, they were. Did they violate the UN's don't recruit under 15-year-olds children policy? Yes, they did. If "citizens" really is synonymous with "adults" then we now know when they were adults. I still would add a note that they used child soldiers because "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" means boys were included. If there is, of course, a source. In my view if they really used boys in the army then it should be part of the section where it describes the Romans' armies and those boys probably participated in the war.
I suspect that we are getting well away from the main point. One could add further explanations to every sentence of the article, but personally I feel that as it stands, including on the question of the age of maturity of Roman citizens, "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Even if I weren't I am unaware of a source covering this, although there probably is one. It would need to relate to this period - your quote above is interesting, but the "Imperial" means that it relates to at least 200, and probably 300, years after this battle.
PS Have you noticed who created History of children in the military?
  • I haven't found any other source of child soldiers in the Roman army. Maybe in the future someone would publish one. And not me at least. ;)
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided small numbers --> "Both Hispania and Gaul provided small numbers" Would be strange if you use both Spain and France here.
  • Link Balearic Islands.
Bleh! Done.
  • although Tipps describes Tipps who?
  • Modern historians suggest the Carthaginians suffered few or no losses Like whom?
Like the three cited at the end of the sentence. I have used the phrase "modern historians" to describe a scholarly consensus twice before in this article (and in numerous other articles) without it being an issue.
  • no losses to their cavalry and elephants.[63][62][65] Re-order the citations.
  • This assumes, per G.K . Tipps Should it be "G.K. Tipps" or "G. K. Tipps"?
Well I think there should be a gap, but someone keeps "correcting" it. I'll change it and we'll see what happens.
  • "present day Oudna, Tunisia" --> "present-day Oudna, Tunisia" in the infobox.
  • out a night march with the intention of launching a surprise --> "out a night march to launch a surprise"
  • I see a lot "apparently" maybe reduce a little bit.
I have cut two of the three.
  • You mean two of the four?
Cnrl-f only finds one "apparently", in "Battle". Where are you seeing another?
  • Whoops was the mistake of my PC which strangely gave four.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, that was great. Thanks a lot. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Cheers CPA-5. My three responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: group of Carthaginians also faced a frontal counterattack by Roman reserves counterattack --> counter-attack.
Cheers. Done.

Hi CPA-5 Back to you. :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • {ping|Gog the Mild}} Back to you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nope that's anything I believe. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

Nice work as always, Gog. Some comments from me:

  • no redlink for Bostar?
As I said to CPA-5 above "Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)" I don't much care and am happy to be told that I have the wrong end of the stick.
  • I wonder if, when referring to a Hasdrubal, we should explain which one he is? ie "Hasdrubal, son of Hanno"
I have added a footnote at first mention. That do?
  • say Carthage was the capital?
  • comma after "Battle of Tunis"
Only if I can also have one after "later". Otherwise, by the grammar I use, it is wrong. I have inserted both, see what you think.
  • move the links to Ancient Carthage and Roman Republic to "Carthaginian and Roman"
  • suggest "and had gained control of most of Sicily via military operations" military meaning land forces, or alternatively "land operations"
I have added "using their army"> (Out of interest, why should "military" exclude naval forces?)
  • "and so could be supplied and reinforced by sea"
  • link Carthage (the city)
I thought I had. Apologies.
  • link consul
  • suggest "They took 20,000 slaves, "vast herds of cattle", and after a brief siege, [[:Siege of Aspis|captured the city of Aspis]]"
  • link infantry and cavalry
Seriously? Done.
  • suggest "the same size as the Roman force"
  • suggest "a more wealthy minority"
  • "rebelling against Carthage" no mention of this until now, could you introduce it earlier?
I had "by fomenting rebellion among Carthage's subject territories", but I have rephrased both to make it a little clearer.
  • well-armoured?
Thhe weakest of my numerous weak points. Done.
  • move the spear link to first mention
  • rather than Spain, would it be better to go with Iberian Peninsula or something? link?
I was certain I had changed that! Now "Iberia".
  • "Determined to preventstop the Romans despoiling the countryside" as they were already doing it
Fair point. I have inserted "further" instead. That do?
  • link Nigel Bagnall
  • wing , or assault? wing is usually used to refer to the extreme flank of one formed body, not split bodies of troops
Bizarre! I have precisely the reverse understanding. I have just had to check several texts to ensure that I am not going loopy. Possibly your usage is a very modern and formal in-military one? A historian referring to the "right wing" of an army means the rightmost third (give or take). Any hoo, I have switched to "column".
  • suggest "faced a frontal counter-attack" and link
Both done.
  • drop the comma from "the Spartan, mercenary commander"
  • link Battle of Cape Hermaeum
  • the figure of 16,000 only appears in the infobox?
True. But the article gives "4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry", so I have put that in the infobox.

That's my lot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Peacemaker67 and thanks for sorting out my sloppiness yet again. You seem to be looking at a lot of my articles, and I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

  • I would omit the Google books links if they don't link specifically to the content being supported, especially as they're inconsistent with the non-linked books.
  • Checks of Tipps 1985, relying on JSTOR version:
    Tipps 1985 does'nt seem to support "The main source for almost every aspect of the First Punic War[note 2] is the historian Polybius (c. 200 – c. 118 BC), a Greek sent to Rome in 167 BC as a hostage". It only says that Polybius has the most complete account of a particular battle.
Groan. True. It looks as if I added this to Goldsworthy for my first 1PW article and have been omitting to delete it ever since. Sloppy, sloppy. Now deleted. The sentence relies on Goldsworthy "By far the most important [ancient source] was the Greek historian Polybius"; "[Polybius] as a result provides our most complete and reliable account of the First Punic War".
  • Likewise, it doesn't support "Other, later, ancient histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form", since it refers to other accounts of that particular battle.
Same again. Tipps deleted. The statement is a summary of Goldsworthy from bottom of p. 21 to the end of p. 23 where he discusses the other sources.
  • "details of the battle in modern sources are almost entirely based on interpretations of Polybius's account" which battle?
Very good question. It should read 'war', not "battle"; now changed. It goes to Tipps' statement "[Polybius] our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole."
  • "The Roman fleet of 330 warships plus an unknown number of transport ships sailed from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC, commanded by the consuls for the year, Marcus Atilius Regulus and Lucius Manlius Vulso Longus" the cited page does not mention either Regulus or Longus.
You are correct. I have made a Horlicks of the references. Tipps p. 445 covers my "from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC"; the commanders are named on p. 446. Cite amended accordingly.
  • " With a combined total of about 680 warships carrying up to 290,000 crew and marines, the battle was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved" Tipps does not support this as far as I can tell; he argues that Polybius figures are almost certainly an exaggeration (so the actual number was significantly less than 290,000) and I cannot find where he says it was the largest naval battle in history.
Polybius: to the contrary, his whole argument is that Polybius' figures are as good as we have, and he spends pp. 436-445 demolishing the arguments of the early 20th C historians who had argued against Polybius. He merely quibbles that the total number of Carthaginians should be a little less than 150,000 (147,000 - see Lazenby p. 86) rather than a little more. Hence my "up to". See his p. 445 for "something over a quarter of a million men were involved". Goldsworthy gives the same figures as Tipps, with a milder caveat regarding the 140,000. Lazenby has "the battle involved nearly 290,000 men".
I am assuming that we are in agreement that Tipps gives a total of 680 warships? Lazenby and Goldsworthy both give 330+350=680.
Largest battle: true I was relying on Lazenby p. 87 - "probably the greatest sea-battle ever fought".
If only one author says so (and "greatest" has other meanings than "largest")—it is probably best to quote and attribute. This is quite a strong statement.
@Buidhe: In context it is clear that he means largest (by number of combatants). A quick browse also gives "may have involved the largest number of combatants of any naval battle in history" by Rankov in Hoyos's Companion to the Punic Wars. But I take your point. I have relegated it to a footnote and quoted and in line attributed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "When they met in the Battle of Cape Ecnomus, the Carthaginians took the initiative, anticipating that their superior ship handling skills would tell" I cannot see where this is supported on the cited page.
True. This is all supported by Goldsworthy. Tipps was there for "poor Roman generalship", which got edited out and I didn't remove the cite. Which I have now done.
  • "100,000 men lost" no mention of the figure on the cited page
True. The 100,000 is in Miles. Tipps is relied on for the number of ships lost, and the logic as to how the figure was arrived at. Which has been subject to some historiographical dispute - see Tipps pp. 436-445.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you would like a copy of any of the pages of sources you can't access on line.
Thanks for this Buidhe, and for picking up several instances of my being sloppy. Your comments all addressed above, hopefully cogently. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I will have to AGF on other sources as I can't access them. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

  • "..two previously unrecorded generals named Hasdrubal and Bostar.." What do we gain from saying "previously unrecorded"?
  • Didn't CPA moan about the citation order: "the same size as the Roman force.[50][1]" (I like it.)
So, does that mean that you require me to reorder it or not? It's not an MoS nor FAC requirement.
As you say, no need to reorder it. Harrias talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "..and would serve.." Please can we just use "served"?
  • "with a more wealthy minority providing" Noun plus -ing?
  • Might be worth explaining "open order".
  • "..they possibly represented four slightly under-strength legions: two Roman and two allied." This speculation needs attribution.
  • "..and his failure to make up his deficiency in cavalry in particular is puzzling." POV.
  • "Most of the Carthaginian infantry would fight in.." Fought?
  • I would consider merging note 6 into the prose, I think it is a pertinent fact.
  • "..made the audacious decision.." Who says it was audacious?
Tipps: "an exceptionally audacious uphill charge"; "Regulus' hard-charging audacity". Now better cited, sorry about that.
    • Hmm, "Tipps describes the plan as a demonstration of Regulus's "recklessness"." might get you off the hook.

Not a massive amount from me; another nice, informative article on this war. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and if care to return the favour, a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 09:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias, all addressed. I am sure that I will be able to review that fine game of cricket. PS When are gongs for the GAN drive due to be dished out and/or do you need a hand with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support on prose; looks good to me. Harrias talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOz

Sorry Gog, just thought while I was feeling punic, I'd add some comments and suggestions to this one:)

That's fine Jenny. Suggestions for improvement are welcome at any time.
  • on a rocky hill near Adys where - a bit disconcerting to click on Adys and the Uthina page does not mention this name
  • felt the need for - per Cape Herm "on the few occasions they had previously needed a naval presence"?
That means something slightly different. What is it about the original that is the problem? Possibly it could be resolved a different way.
  • in maintaining and increasing the - swap order to increasing and maintaining?
Done - although I think that you are missing the nuance of the original. But probably only I am aware of it and the new version does read better.
  • They embarked approximately 26,000 legionaries picked - move wlink up to here?
  • superior ship handling skills - hyphen?
  • by encouraging Carthage's rebellious subject territories - encouraging to do what? maybe encouraging rebellion/rebelliousness in Carthage's subject territories
It has already been noted that they were rebelling. It honestly reads fine to me, and the meaning seems clear. Does this really need rephrasing?
  • served as javelin-armed skirmishers. - in other articles this series the link is to Skirmisher. ( Plus, Velites says a class "from 211 to 107 BC")
Wikipedia is of course renown as an unreliable source. The source cited specifies "velites". Happy to change it though if you wish. (And there is no FAC, MoS or other requirement for consistency between articles. :-) )
  • tightly-packed formation - remove adverb hyphen
  • Modern historians point out that the Carthaginian generals...of their cavalry and elephants - a rather long sentence, perhaps break at "although the modern..."
Good point. Broken at "especially.
  • Finding these completely unacceptable - insert terms after "these"
  • with any of our other accounts".[16][note 3] - you prefer notes to appear first?
  • crew and marines[note 5][36][31][39] - ref order
  • size as the Roman force.[50][1] - ref order
  • combat was protracted.[56][58][note 7] - note first?
  • were present at Adys.[59][56] - ref order
  • Sources - Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]. and Koon, Sam (2015) [2011] - move to below Hoyos, Dexter (2007)
Weird. Done.
  • Sidwell, Keith C.; Jones, Peter V. - authorlink belongs to Jones, add 2

That's all, JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

That was great Jenny, many thanks. Your points all addressed, although a couple have not been actioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

Hi Ian. In the light of the above, could I have permission to post another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators:  ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought I'd answered this but I guess I messed the save or something -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. I am cheered to hear that it is not just me who does that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@Therapyisgood: can we get resolution on the comment above? "Resolved" does not really help in determining consensus on an FAC and it's becoming a bit tiresome to continually ping you back to FACs to have you clarify your meaning. Please don't just put "resolved" unless you also give some indication of support or opposition. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Willa

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC), ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}, and ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it. I would like to invite @Hurricanehink: to join the nomination if he so wishes. Thank you to everyone who has helped with improving the coverage of this season. That being said, let the nomination commence. NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah, I co-nom this. It's an impressive bit of collaboration among three users (and everyone else who worked on the article). I'm very proud of Noah's work on the 2018 PHS, which will make for an impressive FT soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass

All images are free. buidhe 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

why 13 hurricane at "Landfalling Pacific major hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by wind speed"? Maybe cut off last three?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used to determine the Category of the storm based upon its wind speed. In this case, 14 storms at Category 3 intensity or higher have made landfall in the Pacific. Cutting off storms would made the entire the table inaccurate. NoahTalk 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah yeah you're right, don't know why I missed last one is Willa! Sorry.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: Only suggestion is add a note that "All damage values are in 2018...".--Jarodalien (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jarodalien, I added that note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this, thanks. I'm still working through the article, and don't see any showstoppers. I'm listing some comments so you can start working them now if you'd like.

  • In general, it has some technical language that’s hard to understand for the average reader. E.g., “the storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I’d aim for more approachable versions of these passages. I’ll point out those I think would be best adjusted vs. having you guess. But feel free to push back if I ask if something can be explained better and it would be problematic.
  • Please do point out these spots! It's a tricky balance between being thorough and relying too much on jargon. I rewrote that passage you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I’d break the first paragraph into two, both to better reflect the article and to align with MOS:BEGIN, Yours goes a bit beyond what the latter outlines for the first paragraph. I think just sketching out the context as per that guideline while shifting the Hurricane’s major muscle movements to a second paragraph will make it a bit more digestible for the average reader (like me) too.
  • I split it up, so the first one is more of a summary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “After the storm, many individuals did not receive direct help from the government until many months had passed.” Which govt? Mexican? U.S.? Both? Consider also replacing one of the uses of “many” with a synonym. Perhaps “multiple” for the second one.
  • “People mainly relied on help from charitable organizations to recover and rebuild their damaged property.” This again is a bit vague. People in Mexico? The United States? Both countries?
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Last sentence in the lede: “overall for the time it took to receive help” This is talking about the govt of Mexico. Should that be to provide help?
  • “the wave produced intermittent bursts of deep convection near a well-defined mid-level circulation center”. Deep convection is Wikilinked, but is there a way to translate "well-defined mid-level circulation center" for the layman? I know it might be a bit more wordy, but it would probably be worth it for someone who otherwise would just bleep over it, chalking it up as unintelligible jargon. Or perhaps a footnote would help if an explanation in the text would be too wordy.
Excellent, this version is much improved for the average reader. Thank you.
  • Consider how you might smooth the transition from preparation to impact. An FA should "tell a story" as much as possible. E.g., if there was a quote from a public official about finishing preparations right before impact, or something along those lines, that might make a good transition. This isn't a showstopper, and I wouldn't withhold support for this—just something to consider.
  • “a Hurricane Hunter aircraft was scheduled to survey the system for further development” From what country?
  • Clarified that it was a United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “The tropical wave moved into the East Pacific early on October 17 and quickly organized” Although from a non-expert perspective I can kind of imagine that a storm system organizes into something stronger, I don’t understand the link between a wave and organization.
  • I removed the "quickly organized", because it didn't really at this point in time. That came latter in the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “At this point, the NHC assigned it the name Willa from its rotating list of names.” Is there a reason it would be italicized here but not elsewhere?
  • This is the point at which NHC gave the name. For the rest of the article, we use "Willa" as a mononym (instead of writing out TS Willa or Hurricane Willa every time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was just trying to find in the WP:MOS where it provided for italics for the first use of a name or term. Am I missing it?
  • The word “trough” is used twice. I recommend employing a very brief in-text aside to define that for the average reader, unless it will take more than a few words to do so, in which case perhaps a footnote is warranted.
  • Gave a brief explanation and a wikilink is there is they need more. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Banding features" Is there a way to translate or explain this? "Bands of rainclouds" or the like? Again, you want this to be as readable as possible for the average person.
  • Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Much, thank you. You could probably do without "significantly", but I leave that up to you.
  • “The storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I mentioned this above. Any way to translate this a bit for the average reader? Intermittent pinhole eye might be OK, but after that it gets tough to digest for the non-expert (at least in my non-expert opinion).
  • Was it the "outflow" or the wording? Is the current wording better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In footnote 1, “Operationally, Willa was reported as having intensified by 120 mph”. Does “operationally” add anything?
  • Operationally means something occurred while the storm was active rather than an adjustment in postseason storm reanalysis. NoahTalk 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Recommend using non-breaking spaces before spaced en dashes. You can use the {{snd}} template or other tools.
  • Should be fixed. NoahTalk 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • English language titles of works in references should be in title case. E.g., reference 70, “Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update", should be in title case. You can check here in the MOS for foreign language caps use which is relevant to your reference list.
  • @Airborne84: I can't fix your example since it is in a template outside this article... unless you think that I should add the table into the article and fix the issue. The other English ones should be fixed. The MOS says that foreign language ones (modern) should be left in their original state. NoahTalk 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Will follow with more later. Airborne84 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Table: “Known Pacific hurricanes with at least $500 million in damage.” US dollars? Or is this part of the same external chart?
  • @Airborne84: I just added in the table to fix all those issues with it. NoahTalk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • “Strong currents broke a fence for a crocodile habitat in La Manzanilla, allowing hundreds to escape.” ???Where are the crocodiles??? OK, you don't have to address this one. But I know at least one reader who's wondering.... :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to find this. I did a search and came up with nothing. News coverage in Mexico isn't particularly good so things like this are overlooked there. Also, this is the same issue for finding quotes from government officials. News sources dont cover that particularly well. NoahTalk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem.
  • Aftermath: “In total, 144 houses had been counted from October 23–28, while more than 2,000 were actually affected.” Should that be 144 houses had been damaged?
  • This is referring to an irregularity from the previous government. They ONLY COUNTED 144 homes but 2000+ were actually damaged. NoahTalk 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean that the govt. was only aware of the 144 homes because they only counted 144 existing previously? In that case, I'd suggest adjusting the wording because right now it reads a bit confusing between the first and second part of the sentence. Perhaps "In total, only 144 houses had been counted to exist" or similar wording. An alternative would be to keep the initial wording but to finish with "while more than 2,000 actually existed and were affected" (but omit the italics).
@Airborne84: The govt only counted 144 as damaged and ignored the rest. Let me know if the new wording helps to fix the lack of clarity. NoahTalk 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good, thanks.
  • When you give lists of towns, such as these in Aftermath, is there a rationale for the order? “Tecuala, Acaponeta, Huajicori, Rosamorada, Santiago Ixcuintla, Tuxpan, Del Nayar and Ruiz” Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Put the two I saw in alphabetical order. Let me know if there are any others. NoahTalk 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I reordered one more list of municipalities in the Preparations section. Please revert if it was ordered that way on purpose (e.g., population or geographic size, etc.)
  • URLs in references 76 and 77 don't go anywhere.
Yup. My bad. They're archived from the original. Missed that.
Last question was on the italics above.
@Airborne84: The MOS allows for italics to emphasize something... In this case, we are emphasizing that this is when the name was given by the NHC. NoahTalk 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, no problem.
I find that it meets the FA criteria. Also bounced it off of similar Hurricane FA articles and it compares well. I'm supporting. Nice work!


Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several articles on Strepsirrhini primates that are at featured status, but this would be the first simian one. I brought this article to GA status back in 2012 and in the past couple months have done more editing and cleaning and got a copyedit. I think its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Chipmunkdavis

First run comments
  • In the lead is it reasonable to say that older males "have" long calls, rather than that they do not "make" (or similar) long calls?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Indonesian is a form of Malay, and quite a recent one, and so should not be mentioned separately to Malay. The source used states Malay.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding Banjarese, I wonder if you can find any sources discussing the impact on that regarding orangutan sometimes being pronounced with an ou sound, rather than how it is pronounced in standard Malay. Interesting note on page 320, but there might be more out there.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to pronounce orangutan, and I suspect they may exist in part due to the differences between Banjarese and Standard Malay. I was wondering if there might be more information to be found on that point. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Can't find anything. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't fully understand from the current wording how a name recorded by a prisoner in Angola came to apply to a Southeast Asian animal. Having trouble reading the sideways source at the moment, so if it's there please just clarify slightly.
It states that all apes were called orangutans at the time and pongo was given to the all apes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The part that is unclear is how it transitioned to the current usage. What does it mean that Lacépède followed Friedrich von Wurmb? Did von Wurmb suggest it when sending the skeleton? CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Etymology section could also use some information on the species and subspecies names.
That's important for their specific articles not this one. Even articles on species don't give etymologies for subspecies names. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How can a single species of Khoratpithecus be the closest relative to Pongo? Was it paraphyletic?
I guess. Genera descend from other genera just like species from other species. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's the wording throwing me off. Rather than "believed to have been" it should be "believed to be" or similar, unless the science has changed since the mid-2000s. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Could the list of Pongo also be put into a phylogenetic tree format to show the relationships between the species and subspecies?
I can't find a source for a tree. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
At least regarding the species the P. tapanuliensis paper provides one. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't make cladograms. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Taxonomy does not explain how Simia satyrus became replaced by P. pygmaeus.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The text clearly implies there was a P. wurmbii in 1808, which should be mentioned, as should whenever it was folded into P. pygmaeus.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Similarly, when did the other subspecies names get assigned?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Removed information on subspecies classifiction, that's more relevant to the Borneo species article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on type locality probably could use some rewriting to make it more accessible.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The P. tapanuliensis source notes that P. abelii became a species in 2001, not 1996.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • P. weidenreichi is not mentioned in the infobox, or anywhere else. Perhaps more information on it could be included here?
P. weidenreichi is mentioned in body. Added to infobox. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • More explanation on why there are multi-million year differences in species divergence estimates would be useful. Also, was the 2011 sequence not nuclear DNA?
Doesn't say why. DNA tests can be way off sometimes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, it seems odd to specify that the 2017 study was nuclear DNA, as it implies the 2011 study did not cover nuclear DNA. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It feels like the third paragraph of the genomics section was put on without adjusting previous sections. It should all be written in the appropriate tenses to reflect current consensus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No current comments for the Characteristics section. Will look further at a later time. As a general comment, image placement seems all over the place. (Eg. The video on faux-speech is above the tool picture, the opposite order to the text sections.) CMD (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Faux speech is next to the paragraph on orangutans imitating sounds. It's not about language. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
On my screen the faux speech video is right next to the paragraphs on tool use. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There's something wrong with your screen. I don't know what to do about that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a standard computer screen. If it appears like that on my screen, it will be a very common problem. What needs doing is sorting out the images. At the moment all the images in the page are clustering together and pushing each other way into places they don't belong. Reducing the number of images (eg. what does the image captioned "Orangutans are the least social of the great apes." add?) and making selective use of galleries are both reasonable options. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Use of plants as anti-inflamattory balms may fit better in the intelligence or tool use section than in the diet section.
Not really. Its like how animals may wallow themselves in mud to protect against skin irritation. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but it's not diet. Perhaps just move to the main section above? CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It feels odd that both the lead and one image caption emphasise the "even bird eggs", while the body text treats bird eggs simply as part of the list while specifically highlighting that they eat other primates.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In nest building, I suggest rewording "leave their mother for the first time", as leave might mean to disperse.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a mention could be made of the birth of twins.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest placing the reproduction and development subsection ahead of the social life and nesting subsections, as it contains information that better contextualises those other subsections. (eg. the earlier phrase about leaving their mother for the first time is much more understandable given the "never without physical contact" information.)
Moved after nesting. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The age at which children disperse away from their mothers should be included somewhere, probably in development, and perhaps dispersal should be explained since its only mention comes as "During dispersal" which reads as assuming knowledge from the reader. (May also be improved by the subsection reorganisation.)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Url for "Deaner, RO; van Schaik, CP; Johnson, V. (2006). "Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies" is dead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "solve some invisible displacement problems with a representational strategy" is jargon-heavy, and should be explained like "calculated reciprocity" is below. "cooperative pulling paradigm" could also do with a similar quick explanation.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "first accurate description" should be reworded, as its specific meaning might not be conveyed to some readers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest saying "Indonesian Borneo" instead of "Kalimantan, Indonesia" for accessibility.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the population table why are Sabah and East Kalimantan split but Sarawak and West Kalimantan combined?
That's what it does in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see. That source (which has a more detailed table on page 7) appears to be using a preprint of what I think became this table. I would suggest using the final published source. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The authorities in "Since 2012, authorities" should be specified.
Why? Authorities is obvious: the government. And the source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There are 2 possible national governments and multiple possible local governments. From the source I suggest the article says for now that it's the Indonesian authorities. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about Pony and the albino should be moved into the Conservation centres subsection, and integrated with the other BOSF info.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The current first and last paragraphs in Conservation should be merged. They both cover the same foundation (which I note lacks Foundation in its name in the specific article title, so perhaps this article should reflect that). CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis, everythings fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The images seem better now, and I think I'll leave it for others to further comment on them. The Borneo Orangutan Survival information is still split across two unconnected paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing the above. Will take another look soon with a more refreshed eye. CMD (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. Looking at Primate, which is an older FA but still quite a decent article, there are several facts about orangutans mentioned there that are not included here. These include endocranial volume, an explicit note on climbing technique ("quadramanous climbing" although a less jargony explanation would be better), fishing and tool-assisted fishing (there are better sources than the one in the Primate article), a tad more on legal status, and a figure for extirpation rate in Sumatra. I believe all these would fit into the article, and they suggest further possible inclusions, such as historical population estimates (eg.). I would also suggest an explicit mention of only 3-4 births in a lifetime for each female.
Added more. I don't see the need for historical ranges and expiration rates. Those are more appropriate for the individual species and we already have the Endangerment of orangutans article. LittleJerry (talk)
The current "Interactions with humans" section is more about cultural significance than an overview of current interactions. Papers like this one are interesting in that regard. There also seems to be a minimal amount of information about cultural significance and opinions in the local area as opposed to globally. I'd also advocate the inclusion of some contextualisation about the local pressure for development, which is crucial to understanding orangutan conservation, rather than attributing it all to international demand. The only mention of local attitudes is a short brush into folklore, whereas they're often seen as obstacles to the economic advancement of those in poverty. These attitudes feed into the hunting, pet trade, and sometimes even indifference or distrust towards conservation.
Added more on local killing of orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should include information about domestic legal protection. (In Malaysia I know orangutans were supposedly covered under a 1972 wildlife protection act but looking now I can't find them in the actual law. They are however included in the replacement 2010 law (pg 101) as a totally protected species, as well as under the separate laws of Sarawak and Sabah.) CMD (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That again seems more important for the article on the Bornean orangutan. There are three species, and looking at the different laws that protect each of them is too much for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand the species/sub-species argument with regards to the scientific name etymology information, but disagree it applies to much of the information here. The species split is for many purposes a technicality, and a recent technicality at that. Most of the laws I mentioned are older than the split between the species. Local communities are not distinguishing between species, conservation material doesn't distinguish between species, and I doubt many people in the wider world will either. Are there any examples of protections/treatment/etc. differing by species? Outside of scientific fields such as taxonomy and evolutionary implications, I can't see how what makes this article comprehensive will have shifted significantly since pre-2001. Taking your work on Wolf for example, that's an article that exceeds wp:size guidelines, yet it wouldn't greatly benefit from being stripped of most of its Status and Conservation section if at some point various subspecies became reclassified as species. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Range map should be scaled up and should include sourcing
  • File:Daniel_Urrabieta_y_Vierge_-_The_Murders_in_the_Rue_Morgue.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:The_Female_Orang_-_Utan.png needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When and where were these first published? And the last is still missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png isn't used in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

  • From the lead: Flanged (the distinctive cheek pads) adult males make long calls that attract females and intimidate rivals: the gloss disrupts reading quite a bit (the "the" is without reference) and not really comprehensible. In the "Characteristics" section "cheek pads" are not mentioned but "cheek flaps", is this the same (if so, please clarify or better use a single term consequently). But for this sentence, would "Flanged (with distinctive cheek pads) adult males …" work? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • that Bontius' account referred not to apes (which were not known from Java) – Java wasn't mentioned before, so is here something missing or what does it mean?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The was renamed Simia pygmaeus in 1760 by his student Christian Emmanuel Hopp and given the name Pongo was by Lacépède in 1799 – Here are at least two grammatical issues.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Israfil et al – dot missing (et al.), but why not "and colleagues" to avoid the term altogether?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • However a 2017 found – "study"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Image caption: Adult male (left) and female – Since the differences between species were just discussed: Which species is this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • a male orangutan having arm span – "an" arm span?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • endocranial – link?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Image caption: The orangutan's skeleton is well adapted for its arboreal lifestyle – Male or female? Important to mention since some sexual dimorphic characters just discussed can be seen here (sagittal crest; canines)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The joint and tendon arrangement in the orangutans' hands produces two adaptations significant for arboreal locomotion. – Is this the introduction for the following sentences? That is not totally clear. Also, the reference to the arboreal locomotion is already there in the previous sentence. The sentence does not really tell us anything? I would suggest to just remove it, it only leads to confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • not true knuckle-walkers; which involves – the ";" feels incorrect here; maybe insert "a form of locomotion"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Life history – this section title does not work because "life history" has a much more narrow meaning in biology: The set of stages that an organism, or a species, experiences over its lifetime, from conception to death (from Wiktionary); it is therefore identical with "Reproduction and growth".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • more later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • During reading I felt that the first two paragraphs of the "Social life" section are a bit hard to follow as a common thread is sometimes not evident; there are different pieces of information somehow attached to each other and the logical succession of information could be improved. Particularly, I suggest to move the sentence Bornean orangutans are generally more solitary, moving and foraging alone while Sumatran orangutans travel in groups more often down to the place where travelling in groups is actually discussed.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • interberth interval – birth?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Scientists hope the data they collect will help researchers – this sounds as if "scientists" and "researchers" would be two different instances (I would remove both to be honest). This whole sentence does not tell us anything new about the apes themselves; hard to believe that there are not at least some opinions on their socialising patterns?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • and preference was given to oral tool use – does this mean they put the sticks into their mouth to probe for insects rather than with their hands? Hard to believe.
That's what the research has shown. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • evidence of sophisticated tool manufacture – this is not explained and the reader if left wondering: How do they manufacture tools? For the reader this is difficult to guess. The material is wood I assume? They do not use tools to make tools or do they? Why is it "sophisticated"? Needs more explanation.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Possible linguistic capabilities – This whole section is solely about history of research: who did what and when. There is nothing about the actual scientific findings on this topic. If it is unclear if they have linguistic capabilities we at least need to hear the scientific opinions on this question. I think this section is the weakest of the article.
Removed. This is controversial and disputed anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • simians – not explained or linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Orangutans that have loss their homes – lost?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It works to bring different stakeholders together to achieve conservation of the species and its habitat. – a bit awkward to speak in presence here, since this is subjective and predictive; uncontroversial statements can only be made about the past. What about "It proved to be efficient to bring …"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis and Jens Lallensack, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Central Park

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a large public park in Manhattan, New York City. Built to a careful plan by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, Central Park is one of the most visited places in NYC, if not the world. There are many interesting features about this park, such as eight waterways, six miles of roads, plenty of woods, sporting fields, landmarks, a zoo, a museum, and numerous events that are hosted there. The history of the park is complex and interesting as well, with two periods of decline followed by wide-ranging rehabilitation programs.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from SilkTork. After a much-appreciated copy edit by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. The article is quite long, but I feel that it's warranted, given that it's classified as a vital article. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To assist in assessing the article, it's worth repeating the criteria here:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I was impressed with the work that epicgenius had done on the article when I did the GA review, and also with their responsive and helpful manner. I will take a look at how it fits some of the FA criteria, though I won't have time to look into all aspects, such as the "comprehensive" requirement. I was satisfied it met the "broad coverage" of GA, but to ensure it meets "comprehensive" requires a bit more reading and research than I have time for right now.

For those looking at this FA who may be a little put off by the size of the article, epicgenius's prose (at least when I read it for GA) is clear and readable, and the article well organised into digestible chunks. SilkTork (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


1A - well-written. Criteria met The prose is clear, readable and informative. It has improved since the GA, and is of a professional standard.SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1B - comprehensive. It has the broad coverage required of GA. I have not researched enough of the topic to judge if it meets comprehensive, though I suspect it does, and will not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Raising a concern here regarding coverage of music in the park. Ping me when this has been addressed so I can strike this concern. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1C - well researched. As with comprehensive, I have not done a thorough review of available sources on the topic, though I was impressed with the research done for the GA, and if I recall there wasn't much (if anything) that I turned up in my GA review research that wasn't already in the article. So I would not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1D - neutral. Criteria met I found the article neutral when I did the GA review, and I have looked through the additions since, and nothing has changed. It still remains neutral. SilkTork (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1E: stable. The criteria for FA is slightly different to GA. The GA stable criteria is: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute", and it passes that. But FA is: "and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." So for FA, the changes do not need to be because of a dispute. The intention is that when an article comes to FA it is reasonably complete in terms of content, detail, and prose. If changes are still occurring, that is suggestive that the article is not yet complete. The article has undergone recent changes. Material on census tract was removed yesterday: [10], and the day before the Further reading section was removed: [11]. The debate would be if such changes are "significant". For me, the article is stable, and I don't see such positive ongoing editing as harmful to the article or to its status as a FA. I will, though, pay attention to anyone who has concerns regarding stability. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Thanks for your comments and observations. I really appreciate them. In response to your concerns about criteria 1E: one can say these edits were made in response to the featured article process, i.e. in preparation for nominating this article. In terms of additions, I didn't add anything major. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any significant issues with the criteria in part 1, including 1E: stable. I don't have the time to examine 1B - comprehensive and 1C - well researched any further than I did for GA, but I have no reason to think that the article doesn't meet those criteria. And I am very comfortable that the article meets 1E - stable, even if the wording of the criteria is not clear; like you, I can't imagine that it would refer to positive edits made in preparation for the FA review - though I'm slightly unsure as to what it might refer to. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2A - a lead. Not met. This is my first genuine quibble. The lead, to be fair, hasn't changed significantly since the GA, but if I was doing a GA again today, I would ensure the lead contains a summary from each of the main sections in the article. I raised it as an issue in the GA, but I don't think I followed up on it as closely as I could have. Looking again now I see that Cultural significance, which has a spin off article, Central Park in popular culture, is summed up by "and is one of the most filmed locations in the world" (which, incidentally, doesn't quite match what is said in the main body: "Central Park is the most filmed location in the world" - can you check to see if it is "the most filmed" or "one of the most filmed"). And while looking at the spin off article I was aware that some very famous concerts are not mentioned in that article, such as The Concert in Central Park. The lack of mention of the concerts would also come under 1B - comprehensive. The classic concerts are mentioned in the main body, but not the pop, rock and reggae concerts. And I just noticed that the classic concerts are mentioned in the body but not in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. What is the thinking behind Cultural significance and Concerts and performances being in two different sections in the main article, but discussed together in Central Park in popular culture? Oooooh. I just noticed that in Central Park in popular culture in the Music section it says: " Numerous concerts have been hosted in the park, mentioned [[#Entertainment|above]]". But these are not mentioned above. I've taken a look back at the article, and found an older form from just over a year ago, which mentioned the concerts: [12]. That older form is unsourced, but does appear to contain useful information. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the claim from the older article, "The oldest free classical music concert series in the United States—the Naumburg Orchestral Concerts, founded in 1905...", something that might be true? It might be worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Basically, "Cultural significance" is talking about events that mention the park, while "Concerts and performances" talks about events from the park. I've tried to expand the lead without having it become too bloated. Because we do have a Central Park in culture sub-article, the concerts and performances in this article are summarized. Nevertheless, I'll try to add some brief examples. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2B - appropriate structure. Criteria met. There is an appropriate structure. I tend to prefer fewer sub-sections as, per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For example, I wouldn't have Sculptures and Structures and exhibitions as subsections of Art and monuments. And I might consider in Landscape features, using a WP:Definition list markup instead of sub-headings, but these are personal preferences, and the article works fine as it is. Indeed, as I said at the start, there is a compelling argument for using the bite size sub-sections to ease navigation and digestion of such a long text. SilkTork (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2C - consistent citations. I have never quite understood this criteria, and I can recall in a couple of my FAs someone requiring me to go through and ensure each citation was written out exactly the same way. I don't think it means that. I think it means using either Harvard or standard footnotes but not both together, as using both together creates two different ways of presenting citations. The article currently does use both the more standard footnote citation alongside the Harvard footnote citation, so technically fails this criteria. For example, Cite 1 uses the standard footnote ( "About Us". Central Park Conservancy. 2014. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.). While Cite 2 uses the Harvard footnote (Central Park Conservancy 2011, p. 9.). Personally I don't think it matters, as both can be understood. But if we are to have such a criteria for an FA then it should be met. The article should either have all standard or all Harvard. If selecting one style over the other, I would strongly recommend the standard style as that being the most helpful to readers and researchers. With the Harvard style you have to look in two places to get all the information (link/full book title and page number are in two different places); while with the standard you get all the information in the single citation. However, while flagging this up, I would say that it's not an issue for me, so I'm not raising it as an objection. But if you want the FA flag with all the criteria met, then there should be consistency in citation style. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
3 - Media. Criteria met. Only one image has been added since the GA review, and I've checked that, and it's fine. The media criteria is the same as for GA, and nothing substantial has changed, so this is fine. SilkTork (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
4 Length. Criteria met. This is the same criteria as for GA, and nothing substantial has been added, so this is OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a big difference these days between GA and FA. The main difference is that good articles only require broad coverage, while featured articles require comprehensive; and featured articles require consistent citation, while good article only require that there are organised citations. Of the criteria I looked at, the only concerns I can see are that the lead doesn't quite summarise the content, and that there may not be enough coverage of music in the park. I wouldn't be able to fully support this as I don't have the time to do the comprehensive research required, but once my quibbles are satisfied I certainly wouldn't have any objections. I think this is a fine article. Ping me when my quibbles have been addressed so I can strike them. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Regarding the distinction of standard vs. Harv citations - I think both may be used interchangeably, e.g. in the articles about Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters (which both passed with both standard and Harv citations), and even in my recent nomination of Barren Island, Brooklyn, where a similar issue was brought up. It would be more inconsistent if one were to use citations both with templates and with no templates, or both CS1/CS2 type citations, which should not be the case here. But this is open to interpretation, so let me know what you think.
I have slightly expanded the lead to include a short summary of every top-level section as well. Do you think the lead is sufficient or should I add more?
I also added a few examples of concerts and other musical events at the park. Let me know if that's enough or if I should elaborate a bit more. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Central_Park_1862_crop.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:Horseback_riding_in_Central_Park,_New_York_City,_May,_1940.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • File:USS_Maine_(ACR-1)_Monument_Columbus_Circle_NYC.JPG needs a tag for the monument itself. Same with File:CentralPark_04.JPG, File:Bethesda_Fountain_angel_sunny_winter_day.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: What do you mean by this? In addition, I removed the third image. epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
      • The US does not have freedom of panorama for either sculptural works or 2D works, so we need to verify the copyright status of not just the photographs but the artwork being photographed as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Thank you for clarifying. I will add tags proving the expiration of copyright for both sculptures soon. epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
          • I have added the tags, but in the article I replaced File:CentralPark_04.JPG with File:Bethesda_Fountain_angel_sunny_winter_day.JPG. epicgenius (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Will take a closer look at this next weekend. Early impressions are good, though it may need to tightening words wise here and there. Nothing fatal than can see so far. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

Reviewing... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Upper West Side and Upper East Side - can we not say Upper West and Upper East (or, Upper West and East Side)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I think so, but it's kinda weird. I used "Upper West and Upper East Side". epicgenius (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • estimated 37.5–38 million - if this is estimated, do we need to have such a small range? Surely an estimated 38 million would be fine? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • 778-acre - should this not be 778 acres? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • New York City Department of Parks and Recreation (NYC Parks) - as you don't mention this in the lede again, do you need the bit in brackets? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Done.
  • Considering you have the area sourced in the prose, do you also need it in the infobox? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Same for annual visitors. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed both.
  • Watercourses are full of a lot of WP:OL. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Reduced.
  • There's a couple occasions with four refs after a link - could you bundle these, or cut down to three or less? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

2010 Twenty20 Cup Final

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the most gut-wrenching cricket matches I've been to. Somerset lost their second final in a row, more or less on a last ball technicality. But really just because the Somerset players didn't know the Laws of Cricket, or at least, forgot them. As always, all comments and criticisms welcome. Harrias talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • "which was the first domestic Twenty20 competition between first-class sides." I suspect that either 'UK' or 'English' needs inserting into that.
  • No, that's what made it so notable. It was the first anywhere in the world. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine. But, optionally, could this be stressed? Eg, by adding 'anywhere in the world'.
  • I realise that this is the lead, but "Hampshire reached 62 from the powerplay, but then lost a cluster of wickets. A steadying partnership between Neil McKenzie and Sean Ervine took them to the brink of victory, but another pair of wickets led to a tense finish." could be written more accessibly. Eg, bracket in an explanation of "powerplay", maybe add "six-over" as in the article; add 'lost' after the second "wickets".
  • I've added "six-over" and "lost", but avoided a bracketed explanation for the moment. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The match was eventually tied". I assume that the score rather than the match was tied. How could a tied match produce a winner?
  • Weirdly, this match is recorded as a Hampshire win. Typically in cricket, the match is tied and the competition is won via the tie-breaker. For example, the 2019 Cricket World Cup Final, which England won on boundary count, is officially recorded as a tie. Somerset's tie with Hampshire in 2011, when they were knocked out after losing the super-over is also officially recorded as a tie. But anyway, that's beside the point, in this case, apparently, it wasn't a tie. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Background". Perhaps mention 'England' in the first sentence?
  • "the sixteen group-stage fixtures". I count 32, 16 per group.
  • Clarified: "..the sixteen group-stage fixtures per team were an increase.."
  • "and the final were held". Optional: "held" → 'played'.
  • "as being one of the favourites". When? Ie, at the start of the competition, or of finals day?
  • "though Jimmy Adams entered Finals' Day as the competition's leading run-scorer". Which team did he play for?
  • "until the wicket of Samit Patel at the start of the 13th over". Maybe 'until the wicket of Samit Patel fell at the start of the 13th over'?
  • "and leading up to the final, the ESPNcricinfo commentary described conditions as "murky". It may be me, but the comma made it very difficult for me to parse that phrase.
  • I think I reworked the first few sentences so many times that it got a bit garbled. Removed. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "he had faced 16 of the 19 balls". Add 'bowled'.
  • Changed to deliveries. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "stodgy": Wiktionary link?
  • Added, though the definitions there are unclear for this usage. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. But at least you have made an effort.
  • "Jimmy Adams and Razzaq opened the batting for Hampshire". Maybe link "opened" to opening batsmen in Glossary of cricket terms?
I missed that. I would still, optionally, suggest adding it again. Duplinks are not prohibited in all circumstances, and this may be one where it would aid a reader.
  • "Their total of 62 for one at the end of the six-over powerplay was their second-highest of the competition." Which a non-aficionado won't understand without clicking on "powerplay". Any chance of working a brief explanation into the follow of the text?
  • "to act as a runner for him". Oh come on :-) . An explanation of "runner" please. Preferably simple enough for the Somerset players to grasp the concept.
  • I've changed this to the simpler "..and another Hampshire player had come out to run for him." Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Link to Runner (cricket).
  • "even knew the law". Assuming that only ignorance of that particular rule is being confessed to, could this be clarified. Currently one might gain the impression that very few of the Somerset staff and players knew any of the laws of cricket.
  • I've tried to clarify this, how is it? Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Somerset won the resulting Super Over"> Why the capitalisation?
  • Because that's how our article capitalises it. I've switched it to lowercase, because it looks better that way. Harrias talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Route to Finals' Day" section: suggest a paragraph break immediately before "Hampshire".

The match and aftermath sections flow well. Background and build up I found a little clunky. Not helped by rather large paragraphs. At times it felt like just a collection of facts. I know that to a large extent that is the nature of the beast, but could the flow be smoothed a little?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Some responses to the response you have done so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor

Nominator(s): NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, known for her breakthrough single "All About That Bass" and commonly hated by many. Being in the workings since 2014, the article underwent a GA review by Ritchie333 in November 2018, then endured a disastrous FAC a month later. I have been slowly nursing it up to standard ever since, consulting WP:RSP and Nikkimaria for its sourcing, Nick-D for neutrality purposes and Gerda Arendt for prose evaluation. I would like to commence this nomination by thanking them. And I firmly believe, that with its prose quality, accessibility, quality sourcing, comprehensiveness and flow, it is one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia and worthy of the golden star. So let's give it that title.--NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Musically influenced by the 1950s and 1960s" - not sure the 1960s portion is supported explicitly by the article text
Removed the 1960s bit.
  • FN11: as per WP:RSP the reliability of Allmusic for biographical information is questionable
  • FN23 is missing agency credit
You added it as a publisher, but in this case it should be credited as an agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • FN45: staff authors like this shouldn't be formatted as first-last
  • FN56 is missing author. Same with FN90, check for others
Done 1. Confused about FN90, which does have an author. FN91, on the other hand, just gives the author as 'Rolling Stone'; which I'm not sure should be added since it isn't a person.
The link for FN90 lists two authors, while the citation includes only one. With regards to staff authors, you should consistently either include or exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Fn62: as this is a community contributor, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Swapped with Billboard.
  • Footnotes should go before References
  • FN83 is miscapitalized
  • FN87: Tidal isn't part of the title
  • What makes Bang Showbiz a high-quality reliable source? Idolator?
  • UPI is an agency not a work.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help, Nikkimaria! I have responded to each of your comments above.--NØ 05:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review

Images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 07:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Science Fiction

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine of the late 1950s. Its main claim to fame is for publishing Arthur Clarke's story "The Star", which was rejected by The Saturday Evening Post as blasphemous, but which went on to win that year's Hugo Award and is now considered a classic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review

"The Star" is one of my favorite SF stories. All sources appear encyclopedic and properly and consistently used except as follows:
  • There are at least three different formats for ISBNs.
    Gateways to Forever only lists a 13-digit ISBN, and some of the others only list a 10-digit one. If there's a way to look up a 10-digit one from a 13-digit one I could do that but I don't know of a way. For the McAleer, I used the ISBN on the ebook I found online, which doesn't divide it, but I just found a cheap used copy online and will update the ISBN when it arrives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Westport, CT or Westport, Connecticut?
    Fixed. I keep copying over references from old articles and forgetting to fix them; I need to just go through and fix all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are the dates in day month year format in an American English article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    Because I'm mid-Atlantic and can't remember which is which. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Comments from Ian

Placeholder... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian is the central figure in this sword and sorcery play-by-mail/email (PBM/PBEM) game which occurs in the Hyborian Age created by Robert E Howard. The game launched in 1985 and has been available for play for 35 years, one of the longest-surviving games of the PBM genre. I believe this would be the first PBM game to earn FA status.

This is a renomination for FA. It currently has GA status and Gog the Mild was kind enough to give it a peer review after I addressed comments from the first nomination. Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Thanks for your review Buidhe! Much appreciated. Responses below.
  • File:Hyborian War advertisement from 1985, year of inception.jpg — If there's no copyright notice for it, it would be {{PD-US-1978-89}}
There is a copyright notice in the larger advertisement next to the image.
  • File:Example command sheet for a turn in the game Hyborian War with the Border Kingdom.gif and File:Hyborian War command sheet invasion email example, "Battle Orders For Battle ,1 in Xachotl".gif could be considered {{PD-text}}, they are probably below the threshold of originality
I'm happy to change the tag to {{PD-text}}; but, as Shem and (probably) Xachotl within the image are terms from Robert E. Howard's works which Cabinet Entertainment still asserts copyright to, does that cause issues with the tag change?
The issue is that if the sheet is above the threshold of originality, the way you have it displayed won't be legible to readers so I don't see how FUR is met. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll defer to your judgement on the threshold of originality. If you feel that {{PD-text}} is appropriate in this case, I'm happy to apply it. I just don't have the relevant experience. If unclear, I can upload a more readable image of appropriately larger size with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Please advise what makes the most sense. Thanks.
I will upload a higher-resolution image with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. (Done)
  • File:Hyborian Age map based on a map prepared by Robert E. Howard.jpg—I'm not satisfied with the FUR. The image is too small to read country names, and encyclopedic purpose is adequately shown by text.
I had the same concern, thank you. I'm not an image expert. I propose to upload a larger version (as small as possible that allows reading country names), with an accompanying {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Will that work?
I have uploaded a larger version of the map with a {{non-free no reduce}} tag. The image should be of adequate size now to read the country names, but not so large, I think, that a passing admin would feel the need to reduce the image size.
  • File:Small cutaway, low-res portion of the Hyborian War game map.jpg—I am not really satisfied with the FUR, "Difficult with text to illustrate how the game breaks up the Hyborian Age map into player and non-player kingdoms with accompanying land provinces and seazones". First, it's not obvious to me which are player and non-player kingdoms. Second, this looks very similar to many similar game maps which readers are likely already familiar with, so I don't see how contextual significance is met.
Great comment, thanks. I updated the image's legend to identify which kingdoms are non-player kingdoms. And you are right, the rationale was inadequate. I updated it to highlight why this map is different than existing Hyborian Age maps (esp. province size and scale). Please advise if it still needs adjusting.
  • File:Set Piece Battle (Version 3) example in Hyborian War between the Border Kingdom and Brythunia.gif I am not persuaded by the FUR; the image is not enhancing my understanding of the game. There is not enough in-text commentary for contexual significance. buidhe 03:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I added some text in the main body to on battle frontage and terrain, pointing to the image. I also did what I intended in the first place, but did not, which was to link the battle orders image to this resulting image. It's not an exact translation (I couldn't get RSI to upload some images with free-use licenses), but it's close enough to show that the orders from one image results in a configuration on the battlefield in this image. Updated the FUR. Please advise if I missed something or anything is otherwise inadequate. Thanks.
  • @Nikkimaria: would you mind taking a look at this? I admit I'm not the most familiar with FURs for video-game related articles so could use input, eg. if multiple maps can be justified. Thanks! buidhe 23:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, the more non-free media included the stronger the FUR should be for each. In this case there are quite a few non-free images, and in my opinion the FUR for the second map (File:Small_cutaway,_low-res_portion_of_the_Hyborian_War_game_map.jpg) is not strong enough to support its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Nikkimaria. My concern in this case is that the second, smaller cutaway map shows a portion of the Hyborian War game map with provinces which are one of the three elements of gameplay. None of the maps of the Hyborian Age do that, including the first map in this article. I propose that the main map is necessary to show the scope and scale of the broader game setting, while the second map highlights a very small portion of the RSI game map to visually show the reader what the first cannot: the scale of the province or seazone—the single geographic element of gameplay (with the other elements being troops and characters). Again, if it's a showstopper, I'll remove the second image, but I think it will reduce to some degree the encyclopedic value of the article for the reader. Please advise and thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Update on image issues—Buidhe
Thank you for your work on this Buidhe—it's probably more of your time spent than the average nomination and I appreciate it.
  • Header image: This FUR seems weak to me, as advertising isn't the best way to identify the subject. (The actual image content is not discussed in the text and the "battle" visual depicted does not occur in gameply, am I correct?) Is there no free illustration that could serve this purpose? For example, what does the actual product look like and is it below threshold of originality?
Unfortunately, there is no box or other product associated with the game. Hyborian War is similar to other play-by-mail games in its general lack of graphics and images. The "setup" is the printed game rules and the game map which can be seen here in its entirety. There are some images/sketches on the individual country startup sheet covers, but they have a copyright notice on each, are very narrow in scope, and generally aren't appropriate for a lede image, IMO. For a long time, the lede image I used was just the simple name "Hyborian War" until I came across this early advertisement and I said "finally, an image that shows exactly what this game is about". It's stated in the lede and in the main text: "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." It is taken from an advertisement, but it perfectly shows the central focus of the game, while highlighting the game's central character, within the Hyborian Age setting. No free existing image that I know of will do so. I strongly recommend retaining.
FUR states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since this is an advertising image not a cover, and it would be possible to play the game without ever seeing the ad, I just don't see how its omission would be significantly detrimental to the reader's understing of the game. buidhe 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Buidhe. I'd say that's due to a failure on my part to adequately link the image to the game in the lede. The lede now says "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." I could add after that in the lede the passage from gameplay that says "Military activities such as raids and invasions figure prominently." That's a clear link to the image. Would that help? The gameplay section in the main text also covers the military activities in more detail. Having played the game, military activities (raids and invasions) dominate gameplay (as the name suggests). I can replace with an image of the text "Hyborian War", for example, but this is the single best image I have found that shows the central focus of the game. Airborne84 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I replaced the lede image. Can you check the new one for acceptability? Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That is an acceptable non free logo. Passing buidhe 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The two text-only images are below threshold of originality and have been tagged as {{PD-text}}
No issue.
Were you talking about this image as well Buidhe?
  • Two maps: I agree with Nikkimaria above, to comply with NFCC we should pick the one that is most valuable and remove the other one. You can use {{external media}} so that a reader can click through to it, assuming it's hosted by a non-violating website.
Agreed. Perhaps in the future the company will release their game map with a free license to allow its use here to show the province details. I'll remove the second map. Thanks. (Done)
  • File:Set Piece Battle (Version 3) example in Hyborian War between the Border Kingdom and Brythunia.gif I think this should be removed for insufficient contextual significance, as although set piece battles are briefly mentioned in text, the previous text-only image already shows this aspect. I don't think NFCC#1 or NFCC#8 is met in this case.
OK. This was in response to the previous nomination where a reviewer suggested something along these lines. However, I agree there is some redundancy. If there is concern from other reviewers, I think there is room for using a different image that shows an open field battle or a set piece battle that is underway so there isn't overlap with the other image. Image removed. Again, thanks for the careful look here. Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, anticipating that another editor might note that I haven't accounted for all the points from the first nomination now, with the removal of the images, I've added another image that doesn't overlap quite so much with the set piece battle orders sheet. Would you mind checking it out? Much appreciated. Airborne84 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that these types of images are copyrighted by the player and not the company, since they are the result of the player's ideas and commands. The company's computer just processes them and prints them out. However, I am not the expert and went with the conservative route. Airborne84 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but not enough imo because "open field" is only mentioned once in the article text—not the kind of extended discussion that could support an additional non free file. The copyrightable parts of this image are the individual illustrated figures, which presumably were created by the company. buidhe 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Removed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Other comments
  • Quoteboxes are discouraged because they can unduly emphasize one person's statement. These ones are unnecessary and distracting. All of them would be better integrated into the text. buidhe 03:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. They are moved into footnotes. Unless you feel that it's a show-stopper, I would like to keep the quotebox with RSI's description of Cimmeria, Conan's homeland. I don't think it falls into the category of emphasizing a person's statement as you mentioned. Airborne84 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like advertising to me and also violates MOS:layout because it sandwiches the images. Why can't it be integrated into text? "RSI described Cimmeria, Conan's homeland as ..." buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Forgot about the WP:Sandwich issue. Thanks.
I saw the citation needed tag on the topic sentence about mixed reviews in the late 1980s. I don't have a source for the sentence. Was aiming for a reasonable topic sentence for a paragraph which also provided a less than glowing side of the game and company to balance the positives and ensure NPOV. Am open to a recommendation here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I would say it is better just to remove the sentence and let the reader evaluate the reviews. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.

Support from Hurricane Noah

I am not exactly familiar with game articles, but it looks like the article has everything it needs. I'm going to support promotion to FA based on the quality of the prose. NoahTalk 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah. I can't take credit for the prose though. That would go to Gog the Mild and Smuckola for copyediting my blunt attempts at stitching words together into a readable product. Greatly appreciate the review. Airborne84 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ichthyovenator

A very well-written and comprehensive article! Just a couple of thoughts:

Thanks for weighing in!
  • I wonder if the order of the two subsections under "play-by-mail genre" should be reversed so that a general overview of what it is comes first. Not a requirement but maybe something to think over.
I think that would work fine as well. I'm not attached to either way. The real expert in this area is Gog the Mild though and I'd value his input as a third opinion. Gog the Mild, do you have thoughts on this?
No feedback either way, so went ahead and made the switch Ichthyovenator. I think this works well. Image and new transition to setting seem fine. Also reworked the first "spell-out" of "play-by-mail game" as (PBM) between the two paragraphs from the reversal. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This wasn't a requirement either way, I just found it helpful since I personally had no prior knowledge of what PBM games were. Good job with this! Supporting now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement then. Much appreciated!
  • Robert E. Howard is linked first under "development" rather than when his name first appears, under "setting".
Nice catch. Fixed.
  • "Magic is also part of the Hyborian Age, with wizards wielding great, but not irresistible, power" - is "irresistible" the best word here? I understand what is being conveyed but isn't "irresistible" more like "appealing" or "alluring" rather than the opposite of defeatable?
Fair enough. Changed to "overwhelming". Think that reflects the source without the added connotations. Let me know if this doesn't work.
"Overwhelming" fits well :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "The central figure of the Hyborian Age is Conan of Cimmeria" - under setting; this is the first mention of Conan in the text so should probably be linked to Conan the Barbarian.
Again, nice catch. Fixed. Not sure how I missed that one.... Airborne84 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the Mild

Nb, it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for one review for the combination of this review, the source review, and the citation spot check.

Hi Ichthyovenator. I reviewed this at GAN, copy edited it for GoCE and helped Airborne84 a fair bit in getting it ready for FAC, see here, so I am pretty sure that I will be supporting. Having been so close to the article for three months, and nothing from this genre having appeared at FAC before, I wanted to get some fresh eyes on it before commenting myself.

@WP:FAC coordinators: you may also like to note that while I had not come across Hyborian War before seeing it at GAN, in my misspent youth I played numerous PBM games and had several articles and reviews published in Flagship, the UK PBM magazine, which probably makes me as much of a subject expert as you are likely to get. I also have a passing acquaintance with the Conan universe and own a couple of Howard's books. As such the article gives an accurate account of how PBM works/worked and the game mechanics seem at one with those I was familiar with. I am holding myself in readiness to carry out a source review and/or a first FAC spotcheck if required. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I am formally supporting. I believe the article to be comprehensive as regards the topic and to reasonably put it in context. It includes contributions from all of the sources or types of sources I would expect and the prose is IMO up to FA level. (Warning: I did a fair bit of copy editing, so take this opinion with a pinch of salt as I may be judging my own input to an extent.) It is soundly structured, stays focused, and has a helpful use of images. I do not see any - non-source - areas for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

SG review

Really appreciate you taking the time to review this SandyGeorgia! Airborne84 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot get this source to open, but it looks like Terrablood is listed as the author, but publisher is missing??

  • Terrablood. "Terrablood's PBM Archives: Section One – Kingdom Reports for Hyborian War". Retrieved January 16, 2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The archives in External links for Terrablood will not open either ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the source and used a different reference. I adjusted that source in External links; it should work now. (Also removed two of the External links as they are in the Refs and are redundant.)

In the image caption, should we say, “Map of the Hyborian Age”? Can an age be mapped? Or is it better, map of countries during the Hyborian Age? (I dunno ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "Map of Hyborian Age kingdoms." Please advise if that doesn't work.

External jumps do not belong in Notes, I don’t think?

  • RSI also maintains a complete set of Hyborian War rules online at Main Rules. According to A. Kaviraj, cover artist for Suspense and Decision issue #1 (November 2013), "Reading through the rules of Hyborian War is a mind-blowing experience."[35]
  • According to Robert Paquin, the Road of Kings website is the largest Hyborian War collaboration website, offering various forums for players to discuss gameplay as well as other topics.[52] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Removed the external jumps.

This statement is sourced to a forum which requires log in:

  • These websites allow players to organize games of specific formats (such as no contact between players)[69]

Could you provide a quote of what The source provided there, to help convince me this is a reliable source for the statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The best, most concise quote is probably "This will be a regular-speed game, total privacy (no contact, no posting)." The context is that the website administrator who posted that works directly with Reality Simulations, Inc. (RSI). The website admin puts a game together on the Road of Kings website, advertising the rules (as in the no-contact example noted), and once 36 players are signed up, sends the player information and their RSI account numbers to RSI which then begins the game. (RSI actually sends out a promotional flyer for the Road of Kings website and the Grimfinger website in each game setup.) I slightly adjusted the wording though because in this case it's not the players organizing the game, it's the website admin. It now reads: "These websites allow the organization of specifically-formatted games (such as no contact between players)".
Gog the Mild is a competent copyeditor, but he may not have reviewed the image captions ... I am having all sorts of ce issues with this image caption, which Gog might better address ...
Thank you Sandy. Indeed, looking through my notes I seem to have missed the captions. Sloppy of me and thanks for the prompt. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I am now happy with the image captions. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Here, the player can decide how to array characters and troops and what tactics to employ during the battle, including magic.
What does “here” add? Why not “choose battle tactics”. Array? I leave this to you all since I am neither a gamer nor a good copyeditor, but that sentence is convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed convoluted. I like your suggestion, so changed to the simple "Orders allow players to choose battle tactics."

What is the source for Skills required in the infobox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

None other than they are general skills required for a game of this type. Since no direct source, I removed that entry in the infobox.

A lot of information about developers is mentioned only in the infobox—not the article—and is unsourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some of the developers that are sourceable to the RSI website, but are otherwise probably not notable. I added the map illustrator Liz Danforth to the main text as she appears to be notable across various works in the gaming community, and all developers in the infobox have sources in the main text now.
  • It is set within the Hyborian Age world of Conan the Barbarian created by Robert E. Howard.

Hyborian Age is modifying world, which is odd and seems to call for a hyphen, which is odder. And Age is a period. How about ...

  • It is set during the Hyborian Age in the world of Conan ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well put. I went with your suggestion. Thanks.
  • The game has been continuously available for worldwide play since its inception ...

What is “worldwide” adding here? Isn’t it obvious that anyone with access to mail or internet can play? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case it's consequential that the game is accessible worldwide as the email option is only available "in" to RSI, but not "out". I.e., players can email turn orders to RSI, but RSI sends all turn results by postal mail to players, apparently due to a contractual constraint. Between a slower 28-day turnaround game option and an extra Australia office, RSI has been able to offer the game worldwide. IMO, for a game with a postal play-by-mail aspect, worldwide access is noteworthy. I clarified this in the gameplay section—that RSI mails all turn results by postal mail.
  • It uses a computer program to simultaneously adjudicate player ...

What is simultaneous with what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It adjudicates player orders at the same time as other player orders. That makes it a closed-end game where everyone starts at the same time. Some games are never-ending and the company adjudicates player orders whenever they are received; players can enter and leave at any time—an open-ended game. Since that is way too much nuance for the lead, I just deleted "simultaneous" from the sentence: "It uses a computer program to adjudicate player orders."
  • Although it still relies on postal mail or email ...

What does “still” add? Redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted "still"

The word “various” is overused in the lead, including twice in one sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed various instances. :)
  • The game's setting is in Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age ...

Again, confused how a time period is being used. Should this be ...

Agreed. Adjusted as you suggested.
  • Although some games have long since been played by mail, such as chess and Go, and more recently Diplomacy, the professional PBM industry began in 1970 when Flying Buffalo Inc. launched its first multi-player PBM game, Nuclear Destruction, in the United States.[11]
Sentence needs to be disentangled ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Disentangled. (Split into two sentences and tweaked.)

Generally, some of my prose queries could be because I am not a gamer, but based on this look at the lead only, I suggest another pass with Gog the Mild, and then please leave a note on my user talk to continue reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Done! Also scrubbed the article for WP:MOSNUM and NBSP formatting as you noted in your edit summaries.

Direct quote in the lead which is uncited, and content not contained in the body ... lead should summarize body, and all direct quotes require citation.

  • Gameplay is multifaceted and has been described as "marvelously complex". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Added the quote in the main text with inline cite.

There is a problem with RSI links in citations. RSI 1985 goes nowhere, and one RSI 2020 goes to Setup rules, which is 1985 copyright, so where does the 2020 come from? And other 2020 link to pages that have no date, so what is 2020? These dates should reflect date of publication, pls check all ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed all. Either removed date where there is none, or added the correct date where there is.

The word various is used six times in the article, and is a hopelessly unhelpful word ... might you review those instances with Gog the Mild, attempting to vary the wording with something more specific? One example of how the word Various tells us nothing:

  • They can also collaborate through various means to progress their game goals.

Better to either drop it, or say what those means are ... pls review all instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. "Various" removed, and means are explained whenever mentioned in the article.

Next year, this statement becomes inaccurate:

  • The game has had an active player base for 35 years.

Avoid making statements that become dated, see MOS:CURRENT. ... has had an active player base since 1985. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed to: "had an active player base since 1985"

With these changes, I think you will be good to go. Because I know zilch, zero, nothing about gaming, I do not feel qualified to support, but I do not see anything holding you up once the changes above are complete. Per Gog’s knowledge of the game, I trust the article is comprehensive. Sorry for all the typos, brevity, and lack of italics ... iPad typing (sucks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Yep, the article is comprehensive so far as I am concerned. You probably noticed that, following the advice of a well known Wikipedian whose name temporarily escapes me, I suggested a swift withdrawal when this was first nominated for further background and context to be developed off-FAC. To my mind this has been done. Of course, I am just one editor, there is no similar article to act as guidence and I am probably a bit close. My major concern was how comprehensible the jargon and cant would be to a non-gamer. Apparently reasonably, and thanks for your pointing out various areas where this and the prose generally could be improved. (PS I have removed all instances of "various".) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep ... I saw my role as an independent reviewer to make sure it made sense to a non-gamer. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
PS, did you all check in with Ealdgyth as she requested in the first FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
He did but I've been swamped outside of wiki and did not have time to get back to him. It's on my talk page. Mea culpa for not even replying there, sorry! --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I think I've addressed your remaining comments above (please advise if not). Greatly appreciate the review!! The article is better for it.
Ealdgyth, no problem at all! I believe I adequately addressed SandyGeorgia's last remaining comments. The article should be ready for you now! :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I did check my available sources and nothing mentioned this game. I won't have time for a full review, unfortunately. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I am satisfied, and with the Fisch and Gog reviewing, am more reassured that the article is comprehensive. I would be a support if I knew more of the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SandyGeorgia. Greatly appreciate your time. And Ealdgyth, appreciate you checking your sources! Airborne84 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch

It has been several years since I reviewed at FAC, so I am mostly going to comment on the prose. This seems well done, but there are a few places where I think more context could be provided (if there are sources to support it). I have played Dungeons and Dragons (decades ago) and currently am playing Axis and Allies online, but have never played a game by mail like this. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, thanks! Standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Really appreciate the review!! Thanks for your time on this. Airborne84 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


  • The first sentence of the second paragraph (The game is set during Robert E. Howard's Hyborian Age within the heroic fantasy genre, also known as sword and sorcery.) is mostly a rephrasing of the second sentence of the 1st paragraph It is set during the Hyborian Age in the world of Conan the Barbarian created by Robert E. Howard. Perhaps the second paragraph could start with something like The game is set within the heroic fantasy genre, also known as sword and sorcery.?
  • I think the lead should mention the 36 playable kingdoms of three different sizes, each with different criteria for winning, and not just Conan wandering around ;-)
Excellent catch, thanks. Done!

Play-by-mail game overview

  • Would this sentence Turnaround time is how long a player has to prepare and submit "orders" and the company has to process them and send turn results.[3] be clearer as something like Turnaround time is how long a player has to prepare and submit "orders" (moves and changes to make in the game) and the company has to process them and send back turn results.[3]
I really appreciate this comment. I wrestled with whether this sentence was clear to the average reader. Reworded as you suggested.
  • Somewhere later in the article it should be made clear if Hyborian War is an open ended or a closed end game (or can be either, depending).
Closed end. Done! I did this in PBM Game overview.


  • Since this section is about the PBM genre, it seems odd to have it end in the 1980s. Would this be a place to add a sentence or two on "play by email" developing later, the rise and fall of magazines devoted to PBM, and how the field in general is less popular than it once was?


  • I think adding a sentence or two here would help Provide context to the reader. A sentence on the Conan stories themselves at the start would give context for those less familiar with Conan's history, something like "Howard published 17 Conan the Barbarian stories before his 1936 death, with several stories and fragments published after." I also think it is worth mentioning the Conan movies, which came out in 1982 and 1984 (a few years before the game debuted). Even if there is not a source linking the movies to the games, I still think it can be mentioned (and the reader can draw their own inferences).
Done. I wasn't able to give an exact number. One RS gives 400 stories and 500 poems written overall, but doesn't parse them between pre and post death or Conan vs. non-Conan stories. I think I was able to give reasonable context for the average reader though. Please advise if not.
  • Is there anything that can be cited / said on how the Conan character and Hyborian setting are licensed for use in this game? Could be here or later in Development.
I stated in a footnote in Development that game materials are marked as Copyright 1985 by Conan Properties Inc. There is nothing more detailed than that to cite, unfortunately. While that means RSI must have a license from 1985 that's probably renewed periodically, I think it would be a stretch to say that.


  • This seems to be a reference to one of the non-free images that were removed during FAC The eight-unit vertical frontage in the battle-order image example represents a battle occurring in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[46]
It points to the image in the section. The "front line" for the troops in the image is at the top of the image, not the left or right. I added the words "numbered" and "Xachotl" in the text so now it reads "The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example". If you think another way of phrasing it is better, please advise.
  • I thought this section was well done and have a pretty clear idea of the general outlines of the game and how it is played. I still have some questions that could probably be answered here or in notes. Is the only cost to play the varying costs per turn (or is there a registration or set up fee, or do you have to buy the authorized Hyborian War starter kit or map or player's manual? I know there can be up to 36 kingdoms active in a game, but can someone play as more than one kingdom in the same game? Do games need all 36 players to begin or can a game start with fewer players (and if so, does the computer play the remaining kingdoms, or take them over if a player drops out)? At any given time, are there multiple games ongoing? (I assume so).
Done—mostly. Two areas I couldn't address: (1) RSI certainly could start a game with less than 36 players, but doesn't say if it actually does so in sources, and (2) someone playing more than one kingdom in a single game. The answer is emphatically no. But I can't find a source stating it on RSI's webpage or elsewhere. I think it's implied in how hard they make it to play a "friends" game, but it's not outright stated that I can find. I address the rest of these in a footnote.

Game analysis

  • Any idea how long it took to reach the first 200 games played? The article could at least give the year Cote's analysis was published (1994), as well as the analysis of over 400 games (2020).
Done. I went with 21st century for the latter since it's unclear exactly when the second list was published. It was retrieved in 2020.


  • Any idea when Schoonover began developing the game?
Unfortunately, this doesn't appear in the sources.
  • Are the programming changes essentially rule changes? Or just new ways for the computer to process everyone's moves?
This again is not described in the sources. It's unfortunate as it would be good to add.
  • When I first read the article I thought this section might work better earlier (after Setting, perhaps), but since it refers to developments throughout the history of the game, I think it is fine where it is.
OK, this appears to follow the structure of FA-level video games as well (can't compare to FA PBMs as none exist)
  • I prefer "an homage"

Reception and legacy

  • I would move the issue number to the footnote here, so instead of It was reviewed in the 1987 issue No. 77 of Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer, with... I would make it something like It was reviewed in 1987 in Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer, with...'
  • In Note i, please use ordinal forms for the ratings / ranks, so In the Paper Mayhem Game Ratings as of March 30, 1989, readers rated Hyborian War 37th of 44 games.[17] In the Jan/Feb 1990 issue of Paper Mayhem, readers rated Hyborian War 42nd of 53 games.[18]
  • Can Robert Paquin breifly be given context - reviewer?

Hope this helps, overall well done and intend to support once these issues are addressed. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch. Really appreciate your review on this. Please advise if I addressed your comments adequately above. Happy to engage further as needed. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the edits and glad my comments were helpful. I still have two minor quibbles and a suggestion.
  • Per WP:CITELEAD, direct quotations in the lead need to be cited with an inline reference, so "marvelously complex" needs a cite. Since the lead is a summary of the article, I do not think it needs to have citations for anything else.
Added inline citation to the quoted words in the lede.
  • I think per the MOS, sword and sorcery should be linked in the lead (first appearance)
Linked. Delinked second use.
  • I still find the reference to the battle-order image quite confusing ("The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example represents a battle occurring in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58]"). I think this is in part because it is the only place in the article to use the phrases "battle-order" or "vertical frontage" and one of only two places to mention Xachotl, and the reference to the image is buried in a farily dense sentence filled with several unfamiliar words. Would something like this work better? "The order for a set piece battle pictured here shows eight units in columns, and represents a battle occurring in the provice of Xachotl in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58] "
I adopted your version. Thank you for the suggestion.
Feel free to edit away and hope this helps, - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch thank you again for your review. Please advise if there are any remaining comments that need addressing. Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been met and I am happy to support promotion to FA now. Please let me know if you need me for anything else here. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

  • Cite 87 looks like either a duplication or an error.
It does look like a duplication, but the citations point to two different refs in the bibliography. One is Paper Mayhem issue No. 40 and the other is No. 45. The material appears on page 2 of both sources, adding to the appearance of a duplication.
Appreciate the source review! Airborne84 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
D'oh! Gog the Mild (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation spot check - pass

  • Note e is not, technically, cited.
Good catch on a late add, thanks. Cited.
  • You cite Grimfinger, 2020 twice; but the bibliography only has Grimfinger, 2006.
Fixed. Removed the 2006 date from the Grimfinger ref and inline citations as it points to an RSI copyright date.
  • Cite 1: check. But, "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". So maybe 'Gameplay is multifaceted: the PBM commentator Mike Scheid described it as "marvelously complex".'?
Funny, I've been wondering since I put that in if attribution was required, but didn't see it noted anywhere. Now I know. I attributed as you suggested with a slight tweak in the main text vs. the lead to keep the latter concise unless you think it should be in the lead.
Sorry, but this is, SFAIAA. the only place in the MoS where italics are used for emphasis. So they really mean it. You could resolve it by removing the quote marks in the lead.
No issue. I attributed to Mike Scheid in the lead as in the main text. Thanks for pointing that out. Probably saved a {{by whom?}} tag getting plopped on the lead if it gets to TFA.
  • Cite 94: I struggle to see where this supports the text cited. Could you flag it up for me. (But Mosteller p. 53 comes close to supporting it.)
Is it the 21st century part? I'll assume so. It's cite 96 now because I added a couple, but I was partly pointing to this sentence on page 64: "Hyborian War has always enjoyed a good deal of loyalty from its player base". That's necessary but probably a bit insufficient to link to today. Its connection to today is his note of the "group of loyalists" creating fan websites to collaborate and store info. The article is also published in 2014, and the author uses the phrase at one point "that was then and this is now", so he's pointing to the 21st century. If it's something else or I'm talking about the wrong citation, please advise.
Yeah, I read all that, and I don't feel that it is strong enough to support what you have written. Have you looked at Mosteller p. 53 to see if that might support it, or a tweaked version of it?
Agreed, Mosteller p. 53 works fine with a wording adjustment. I changed it to: "RSI's Hyborian War continues to maintain a sizable player base into the 21st century." Please advise if any concerns.
  • Cite 69: couldn't check.
If you'd like any specific passages from this source, just let me know.
No, thanks.
  • Cite 67: check.
  • Cite 41 ii: check.
  • Cite 90: check.
  • Cite 37 a & b: check.
  • Cites 76 & 77: check.
  • Cite 8: check.
  • Cite 5: check.

OK. I'm happy. But there a couple of issues to sort out above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild. Much appreciated. Ready to reengage on the above as needed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Adjustments made Gog the Mild. Please advise if these work. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is on a mysterious genus of semiaquatic dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of what is now Thailand. If it passes review, it will be Wikipedia's fifth spinosaurid FA, probably our longest article on an animal known only from teeth, and the second FA on a dinosaur tooth taxon after Dromaeosauroides. Though fragmentary in nature and potentially dubious, hope you'll find this an interesting read and a good example of how much we can glean about ancient life from even the tiniest pieces of fossil material. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Thanks in advance! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review. Incredible how much that can be written about a bunch of teeth. Looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
One thing, maybe it's an overstatement to say "Annotated skull diagram of the closely related Spinosaurus", considering their distance in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi. I'm not familiar with palaeontology articles, but approaching the subject from a Thailand viewpoint, I wish the History of discovery section would provide a bit more background to help place the fossil within the context of the early discoveries from Phu Wiang during the 1980s–90s. I understand that S. suteethorni was the first ever dinosaur species described from Thailand? --Paul_012 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point, if it was indeed the first dinosaur genus named from Thailand (the species but not genus "S." fusuiensis was named before at least), I think it would also warrant mention in the intro. And if fusuiensis was the first species named, that would of course also warrant mention, but we can only do this if there are sources that state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"S." fusuiensis wasn't from Thailand, though? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, good point again, I guess my mind got confused after the articles were merged a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I checked the naming dates of all other Thai dinosaurs and this does seem to be the case; the first bones discovered were of Phuwiangosaurus, but Siamosaurus was the first formally named. I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to locate sources explicitly stating this though, the best I've been able to find is that Siamosaurus is the first reported spinosaurid, which is what is already in the lead and article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:Siamosaurus suteethorni model.jpg and File:Siamosaurus suteethorni sculpture Phu Wiang Dinosaur Museum.jpg are marked disputed accuracy at Commons.
Since I was the one recommending to tag them as such, I might as well explain. Images tagged as anatomically inaccurate are still usable in sections about historical or cultural significance. They are not to be used in other sections, though, unless to specifically illustrate outdated ideas. Also pinging PaleoGeekSquared, have you seen the comments above? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • All other images are correctly sourced as appropriate and available under a free license. buidhe 07:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

Impressing article, so much for a few teeth!

Look like it's been quiet here for some weeks so many thanks for the review! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • palaeontologists Rubén Molina-Pérez and Asier Larramendi in a 2016 book – I think we have to be more careful with selecting reliable sources. See my points on this particular book here, would be great if you could provide your thoughts there.
I agree that such books, unless cited or mentioned in the scientific literature, are best reserved for uncontroversial info. I've read the Theropods book myself and it seems to have some very speculative or questionable content, such as the section on the running speed of various extinct theropods and dinosauromorphs. I think the size estimates can probably be kept though as long as there's not that many others available and its clarified in text what the type of source is, which I've just done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The size estimates may be an edge case and I do not have a strong opinion on that. But I fear that systematic decision regarding Siamosaurus? fusuiensis that this book made has to be removed. It is not really relevant since it has no bearing on science (it is not a book that can be taken serious and be cited by scientists in the first place). The theropoddatabase, the personal website of Mortimer, is another difficult case, maybe a bit more unclear; the systematic decisions published there are also not cited in the scientific literature at all. I would therefore also argue to exclude them, as systematic decisions are always highly controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Siamosaurus sp. – sp. should not be in italics.
Yeah, realized I was accidentally doing that in multiple articles, looks like I missed one! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A Siamosaurus tooth found nearby indicates the skeleton may belong to this genus, though this could also represent evidence of scavenging. – Here it is crucial to state if this is a tooth crown or a complete tooth with root. If it was a scavenger, I expect a tooth crown (the root got resorbed and the crown fell out when it was replaced by a new tooth), but if it was from a skeleton, I expect a complete tooth (which fell out, complete with root, only after the death of the animal).
That would definitely be helpful! But I checked the sources again and unfortunately it is just stated that it was a tooth and not really clarified beyond that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • such as a skull or body fossilbody fossil has its own meaning (the opposite of a trace fossil), and the skull is a body fossil.
Reworded to "such as a skull or postcranial skeleton", is that better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Viewed distally (from away from the centre of attachment) – this is misleading. Distal view means the view towards the centre of attachment, as you are looking at the distal end. Just as "anterior view" means "front view".
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • since ceratosaur teeth differ in cross section – can this be more specific? E.g. "are more narrow"?
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Spinosaurus aegyptiacus from Egypt, whose fragmentary fossils had been destroyed during World War II. Like Siamosaurus, this African genus – This refers to S. aegyptiacus, which is a species not a genus.
Changed to "taxon". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • that since crocodilian teeth are usually more strongly recurved than spinosaur teeth, they cannot represent the same taxon – I can't follow, which taxon?
Changed to "they can be distinguished from each other". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • may have spread from west to eastern Laurasia—the northernmost supercontinent – "western"? Furthermore, I would use "northern" instead of "northernmost", since it is the only northern supercontinent. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I'm adding this to the urgents list for a third comprehensive review and also to the source reviews list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The Masked Singer (American TV series)

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States at the moment. I think you'll find it an interesting read, especially with the behind-the-scenes info that's written. Per Wikiwho, I'm responsible for about 94 percent of this article's content, and I happened to create it way back in 2018 as well. Coronavirus has given me some extra time at home, so I've been able to expand it greatly in the past couple of months. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm super excited to have started this process; I hope I will learn a lot by responding to your comments :) Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Several of the images would benefit from being scaled up
  • File:Masked_Singer_US_Costumes.png needs a more extensive fair-use rationale. Same with File:Masked_Singer_US_Stage.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, I've scaled up some of the images and I've attempted to write more detailed fair use rationales for the images you noted. Heartfox (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Think the cast multi-image should be larger but otherwise this looks better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Increased width to 400. Heartfox (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list, but if it doesn't get any traction soon, it'll need to be archived. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Seeing the lack of response, I would like to withdraw the nomination at this time and perhaps renominate it at a later time after more information has been added. Heartfox (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}

This article is about the meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. This is one of many articles written about the powerful storm that stalled over the Bahamas at peak intensity and made at least eight total landfalls. I have renominated it per the request of a few project members. NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • Images are all correctly licensed and appropriately sourced.
  • There are some issues with image layout. The first image sandwiches with the infobox, and the image captioned "Dorian over Grand Bahama on September 2 as viewed from the International Space Station" breaks the next section header for me. buidhe 04:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: This likely means that your browser's width is significantly larger than mine. NoahTalk 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but featured articles should also follow the MOS for a variety of reasonable browser settings. buidhe 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some articles won't have leads large enough to avoid "sandwiching" the infobox. I believe this article to be one of those cases because it isn't particularly large. NoahTalk 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JavaHurricane

Doing. JavaHurricane 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Hurricannehink

  • The lead should be split into three paragraphs, given how long the first one is. I suggest the first one stop at August 24 (formation).
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You should mention somewhere in the lead that the storm was in the Atlantic Ocean
Just changed the mention for the season. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Can notes 2 and 3 be combined? They're listed next to each other.
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Dorian originated from a westward-traveling tropical wave over a thousand miles east of the Windward Islands on August 24. " - the first paragraph of MH says "however, the system organized into a tropical depression at 06:00 UTC on August 24, while approximately 805 mi (1,295 km) east-southeast of Barbados". I know Barbados isn't technically part of the Windwards, but this could appear contradictory to the layman.
Changed the lead to state when it became a TD and a TS. I removed that bit about the windwards. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "As the wave traveled westward across the low latitudes of the Atlantic, it lost most of its convection before developing into a low-pressure area on August 22." - the "as" is ambiguous here whether it means "Because" or "While". Also, did the wave really develop *into* a LPA? Or did the LPA form along the wave? From my understanding of meteorology, the wave still exists when a LPA develops along it. I could be wrong though.
Fixed and did a minor mod for the second. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the 2nd MH paragraph, I suggest linking "eye" on its first usage, not second
Fixed. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Later in the day, a NOAA Hurricane Hunter aircraft reported the presence of concentric eyewalls, indicating that an eyewall replacement cycle had commenced. " - I suggest re-adding the date, since it's been several paragraphs since the last mention.
Done.. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the heightened media attention, is it worth mentioning the early forecasts of Dorian's track into Florida?
I would rather leave that in Dorian's preparations since there wasn't really a "track error" and large location changes here. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Did Dorian cross Prince Edward Island in Canada? Not sure if you could get a source saying that, but from the track it looks like it.
This shows that Dorian moved just east of the island. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

All in all, a good read, well-researched, and well-cited. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support!Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

Did a quick run-through. Reads nicely. Will return in a bit to finish. In the meantime, only one note below:

  • In the first section after the lede, wasn't sure what "a mid- to upper-level low" was, and the average reader probably won't either. Maybe put "(cold-core cyclone)" or a similar brief explanation afterward for the first use. Airborne84 (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Airborne84: Thanks! I have added your suggestion. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you add a citation to this note? "A major hurricane is one that ranks at Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson scale." Should be straightforward and it's probably available on various articles here already.
  • You use spaced en dashes vs unspaced em dashes to set off phrases in the article. Nothing wrong with that, but with varying browser widths among readers, a possibility exists that an en dash will appear at the beginning of a line, which WP:DASH prefers to avoid. I recommend replacing your normal spaced en dashes with the non-breaking en dash template {{snd}} or other options at WP:DASH throughout. I did a couple in the second paragraph of the lede as examples. Will look the same in the final markup, but prevent the potential catastrophe of en dashes at the beginning of lines. :)
The good news is with that level of detail I don't have much left for you as far as comments for the article. Airborne84 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Airborne84: I think I took care of the citation and all the dashes that needed to be addressed. NoahTalk 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't second-guess Buidhe on the images, but the sources look good and the prose reads well. I also like the records section that appears to be above and beyond that of other FAs of this type. Well done. Airborne84 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list to get another review? I know two usually isn't enough. I put in a request for a source review a while ago as well. NoahTalk 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Adding this to the urgents list... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

SG review (Support)

Reviewing June 22 version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Fixed everything above this comment. NoahTalk 19:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:NBSP work needed, sample left, so we don't read Category
    5 and Category
    3 and Category
    4. It is OK to use NBSPs within wikilinks. You don't need NBSPs if the term occurs in a table or at the beginning of a sentence where it won't linebreak anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Noah, you did more NBSPing than I care about ... the way I see it, Wikipedia software should solve the dates and not expect us to! I only asked for after Category, but you went all the way ;). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • For the Table in the Records section, could you add a footnote explaining that the quotes are because Hurricanes before Year X (?) were not named ?
  • I messed around with Template:Hurricane Dorian related to try to reduce the MOS:SANDWICH in the first section, resulting from the length of the infobox. What I did might not be optimal (you will want to change surely), but the problem needs to be addressed. I checked several computer/browser configurations, and my iPad is fine, but on others, the infobox is causing sandwiching with the first image in the first section. Template:Tourette syndrome might give you some configuration ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Would moving the images down to the second paragraph be a possible fix to this problem? NoahTalk
  • Yes, that would work ... I was just trying to help you find a solution to the broader problem, as this often happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, basics out of the way, looking now at prose:

  • The system organized into a tropical depression and later a tropical storm, both on August 24. Is it unusual for a storm to do both in one day? Should anything be said about that?
  • Not really unusual at all. It happens frequently if conditions are favorable. Some storms skip the depression phase altogether. The most recent example of this is the currently active TS Fay. NoahTalk 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The mountains of St. Lucia seriously disrupted Dorian's structure and caused the system's center to reform north of its previous location. I understand what this is saying, but am uncomfortable with mountains doing something active, noun-verb. How about ... Dorian's structure was seriously disrupted after encountering the mountains of St. Lucia, causing the system's center to reform north of its previous location"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sure... changed it. NoahTalk 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead has "relaxing shear", while vertical wind shear is linked later in the article. Are they the same thing? Link on first occurrence ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarified it was relaxing wind shear... Also, wind shear is linked at the start of that paragraph in the lead. NoahTalk 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Saffir–Simpson scale is not linked in the lead, but is linked later in the article-- link on first occurrence (yes, I realize it is linked in the infobox, but not all readers look at infobox, would prefer link in text). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Linked it. NoahTalk 22:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Afterward, Dorian weakened steadily as it slowed nearly to a standstill on September 2, crossing Grand Bahama while doing so. Again, I see what it's saying, but this sentence is weird. On the one hand, slowed nearly to a standstill, but on the other hand, not standing still as it crossed the Grand Bahama. Some re-jigging to remove the apparent contradiction? I understand they are not mutually exclusive, but sentence could still confuse the general reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Reworded it. NoahTalk 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ... was absorbed by a larger extratropical cyclone on September 9 ... do those have names? (Dumb question, but the layreader may think they should or do ?) Or add the word "unnamed" so we don't wonder?
  • Extratropical cyclones occur all the time across the world and are unnamed spare the European wind storms and the occasional winter nor'easter (the latter is unofficially named). NoahTalk 22:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems like stadium effect should be briefly defined here, so we don't have to click out to know what it is ... where the clouds of the eyewall curve outward from the surface with height.
  • Gave a brief explanation. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Necessary to use "respectively", which twists the reader? How about instead recasting the sentence, easier to read ...
In the United States Virgin Islands, it made landfall over St. Croix at 15:30 UTC and St. Thomas at 18:00 UTC.
  • It would then cause issues with the part about it strengthening into a Cat 1 storm at the same time. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • it broke numerous intensity records ... is this not worthy of mention in the lead? and slow forward motion near the Bahamas also set several records ...
  • Added this in as the second sentence. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • With Dorian, 2019 became the fourth consecutive year – the most ever – to produce at least one Category 5 hurricane ... OK, again, I can stop and re-read and figure out what the sentence is saying, but on first quick pass, I go ... most ever what ... then realize, most years consecutively ... not sure if you can find a way to re-cast that for smoother reading. How to do it escapes me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Added a note for the one part. NoahTalk 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

That's all ... the writing is competent and I like how the language is varied. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The prose adjustments are excellent, and you have a fine way with words, Noah ... I know it can be hard to vary the wording in hurricane articles, and I think you've done a nice job, and have expeditiously addressed all my queries. I rarely support articles, particularly if I don't know the topic well, but I find it quite disturbing that a well prepared and FAC-ready article had to sit here for two months without reviewers engaging, so in compensation for whatever is causing other reviewers to avoid hurricanes, you have my SUPPORT. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, SandyGeorgia! NoahTalk 23:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Edward Thomas Daniell

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Reverend E.T. Daniell, a talented young English artist who travelled around Turkey and the Middle East during the 1840s, but who died suddenly of malaria when abroad. I am very fond his evocative etchings and watercolours of Norfolk and the Middle East! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood

  • Page ranges in references need ndashes if it's a page range (cf. 8 to 51)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • External links might be a bit excessive, consider cutting.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note 4 needs a reference.
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Files in the "Gallery" section need alt text for the vision impared. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood: Above suggestions completed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from L150: Hi, I reviewed this at GA! Great work - I haven't gone through the article line-by-line but here are my comments so far. L150 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Did you consider alternating images left-to-right, as they're currently all on the right?
I've moved the images around a bit as suggested, let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "may have first begun when they were at school" - "first" is redundant in that sentence.
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "One of Edward Daniell's friends was the writer Elizabeth" and "Edward Daniell's friendship with Turner" - is there a reason for using his first name and surname?
No, not really. Sentences amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "In the summer of 1832 Daniell went with friends from his days at Oxford on a walking trip of Scotland" - might be clearer to write "In the summer of 1832 Daniell and his friends from Oxford went on a walking trip.."
Sentence amended (and an error I spotted corrected). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is it necessary to use the conjunction "According to.." 11 times? For example, you could switch it up slightly: "Author Jane Thistlethwaite opined that Daniell's drawings and etchings.." or "XXXXX wrote/said/thought that.."
Down to three. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - I'm pleased to support this article. It does require someone with an art background to cast their eyes over it, but I think it is nearly there. Thanks. L150 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I've copyedited; revert anything you disagree with.

  • other schools of painting had begun to form that associated with artists: I think this should be either "form that were associated with" or "form, associated with".
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The second and third paragraphs of the "Background" section need some restructuring: you mention the creation of the Norwich Society of Arts twice. I don't think you need to lose anything, just integrate it.
I have done a certain amount of rewording, but the Norwich School of painters was not the same as the Norwich Society of Artists. I may need to make that clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
What I was commenting on was the society -- you have The Norwich Society of Artists, which was founded in was dissolved in 1833. in one paragraph, and The Norwich Society of Artists (1803–1833) in the next. Just cutting the parenthesis would probably do it. I was thinking the later mention could be moved up but I don't see an easy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In touring Europe, he was acting in a similar way to other wealthy young Englishmen of his day: a bit heavy-footed. How about "Wealthy young Englishman of Daniell's day often toured Europe: his travels through..."
Sentence amended, your version does sound better. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Long with his contemporaries from Oxford: not sure what is intended here. Do you mean he spent much of the time in Ireland with Denison and Head?
Not quite sure where Ireland crept in, so paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Daniell held a series of dinners from August to December 1839. Why is this worth mentioning? I see mention of his dinner parties in the "Friends and associates" section; perhaps that's enough?
Agreed: sentence removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • He alone visited Selge, Sillyon, Marmara, Perga and Lyrbe. This implies that the earlier trips were in company, but that's not made clear. I'm not sure the distinction is worth pointing out, anyway; how about combining this with the previous sentence: "He copied inscriptions from monuments in Lycia, the Cibyratis, Pisidia and Pamphylia, visited Sillyon, Marmara, Perga and Lyrbe, and also collected coins"?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Struck, but did you mean to drop those wikilinks? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • explained how her friend taught her etching and showed her drawings to him: misphrased, I think; I read this as "her friend...showed her drawings to him". Perhaps "explained how her friend taught her etching and how she showed her drawings to him"?
Changed the sentence to help clarify it. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That's better, but now I reread it I don't think we need the "how". Perhaps "Daniell taught Rigby etching, and she showed him her drawings; a private letter from her to Frederick Beecheno, written in 1891, revealed the warmth of the friendship she and her future husband Charles Lock Eastlake felt for him before their marriage"? This makes the first part of the sentence more direct; it's no longer apparent that the letter is the source for that part of the sentence but I don't think that's important -- the citation will tell the reader, if they are curious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why was Daniell's promotion of Blake's book of relevance to Linnell?
Explanation provided. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The two friends corresponded to each other regularly: redundant; "with" is more usual if you want to use this form, or you could be more concise and just say "corresponded regularly".
Thanks, done the latter. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Of all the group of artists that Daniell was surrounded by during his years in London, Turner was considered by them the ablest. Awkward phrasing. Can we make this "Turner was considered, by the group of artists that Daniell was surrounded by during his years in London, to be the ablest among them"? Even that's still not very fluent. Or "Daniell's artistic circle considered Turner to be the ablest of their group"? That omits part of the original qualification, so I don't know if it would still be faithful to the source.
Used Hamilton to help get the phrasing right. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • create a sense of space, a feeling of heat or cold, of poverty or plenty, with apparent of effort: a word must be missing from the quote here -- sounds like it should be "with apparent lack of effort", or something similar.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • he deliberately selected a limited palette, for instance when he made painted freely on buff paper during his tours of the Middle East: looks like some copyediting debris here?
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This looks very good, but I would be more comfortable supporting if one of our resident art experts took a look. You might try soliciting reviews from Ceoil, or Johnbod, or Iridescent, but anyone who knows fine arts (I know very little) would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Struck most points, a couple of minor issues left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Support, but I would like to see a review from someone with expertise in this area; I know Amitchell125 has asked Ceoil who would be an excellent choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the source/image review page as well as the urgents list. @Therapyisgood: how are your concerns looking? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matias

  • It notes the surname was originally "Daniel"; is there any idea when it was changed?
  • "Daniell's first wife, by whom he had a son and a daughter, had died in London in 1792." The way this is written sounds like it was Edward's first wife who died, not his father's. Consider using the first name here for clarity: "Sir Thomas' first wife..."
  • There is mention that Edward had a half-brother and sister; the brother, Earle, is accounted for as an adult, but is there anything more about the sister, even a name and whether she lived to adulthood?
  • "In one of many letters he wrote about the subject, one that appeared in the Norwich Mercury in August 1830 referred to the "scandalous re-facing of the ancient keep"." This can be worded better: "One of the many letters he wrote about the subject appeared in the Norwich Mercury in August 1830, and referred to the "scandalous re-facing of the ancient keep."
  • "A memorial to Daniell can be seen in the church of St. Mary Coslany, Norwich." Is there any information about when the memorial was created, or anything to add to this? It's a short two-sentence paragraph, and would be nice to expand a bit if possible.
  • "In his biography of Turner, the author James Hamilton states his opinion that 'he would have been able to supply...'" Can be worded better: "In his biography of Turner, author James Hamilton states that Daniel "would have been able to supply...". As it's Turner's book, it is clear it's his opinion, so no need to repeat that.
  • "... the etching revival personified later in the century by Seymour Haden and Whistler." Is there a reason no not give Whistler's full name?
  • There's a couple times where individuals are named with the "Dr." prefix. My understanding of MOS:DOC suggests that it isn't necessary to include that at all, so I'd recommend removing it. However if you keep them, ensure consistency (see: "Dr. Rita Severis" and "Dr Miklos Rajnai").

That's all I can see, though I'll admit I'm far from an art history expert. Interesting article, and like that it contains a lot of his artwork. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Palaiologos

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of my favourite historical figures, Andreas Palaiologos, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor and "emperor"-in-exile from the 1480s to 1502. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px size for the Bessarion image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Σφραγίς_Ανδρέου_Παλαιολόγου.png: if the creator of the sketches is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago?
Yeah, we don't. I've removed the 100 years ago template; since the image is from a Greek-language source maybe it would be good to point out that the image would be in the public domain in Greece as well? Since the creator of the image is unknown/anonymous, Greek copyright law states that it's the date of publication (1904) + 70 years. The Greek public domain template was deleted in 2011 though so I can't add that (if there isn't some other way). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If there's no Greece-specific tag on Commons you can just use a generic PD tag like PD-because and add the explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, true. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Bessarion_1476.JPG needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Andreas_russia.png, File:Charles_VIII_Ecole_Francaise_16th_century_Musee_de_Conde_Chantilly.jpg, File:French_troops_and_artillery_entering_Naples_1495.jpg, File:Facial_Chronicle_-_b.17,_p._110.gif, File:Sketches_of_John_VIII_Palaiologos_during_his_visit_at_the_council_of_Florence_in_1438_by_Pisanello.jpg
Added US PD tags on all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:OttomanEmpire1481.png: what source(s) verify the data presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added a source which presents the same borders. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Claiming my place here, glad to review this little gem... Constantine 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article reads well and is quite comprehensive, the referencing is very good and includes, as far as I can tell, all the relevant scholarly works that deal with Andreas. From reading it, I couldn't immediately detect any significant omissions, so my comments will be on style and clarity:

  • the daughter of Centurione II Zaccaria, the last Prince of Achaea. For context, perhaps it would be a good idea to introduce the Principality of Achaea a bit earlier, when you discuss how During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula.
Yeah, true. I've reworked this bit in the background to introduce the principality. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • when preparations were being made for a crusade, which never took place, Thomas personally rode around Italy to drum up support. can you add the date for this?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Despot of the Romans I suggest linking to Rhomaioi here, and perhaps adding a note that this is what the Byzantines called themselves; otherwise the uninitiated might think that this refers to Rome.
Added a link to Rhomaioi. I wonder what the popes made of his use of "Romeorum" and why Andreas went with "Romans" for his despot title and "Constantinople" for his imperial one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Demetrius and Manuel Rhalles may I suggest adding "the Greek brothers" and possibly link them to Raoul (Byzantine family)? It is of note that Moscow sent Greek exiles to Rome, rather than Russian boyars
Added, and linked "Rhalles" to Raoul (Byzantine family). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The French Cardinal uncapitalize the "C"
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • receive 4300 ducats (almost 360 ducats a month) the 4300 ducats were an annual pension rather than a one-time payment, correct? If so, then clarify it.
Yes, it's an annual pension. Clarified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what is a saddle horse? Is this a horse to be ridden, as opposed to one for carrying burden?
I'll admit I had no idea what it meant either, so had to look it up. Your guess seems to be correct (link). Should this be clarified in some way in the text or is it fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Plans around the projected crusade had often revolved around the part Cem was expected to play repetition of "around"
Rephrased and fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mihailović" is an unusual transliteration for a Russian name, change to "Mikhailovich". Also, add that he was Prince of Vereya. He also has a Russian WP article (Василий Удалой), so perhaps add an interwiki link to it.
Changed to "Mikhailovich", added his principality and added interwiki link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • must have been considered threatened "precarious" perhaps?
Yeah, that works better. Changed to "precarious". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • to travel Europe in hopes of employment and eventually travel to the Ottomans repetition of "travel"
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed last name used to Spandounes and linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • but had minimal basis this appears to be Harris' assessment/opinion, so make this explicit
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 20th-century work Le despotat grec de Morée -> 1932 work Le despotat grec de Morée, precision
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • by writing of his deeds on the frescoes did he literally 'write' of his deeds, or did he portray his deeds in frescoes?
Harris 1995, the sources used, states that the deeds were "recorded", so maybe he didn't literally write of his deeds. I've changed the entire thing to "For instance, Sixtus IV recorded his generosity towards the Palaiologoi in the frescoes of the Ospedale di Santo Spirito in Sassia", so the article now just mentions that the deeds were recorded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some modern historians have gone so far name a couple
Harris 1995 mentions that it was Runciman who said this, so just added that it was Runciman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise an excellent piece of work. Will have a look in my library to see if I can find anything that can be added, and once the above have been taken care of, will be happy to support. Constantine 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to incorporate everything I could find, but I only had access to what was online so I'd be happy to add anything if you find some missing info :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ichthyovenator, your changes look good. One suggestion would be to briefly mention that the Morea had been partially held by Venetian and local Greek/Albanian stradioti during the Ottoman-Venetian War, out of which Cladas' revolt grew. This is the reason Andreas could hope to find some support there: Ottoman power was still shaky in the peninsula. Otherwise I didn't find much, I still haven't had a look at my copy of Zakythinos though. Constantine 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that could absolutely be mentioned. What source should I use for this and where do you think it fits best? Early in the "attempted expedition ..." section before Clada's introduction maybe? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say Setton, he has more than enough material on the Ottoman-Venetian war. Perhaps after " in the late summer of 1481, Andreas planned to organize an expedition against the Ottomans." would be a good spot. Add "At the time, the Morea...." and explain why the moment was opportune. Constantine 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I've posted a request at WP:REX for Zakythinos, as I can't seem to find the copy I had. Since this may take time, and since the article is fine as it is and my suggestions have been addressed, I move to support. Well done, once again! Constantine 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: since I got the chapter unexpectedly quickly, a few remarks: Zakythinos (p. 290) writes that Thomas called his sons over in spring 1465, which contradicts the statement that Thomas summoned the children to Rome shortly after that,[13] Andreas and his younger brother Manuel did not choose to rejoin their father until a few days before Thomas died in 1465. This actually makes sense, for how could an underage boy 'choose' not to heed his father's summons? Harris has copied most information that Zakythinos has to say, but there are a few details that are missing. I can add them over the next few days, if that's OK with you. Constantine 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Yes, that does make a lot more sense. Since I don't have the text (and don't know what publisher or OCLC/ISBN to put) you'd be more than welcome to add anything Zakythinos says that is currently missing, if you have the time! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: Done! Constantine 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for the additions! I guess that's everything we know of Andreas, then. He might not have been able to retake Constantinople or the Morea, but perhaps he can claim his place on Wikipedia's main page :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

I also like the Palaiologi. :)

Consider adding a "Background" section. Few editors had information about 15th-century history. I think the short section should cover the Palaiologi and their European policy, the Despotate of Morea, the Venetian possessions in the Pelopponnese, the Ottoman expansion, the Church union and Bessarion. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added a background section. For the info on the European policy and the church union I just moved up some of the info on this that was already in the "Legacy" section, since this resulted in an awkwardly short "failure of Palaiologan policy" subsection, I had to restructure that a bit and removed the subsections there. I didn't bring up Bessarion in the background section since I felt that he was properly introduced without much confusion under "early life" but if you feel that something is missing there I could add more on him as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


Thank you for adding the section.

  • ...the Ottoman Turks had conquered vast swaths of once Byzantine territories and by 1405, they ruled much of Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece: most territories mentioned were not conquered from the Byzantines. What about deleting "once Byzantine" and adding Anatolia to the list?
Of course "once Byzantine" isn't wrong but yeah, I see what you mean. I've removed "once Byzantine" and added Anatolia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • During their rule as despots, they managed to restore Byzantine control of the entire peninsula, save for the scattered towns and port cities under the control of the Republic of Venice, holdovers from the Fourth Crusade. Consider changing one of the two terms "control".
Changed the second "control" to "authority". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As their empire crumbled, the Palaiologan emperors pursued a policy of attempting to secure military aid from Western Europe. Hungary and Poland are Central European states, but the emperors sought the Hungarian and Polish kings' assistance several time. I think terms like "Orthodox Palaiologan emperors" and "Catholic Europe" could help.
That's true. Changed to emphasize religion rather than geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing the term "religious orthodoxy". I know it is a perfect term in the context, but it is also disturbing, because the Palaiologi adhered to the Orthodox Church.
I see what you mean and I agree, it's difficult to find a good replacement, though. Something like "adherance to Christianity" or "Christian faith" wouldn't really work since the popes were well aware that the Byzantines were Christian.
Terms, like "lack of heresy" or "willingness to put an end to East-West Schism"?
Went with "lack of heresy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider mentining that the church union was unpopular and was never fully introduced.
Not sure this is directly relevant to Andreas and the rest but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder your sources mention that a Catholic prince, sponsored by the popes had any hope to achieve popular support in the Morea.
I don't think this was mentioned, no, but I think we can surmise that Andreas himself did not know a whole lot about the social dynamics and religious history of the Byzantines; he was raised in Rome and thus probably had a quite western perspective on the whole thing. If he had succeeded with any of the at least 4 attempts/schemes to get control of some land in Greece his religion and backing would likely be hindrances, yes, but it might have worked out fine either way; after all some of the Catholic domains founded in the Fourth Crusade lasted for centuries. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Early life

  • Consider mentining that Bessarion was one of the few Byzantine clerics supporting the union with Rome.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Andreas continued to stay in Rome by consent of the pope, who recognized him as the heir of Thomas and the rightful Despot of the Morea. Name the pope and consider deleting "the rightful".
Both done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing "eastern emperors" to "Byzantine emperors".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decide: Papacy or papacy?
Changed to consistent "papacy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that the Byzantine emperors had been formally titled as Emperors of the Romans rather than Emperors of Constantinople. Consider rephrasing: the titles are repeated too many times. Maybe: "Andreas's upbringing in Rome may have left him unaware that his title differed from the Byzantine emperors' official style"?
Changed to something close to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider deleting until his death in 1472
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Financial troubles

  • Introduce the Empire of Trebizond, possibly in the Background section.
Introduced it right after it's first mentioned in this section; I found it difficult to fit it into the background section in a non-awkward way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • So far his claim to Trebizond was not mentioned. Was this a "right" or he fabricated it to be able to sell it?
Yeah, it's a quite questionable claim. The sources don't say where he got the claim from and there were probably living Komnenoi descendants of the Trapezuntine emperors at this point. Maybe he just thought the Trapezuntine title was connected to the Constantinopolitan?
Did he actually have rights either to Constantinople or Trebizond? What about "claims"? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Byzantines did not have formal succession laws, but by the time Andreas claimed to be the Emperor of Constantinople (1483) he absolutely was the most senior "heir" of Constantine XI, so the Constantinople claim/right checks out. The Palaiologoi did intermarry with the ruling family of Trebizond a bit, but none of Andreas's immediate ancestors were Trapezuntine. The closest thing I found was that Andreas's step-grandmother was Eudokia of Trebizond but that doesn't give him a claim since she wasn't his ancestor. Constantinople wasn't a fabrication, but he might just have made up the Trebizond claim to squeeze some more money out of people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
My concern is that the text suggests Andreas had actual right to rule Trapezunt (and Serbia). Could I claim to sell my neighbors' house? I am Hungarian and they are also Hungarians, moreover we live in the same village, and one of them is a cousin of mine. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooooooh, yeah I wasn't reading this properly. I missed that it said "rights" even with you pointing it out. I've changed "rights" to "claims", which would be correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing Euphrasina Palaeologina to Euphrasina Palaiologina. I know both forms are correct, but I would prefer a consistent usage.
Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Could be, but I'm not sure. Andreas lived on the Campo Marzio whereas Sant'Andrea della Valle is in Sant'Eustachio, the districts are right next to each other so might still be possible, I don't know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point.

Attempted expedition against the Ottomans

  • As it is quite obvious, I am not a native English speaker, so I am probably wrong, but the section title sounds artificial for me.
It's the longest section title so if there's something better I could change it, but I don't think it's wrong. It's an attempted expedition and it's against the Ottomans. Do you have another suggestion? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Like his father Thomas, Andreas actively attempted to organize expeditions to retake Constantinople and restore the empire. Is this true? If my understanding is correct, only one attempt is mentioned.
The 1481 expedition attempt is the only one where Andreas himself was to lead the thing, yes, but he was involved in other stuff as well. Notable, his sale of the imperial title to Charles VIII of France in return for the promise of being granted the Morea is another attempt at organizing an expedition to retake Constantinople and restore the empire, albeit not with himself as the leading figure. I've rephrased this a bit so that it's not only focused on expeditions as he was involved in other schemes of trying to secure Greek territory too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing one of the two expressions "to organize an expedition" in the first three sentences.
Done for the first one at the same time as addressing the previous point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • several of his close companions - such as? I guess they or some of them could be mentioned in a separate sentence, or the reference to them could be deleted.
They are mentioned in the previous subsection ("Manuel Palaiologos (not the same person as his brother), George Pagumenos, Michael Aristoboulos (all recorded as accompanying Andreas to Brindisi in 1481)"). I've added them here as well.
  • additional companions - mercenaries? officials?
Changed to mercenaries; Clada was definitely a mercenary at this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • an unsuccessful revolt - against the Ottomans, I guess.
Yes. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ...the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to make use of their recent string of victories - no victory is mentioned. I doubt that any of the "major Christian realms of Western Europe" waged war against the Ottoman Empire in this period. Ferdinand I of Naples, Venice and Matthias Corvinus of Hungary clashed with the Ottomans.
I believe what was referred to with this was the Ottomans failing to take Rhodes. Changed to "the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to join together and wage war on the Ottomans". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It is more likely... - according to whom?
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • becoming involved in a 1485 plot - some details of the plot?
The source used here, Harris 1995, just says that he became "involved in 1485 in a plot to seize Monemvasia from the Venetians". The source Harris uses for this statement is "ASV Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti reg. 22, f. 190v (orig. 154v)" but I can't find what that is supposed to be and it would probably be in Italian, which I can't read. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Travels and sale of the imperial title

Has to be, linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Claim to the Despotate of Serbia? During this period a Despot of Serbia who lived in exile in Hungary was one of the wealthiest Hungarian nobles. Our Andreas was really creative to sell titles. :)
Don't hate the player hate the game 😎 Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No hate. He was like the Federal Reserve: created money ex nihilio. Joke.
  • Consider All Saints' Day the following year (1 November 1495) instead of 1 November 1495 (All Saints' Day the following year).
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Legacy and analysis

  • The financial situation of the Palaiologoi in the 1470s to 1490s must have been considered precarious for Andreas to sell his inherited titles... - as I understand he only offered to sell his titles and he did not inherit the titles that he offered to sell.
Again, arguably he inherited the right to Constantinople, but the rest of the titles seem to be made up, yes. I've changed "sell his inherited titles" to "sell his titular claims". He did sell his claims to Charles VIII, so wasn't just offering them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The following two sentences are repetitions of previously mentioned facts: "The emperors had adopted this policy since their situation in the 14th and 15th centuries offered few other options. They clung to it even though little aid ever arrived, despite many promises.". Consider deleting them.
That little help ever arrived hasn't been stated previously in the article. I think the first sentence serves as a nice recap but I could remove/rephrase this bit if you feel it is necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


  • Introduce his father as despot of Morea.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "After his father's death in 1465, Andreas was recognized as the titular Despot of the Morea and from 1483 onwards, he also claimed the title Imperator Constantinopolitanus ("Emperor of Constantinople")." The same info is repeated and explained in the following sentences.
This was added as per Airborne84's comments on the lede below. I've removed the stuff on his claiming of the despot title in the following paragraph instead, see if that works out well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete ", the title held by his father until 1460 (and until 1465 in pretense)."
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Consider changing "some source" to "some primary source"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete "possibly sons named Constantine and Fernando and a daughter named Maria,"
I don't really see why, but done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
We do not list actual childrens' names in lede. A list of the names of possible children is even less informative.

I finished my review. I had so far only read Runciman's remarks of him. Thank you for completing this nice and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking this over and reviewing! Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. You addressed all my concerns, so I am gladly support the article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84

Nice article. Reads well. Appreciate your work on this. Some notes below.

  • The lede section is five paragraphs while criterion 2a is a concise lede section and WP:MOS provides a general guideline of no longer than four paragraphs. I'd revise to four or advise why you think five is needed. It may be possible to combine paras 3 and 5, for example, as the end of 3 and beginning of 5 are both about financial challenges.
Restructered lede slightly and removed some things; it's now 4 paragraphs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The first paragraph appears a bit misaligned with MOS:BEGIN in that it jumps into temporal activities fairly quickly. I think the MOS is looking for a first lede paragraph more along the lines of Neferefre, before getting into the biography itself (although it could be longer in this article). It should be an easy adjustment, I think.
I see what you mean, but I'm struggling a bit with this. Everything apart from the first sentence could be pushed down to join with the second paragraph and work well there but then the article would start with a one-sentence paragraph. Going by the Neferefre example I suppose the first paragraph should mention the titles he was a pretender to and why, but I feel like some context is needed (which is provided in how it looks now). Open to suggestions if you have any. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The titles is what I was thinking. I think if you very briefly summarized the titles after the first sentence, as in he "held x and claimed y titles", or just state what title he actually had, the first para would then adhere with MOS:BEGIN by "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround [him]". Paragraph 2 would then provide the details. An alternative would be to combine paragraphs 1 and 2, although that might require trimming some material.
I've made an attempt. I split off the first sentence into its own thing and added more to it, combined most of paragraphs 1 and 2 and trimmed it a little bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The infobox has an "Issue" entry with "Uncertain, see text" entry. Recommend striking that. It will likely be unclear to the average reader what it means.
This works, thanks.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I recommend providing some context/info on the Despotate of the Morea. I'm not an expert and it left me wondering about the location and scale of the empire Andreas has title over. Yes, there is a Wikilink, but the article itself should provide some of that basic context, IMO. Perhaps an image and a bit of description added somewhere or include it in Boroska's broader recommendation above.
I've created a background section per Borsoka's suggestion, with a map of the despotate's 1450 borders and some more context. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done. Only thing I wondered was whether you had a reason for the order in "Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece" vs, say, alphabetical?
Also, you did fine at linking the sections together in the rest of the article to "tell a story". There is a rather abrupt transition between the end of this new section and the start of the bio. This wouldn't be easy for obvious reasons, but there are "scene setter" possibilities to smooth the transition. And, if properly done, it would impress readers—including FAC reviewers.... Something to consider only, not a requirement.
No reason for not using alphabetical, just put them in in a random order. Changed to alphabetical. I've changed it so that the first thing mentioned in the bio is Constantine XI's death at the Fall of Constantinople (since the last thing mentioned in the background is the Ottomans closing in on Constantinople), which might make for a smoother transition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the "Financial troubles" section, you note about the sum of 500 ducats/month that “Although this seems a generous amount”. Seems to whom? An average reader won't know how meaningful that sum is (I don't). If you have a way to relate that in a way the average reader would understand (even if just in a footnote), I would do so. If not, I recommend just striking that part of the passage.
I've tried to find good conversion rates and whatnot but its nigh-impossible since the value of a ducat appears to have differed depending not only on time but also place. I've removed "although this seems a generous amount". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the “Travels and sale of the imperial title” section it says, “since Andreas was provided for by him”. Passive voice is fine, but this is rather awkward. Since passive voice isn't needed here, perhaps better would be "since he provided for Andreas".
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This sentence appears out of place in the paragraph it’s in, which is otherwise about Andreas’s abdication and its context. “Charles VIII's Italian campaign caused some concern in Constantinople, and Bayezid began building up his defenses, constructing new ships and artillery and redirecting his military forces to defensive positions throughout Greece and the lands surrounding Constantinople.”
I think it's worth noting that Charles was considered a serious threat by the Ottomans, but yes, it has little to do with the rest of the paragraph. I've split it off into its own short one-sentence paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's doable. But if others object, you could also leave it at the end and just find a smoother transition to it.
  • In a "Negative portrayal by historians" section image caption, it says: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's (the standing crowned figure in the center) visit to his sister.” It’s hard to read with the relatively long parenthetical interrupting in the middle of the sentence. I recommend: “16th-century depiction in a Russian chronicle of Andreas's visit to his sister. Andrea is the standing crowned figure in the center.” But this isn’t a show-stopper.
Went with your suggestion
  • In the "Negative portrayal by historians" section, one sentence says that “Historian Steven Runciman famously described her as ‘a lady from the streets of Rome’", and provides two references, while the next sentence relates that "“She is known from only a single source, the Introitus et Exitus books of the Apostolic Camera”. Do you mean a single primary source? This seems to be conflicting as there are two secondary sources noting her in the previous sentence.
Yes, I meant a single primary source. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the references, when there are multiple pages cited, you'll need "pp". Some of the references have only one "p" in those cases.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For the cited Bibliography, WP:MOS states that “English-language titles of compositions … are given in title case”. A few of the titles require revising. Airborne84 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like we just need a source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Yeah, I saw you put up a request for one but I already did that a week ago. I guess all that can be done now is waiting and hoping that someone wants to do one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review

Formatting and consistency

  • Why the Greek text in ref #16? It isn't present in the long citation?
I can't remember whether it was me who added this ref or someone else, but the ref is to a lexicon/encyclopedia; "Παλαιολόγος Ἀνδρέας" (Palaiologos Andreas) is the word/article referenced. I don't know if there is a better way to cite this, but the PLP is cited in the same way in other articles: Demetrios Palaiologos, Helena Doukaina Angelina, Logothetes ton agelon, Ignatios Glabas. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #32, "Housley 2017" is missing a page number. I assume that is because the edition you are using doesn't have them. Check this version instead. The information seems to be around page 41.
Yeah, that was the reason for leaving out the page number. Changed the link to the version you provided here and added the page number (41 looks like it contains all the info mentioned). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #38 "pp. 551–550" Should this be 550–551, 551–552, or something else?
Reading through the pages in the source, just 551 should be correct. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent about whether to provide a location for book sources. Most do, but "Housley, Norman (2017)" does not.
Added location to Housley (2017). Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • If possible, provide English translations for the titles of the foreign language sources.
Added translated titles to 2 out of 3 foreign language sources. Could not add it to the PLP source (which has a German title) since it has its own template instead of the "cite book" template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Quality and coverage

  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources. is noted as sometimes hosting unpublished material, but in this case Orientalia Christiana Periodica is not a problem at all.
  • Searches on Google Books, Google Scholar and Amazon do not highlight any obvious missing sources.


  • Ref #24, which supports "The origin of the financial hardship experienced by Andreas and Manuel likely lies with reductions to the pension paid to them by the papacy." is cited to page 542, but it appears to be on page 543, or arguably, spread over 542 and 543.
Fixed this particular instance of the ref, just "542" should be correct for the other points where this reference is used. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The same reference is used to support "During the time spent in Rome, the majority of his adult life, Andreas lived in a house on the Campo Marzio granted to him by Sixtus IV at the time of Zoe's marriage. His house was probably located next to the local Church of Sant'Andrea." All fine.
  • And also "Seeking financial aid, Andreas traveled to Moscow in 1480, visiting his sister Zoe (now called Sophia) to beg for money. Sophia provided generously for him and would later complain that she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother." I am happy that the source says Russia; but the only reference to "Moscow" that I can see is in the title Ivan the Great of Moscow? Also, on what basis does the article say she "provided generously for him"?
Now that you mention it, the source does not explicitly say Moscow, no. I think it can be assumed since Moscow was the capital and Zoe was consort to Moscow's ruler, but "Russia" works just as well and is used in the source, so changed to that. I think that she "provided generously for him" can be deduced from that "she had no jewels left as she had given them all to her brother"; but it is not completely necessary. I've removed it, just saying that she complained about the jewels also works here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

More spotchecks to follow. Harrias talk 14:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Canada lynx

Nominator(s): Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a North American cat that I came across when I was looking for information on lynxes, and I realized our article on it can be improved a lot. I was fascinated by its unique appearance and its strong correlation with snowshoe hare populations. So I began work on this article a few years back, and it has recently become a GA. After a thorough copyedit, I feel we can take this to the FA level. I hope you enjoy reading this, thanks! :) Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Enwebb

Note: I'll be claiming points for the WikiCup for this review

  • Can you add a citation at the end of the first paragraph in taxonomy?
  • Done
  • A 1987 study... this is quite old. Is this idea still supported?
  • I have revised this part a bit, it is not exactly a single study.. rather it is a collection of results from more than one. Seems there has been no recent research that one can get hold of even after a lot of searching, and the results stated here are mostly based on work in the 20th century. There seems to be nothing that opposes this theory.
  • The large, broad paws are covered in long, thick fur and can spread as wide as 10 centimetres (3.9 in) to move quickly and easily on soft snow I think this would be helpful if you provided the context of how wide their paws are ordinarily
  • Good point, but I am unable to find any information on that.
  • The paws of a Canada lynx can support nearly double the weight those of a bobcat can bear before sinking phrasing is a little odd here. How about "Its paws can support almost twice as much weight as a bobcat's before sinking" ?
  • Done
  • The deciduous dentition is (24 teeth) I feel like you could tack on a bit at the end here, such as, " the young do not have molars." That would emphasize the difference between deciduous and adult teeth for people who may not know how to read a dental formula.
  • Done
  • with the sizes of lynx' home ranges if the plural of "lynx" is "lynxes", then the plural possessive is "lynxes' "
  • Fixed
  • After a gestational period.. I think it's just "gestation period"
  • Fixed
  • (in 24 States) I think it's just "states"
  • fixed
  • 14 contiguous United States again, I think you would just say "states" (that's my familiarity as a US citizen)
  • Fixed
  • sometimes Bobcat tracks common names not capitalized
  • Fixed
  • Is this in British English? If so, should it be "grey" instead of "gray"?
  • Canadian English. Seems a few inconsistencies had appeared since I last checked it, I have now corrected these instances and more using a script and added a template mentioning the type of English on the talk page. Sainsf (t · c) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what's the script? Seems useful! Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll come back with more later today, just wanted to start a section. Also, would you consider adding a review to Horseshoe bat? Enwebb (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Thank you for your comments, I will address all of them soon. So far I have added the required citation, I missed it while I was rearranging things a bit in that section. I am not sure I can review articles at the moment but I will surely take a look at your FAC and may be a few others next week. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 15:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Enwebb: I have replied to all of your comments. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This was very well written. I couldn't find anything besides my minor quibbles. Thanks for addressing so quickly. Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Enwebb! Your comments showed me some errors I often make so I am not repeating those ever again :) Sainsf (t · c) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Why is it significant that the animal is in Payette's coat of arms? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I could not find any details of its cultural significance except for this only proper instance of its use as a symbol so I included it. Can remove it if it is that irrelevant though, or if we find better things to add. Sainsf (t · c) 21:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't think the fact that this is the only use of it as a symbol you could find, is a good indication that this is a use that should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Right. I have removed this part. Sainsf (t · c) 09:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Casliber, Jimfbleak, and J Milburn: Pinging a few biology FAC reviewers as this has been inactive since 2 weeks, my apologies if any of you is busy. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when I get a bit more time. It also seems archiving time is a bit slower now because of the pandemic, so I think they're a bit more lax. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems you've already racked up the necessary reviews, but I'll come back if it stalls! FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I've finished scheduling TFA now, so should be able to take a look early next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I can't promise anything I'm afraid, but best of luck with the review regardless! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack

  • forming "intrasexual" territories. – I'm not sure what this means myself, and I think it is definitely not accessible enough for the lead. Same-sex territories? But it was stated that they where solitary, how does this fit together?
  • As the text preceding it says, it means the territories are formed such that individuals of the same sex avoid each other. Any suggestions to clarify this better?
  • the ancestor of five extant felid lineages—Lynx, Leopardus, Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus—arrived in North America after crossing the Bering Strait 8.5 to 8 million years ago. – This doesn't seem to be precise – or does this really mean that extant felids originated in North America? I think it was not the common ancestor that crossed the Bering Strait.
  • To quote the source, "The second migration (M2) relocated a common ancestor to five felid lineages (ocelot, lynx, puma, leopard cat, and domestic cat) across the Bering land bridge to North America for the first time,8.5 to 8.0 Ma". I think it matches what is given here.
  • Lynx diverged from the Puma, Felis and Prionailurus plus Otocolobus lineages around 3.24 mya. The Issoire lynx (L. issiodorensis), believed to be the ancestor of the four modern Lynx species, probably originated in Africa 4 mya – these ages seem to contradict each other. How could Lynx have diverged 3.24 mya when its oldest species is even older?
  • "3.24" is an approximation but the estimated interval is 2.53-4.74 mya, so I have replaced it with this time range now. That should include the rough estimate for the oldest species.
  • Canada lynx fossils excavated in North America date back to the Sangamonian and the Wisconsin Glacial Episode. Fossils have been recorded more often from various locations across Europe. – this means Canada lynx lived in Europe? If so, I would recommend to state it directly since it is an important fact.
  • Oh this one could have been a real error. The source I used here included details of the Eurasian lynx too without specifying it, thanks for pointing it out. The rest of the sentence is accurate. Deleted.
  • the back appears to be sloping downward toward the front – I wonder about the use of the word "appears". It appears to be sloping but actually it is not sloping?
  • No it's actually sloping, reworded
  • more soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Although no melanistic or albinistic forms of the Canada lynx are known, "blue" lynxes have been reported in Alaska. – I don't think blue fur is possible because blue is a structural color, not a pigment. Is it possible to explain what is meant by "blue lynxes"? I have no idea.
  • Changed to "a specimen from Alaska was reported to have bluish-gray fur"
  • Similar to other lynxes, black tufts around 4 cm (1.6 in) in length emerge from the tips of the ears – anything known about the function of those?
  • Sorry, no clear info about those
  • Both species walk with the back foot typically following the front foot – the feet of the same or opposite side of the body?
  • Same side, added
  • This would be very awkward. Mammals usually move their hind limb first, and the forelimb on the same side leaves the ground a bit later. Youtube videos about this Lynx I watched showed just this. Can you please confirm? If the hind foot moves first than I'm not sure if this warrants mention as this is the most common gait in mammals. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-checked this, I really did not think this could be unusual. The source doesn't clarify this, and I must have read the "same side" bit in an article about another species. It does seem to be the typical gait, and probably needn't be mentioned explicitly. For now I have removed "on the same side" from the line. Sainsf (t · c) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "On the same side" was correct, I am worried about this part: with the back foot typically following the front foot. It is the other way around, the back foot moves first and then comes the front foot. You clearly see it on this image, where the right hind foot already touched down while the right fore foot is still in the middle of the swinging phase. Its called an lateral-sequence singlefoot walk. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • both killed more than necessary for subsistence; – do they eat more or do they not finishing up the kills?
  • They did not store the kills for later but could not finish all of it so some of it was wasted. This is stated in the line "Lynxes rarely cached their kills, unlike coyotes, and this may have led to incomplete consumption of some kills".
  • Urine marking and mating calls are part of display behaviour and increases – "increase"?
  • Fixed
  • The home range of the expecting female shrinks and her activity at the den site increases. – already mentioned earlier.
  • Removed
  • Very interesting, and nice to read. Thanks for this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I will get to these in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 12:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I have addressed all your points, could you take a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Support! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Very comprehensive, so just a few niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The Canada lynx was first described by Robert Kerr in 1792— "formally" needed, I think
  • The "Diseases and mortality" section has a few problems.
  • I'd expect a paragraph division predators/diseases, so predator plus plague/other diseases looks odd
  • I have now changed this to disease/predator.
  • Do bears ever kill lynx?
  • Sorry, couldn't find sources clearly stating that
  • with the plague, I'd expect a link to Yersinia pestis and mention that it was acquired from infected prey
  • Done
  • I'd dispute the caption improperly labelled as "Canadian". The photograph is taken by a German in a German collection. It's perfectly plausible that he is using BE for his translation, where "Canadian" would be expected. As a Brit, my first thought was "why isn't it Canadian lynx?". After all, its cousin isn't "Europe lynx". Anyway, not using the Nam spelling isn't incorrect.
  • There has been some discussion on this here [14]. I am not really sure why "Canada" is preferred over "Canadian", User:7&6=thirteen you can clarify this better (I really couldn't figure how to use the ping template for you, that "=" confused it I guess). Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Will respond to these soon. Sainsf (t · c) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it's the species name. ... 7&6=thirteen () 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Replied to all your points, mind taking a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed to support above. I raised the bear issue only because it's a much larger predator, so it is certainly capable, and I know that in Europe bears negatively impact on lynx by competing for food Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

Nb, I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • Captions: why "Fossils of the Issoire lynx", but "Distribution of Canada lynx (2016)", no "the"?
  • Good catch, added "the" to range map caption
  • "Numbers of snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) (yellow background) and Canada lynx (black line, foreground) furs sold to the Hudson's Bay Company". Optional: add 'from 1845 to 1935'.
  • Added
  • Enlarge the three images in "Physical characteristics".
  • Width increased to 250px
That has done the trick. (Just about, they still look small to me.) But the use of px is depreciated; could you change it to "upright"?
I thought of it too but seems you can't insert it in the multiple image template.. I hope I am not missing something. Sainsf (t · c) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
How odd. If you are, so am I. Ah well.
  • "File:Milliers fourrures vendues en environ 90 ans odum 1953 en.jpg" needs a more precise source; "statistics collected by Odum archives (published 1953)" is not sufficient for me to clearly identify and/or check the source.
  • Fair point. I searched for this publication online and it seems to be this one [15] Fundamentals of Ecology (1953) by Eugene P. Odum. I can't access the book itself but I found several sources citing the same plot from the book [16] [17] [18] [19]. I think this should suffice for verifying the source and the name of the book can be added to the file description.
You can cite direct to the image 1.13 in Pikovsky et al. Could you add it to "Source" on the Commons page. (Ie 'Own work, based on ...'.
Great, done. Sainsf (t · c) 17:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've replied to all of the above. Cheers and stay safe, Sainsf (t · c) 16:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Two minor follow up actions above and we are done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list and requested a source review. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth :) Sainsf (t · c) 16:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany

Nominator(s): ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A bloody fool rather than an all-out Nazi, seems to be the consensus. Edward VIII, not me, that is :) Something rather different from me, this will hopefully complement our already-featured article on the King, which, of course, could not give due weight to this curious—verging on the bizarre*—episode of his career.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Prost! ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*Literally gatecrashing, for example, courtesy of their driver being plastered. ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Name change discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on name change

  • Oppose until a stable NPOV title is found --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    The term "Nazi Germany" should be avoided if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Why? It is the title of our article about that state, Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to bother Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany either. ——Serial # 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason the main article is so named (WP:COMMONNAME), it is a slang term avoided by historians. Actually, the term "Ex-King of Britain" bothers me more; it is a poor description of the King-Emperor. I would prefer "Duke of Windsor", which is accurate, unique and concise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There's currently a talk page discussion on the preferred name, Hawkeye7, where your input would be appreciated by all. ——Serial # 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
By my count, there are 15 books in the Nazi Germany#Bibliography section referring to the state as "Nazi Germany" in the title, so I would not say that the term is avoided by historians. But in any case, that discussion belongs to Talk:Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as current title discussion (including an appeal at WP:AN) indicates this does not have title stability yet. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If the FAC coords are wondering why Hasteur—who has had an account since 2007, and yet has never reviewed a FAC before (or, for that matter, commented at WT:FAC)—has suddenly decided to pop up and oppose now, I draw your attention to the fact that the last interaction between us resulted in some embarassment for Hasteur. I had accepted a nomination at AfC, which he disapproved of (" I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space") and promptly nominated it for deletion. The community did not agree. It was closed (speedily) by an administrator, who stated that sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous.
TL;DR: the word retaliatory springs to mind. ——Serial # 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for Assuming bad Faith SN54129... I am a editor in good standing and not under any sanctions. I read the Administrators Noticeboard. Are you trying to imply that editors who don't have experience in a specific area of wikipedia are prohibited from participaiting in direct contravention of what you claimed/said/wrote in the other case. TLDR: Nice ABF you have there. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh-uh. TL;DR: you would not have cared otherwise. Your oppose does not help the project (or indeed you "good standing"), whereas closing and implementing the talk page discussion would have. That you chose the one coures and not the other speaks volumes. ——Serial # 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologise, Hasteur, it is as you say irrelevant how you got here, and my remarks were perhaps a little over the top and certainly over-personalized. Thanks for looking in, it's the more the merrier here usually. And usually much quieter... ——Serial # 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I accept your apology. I was simply expressing my view in light of WP:FACR (paraphrased) A Featured article is stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The "abnormal" Request for closure piqued my interest. I didn't consider who was involved, simply looking at the topic and reading the "thesis" of the related Request raised enough concern for me that I did not consider the proposed featured article stable yet. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Hasteur. Any thoughts on this? The appeal to AN had the (eventual) result of moving the page back to its non-contentious original title, which, as it has now been arrived at by community consensus (rather than just my choice) would make impossible for any further move even should anyone want it. All the best, ——Serial # 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The article title appears to be stable. I think (possibly as part of the promotion to FA) that in light of the previous moves in addition to the charged nature of the page, we might want a preventative Move-Protect. Just spitballing, ideas to improve the article/wikipedia. My previous oppose is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Note for Coords and Bot ... I am making all the adjustments for the name change so the bot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support form Wehwalt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments by Wehwalt

  • On "British government", you pipe to National Government (1935–1937) The Windsor marriage and thus the visit was after Baldwin left office, which at least our article treats as the termination of the National Government.
Changed link to [[National Government (1937–1939).
  • "Windsor was a known admirer of all things German.[16]" Perhaps something could be said here about the heavy German influence in the royal family.
Excellent idea: added a footnote explaining the German roots of the family and the reasons for the new name.
  • "One of Windsor's own supporters, Chips Channon—Conservative MP for Southend West—commented in 1936 that the Duke "is going the dictator way, and is pro-German".[24][25]" This seems a bit duplicative of what was said earlier in the paragraph. I'd also omit the "own". Be careful of tone: there is no need to pound the point home that going to Nazi Germany on a visit such as this was a bad idea, it is today self-evident.
I swung this around and broke it up a bit, some of it going into the historiography section, for example.
  • Regarding studying industrial affairs, it might be mentioned that Windsor had at least the reputation of someone concerned with the problems of the working classes, "Something must be done".
Yes, fair point, again: classic quote the something must be done; apparently Balders tore him off a strip over it!
  • "men such as Bedaux" You haven't yet established who he is.
The source names Bedaux, but we don't need to; changed to "associates", which conveys the general lacklustre nature of his advice.
  • "Windsor was keen to restore his public image and standing," Isn't this similar to what you say at the end of the previous section, "This way, argues Adrian Philips, Windsor intended to rebuild himself a public position.[36]"
Tweaked it slightly, but I want to keep the sense that in the past, this is what he wanted to do, and was subsequently given the opportunity to do so.
  • Nazi Germany is not linked on first mention.
  • Le Meurice Probably does not need italics. Also, later, "Academy for Youth Leadership".
  • "The Windsors' hotel suite in the Le Meurice became the focus for its organising, and many different contacts and visitors visited. " What is "it" in "its organising"? The tour?
Indeed, I've reworded.
  • " In a telegram to the Foreign Office, the Duke stated[15]nIn accordance with the Duke of Windsor's message to the world press last June that he would release any information of interest regarding his plans or movements, His Royal Highness makes it known that he and the Duchess of Windsor are visiting Germany and the United States in the near future for the purpose of studying housing and working conditions in these two countries.[15]

— Edward, Duke of Windsor" You're saying who wrote it twice.

Of course, removed.
  • There should be spaces either side of ellipses.
I have literally never read that before1 Embarrassing, but Done.
  • "The first indication of this was on their arrival at Berlin's Friedrichstraße station on 11 October. The historian Susanna de Vries has described how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal" on their arrival;[51]" "on their arrival"/"on their arrival"
Lost the last arrival.
  • "German media set great store by the Windsors' visit, and the Duke responded with full Nazi salutes.[33] " He responded to stories (?) with Nazi salutes?
Yes, that's daft isn't it; you're right about over-egging the salutes, so I got rid of this mention and found some interesting thing wrt German perception of the duke.
  • "The journalist Andrew Morton suggest that the couple" Not sure if you were going for "suggests" or "suggested".
Suggests, as it goes.
  • "The Windsors dined with his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the 19th,[49][note 14] which was attended by over 100 guests including." "his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be too royal-speak. We are also waiting to hear who the guests included.
Inserted a duke of. I think there was more in between the two points which has got lost, but the source doesn't actually list any anyway.
  • "Prince Phillip von Hessen[23]" The spelling of Phillip seems at variance with our article on him.
I just went by the source.
  • "Their telephones were bugged by Prince Christoph of Hesse, on the orders of Reichsstatthalter Hermann Göring, for the duration of their visit;[50]" I'm not sure what "for the duration of their visit" adds.
True, removed.
  • the Nazi leadership was kept fully informed on events at every stage of the tour.[29]" I expect this is British English so should "was" be "were"?
  • "This made particularly easy, argues the modern historian John Vincent, as the German government were funding the visit.[50]" missing word in early part of sentence, you are inconsistent in capping "German Government".
  • "During the men's' discussion," I'd lose one of the apostrophes.
  • "The couple were repeatedly greeted with the Nazi salute;[29] the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views.[32] " Some awkwardness in sentence. I also note you've mentioned him making Nazi salutes before. If you are going to place such emphasis on this, you might want to footnote that this was hardly unheard of, for example the English football team in Berlin in 1938, nor greatly controversial at that moment.
Excellent point. I've reduced the number of times I mention the salutes to just this one, per weight, and added a footnote pointing out how common it was, incl. the football reference. Cheers.
  • "Lord Halifax" I would at least mention he was a cabinet minister.
And linked.
  • "captured by the allies" Should allies be capped/linked/both?
  • "Another interpreter present, Paul Schmidt, later described his memory of Hitler's and the Duke's meeting:[31]" You at least imply there was no interpreter present for the meeting between Hitler and Windsor. This bit comes as a surprise. And I don't see any need to have Schmidt sign the quote that follows.
Removed the sig; not sure how to get around the presence of the interpreter. Indeed, it struck me when I ws writing i that it seemed odd for them to need an interpreter; but Windsor would have spoken classical German I suppose, and Hitler probably the argot of Vienna (?) so maybe. On the other hand, he could have been there more as a witness or minute taker; but unfortunately, the source uses "interpreter".
  • "Gauleitung" this may confuse the reader, with no link.
  • "Baldwin's government attempted to manage the public relations issues surrounding the visit, " Atop the greasy pole, for all the good it did him, was Chamberlain, by the time of the visit for some five months, I reckon.
Yep. Already changed that final photo but forgot about this mention!
  • Reactions, I would assume, should cover the reaction in the British press, surely. Did Chamberlain, or the FM (Eden) have anything to say?
I'm leaving that for now—will require researching.
That's it for now. Hopefully these can be cleared up. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Always good to see you Wehwalt, and thanks for these suggestions, particularly maintaining NPOV etc, they've led to some interesting additions. Cheers! ——Serial # 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Holding off on a re-read until the opposers are happy or until you ping me again, since I imagine there will be changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support I've made a number of minor changes. I would still suggest the following:
  • Consider moving the mention of Chamberlain up in the text, perhaps to where you mention Number Ten. He still seems an afterthought and the reader would be excused if they thought Baldwin was still PM.
  • You might mention that former Labour Party leader George Lansbury was among those who visited Hitler.
  • An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for those extra thoughts, Wehwalt, they're useful. Lansbury especially, as it shows it wasn't just the nobs that went over :) and Chamberlain, well I forgot to point out that he became PM in May that year, so frankly Baldwin had nothing to do with it. Which makes it close on to being clarification of teh century! All the best, ——Serial # 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Moisejp
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments Support from Moisejp

Very interesting topic!

  • Be careful of consistency: First World War / Second World War vs. World War One vs. World War I. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that": Could I suggest "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that"? Otherwise I'm not sure that it's a complete sentence. Using "Although" in this way is okay in spoken English, but I'd argue it's not totally correct in written English. Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, Moisejp thanks for this points, which I've addressed. You're definitely correct in the first and probably in the second :) if you can think of anything else that would improve the article, let me know! Cheers, ——Serial # 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serial. I'll try continue this review soon. I was in part holding off until HJMitchell's issue was resolved, and I see now it has been. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, apprecaite your coming back. I've addressed your suggestions—hopefully—often by the simple means of stealing your suggestions :) cheers, ——Serial # 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead: "disrupt the first year of George's reign": First mention of George, I think. Does he need more of an introduction? Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Good idea: I've added a sentence introducing him as King at the beginnig, which allows him to be called George now.
  • Royal and governmmental view: "The royal biographer Sarah Bradford suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring." Is "not only" correct here, or perhaps it's a leftover from a previous "not only...but also" construction? By itself it feels incomplete. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, and also caught by Harry Mitchell below.
  • "The Duke had a ("genuine", says Middlemas) sympathy[46] for the cause of improving working conditions." I'm torn but feel overall the extra value of "genuine" here may not be great enough to offset the extra resulting wordiness. How would the following be: "The Duke was sympathetic to the cause of improving working conditions: a few months earlier, for example, he had declared—in what the historian Michael Bloch calls a "celebrated remark"—that "something must be done" about unemployment." Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was a bit random, so have removed and tweaked per your suggestion.
  • 11–23 October 1937: "Ley and a welcoming delegation—which, although a private visit of a guest of the GLF, included von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer—met them on the platform." This sentence also feels slightly wordy to me, and I wonder whether the inclusion of "although a private visit of a guest of the GLF" adds enough to warrant the extra twists and turns. If it could be removed, then the sentence could be greatly simplified to something like "Ley and a welcoming delegation including von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer, met them on the platform." Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Adopted your suggestion, cheers.
  • "Also waiting was Ogilvie-Forbes, who presented them with a letter informing them of the inability of the Embassy to provide them with services." / "This contrasted with their treatment by the UK resident in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes, notes Bloch. Forbes had been instructed not to receive the royal couple, give them rooms or in any other way assist them." These details feel possibly repetitive since they are in such close proximity with each other. If there's a way to merge them together, that could be nice, but if there's not, maybe it's okay.
No, you're right: I've merged the second mention into the first and moved the footnote up.

Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "Horcher's, the finest gourmet restaurant in the city". Could be subjective? Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was :) but yeah, completely unencyclopedic, so removed.
Any thoughts Moisejp? There's no rush of course, but just a reminder that we're still going strong here :) ——Serial # 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to jump back in soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Footnote 10 (minor comment): I'm not sure what "In the event," is supposed to mean here, and whether it may be a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing's too minor, Moisejp. Thanks for that—yes, it was a bit colloquial I agree, so have removed it. Apologies if I was rushing you! Please, take all the time you want. ——Serial # 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the article. I'm ready to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've given to review this, Moisejp, and am very grateful. Cheers! ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Oppose. Tone is far too flowery for a neutral encyclopaedia article. I've only thoroughly read the lead but that read like an editorial piece. For example, we have statements like it may be that he saw himself in the role of peacemaker, The government suspected, correctly,, the highlight of their tour, and lack of good advice he received rather than outright Nazi leanings in Wikipedia's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how he may have seen himself, that the government was correct, or that the meeting with Hitler was the highlight; we just summarise the facts from the reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Where the sources draw conclusions about things like motives, those should be included with in-text attribution. I'm not seeing so many problems further down the article, but I am seeing a lot of linking of commonly understood terms and Easter-egg links, and a lot of places where the prose could be tightened to better meet 1a. It's a fascinating bit of history and I'm glad to see it getting some attention but I think there's work to do yet before it's of FA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for this; a question though. Would you mind if I gave your review one-tenth of the attention I have given other reviewers, or would you consider that very rude of me indeed? ——Serial # 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't think it rude, but I would be more inclined to come back and offer a full review if I saw that you were noting and addressing my preliminary concerns. I tend to be thorough in reviewing a relatively small number of FACs rather than spending a little time across a lot of articles, so there would be little point in investing several hours in reading and reviewing if the nominator and I were not going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that dropping a bald oppose like that is the subtlest or surest way of ensuring we see eye-to-eye.
Having said that, your points undoubtedly have merit. So: I have gone through and removed (four?) overlinks (honeymoon, unemployment for ex.). There may well still be possible overlinking, and I'll discuss that happily, but I am averse to removing apparently obvious links that may not be so obvious outside of the Anglosphere.
Your concerns wrt to the contents of the lead are more tricky, not the least because this is all fully-sourced material (often direct quotation) from the article body. So d you think it needs citing? That would probably need a consensus, per CITELEAD.
I'm currently giving it another prose run, mostly looking at run-on sentences, etc.
All the best, ——Serial # 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Meh. Forgot to ping. ——Serial # 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think @HJ Mitchell:'s oppose was valid at the time, but since then the lead has been greatly improved. Thanks Harry for highlighting. I just gave a once over; my changes were mostly small stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the lead is much better now and I've struck my oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
To follow up, one remaining thing; "had tea with Hitler" seems like trite - it was a formal and highly politicised occasion. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Windsors' political views A little work is needed here for clarity. You refer to him as "Windsor" and "the Duke" but the section starts with events before the abdication and the new title.
Difficult...the "Background" section establishes his changes of name/title. Having said that, a tweak in the order and calling him PoW might do it?
  • in her autobiography she refuted the suggestion is "refute" definitely the verb you want there?
"Denied" is better. Ironically, with what's to come, it's seems out of lace here and seems better forwarded to a footnote.
  • suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring. Looks like you've left something dangling from a previous edit?
Indeed, as also caught by Moisejp :)
  • Note 10 contains a massive run-on sentence that's very difficult to parse.
Split in two and generally shortened.
  • You use the verb "argue" a lot (20 times in 4,500 words), often with the same sentence structure ("historian John Smith argues")
Reduced down to two usages. What's your opinion on false titles? This accounts for my (monotonous) sentence structuring when it comes to quotes, opinions etc.
  • Ley replied "'it is where they store the cold meat.' In a horrible sense that was true", I think you're missing an opening or closing quote mark between the quotes, and I'm not sure the second half adds any value.
It's one quote (double quote marks) with a quote inside (single quotes)?
  • What does note 25 have to do with the visit? Ditto 26, 28, 33, 34 (the first sentence of which could maybe go in the body), 35, and 37.
  • Austria was shown as annexed to Germany Is this really relevant?
Personally, I'd say pretty emphatically, yes. Mainly because it's one of the few times we actually have an indication the sort of encounters they were having: he met all these important people—von R., Speer, Goebels, Hitler etc., but we rarely get a hint of what they discussed. But with Goering, funny story from Simpson.
For what it's worth, I could probably have mined other similar anecdotes from their autobiographies, but wanted to avoid using them as much as possible. Whereas this anecdote, although from the Duchess, comes straight from a RS.
  • Note 27: I would mention in the body that the salute was not unusual and scrap the stuff about football as off-topic.
  • Suggest unlinking "risqué jokes", "sight-seeing", "interpreter" (which is not linked on first mention), "summit", "forcibly taken over", and looking for other similar links further up.
Thanks, thought I'd caught em.
  • Note 29 should be shortened and incorporated into the body.
  • Note 30: The duke's 1966 comments could go in the aftermath section; the rest is off-topic for the visit.
  • Note 31 should be incorporated into the body. The duke's version of what was discussed is directly relevant.
All things being equal, I totally agreed with this, and have done so!
  • Historiography: This gets a bit choppy with too many sentences along the lines of "historian Smith [verb] suggests..."'s a load of people giving their opinions, which has to be directy attributed inline. Also, re. sentence structure, see my comment above wrt false titles...
  • Do we need three relatively short block quotes in Historiography?
Not if you say so. I was going by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE which suggests quotes of 40 words or more might be blocked off, but admittedly they were all pretty close to the edge (and indeed, in one case was a bout two short!)
  • Churchill, for example, wrote to the Duke, then in Paris, Is the duke's location relevant?
No, gone.
  • Does the NYT quote in "later events" really need a block quote?
See above for reasoning, but I've trimmed it so it's now moot and inline.
  • 37 explanatory footnotes in 4500 words is far too many, and a lot of these are very close together (some a sentence or two apart; in one instance you have two literally next to each other). Many could be culled (starting with the ones I raised above); those that are directly relevant to the visit should be incorporated into the body.
I'll be addressing this, obviously.
  • "However" used to be frowned upon at FAC and should be used with caution. You have eight instances in this article, most of which I suspect could be culled.
True; reduced to two, if I can count right.
  • The writing can be a little verbose and there are places where it could be tightened. A thorough copy edit for concision could probably cull a couple of hundred words without any loss of meaning. Some quotes could probably be culled; obviously historians' opinions are important, but some could be rephrased into your own words to help with the flow (eg, "genial mood" probably doesn't need in-text attribution). I'd suggest varying your introduction to quotes as well; they almost all follow the format of This was not, comments Morton, and but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach,.
I've reduced the number of quotes—particularly the short ones which can be rephrased—substantially. See above, again, re. false titles for the reasoning for the quotes' lead ins. Happy to be advised on other methods though obviously.

Very well-researched and put together, but more work is needed on the prose, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough review, HJ Mitchell, appreciated. I've addressed most of your points, nearly always incorporating them, although, as I say, those that relate to footnotes require careful consideration. Cheers, ——Serial # 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Quick reply. I don't have a strong opinion on false titles. I tend to use them where the concision doesn't cause ambiguity but there are ways of avoiding them while still varying the sentence structure. If you've culled a dozen footnotes without any great loss I suspect more could go; war memorials don't really lend themselves to footnotes but if you look at some of my history articles (eg British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and my current project, Death of James Ashley) you'll see that I do make use of them, but for side details that would clutter up the prose. I'll have a look at the prose etc and the point-by-point on the footnotes in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Twelve footnotes, HJM—calm down, calm down :) anyway, I look forward, with pleasure, to implementing any actionable or quantifiable suggestions you might present. All the best, ——Serial # 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The elephant in the room, eh. The good news first: I've removed eight footnotes and cut 3,316 bytes from them, so what remains should be leaner and tighter.

Conversely, it seems that we have different—perhaps fundamental—philosophical approaches to the role and purpose of footnotes; maybe we write articles on very distant topics. Illustrating the difference in our respective approaches—the difference, not right or wrongness—I had a look at both our last ten FACs: over the course of yours, you have used four footnotes. Mine? About 210. That's multiple reviews in which multiple reviewers accept—if not agree—the use footnotes play in contextualising. I'll go to each one in this article shortly, but briefly, a footnote is useful for illustrating the relevance of the cited material without distracting the flow of the prose. For example, individuals (important ones only, of course): who are they and what have they done to be part of the story? Places: why (if at all) is something happening in a certain place relevant? Dates: does something integral to the story continues in its own, less relevant but yet related path? Most importantly, to provide context that presents alternative, relevant, interpretations which again would be distracting in the main body; to attempt to answer/fulfil obvious questions that may be thrown up to the reader—even Randy!—in the course of the narrative; and to clarify, and possibly resolve contradictions in the sources.

This is especially important in an article like this, in which it is impossible to avoid the overarching hypothesis of the duke and duchess' Nazi sympathies, but in which, when put in context, it becomes apparent that they were very much not alone. And this isn't an academic or ancient argument: he's still remembered for it today. These footnotes, by putting the event in the context of the time, are ensuring a difficult to achieve neutrality and one which would be harmed, I think, by their removal. Having said that, the extent to which I've trimmed them hopefully indicates the depth of consideration I've gave your suggestions, and in many cases, I went with them. But I'm afraid I couldn't accept—at face value—a stand-alone statement that x-amount of footnotes in a y-sized article is too much; all things being equal, everything should be considered on its merits.

Anyway, that's my stall HJ Mitchell, and I hope it isn't an offensive one to you. ——Serial # 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • As of revision [20], analysis of footnotes:
  1. Replies to the question: who had she married?
  2. The source in the text says he was acting against his Cor. oath: this points out that, actually, he never took one, so the reader is left to draw their own conclusions (presumably, off the record, that Cadbury is referring to the spirit rather than the letter of the oath).
  3. This in response to an above reviewer: for NPOV purposes, it emphasises that "Germanic sympathies" shouldn't be misinterpreted, as the family was still very German, culturally.
  4. Important to point out that these allegations are clearly fictive, but it would be out of place to say so in the lead.
  5. Answers the question, well when did she get a state tour?
  6. Contextualises King G's being "horrified", Europe being on an edge etc.
  7. Clarifies that there is an alternative interpretation of his intentions.
  8. Answers the question, how did his friends try and help?
  9. Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
  10. Explains who Bedaux was and why he is important to the story.
  11. Ditto, Weideman, and that he had a previous, if second-hand, link to the duke.
  12. Contextualises a conspiracy theory; viz. that the author is popular but unreliable professionally.
  13. Notes a pre-existent# link between Ley and Bedaux for the reader to consider.
  14. Explains why Hitler believed what he did.
  15. Answers the (rather obvious!) question, if he was called Edward why did his cousin call him David?
  16. Explains, briefly, why he was royal but she was not.
  17. Direct quote from a primary source illustrating the govt's position in detail, which would be too much for the text to bear.
  18. I'm finding it difficult to see, personally, how the opinion of Hitler's chief propagandist on the article's major protagonist is not relevant!
  19. Demonstrates the links between Windsor, his brother and their cousins. Again contextualises his thoughts as part of a broader canvas.
  20. Explains background.
  21. Expands upon Ley and provides context for historians—and the duchess'—opinions.
  22. As I suggested above, it would be out of place in the article to point out that, actually, what G. said came to pass very shortly.
  23. Again, this was suggested by another reviewer, pointing out that, actually, Hitler's Nazi salutes were not as unusual as we might think today. Everyone, including lowly beings as football players, did it. Essential NPoV context.
  24. You suggested moving this into the body: not a bad point, although the line about him spending most of his time there helps explain why they met him there rather than Berlin, say, which after all, was the centre of their tour.
  25. Contextualises Halifax's trip.
  26. Again, for NPOV reasons, contextualising the duke's opinions on the communist threat by noting how common it was within the British establishment.
  27. Background on why Bedaux—and, therefore, Windsor by association—was disliked in the states.
  28. Alternative interpretation, unnecessary in the body, for the US government's view.
  29. I don't think explaining why an island in the middle of nowhere was on the duchess' mind is unhelpful to the reader...
Did some more cutting along the way, as it goes, as having formulated my reasoning beforehand (above) focussed and my approach. Cheers, ——Serial # 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • 4 should probably be shortened and moved into the body.
Moved the Ribbentrop reference into the body; notes on the sourcing should be separated unless issues with the sourcing are under discussion.
  • 5 doesn't seem relevant to this visit, though you could move it into the aftermath section if you felt it was important.
  • 6 should be shortened to a few words and moved next to the sentence it supports. The reader doesn't need chapter and verse on why it was a delicate time; if they're unfamiliar with immediately pre-WWII European politics, you've given them a link to an article with more detail.
You'll enjoy this: I've got rid, as it effectively repeats material already in the background.
  • 7 should go; he wasn't being "of service to His Majesty" on this trip so it's of limited relevance.
Yeah why not.
  • 8 should either go or move into the body; it's not a major detail


  • 9, although interesting and expanding on a point made in the body, has nothing to do with the visit and so is out of scope for this article
I still believe it Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
  • 10 should be shortened and moved to the body because you mention Bedaux's businesses in the aftermath section (and the "second and final" confiscation would be confusing to a reader who hadn't been reading the footnotes as they went.
  • 11: the explanation of his connection to the duke is a good use for a footnote but is the (alleged) espionage directly relevant?
Well, it was intended to show that he was a professional spy, rather than just on this one occasion. But, fair enough: removed.
  • 12: The first sentence is fine but could easily be removed or added into the body. The rest is off-topic and I'm not sure an encyclopaedia should be discussing such outlandish claims (if the duchess was still living, a claim like that would be oversighted). Also, MI6 wasn't known by that name until later; I'd stick with something like "British intelligence" because I'm not sure it had a common name at the time.
Suggestions actioned. Re OS: it was a—pretty effective!—illustration of precisely why Higham is considered unreliable: but I agree it's unnecessarily lurid and tabloidy.
  • 18, 19, and 20 are fine as footnotes but they're very close together. Is there any way they could be combined or one of them cut or incorporated into the body?
Moved 18 into body. Merged 19&20; also shortened the resultant note considerably.
  • 21 is about Ley but has nothing to do with the visit. The reader's understanding of the visit would not be harmed by its absence.
  • 22 I don't think is on-topic but I'd agree to disagree.
  • 23: I still think the football stuff is off-topic. That the salute was not unusual can be mentioned in the body.
OK, removed the football stuff :)
  • 25: I see what you're getting at by providing context but this is almost background to the background. If Schwoerer's opinion reflects the consensus I would just add it, unattributed, to the body. If it's an outlier, it should go.
Moved to the body. It doesn't sound a particularly wild claim—unofficial official meetings have rather a long tradition, particularly in diplomacy.

That's potentially another dozen or so footnotes that could go, which would bring the total down to about 17. Even that is more than I would have used had I been writing this article, but it's less overwhelming and keeps the article on-topic (criterion 4 of WP:FA?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HJ Mitchell, all useful suggestions and generally actioned. I think your suggested compromises—moving material into the article body—is a useful one that I'll certainly bear in mind for the future. I still believe them to be an essential weapon in the struggle for criterion 1b—neglect[ing] no major facts or details and plac[ing] the subject in context. ——Serial # 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment from Nick-D
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Drive by comment by Nick-D

I don't think that I'll review fully, but would note that "Even so, says Vickers, Hitler made the Windsors "travel a long way to see him",[25] as he was at his Bavarian retreat known as the Berghof" suggests that this historian was ill-informed. The Berghof was more than a "retreat", as Hitler more than a third of each year there, and foreign visits to it were a significant element of Nazi propaganda (see Bombing of Obersalzberg#Background). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. To clarify, "retreat" was my word, not the authors. And to be fair, I can see their point: Everywhere the article mentions the Windsors' as going—Berlin, Karinhall, Pomerania—are all in the far northwest. The furthest south they (seem to have) ever gone was Essen. And that's still >800 KM from the Berghof. Having said that, it's not particularly encyclopedic information anyway, so I've got rid of it. That also allows a couple of sentences to be shortened. Also, although I already mention Halifax and Lloyd George visiting Germany, your suggestion re. the number of guests he received at the Berghof is well-made, and I've added a bit highlighting that anyone who was anyone was probably seen there at some point. Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated. ——Serial # 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review by Nikkimaria
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Image review

  • File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg needs a more extensive FUR, and would suggest using a different fair-use tag
  • File:Oscar_Nathaniel_Solbert.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image include details of research done into authorship, and what's the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Neville_Chamberlain.jpg
  • File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not getting on to the images sooner, Nikkimaria, I had my hands ful somewhat :) Right. Here we go.
  1. File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg: stronger FUR applied ([21]), but not sure what other fair use tags there are?
  1. The "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the event depicted, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. You could replace it with a generic {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. [NEW] File:Vincenzo Laviosa - Duke and Duchess of Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg: PD CoO/US.
  1. When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Created "About 1934"; no word on publishing date (if there is one, of course). If that takes this out of the running, this one seems to have been released under a CC licence?
Would need a more specific copyright tag on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I swapped it out for the Yugoslav one? ——Serial # 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes - this one has a Flickr tag which states "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". Can such information be determined? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. [NEW] File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg: PD-US
  2. [NEW] File:Oscar Nathaniel Solbert.jpg: Tricky one. Research indicates that the original was made under the auspices of Bassano Ltd. They merged with Elliott and Fry in 1965. According to the NPR, The National Portrait Gallery owns all the surviving negatives (But then, I guess they would say that, wouldn't they?). A further cause for concern is that it was uploaded by a serial copyright violator on en.wp, Elisa.rolle, who has been blocked several times as a result. That makes me extremely wary of accepting anything at face value. Frankly, unless you think that what I've done adheres sufficiently to the {{PD-UK-unknown}} research requirement, I'd willingly pull it.
  1. Think this ought to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Swapped for File:Charles Bedaux.png.
The uploader of the source image for that one has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns...

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

:D Right, nominated t for deletion too. Have removed but not replaced.
  1. File:Duc et duchesse de Windsor avec Hitler (1937).jpg: PD in France; is there anything we can do to use this?
  1. When did it enter the public domain in France? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
14 November 1937?
It was published on that date - I'm asking when the copyright expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooops, 2012.
Okay, so the five-point test would suggest that it's still under copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. File:Neville Chamberlain.jpg: Chamberlain seems to have no free images at all, almost. Bizarre. can I use this, would you say?
  1. Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate any advice you could give Nikkimaria, and apologies, again, for keeping you waiting. ——Serial # 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've made a few changes. ——Serial # 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And again, NM...sorry about the repeated pings. Slow but sure wins the race! (Hopefully) ——Serial # 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much! ——Serial # 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: For some reason I thought I'd resolved this, but now I look at it I think not. Could we approach it a different way—you tell me which images are incorrectly licenced, and I'll remove them. Much simpler :) ——Serial # 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg. File:King_Edward_VIII_and_Mrs_Simpson_on_holiday_in_Yugoslavia,_1936.jpg should have a more specific tag. File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg is not incorrectly licensed but the FUR needs work - what's currently in the purpose of use parameter would be better suited to the replaceable parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Nikkimaria. Got rid of those first two: neither were under a CC license that I could find, indeed the latter is under some wierd "The Commmons" thing (slightly misleading title!) in which they palm-off "no known c/r restrictions" as a thing. The last one, I've adjusted the FUR as you suggest. What think ye? (Possibly the last time I have to ping you...) ——Serial # 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Dudley
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments by Dudley

  • I suggest using full face portraits of both of them.
Excellent idea, should've thought of that. I've used this one of them together from just a couple of years earlier.
  • "Having abdicated the British throne in December 1936, his brother Albert has taken the throne as King George VI." This sounds clumsy. Maybe "He abdicated the British throne in December 1936, and his brother Albert became king as King George VI."
Used that, thanks!
  • "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of the Duke's lack of judgement and good counsel, rather than sympathy with the Nazi regime." But he was getting good counsel from the govt and allies such as Churchill and Beaverbrook, and he chose not to listen to them. In the historiography section you quote one historian acquitting him of Nazi sympthies and one condemning him for them. This does not seem like a consensus.
I deliberately avoided suggesting there was a consensus, I hope (note, tend to...), but it's a fair point about counsel: I've gone for "...tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received"?
  • "Even had Simpson converted to Anglicanism, both her previous husbands were still alive." This seems like a non-sequitur, as you have not said that her religion was an issue, or what it was.
Fair point; I can't even remember why it's important if indeed it is. So removed it and recast the sentence.
  • "Windsor's great-grandmother was the daughter of a German princess". His great-grandfather was German.
That's absolutely true of course, and I admit my original sentence might have looked a little forced: but that was because the source wrt the family's Germanity was Propopoulos, and he only mentions Victoria. But, via a different source, I've added Albert (which pf course conveniently emphasises their German-roots even more!)
  • You are inconsistent whether to capitalise "king". I think it is correct to capitalise when it is short for George VI, but not in "believing that, as King, Windsor would have strengthened Anglo-German relations".
  • "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that "in his farewell broadcast Edward had said: 'I now quit altogether public affairs', but almost in the next sentence: 'If at any time in the future I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.'" I am not clear what point you are making here. He said that he would always serve his majesty but then undertook the tour against George's opposition, so why the "however"?
There was a reason, I think there had been a later "although" which has since been lost. Anyway, well caught: removed.
  • "However well-intentioned, says Bloch". You should give his full name and link on first mention.
  • "Bedaux has been described by Bloch as an "enigmatic time and motion tycoon".[15] John Vincent suggests that Bedaux planned" Why the past tense in the first case and present in the second?
Yes, thanks; I intended all modern opinion to be in the present and those of contemporaries in the past. Have adjusted a few more occurrences (also answering your point below, there!).
  • "This led him to suggest that the Duke should "head up and consolidate the many and varied peace movements throughout the world"." Suggested to who?
Clarified it was to the duke.
  • "although says that at that stage, ot was still only" Typo for "it"?
Absolutely, cheers.
  • "The author Hugo Vickers has suggested that Edward" In this and other cases you are inconsistent whether to use past or present case when quoting historians. I also do not see how it helps the reader to describe someone as an author - everyone you quote must be an author!
See above for tense. True re. author; have changed to biographer and journalist.
  • "However well-intentioned, says Bloch" Does Bloch think that the tour was well intentioned? Is that the opinion of other historians?
No, not really; he implies that it was done for the best of reasons (i.e. the working class, etc), but I admit it's a bit of a reach to draw any personal intentions from that.
  • "Deborah Cadbury suggests that it was at a 1936 dinner that Hitler may have first learned of King Edward VIII's sympathies." In the lead you say that he did not have Nazi sympathies. Do not comments like this belong in historiography rather than only quoting historians who acquit him?
I'm tempted: although it seems slightly too detailed for a general overview of his politics to mention a specific occasion. I've adjusted the lead to mention his pro-German sympathies, but I think it's important to emphasise that being pro-German (which he was: while on the tour, he regularly, reports one RS, "slipped into his mother tongue, German", for example) did not necessarily equate to being pro-Nazi (which is really unknown, although I suspect that, if there is any kind of historiographical consensus, it's that he was the former rather than the latter (notwithstanding that, like others, his fear of communism outweighed his dislike of Hitler)). If you think the Histogy section is too slanted towards "letting him off the hook", then I can probably find some more negatively-inclined press (I added Russian reactions to the "Reactions" section, and were pretty clear in their belief that his entire bloody family were Nazis!!)
Appreciate you looking in here, Dudley Miles: I've implemented most of your suggestions (although apologies for my ?turgid? replies!) ——Serial # 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129 as other reviewers are active at present, I will hold off in order to avoid duplicating their comments. Perhaps you could ping me when these other reviewers have finished. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: well, things seem to have calmed down: Harry hasn't edited for a couple of days, but hopefully will look back in. Thanks for what you've done so far, in any case. ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the period, but I am concerned at the very different view of Edward's attitudes in this article compared with the FA article on him and the DNB one. You say "The Duke had been sympathetic to Germany since he was a youth, on account of his family's German origins" and quote an "RS" above (but not in the article) as saying his mother tongue was German. This is not correct. The other articles say he was taught German and French by a tutor and say nothing about his German origin or being pro-German. The DNB article says that he was desperate for a foreign tour, supported a negotiated peace with Germany and refers to his "non-political naïvety". I think you at least make clear that the idea that he was influenced by his origin to be pro-German is one view, not an undisputed fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
H'mmm. I read our FA, DM, and, notwithstanding that WP:OSE, I'm not surprised they differ. Frankly, I'm glad they do. That passed FAC over a decade ago—when this passed as one—it's full of unsourced material, and is pretty lightweight in its coverage of his early years. So it's not surprisng, I venture, that this article focusses on his "Germanness" more than that: here, it is integral to the context of the article, whereas there it is one of just many personality traits.
Having said that, I agree that we can't be sure, with historical hindsight, what his personal views were, especially as a "youth", and that since his own "Germanness"—such as it may have been—is only touched on in a footnote in the body, while his German tutor, etc., is mentioned inline. That makes mention of his supposed-Germanness undue in the lead, so i've tweaked it to say merely he was sympathetic in this period. What think you, Dudley Miles? ——Serial # 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have just noticed another issue, which is that the article cites books without page numbers. The issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... I do not see how citations of electronic books without page numbers can be acceptable as it is impossible for readers to check them, even if they have access to the source. Ealdgyth have you come across this issue in your source reviews? What is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Messed up ping to Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That would've come up in the source review anyway Dudley Miles. I looked for a policy on it, with no joy. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to have established a firm consensus; and while page numbers for a printed book are essential per WP:V., an electronic source can be accessed via the ctrl + f function I guess. ——Serial # 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers. Using ctrl+f assumes that 1. the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. 2. that you have used the same words in the article as in the book 2. that the words are uncommon enough that they do not give many hits. Trying again to ping Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Butting in re e-books; I normally use the chapter title; I think that's about as close you can get, and seems absolutely fine. E books do not have page numbers, but are still absolutely RS under the normal conditions. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That is fine with books which have short chapters, but some have chapters with 30+ pages. Looking at online discussions, there are students with e-books complaining that when lecturers ask them to comment on pages in a book, they cannot find what they are supposed to be writing about. E-books are OK for reading, but they are not suitable for referring readers to specific comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of references is to verify the claims in an article. If the particular format makes it tedious to do this, then that hardly makes the material used any less valuable. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to experiment with the |loc= parameter, which seems the closest we currently have for addressing this issue. I urge the FAC community to grasp the mettle on this and codify a guideline to operate under. Until that happens—with all respect to everyone here—whatever we (I) do now will be what someone likes / doesn't like, which will satisfy few and annoy most... ——Serial # 10:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, {{Cite ebook}} has obviously been considered for service in the past, although it's only ever redirected to {{Cite book}}. Time to change that perhaps. ——Serial # 10:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: With regard to "WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers", it should be clarified that WP:V actually makes no such requirement; the relevant section specifically allows for non-paginated in-source locations: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). ——Serial # 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: who might also find this useful :) ——Serial # 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
True, I did not read it carefully enough. However, the reference to "sections" covers divisions of web pages. It does not appear to cover ebooks, which do not comply with the requirement to cite sources "precisely", even if chapters are specified, except in books with very short chapters. Many books have chapters with over 30 pages, and some are very long. Michael Lapidge's Anglo-Saxon Literature 900-1066 has a chapter of 52 pages, Simon Keynes in Kings, Currency and Alliances has one of 47 pages and Alfred Smyth's King Alfred the Great has one of 72 pages. In such cases, chapters are not "such divisions as may be appropriate", and are no better than uncited statements for readers with paper copies of books. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: If you're suggesting an RfC, I'd fully support clarifying the FAC (and, for that matter, GA and PR too since it affects them) approach to e-sources. ——Serial # 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
(taking off coord hat here, just as a plain reviewer) I'd say that the current footnotes to entire ebooks are not enough for verifiablity. Using the loc parameter should be good enough, although whether it works with sfn is an open question. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find loc= in Template:Cite book. What is it for? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
See §3.5.6. ——Serial # 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah I have worked it out now. In sfn you can use loc=, in cite book it is quote=
Continuing on from my comments above, loc= in sfn or quote= in cite book can be used with a quote to allow another ebook reader to find the correct location of the citation with ctrl-f, but it is no use to someone who has the paper book. Similarly page= is no use to someone who has the ebook. I think we have to face up to the fact that there are now two separate classes of readers, e-book readers and paper book readers, and the citation formats of each class are no use to the other class. I am thinking of starting an RfC proposing that there should be two classes of FA, Standard FA and E-book FA. Ditto for GA. (E-book FAs and GAs could still use citations with pages for books not available as e-books.) This is the only way to prevent disputes over whether sourcing is acceptable. WP:V would need to be revised, as it seems to me to currently rule out citations to e-books. Any comments Serial Number 54129, Ceoil, Ealdgyth? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea Dudley Miles, and as I said above, I'd support anything that clarifies the current—opaque, to say the least!—situation. The brutal fact is that the issue is going to become more frequent as time passes; give it a few years and dead-tree books could be confined to university and deposit libraries, who knows. But certainly, e-books are here to stay, and we have to acknowledge that and find a way of working with them. The current situation—that a reliable source would fail a FAC because of its format is a frankly bizarre one: but I judge you right in your reading of the letter of the law. If you go ahead with an RfC, or know when one runs, I'd appreciate a ping!
Incidentally, I've cited the e-books in this particular candidate as requested, by means of chapter/paragraph. All the best! ——Serial # 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: No rush, of course :) but did you have any further views? (On RfCs generally or this article particularly!) ——Serial # 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
1. Ha. I will quote you Meryl Halls, managing director of the Booksellers’ Association at [22]: "I think the e-book bubble has burst somewhat, sales are flattening off, I think the physical object is very appealing." In addition, it is very unlikely that it will ever be economic to produce e-book versions of the great mass of older books with limited sales.
2. Adding the paragraph number goes a long way to solving the problem, but I think very few people will understand the symbol you use, and accurately counting paragraphs up to 50, or even more with long chapters, will be a pain. How about also using the loc= field to give the first few words of the paragraph to make it easier to tie down the correct one, and also explaining your system in note 1. Readers of real books should then be able to find the correct paragraph without too much difficulty.
3. I do not think it will then be necessary to take the issue as I suggested above to RfC, but if you agree that the system in the previous paragraph solves the problem then it might be worth recommending it at RfC.
4. Re n. 56 Unknown ODNB author 2004. Previous versions were by Philip Ziegler and his name was probably omitted in error. I suggest emailing DNB about it.
5. I am not sure you need any more input from me as you already have 3 supports, but I will look at the article again if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
1. I hope she's right! Still, they'll certainly remain with us, so I wonder how many times we'll (not us personally, but you know) be having this discussion in future :)
2. Thank you. I've added a explanatory guide to the references. I agree it's backbreaking work to count paragraphs—it took me most of yesterday to do so. You might be right about using the first words in the loc field: I'm not wholly convinced though, mainly as I see an opportunity for confusing, rather than aiding the reader, who would, after all, still have to check the opening words of every paragraph to find the one they were looking for. I might return to the question in the (not so distant) future and undertake the project, but it would be far too disruptive to do so now. Interesting though.
  • I did not make myself clear. I think that a paragraph number would be very helpful, but with a large number it would be very easy for the reader to miscount. Having the start of the paragraph as well as the paragraph number would make it easy for the reader to confirm that he/she is at the right place by just checking that the paragraph found by counting starts with the correct words. Quoting the first few words of the paragraph will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs. There would also be a need to allow for cases where the ref is to several paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs, although, as you said previously, Using ctrl+f assumes that...the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. Anyway, thanks for looking in, DM, your reviews are appreciated as always; I think we're all done here. Cheers, and stay safe! ——Serial # 09:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
3. No, but as I said, I'm sure this is going to keep occurring, particularly in more "popular culture"-orientated nominations, perhaps. (In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already—I'll look into that, see how it's been addressed in other noms (if it has been, of course)). You might be right, though, an RfC might be OTT if there's already an established procedure.
4. Ah, it's tempting the to assume Zeigler it is then. Annoyingly it's not listed under his contributions, either. Funnily enough, I emailed them when I wrote the thing to ask them—of course, they never replied. It's hard to imagine they are that inundated with messages! I'll give em another go, or a tweet from a twit perhaps :)
5. Ah! Well, all things being equal, I'd like consensus to be as clear as possible...our coords are overworked as it is :) would you mind looking it over once again? Pace of course, to our discussion above. Cheers Dudley Miles, all the best to ye. ——Serial # 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "The historian Jonathan Petropoulos hypothesises that the British government were aware that they could not prevent what was, officially, a visit by a private individual." "hypothesises" is an odd word here. OED defines it as "To frame a hypothesis or supposition", which seems very theoretical for something the govt must have known.
He suggests, would be better.
  • "The scholar Susanna de Vries describes how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal".[89] Cadbury also says the Duchess—dressed in royal blue—appeared regal to their welcoming party." Why "also"? You have not quoted Cadbury before in this context. And you do not need to repeat "the Duchess".

I cut mention of Cadbury and merged/shortened the two sentences.

  • "They were greeted by Ley, who kissed her hand and called her "Your Highness"[91][note 15] and presented her with a large box of chocolates." "and...and"
"who kissed her hand, called her "Your Highness" and presented her with a large box of chocolates", better?
  • You say what happened outside the station, then what happened on the platform. This seems the wrong way round.
Good point, so moved Ley and his atmosphere to the next section.
  • "He was seen, says the journalist Andrew Morton, as Modern, progressive, vigorous, and accessible. Even his mock Cockney accent with a touch of American seemed more down-to-earth and unaffected than the disdainful patrician tones of a man like Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. He remained an intriguing international celebrity, his marital turmoil only enhancing the iconic mystery surrounding the man." This seems to be about the international view, but in the context "He was seen" refers only to the German view.
I've kept the bit about German media liking him here, but moved the comment re. cockneyness, etc., to the background section where it acts more like an overview of the man. Thoughts?
  • "heavy program" Presumably this is an Americanisation of the spelling of "Programme" in a British newspaper.
Indeed! And although I wouldn't usually alter a quote, I've taken the liberty of doing so, as elsewhere Boyd (or their editor) has Lloyd George, I think, "saying" "color".
  • "Pathé caught the moment they emerged from the station..." This appears to be about their arrival in Germany. Should it not in the correct place in the article?
Yes, moved to the preceding section.
  • "historicist". OED define this as a believer in historicism!
Oops, Freudian slip :) he was a researcher, at least.
  • You say that Ogilvie-Forbes met them on the platform, but in the letter you reproduce he says it was at the hotel.
Yes, good point, and one I'm not sure what to do about: the sources say he was at the station (although apart from the German delegation, obviously). I wonder if he attended as a personal favour/out of respect to the duke, and then made an official visit to the hotel?
  • "press on with his policy towards the east" This seems euphemistic. How about something like "territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe"?
Yes, done.
  • "where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel, where the Duke received" where...where
"where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel; the Duke received a number of personal guests."
  • NSDAP. What does this mean?
  • "In these aspirations, the Duke was in the company of a large swathe of the British ruling class: apart from Lloyd George and Lord Halifax". "apart from" is ambiguous. Presumably you mean "as well as"?
Yes, bizarrely that reads as if LG and Halifax hadn't visited!
  • "Another wrote that" Who?
Unknown correspondent stated.
  • "Roosevelt wrote to Windsor expressing hope that the tour would eventually go ahead, but Morton believes this a "conciliatory" gesture from the President." I take it you are saying that Roosevelt was disingenuous? You could be clearer.
  • This is a good article, but I am still concerned about the emphasis on his Germanness. I raised this before and you replied that the WIki article on him is unreliable, but I also cited DNB and you did not reply on this. You say "Windsor was an admirer of Germany. This was as least in part due to his upbringing, suggests King, noting that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native, and the walls of the royal residences of England were lined with portraits of his Hanoverian ancestors"." DNB does not mention a German heritage and says "However, from other teachers David learned French and German (and later he also became a fluent Spanish speaker)." This is an authoratative source, but I cannot find any evidence that King is. I cannot trace any reviews of the book and I have never heard of Kensington Publishing. Do you have evidence that King is a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
To avoid being misquoted, and in the interests of precision, I'd like to emphasise that neither I nor (I hope!) the article mentions his "Germanness". I don't think he was German, and we're definitely not trying to say that; what he had was German heritage through his family background, and I don't think any source disputes that.
The Edward VIII article is, strictly, not reliable anyway per WP:WINRS; but especially so as, coincidentally, it was nominated to have its FA-status reviewed at the same time. It's true that ODNB doesn't emphasise his heritage, although I note it mentions him having relatives in Germany.
As for King, well, it's this chap (crummy article though), and Kensington Publishing has an article here which lists various—in wiki-terms—notable authors. I don't see anything to set off alarums; King isn't making—or being used to support—any particularly radical claims: although I'm always happy to tweak the language if you think it will help. Cheers, Dudley Miles! ——Serial # 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
1. There is nothing in the King article which shows that he is a reliable source. 2. The article on Kensington Books lists mainly romantic and horror novelists, plus Gerina Dunwich, who is described as "a professional astrologer, occult historian, and New Age author, best known for her books on Wicca and various occult subjects". It is not an academic publisher. 3. It should be possible to find reviews of a reputable biography. I cannot find any of King's book. 4. DNB says that Edward was taught German by a tutor. You quote KIng saying that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native". This is a radical claim and is disproved by your article, which states that Schmidt was the translator at the meeting between Hitler and Edward and Forwood accused him of mistranslating. This shows that Edward was not fluent in German and King is not an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dudley Miles, I swapped out that quote from King, but luckily have reliable sources for e.g his fluency in German (not shown by Paul Schmidt's presence at the Berghof, and now clarified in the text) and his ancestry. No-one has anything to complain of now, unless they bought a Charles and Di teatowel in 1981 :D ——Serial # 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha, Dudley Miles, I found another source, this one explains your question above re. the diplomat meeting them at the station and Pgivie-Forbes visiting his hotel: the former was only (deliberately) a Third Secretary, reflecting their understating of the visit. Good news! ——Serial # 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine now, apart from the citations of King. I think you should delete him from the sources and find other refs where he is cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: yeah, I have done now so: everything was more or less sourceable from scholarly texts, except for one sentence I removed completely. ——Serial # 18:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Cheers Dudley Miles, we got there in the end :) thanks as ever for the in-depth review...and almost the source review! ——Serial # 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Ceoil
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support by Ceoil

Have been following this almost edit by edit since the nom, and I hope helping with the ce. The visit is fascinating, obv for all the wrong reasons; my god the wrongheadedness and hubris. The page brings all this out excellently, well done to the nominator. It is now at a point where I can support, though I see it is continually improving from the feedback above. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Very kind, Ceoil, and I hope you know I appreciate your copy edits—you always leaver the place better than you found it. Take care of yourself! ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Airborne84
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support by Airborne84

Comments coming. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this. Comprehensive. Sources look good. Thanks for your efforts. Comments below.

  • Could you briefly introduce Robert Ley in the lede? E.g., "the couple were chaperoned by Robert Ley (2-3 word intro)". The name without intro gave me pause as I tried to figure out who he was.
I recast this, to read The Duke and Duchess were officially invited to the country by the German Labour Front, and were chaperoned for much of their visit by its leader, Robert Ley; better?
Better, thanks.
  • "Ley's behaviour was reported to Hitler". By whom? If it's known who did it, this would be welcome info, I think, for the average reader. I found myself wondering who it was. If it's not in the sources, OK.
Unfortunately, it isn't, but I found another sure which provides an eyewitness account of the gatecrashing and have swapped out that sentence. A quote from Sopple: still doesn't say who grassed on Ley, but mentions Göring, etc.
No problem. This works fine as well.
  • "The tour may have given rise to later suspicions that, on in the case of a successful outcome to Operation Sea Lion—a German invasion of Britain—the Duke would be appointed a puppet king." There's a grammar problem in there somewhere. Is the word "on" extraneous?
Indeed! Gone.
  • "Vickers, similarly, suggests that episode such as the tour have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi:" This passage needs a slight copyedit.
It was pretty bad that. How about that while the tour may have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi...?
Much better, thanks.
  • In your sources, I think this one is missing a "W": "indsor, Duke of: From Mr. Ogilvie-Forbes (to Mr. Harvey)".
Well spotted!
  • Also in the sources, English-language titles of works are rendered in title case, so "Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot" and similar should be adjusted.
I've changed that; I couldn't see any others, but if I've missed any, could you let me know? I don't think so, but.
The only other one I saw (Unknown ODNB author) doesn't appear to fall under the listed WP:MOS works for title case, so I think you're good.
  • What makes the Context section near the end different than the Background section at the beginning? I.e., why couldn’t the Context material be combined with the Background? I'm not saying it needs to be, I'm just wondering about the rationale. The context section actually addressed another of my questions about the German background, since there was some passing German context in there (as well as throughout the article). Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent point: I don't know. And because I don't know, and no-one else has noticed, I've moved it into its own "Political context" section of the background. How does that look?
Very nice. The background is comprehensive and sets the stage well for the reader. This actually solved another concern of mine that I won't bring up now. Something else to consider would be to swap the last two subsections in the Background section. Then, that section would start broad, narrow a bit to Political context, narrow a bit more to the British Royal and govt. view, and then narrow still more to the Windsor's views. You'd have to study it a bit more than I did to see if that would work well—my initial look at how the transitions would work within the section and to the next section seemed like it might work fine. However, to be clear, my support does not rest on you making this change. Just something to consider. Airborne84 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea, Airborne84, taking the reader from the general to the particular: I've done that. Appreciate the support :) All the best. "See" you soon! ——Serial # 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for flying in, Airborne84 :) let me know if I've addressed your points satisfactorily. I've noticed your low-level copyediting, by the way—much appreciated! "Many hands make light work", as they say :) ——Serial # 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review by Buidhe
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source review—pass

  • Unknown ODNB author — this is not the best way to format it imo. I would omit the author and use |ref=CITEREFODNBdate, or alternately |author=ODNB (which would match TNA)
  • Center of the Web—as this is an edited collection (apparently edited by George Constable [23]) you need to cite the chapter and the author of that chapter.
Negative edited collection. It's available at (you shouldn't need an account for such an early page as this); the authors are "the Editors of Time-Life Books"; George Constable is the big-time editor of the entire thing (over the Exec-Editor even) (or possibly a general consultant, according to our article), and apart from them, an entire page of editors and consultants. I doubt there's room on the template...
Hmm, you're right.
  • Primary sources appear to be used minimally and appropriately. (Although Speer was so mendacious I would have probably just left him out).
You know dat. I had to go and wash my hands afterwards. But he was following on neatly from the other nazi views. Having said that, I've found a RS that bacs the quote up independently.
  • NDE—this publisher is so obscure I can hardly find any info about them online. Why do you think it is RS?
Not so much the publisher, but the author, a respected German historian, etc., and while NDE is bizarrely obscure, if I'd cited the German electronic edition—an imprint of Random House—the French edition, published by JC Lattès, the German print edition, by Heyne Verlag. Anyway, you get my drift. Although I agree that it's odd no Eng-lang edition seems to have been published in—for example—London, only Canada and South Africa, as far as I can see. Perhaps they're trying to put a bit of work the colonies' way.
  • BBC News Inconsistent date format
  • pp. 122–186. not verifiable.
Meant to be 182-7, done.
  • p. ch.5 §72. should use |loc=
  • Other sources appear to be at least marginally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Err, right! Cheers Buidhe, hope you're well. ——Serial # 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Above issues are resolved, however another has appeared: "Williams 2020, p. 230. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
D'OH. Thanks Buidhe, totally forgot to add the source). Unbelievable...done now :) ——Serial # 12:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oppose by Carabinieri
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oppose by Carabinieri

Hi, I've started by looking at the sources. There are several statements I've been unable to verify:

  • "The couple and their entourage—which included the Duke's cousin Prince Phillip von Hessen[116]—travelled around Germany on Hitler's personal train, the Führersonderzug," Could you provide a quote for the claim that Philipp (that's how Morton spells the name, as does our article, is this a typo?) was part of the entourage and rode on the train? I can't find this.
Thanks for spotting that typo; the word you want is condiment.
Thank you.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." Could you provide a quote for this assertion? I'm having trouble counting to 31.
Very funny!
The closest thing I was able to find is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'". That's not the same thing as saying that she would have been friendly to Germany.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think if anyone reads that to mean anything other than "a good Queen to Germany", then they're reaching a bit, as that entire section is regarding how good he would have been for them; and no-one is suggesting, I imagine, that Hitler had much concern for how good a King he would be for Britain! Still, I could tweak it, if you would prefer.
The section is about Hitler and the Windsors being impressed with each other. It also says that, according to the interpreter, Hitler thought the Duke of Windsor sympathized with Nazism. There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'." The part about keeping the institution intact is referring to the British government's decision not to make documents on the visit public. The way this quote is presented makes that unclear. Also, as far as I can tell the Prime Minister that Urbach is referring to is Churchill and not Chamberlain.
I think not; although I agree that it would read much more clearly if the words [of the day] were inserted after "the Prime Minister".
The source Urbach gives is a memorandum sent by Churchill in 1940. Also, in that paragraph she is writing about the suppression of documents on the visit so it makes sense that that would have happened later. Using this quote in the article doesn't make sense to me, since it's about said suppression which isn't mentioned. Urbach doesn't say anything about the Prime Minster 'working against' the tour.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense to me, as they are discussing the Duke's behaviour in the late 30s, when Chruchill was in his wilderness...having said that, I'm not so invested in Urbach (!!!) as to insist on her quote staying in.
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying that Urbach is indeed referring Chamberlain? Then why is she referencing a memorandum written by Churchill in 1940? Are you also disputing that "did everything to keep the institution intact" is a reference to the British suppression of documents related to the visit? If you are, what do you make that quote out to mean? And where does Urbach say that the Prime Minister worked to stop the visit?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,--Carabinieri (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, ——Serial # 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding more issues:

  • "The political background to the tour was tense. In the east, Japan was on the verge of invading China. In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany". These sentences have two sources. I'm not sure what Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman is supporting at all. All they say is that Germany and the Soviet Union were on the rise. Buchanan discusses what Roosevelt thought of the situation in Spain in 1939, but doesn't say anything about the balance of power being disturbed in 1937. Neither of the sources mentions Japan (the chronology is a bit confusing as well, the Japanese attack on China started several months before the Windsors' tour, so by that it was no longer "on the verge"). Neither source ties any of this back to the Windsors' tour.
They will not tie back to the tour, as they are not intended to. They provide standalone background. Although the reference to Japan was a hangover from a now disused source, and has been removed, good spot. ——Serial # 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" I don't know what Berman is doing here. Lobo-Guerrero seems to be about the insurance implications of the appeasement policy so I'm really sure that's the best source here.

I think the sources and the article's text-source integrity probably need to be vetted more closely. Just looking at the background section a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me: for example, Wallis's marriage history and the technical legal details of the coronation oath could easily be trimmed. There are also way too many quotes. Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".--Carabinieri (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • The sourcing has been thoroughly examined by multiple editors already; I think it's as, if not more likely, that you are misreading the sources (you appear to have done this a number of times already, as well as admitting you won't count to 31?!). In any case, I suggest you oppose now, as I am intending to hat this thread. Likewise, your views on quotations—that is, your interpretation—are your own, but no other editor has complained, so I won't be considering this point actionable. Thanks anyway! ——Serial # 15:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Seriously? I have given you multiple instances where you misrepresented sources and this is your response? Please substantiate your claim that I have misread sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid the sources often do not say what you think they say; that's why you cannot find what you are looking for! All the best, ——Serial # 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please substantiate these claims.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Confusing Churchill's discussion of Chamerlain with Churchill himself; not recognising the value of a piece titled the Broken Balance between the World Wars in a discussion regarding the, err, European balance of power. For example. Cheers! ——Serial # 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the nominator has indicated that they intend to ignore anything I write. I'm also uncertain about the status of this nomination since the nominator has blanked the page. I suppose I'm mainly writing this for the FAC coordinators' benefit. As I have indicated, I do not believe this article meets the FA criteria. The main issue is that there are discrepancies between sources and content referenced to. I've only checked a few of the sources, but I've found enough issues to where I'd be uncomfortable with this article being promoted unless all of them are vetted more carefully. Here are a few examples:

  • "In Europe, the Spanish Civil War, which had broken out the previous year, upset the balance of power, drawing in Russia, Italy and Germany" There are two sources for this sentence. The first one, Lobell, Taliaferro, and Ripsman, mentions that the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was upsetting the balance of power in Europe, but doesn't mention the Spanish Civil War at all. The second source, Buchanan, says that in 1939 Roosevelt was worried the Nationalist victory in the Civil War might upset the balance of power in Europe. It doesn't say anything about what the situation was in 1937. There is broader issue as well. None of the sources for the first paragraph in the "Political context" section tie the events they describe to the Windsors' tour of Germany. The article links them ("The European political background to the tour was tense"), but that is not backed by the sources.
  • "although foreign policy remained predicated on appeasement" This again is backed by two sources. The first source, Berman, is about something else entirely and doesn't mention appeasement at all, at least not on the pages that are cited. These pages are about Dutch and French socialists' economic policies in the 1930s.
  • "Charles Bedaux, whom Bloch describes as an 'enigmatic time and motion tycoon'." The source for this is Bloch 1988 (Secret File of the Duke of Windsor). I only have access to a different edition of the book, so I might be wrong, but in this edition Bedaux is described as "the French-American time-and-motion tycoon" and then the "expansive time-and-motion tycoon". This quote does appear in Bloch 1983 (The Duke of Windsor's War), albeit with hyphens as "the enigmatic time-and-motion tycoon" on page 155.
  • "By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" the source does not give any indication that Solbert was acting on behalf of the German government.
  • "The German side of things was organised by Hitler's adjutant, Captain Fritz Wiedemann, with final preparations discussed at the Paris Ritz in late September." and "It is more likely, she says, that these rooftop restaurant meetings involved men such as Wiedemann finalising the itinerary and other minutiae" These two sentences are referring to the same event, so it's more than a bit confusing that they are in different paragraphs as if they were distinct events. Also, Cadbury, the source for the second sentence, only says that Wiedemann was probably involved not "men such as Wiedemann".
  • "Hitler subsequently asserted that Wallis, in his opinion, would have been a friendly Queen to Germany." The sentence is referenced to Morton 2015. The closest thing in the source is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'".
  • "The general consensus among later 20th-century historians is that the visit reflected poorly on Windsor's judgement" I'm not sure where this is from. The next footnote cites Powell who doesn't say this as far as I can tell. If this is based on Wikipedia editors' summary of the historiography, then it's original research. This claim is repeated in the lead as "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received", which has the added problem that it's obvious that no pre-modern historians commented on an event in 1937.
  • "The new prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, disagreed with the tour and privately worked against it; but, comments the Third Reich scholar Karina Urbach, 'as a convinced monarchist [he] did everything to keep the institution intact'". The paragraph in Urbach's book this is referenced to is about the so-called Windsor Files, information about Windsor and his views about Germany compiled by the German government. They concern this particular tour but also his behavior in general. The British government tried to prevent publication of the Files after the war.
The part of the sentence about the Prime Minister trying to prevent the tour has no basis in Urbach's book. Secondly, Urbach is referring to Churchill and not Chamberlain. The nominator has insisted I'm wrong about this. I've looked at the source every which way, but I don't see how it can be read as referring to Chamberlain. Urbach is discussing Windsor's behavior in general before he was sent to the Bahamas, not just this tour. Moreover, the source Urbach cites is a memorandum written by Churchill, not Chamberlain. Thirdly, the way the article presents the Urbach quote makes it unclear what "did everything to keep the institution intact" is referring to. She's talking about the suppression of the files, but this is not made clear in the article.

There are also some inconsistencies in the bibliography:

  • The Secret File of the Duke of Windsor is listed as having been published in by Little, Brown in 1988. As far as I can tell, Little, Brown didn't publish this book until 2012, so I'm not sure what edition is being used in the article. The ISBN leads to the 2012 edition, so I'm guessing that Little, Brown is correct but the year should be 2012 (possibly with orig-year 1988).
  • Merriman's book actually consists of two volumes, so the bibliography should specify which volume is being used so that the page numbers are unique. Additionally, the ISBN given in the bibliography is actually that of the first volume ("From the Renaissance to the Age of Napoleon") which is certainly the wrong one.
  • Radclife is not used in any footnotes.

Since I've found these issues by only checking a small fraction of the sources, I think all of the sources need to be thoroughly vetted before the article can be promoted. While this is the biggest issue with the article in my estimation, there are several more. The article delves into several extraneous details and uses far more quotations than I think can be justified based on our guidelines (Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".)--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, at first glance, impressive, and there's certainly a couple of minor things I could address if I was inclined; but, a closer eading indicates that, in the vast majority of examples, you're (presumably accidentally) misreading either the sources or what I say; if it was only the one, we could work off that, but both? Sorry, that would waste both our time. As I said, I was concerned at the start when you said you were unable to count to 31: I hoped to see signs of improvement in the review, but that was not to be. All the best, ——Serial # 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, wrongly accusing a guy of working on behalf of the Nazi German government is such a trifling matter. Kudos to you for not being inclined to correct that.--Carabinieri (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The article at no point suggests that he was "working on behalf of" anyone, but as an example of you misreading and misrepresenting, again, what I have said, that's a good'un. It's also an aspersion: I'd be inclined to correct 'that, if I were you) In fact, as far as core content policies go, your insinuation that somehow the article in its current state is in breach of NPoV is laughably insecure, and I wonder at your chutzpah. As I said, I'd have been happy working on your sensible recommendations, such as they were: but separating the wheat from the chaff in your comments, as I'd need to do, is a wholly unwelcome task. Also, an unnecessary one, when multiple reviewers have examined this article and its sourcing in detail, and there is no consensus whatsoever in favor of your allegations. ——Serial # 10:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
The article says that he was communicating on behalf of the German government, the source does not. It's as simple as that. I did not claim that article violated NPOV, but there are multiple instances where it misrepresents sources...Carabinieri (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
You're literally looking at another article to me. Who'se misrepresenting sources?! He was not "communicating on behalf of the German government", and none say he was (except for Martin Allen, who I do not consider an RS and have not used). This is getting bizarre. The article explicitly says he made a minimum of speeches (etc) and was used by the German gov't (he clearly was), but not that he willingly did so himself. In fact, there's plenty of discussion as to the opposite? ——Serial # 10:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
"By April 1937 Colonel Oscar Solbert, on behalf of the German government, had formally offered the Duke a tour of Germany" How would you interpret that other than as saying that Solbert was communicating on behalf of the German government?--Carabinieri (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
You're talking about Solbert. I assumed you were talking about Windsor whom the bloody article is about. ——Serial # 14:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Support from DrKay
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Support on all criteria, including source and image review and spot check. Four trivial comments, which you can feel free to ignore, and don't need to respond to: (1) Personally, I might have bundled the four cites at the end of neither his family, government, Church nor people would support the marriage. (2) There is a quote from Petropoulos that includes at the Hess's home, while I did check the source and it is accurately quoted, I believe that if this was correct grammar it would be either at the Hesses' home or at Hess's home. One way out is to drop the words from the quote. (3) The quote from Crawford no sense of his own is given twice. (4) I believe the ODNB article was written by Ziegler. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@DrKay: No, let me. I appreciate you popping in—our resident expert, so to speak. For what it's worth, I've addressed three out of the four pints you raised—each is good—except for the Ziegler. Is our own knowledge sufficient to make that claim do you think? I mean, I'm sure you're correct, but is it strictly verifiable? Incidentally, you also don't need to reply here if you don't wish :) but it would have been rude of me not to have, in my book. All the best! ——Serial # 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well if I am a resident expert, we now have two! Ziegler was credited as the author ten years ago, but I see that his name has been removed. So, as the ODNB currently stands, you're correct that it's anonymous. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Horseshoe bat

Nominator(s): Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a family of bats that have been quite relevant in the news lately as the possible origin of SARS-CoV. They have a lot of diversity and some strange features, even for bats (pubic nipples!) Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sainsf

This is a placeholder for now, I will add all my comments next week. I find the article really interesting and beautiful after reading a few paragraphs here and there. Thank you for your work on this important topic :) Sainsf (t · c) 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay this is my first set of comments, will add more as we move forward:

  • There are quite a few duplicate links, you can find them using this script. Link the terms only on their first mention (unless it is a link in the cladogram or captions).
    • I have the script enabled and I'm not seeing the duplinks? I intentionally duplicated links between captions and the body, as well as between the body and the lead, as these are established exceptions. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I can see around five of them like "Afrotropical realm" in Evolutionary history. Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I've fixed all the ones that I see. If your script is highlighting ones that mine is not, feel free to remove. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay so with that gone, "SARS-related coronaviruses" and "least horseshoe bat" show up as duplinks in Relationship to humans but I am not sure if we should remove them as repetition might help here. Anyway, not a big deal. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • closely related to the Hipposideridae It may be helpful to mention the common name of this family of bats for a lay-reader, as you do for Hipposideros later.
  • combined head and body lengths isn't "combined" redundant when you say head and body length?
    • I think the distinction is that it's lengths, not length, implying two separate measurements are being added together. I've rephrased. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Remember to fix the mention in the body as well ("Individuals have a head and body length") Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
        • What I was trying to convey earlier is that I don't think it's inaccurate to say "combined head and body lengths" (there are two lengths added together) and also "individuals have a head and body length". Is the meaning unclear when I say individuals have a head and body length of x? I feel that's pretty straight-forward. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
          • Oh no, it sounds fine. I suggested making both descriptions consistent if you changed the phrasing in the lead. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You can link subgenera, biogeography, taxonomy, Old World, subtropical, echolocation, polygynous, and gestation in the lead (and on the first mention of these terms in the main body). Just terms that I think might not be common in a common person's life. And maybe link Southeast Asia as well if you are linking another geographical region like Sub Saharan Africa.
  • Fur can be reddish-brown...smooth fur "fur" is repeated in this line, maybe we can say "The fur, long and smooth in most species, can be reddish-brown, blackish, or bright orange-red".
    • Thank you for the suggestion, changed. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • What exactly is a "high-duty call"?
  • A minor quibble.. you can be consistent in whether you include a brief introduction for people. For example, Gray and several others are not introduced like Lacépède ("French naturalist") and Bell.
    • Made consistent. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In Taxonomic history link superfamily and maybe Oriental as well. Any link or short explanation for "species group"?
    • Added links and an explanation of species groups and links. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The most recent common ancestor of Rhinolophus You may want to add "most recent" to the mention in the lead.
  • In Evolutionary history link geological time periods like Eocene, R. nippon and maybe Afrotropics. "Sister" can be linked to sister taxon. No link for nuclear DNA?
    • Not sure if R. nippon is widely recognized as a full species. The 2019 authors considered it separate, but NCBI and ITIS recognize it as a subspecies of the greater horseshoe bat. I supposed I could create it as a redirect? Added more links. Enwebb (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah a redirect might be a good idea. Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Redirect created. Enwebb (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • were more closely related to African species Why "were"? These species are still around.

Moving on (note the underlined point above which might have escaped your notice), Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Link genetic divergence in Evolutionary history
  • represented by one species, Palaeonycteris robustus.[14] Palaeonycteris robustus On the second mention of the species you can just say P. robustus
    • In my academic experience, you don't start a sentence with a genus abbreviation, which is echoed here "With scientific names, it is common to abbreviate the genus to its first letter after the first mention so long as only one genus is being represented (Aspergillus niger at first mention and A. niger thereafter, for example). However, it is better to spell out the genus in full at the beginning of a sentence". Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Oh yes, thanks for pointing it out. Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ranging from 35–110 mm "35 to 110"
    • Revised phrasing so that I can keep the cvt template. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • bright orange-red dorsal fur 'Dorsal' may be tough to understand for lay readers, maybe something like underfur works? Or a link would be helpful. Similarly for "anterior" in "anterior portion of the nose-leaf", "rostral" in "rostral inflations".
  • In Description link mammary gland, premolar, canine teeth, echolocate, digit, cartilaginous. You can add a lot of helpful links in the line "Several bones in their thoraxes are fused—the presternum, first rib, partial second rib, seventh cervical vertebra, first thoracic vertebra". Link nose-lead in the caption
    • Added lots of links. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As you will link echolocate in the previous section, omit the link in "they use echolocation to navigate"
    • Moved links. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Say either "high duty" or "high-duty"
    • Good catch, fixed. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • embryonic development, meaning that growth of the embryo Link embryo in "embryonic" only
    • Moved link. Enwebb (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • if the female enters torpor It would be good to add a few words on torpor as this behavior is not covered in the article anywhere, but seems significant enough to have a short description.
    • Added info on torpor and hibernation. Enwebb (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Individuals hunt solitarily.[17] Because its hind limbs are poorly developed, If the earlier line refers to the bats in plural, the next line should say "their" not "its"
  • In Biology and ecology you can link frequency modulated, second harmonic, first harmonic, uropatagia, diurnal avian predator (each of these words can be linked), temperate, torpor, sociality
    • Uropatagium already linked at 1st occurrence in description#post crania; to avoid a sea of blue, I just put "day-active birds" after diurnal avian and wl predator. The only think really linkable for first and second harmonic is Animal_echolocation#Harmonic_composition, which is pretty much garbage. Enwebb (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In Range and habitat link hibernate
    • Added link to first occurrence, which is in reproduction and life cycle subsection. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I will add my comments on the last section in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "Hill's horseshoe bat" is a disambig link
  • Scientific name for Ruwenzori horseshoe bat like the others in the sentence?
    • At the first occurrence of a species, I both link it and put its sci name in parenthesis. After that, I do not include sci name. Enwebb (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Other than this I think everything is perfect in the prose. You may wish to add a link to the Wikispecies entry (if any) or some external links if you wish but none of it is necessary.

That is all from me. Once again, marvelous work! Respond whenever you are free. Cheers and stay safe, Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, all the points I made have been addressed properly. I am confident the prose meets FA standards. Supporting :) (forgot to state this earlier.. I will be listing this in my WikiCup submissions) Sainsf (t · c) 15:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap

Since I reviewed the article at GA, the principal changes have been in citation formatting. I believe the article gives an excellent overview of the family, its ecology, and its relationships to humans including its hosting of coronaviruses. I therefore have little to add just now, though the cladogram could include a cropped photograph of Craseonycteridae, and it might be helpful to pop in a sublabel below Yangochiroptera saying "(most microbats)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally giving me the motivation to hunt down a good picture of the Kitti's hog-nosed bat. I've never been happy with the sparse media files we've had for it, and we now finally have a real photograph! I added in the sublabel you suggested. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maxilla image
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Palaeonycteris_robustus.png: what is the author's date of death? Same with File:Rhinonicteris_aurantia.jpg, File:Rhinolophidae_vs_molossidae.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Palaeonycteris_robustus.png: the illustrator of the specific plate is not stated (I don't think, at least, but I don't read French), but the authors of Annales des sciences geologiques were Edmond Hébert (d. 1890) and Alphonse Milne-Edwards (d. 1900)
  • Rhinonicteris aurantia.jpg: this came from Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum (1878), author George Edward Dobson (d. 1895)
  • Rhinolophidae_vs_molossidae.png: is an amalgamation of two images. The illustrator of the top image was Philibert Charles Berjeau (d. 1927). The name on the plate for the bottom image is "Bruch". I would guess Carl Friedrich Bruch (d. 1857) was the illustrator; his older brother Philipp Bruch (d. 1847) was also a scientist, but studied mosses, not animals
  • Suggest adding all these findings to their respective image description pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For the maxilla image, I increased from upright=1.5 to upright=2
  • Added alt text to images. Enwebb (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Nb: it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

  • "Internally, the horseshoe bats are divided into six subgenera and many species groups." I am not sure that "Internally" adds anything here.
  • "it is unclear where the geographic roots of the family are, and attempts to determine the biogeography of the family have been indecisive" 1. Is it possible to avoid having "family" twice in one sentence? 2. Optional: "indecisive" → 'inconclusive'.
  • "as well as species recognized as distinct that may, in fact" Delete "in fact"; a reader will nor assume that what you have written is not factual.
  • "high-duty calls". 1. Link to Duty cycle. 2. Consider changing to 'calls at high duty cycles'.
  • "as a source of disease and as food and traditional medicine" → 'as a source of disease, as food and as traditional medicine'.
  • "Sub-Saharan Africa" → 'sub-Saharan Africa'.
    • fixed
Still an instance of "Sub-". I have changed it.
  • "though they are now most often recognized as a separate family" needs a citation.
    • Added two. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Link Eocene, Miocene, Oligocene and Pliocene.
  • Link biogeography in both the article and the lead.
  • Link Afrotropics to Afrotropical realm; unlink later "Afrotropical realm"
    • Done
  • "In a few species, males have a false nipple in each armpit." In a few species of horseshoe bats or of bats generally?
    • Horseshoe bats, revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Link "anterior".
    • done
  • Is "with the teeth resorbed into the body" cited to Hermanson 1982?
    • Yes, duplicated ref. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Link "uropatagium" to Patagium.
    • Uropatagium is already linked to patagium (uropatagium is a redirect). Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "sound production composes more than 30% of total time" Maybe 'they are producing sound more than 30% of the time'?
    • Thank you for the suggestion, changed. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "that search for moving prey items in cluttered environments" I am not sure that it will be clear to readers what constitutes a cluttered environment. Perhaps a word or two of explanation?
  • "likely assist in focusing the emission of sound, reducing the effect of environmental clutter on sound" Would it be possible to rephrase to avoid "of sound ... on sound"?
    • Truncated sentence. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "aiming the production of sound" I think you mean 'aiming the sound produced'.
    • Rephrased. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Horseshoe bats have sophisticated senses of hearing via well-developed cochlea". "via" → 'due to their' sounds more encyclopedic.
    • Sure, revised. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "though consume other arthropods like spiders". Suggest 'though they also consume other arthropods such as spiders'.
  • Link "substrate" to Substrate (biology).
  • "are average or lower than average" Is that compared with other bats?
    • Yes, added "Relative to all bats" at the beginning of this sentence. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "most horseshoe bat species have average wing area" Likewise.
    • Added "Relative to all bats" at the beginning of these sentences to try to clarify. Enwebb (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "they had the least attention of any bat family relative to their species diversity". Maybe 'they had received the least ...".
  • "This causes the interval between fertilization and birth to vary from two to three months" Should this be '... vary between two to three months'?
  • The "Coronaviruses" subsection is one long paragraph. Would it be possible to break it?
    • Now two paragraphs. Enwebb (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Newar people of Nepal "almost certainly" use horseshoe bats ..." MOS:QUOTEPOV states that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" - emphasis in original.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from Therapyisgood

Doing a quick search through the article, I am surprised the word "flea" or the word "ectoparasite" is not mentioned at least once. From my work on the Hectopsylla genus I am aware fleas often inhabit bats as a host. Though I am also not that familiar with editing articles on topics where every bit of knowledge isn't included. Can you comment on this? Is there any published material on their parasites? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I am curious if you are still actively pursuing this nom. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Therapyisgood thank you for your points! I had a major disruption IRL and will get back to this in earnest this upcoming week, including adding a section about parasites. Enwebb (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Content about predators and parasites added in a new subsection. Enwebb (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Therapyisgood if you would like to add more comments, please do so. I'm able to edit more regularly now. Enwebb (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Some additional comments from Therapyisgood

I don't have the time to do a full review or anywhere near (which would be nice), but a quick readthrough gives me the impression something more should be mentioned on the species in Palaeonycteris discovered in France. At least a half-sentence more on its wingspan, anything really, how it was classified in the Horshoebat family, what that was based on, etc. It's prominent in the lead. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

  • I wonder why the lemma is the family rather than the genus?
  • Maybe mention the number of species in the lead?
  • or bright orange-red – dot missing
    • Thanks, fixed. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The nose-leafs aid in echolocation; horseshoe bats have highly sophisticated echolocation – maybe combine to "which is highly sophisticated in horseshoe bats" as it reads a bit rough.
    • Combined sentences. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Verspertilionidae – typo?
    • Thank you, fixed
  • Csorba et al. in 2003 – would write "and colleagues" to avoid the very technical term.
  • Skull of the greater horseshoe bat, showing the prominent rostral inflations on the snout – do we need the "rostral"? They do not seem far rostral on the snout anyways judging from the picture?
  • The anterior portion of the nose-leaf – "front portion" to keep it simple?
  • The sella usually has less hair than the lancet or the nose-leaf. – but it was just stated that the sella is part of the nose leaf?
  • The nose-leafs are important in species identification, and are composed of several parts. The lancet is triangular, pointed, and pocketed, and points up between the bats' eyes. The sella is a flat, ridge-like structure at the center of the nose, rising from behind the nostrils, that points out perpendicular from the head. – This leaves me wonder, which part does the horseshoe belong to, or was this part forgotten?
  • Instead, they use echolocation to navigate. Horseshoe bats have some of the most sophisticated echolocation of any bat group. – Maybe combine these two sentences into a single one since it reads a bit choppy.
  • The wingspans are typical for their body sizes, and their aspect ratios, which relate wingspan to wing area, are average or lower than average. – Do you compare with bats in general here? Not clear.
    • Yes, added the phrase "relative to all bats" at the beginning of these sentences to try to make this clearer. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Rhinolophus sedulus, however, is a rare species of bat that is believed to be monogamous – you mean "is amongst the rare species of bat that are believed to be monogamous", or is it really a rare/endangered species?
    • Rephrased, I meant the former. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In hibernating species, the sperm storage timing coincides with hibernation – you mean the fertilization timing?
    • No, the storage of the sperm coincides with hibernation (they occur at the same time). Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Because its hind limbs are poorly developed, it cannot scuttle on flat surfaces nor climb adeptly like other bats. – in other parts of the article "their" was used.
  • for SARS-related coronaviruses (testing positive for antibodies associated with it) – "with them"?
    • Fixed, thanks. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Newar people of Nepal "almost certainly" – is this a citation? Maybe just use "probably"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's a quote. Pointed out about by GTM that in-text attribution needed for opinions, which I added. Enwebb (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Looks like this needs an image and source review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth See above for image review. Enwebb (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Computer Space

Nominator(s): PresN 03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Following my recent successful FAC of Spacewar!, potentially the first real "video game", comes its spiritual successor: Computer Space, the nine-years-later first arcade video game and first commercial video game. It's not so important for what it is in and of itself—a junky game so stripped down from the Spacewar! clone it originally wanted to be as to be unrecognizable, that sold decently for the time but not great—but for what came from it. It launched Atari, proved video games could be successful as commercial products, gave a model for how video games could be consumer arcade machines instead of arcane research experiments, inspired multiple people to enter the industry it spawned (including one of the first black video game developers), and in one case inspired someone to develop a hardware vector graphics system and a game to run on it just because he thought the game was so bad compared to Spacewar!. Without Computer Space, it's possible that the arcade video game as a concept would have looked entirely different; and without its success leading to Atari existing and releasing Pong right as the Magnavox Odyssey home console launched, allowing the two to boost each other, the industry as a whole might have gotten off to a very different start. Kind of like this article, which I originally wrote in 2016, but never brought to FAC until now due to better sources only recently coming out. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Support by GamerPro64

Gonna stake a claim here to get the ball rolling. Will take a closer look soon. GamerPro64 02:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Reading through the article, I am satisfied by its prose and believe it meets the criteria for Featured Article. Support. GamerPro64 23:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Computer_Space_Gameplay.jpg: FUR is incomplete, although I'm not convinced what's being shown is creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Filled in the other fields; it's my upload so I can't even blame the uploader. --PresN 03:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Support by Namcokid47

Looked through the article, and I think it's great. A very fascinating and interesting read! This gets my support. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Indrian

As the reviewer of this article at GAN four years ago, I am happy to see this show up at FAC. I am making some copyedits as I go, but am bringing a few points here for the nominator to look at.

  • "A round has an adjustable time limit of 60 to 150 seconds, with a default of 90" - I believe this is adjustable by the operator via a dip switch or some such in the cabinet, yes? This should be clarified so the reader does not think the players themselves can select a time limit.
  • "Unable to put the game idea out of his mind, however, Bushnell soon thought of a way to manipulate the video signal on the screen with hardware without a computer having to control it, and from there the pair came up with the idea of removing the computer altogether and building specialized hardware to handle everything for the game instead" - So I know we have a real problem here in that Computer Space has two creators who tell about fifty different stories between them, but I would pay some attention to the series of events that Bushnell outlined in his court depositions and described in the Smith book. In the depos, Bushnell claims they had a basic dot-generating system going running on an exerciser that simulated just enough of the Nova to make sure the custom hardware was functioning. He then prepared to order some Novas, but learned from another programmer that the game would not run properly on the Nova. He therefore decided to expand the exerciser to eliminate a need for the computer entirely. Bushnell is sometimes hard to take at his word, even under oath, but the fact that he was ready to order some Nova computers in January 1971 is proven by a copy of a letter he wrote, but did not send, to Data General to order some Nova computers. The ongoing dialogue with Data General is confirmed by a letter from the regional sales manager for Data General dated February 26, 1971, in which he apparently is wondering why Bushnell has not ordered any computers yet. I know a little of this makes it into the article a little further along, but the part about being in contact with a Data General salesman in early 1971 is not in here, nor is the part about the exerciser.
  • " By January 1971, the pair had built some basic hardware which could connect to a monitor," - As per above, this is true, but the sequence is off because Bushnell was still considering a Nova computer in January 1971. Admittedly, some of the timeline stuff gets really weird in here because Bushnell and Dabney's more recent recollections do not gel well with the depo. However, said recollections are based on forty-year-old memories, while the depo is supported by documentary evidence from the period in question.
  • "Nutting had been founded in 1967 on the basis of Computer Quiz" - Nutting was established in January 1966 per Smith with cite to an internal Nutting document.
Location Test and Release
  • "and that some of the construction was done by Steve Bristow" - Bristow himself denied doing any engineering or board layout work on Computer Space while Bushnell was at Nutting, and there is really no reason to doubt that. What Bristow did do, as he told Retro Gamer for its Making of Computer Space feature, is work on some of the prototype boards in early 1971 while Bushnell was still employed by Ampex.
  • "monitor they are projected on" - While not an incorrect use of the term "projected" per se, using the term here does conjure up images of a projection television system in which an image is being magnified by lenses and projected onto a surface. Using a different term would provide more clarity. It's also written in passive voice.
  • "The rudimentary algorithm constructed by Bushnell has the enemy ships" - "Has" is an imprecise verb here. We can do better.
  • "The rudimentary algorithm constructed by Bushnell has the enemy ships firing towards the quadrant of the screen that the player's rocket is in, rather than a more complicated tracking algorithm" - I am not sure why there is a comparison here. He used a simple algorithm, so we already understand its not a complex algorithm by that single statement. The article does not provide an expectation that he would have used a complex algorithm, so the "rather" part does not serve any real purpose.
  • "it was a disappointment to Nutting, who had been hoping for a large-scale success" - There is Bill Nutting the man, and Nutting Associates his company. Up until now, only Nutting Associates the company has appeared in the article; Bill is not mentioned at all. The pronoun here indicates you have shifted to talking about the man. The easiest way to fix it is probably just changing the "who" to a "which."
  • "The game had no further involvement from Bushnell or Dabney" - Passive voice.
  • "Ed Logg, who borrowed the control scheme for Asteroids" - It inspired more than the control scheme: as Lyle Rains told Retro Gamer, the Asteroids concept started as essentially combining the movement and physics of Computer Space with the "clear the screen" game play of Space Invaders.
  • Another important influence not menioned in the article is that Steve Bristow stated in the book Replay that his inspiration for Tank was wanting to redo Computer Space with simpler physics and easier controls.

Overall, this is a wonderful article, and I look forward to supporting after a few small edits are made. Indrian (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Gameplay: Adjusted to clarify that it's a setting the operator controls
  • Development: Rewrote/adjusted this section to handle the early 1971 issues. Should be better now! Also fixed the Nutting 1966 bit- I read that section of the book while I fixed up that section, you'd think I'd notice the obvious date mismatch.
  • Location Test and Release: Fixed the grammar and Bristow issues
  • Reception: Fixed grammar issues, expanded Logg bit and added Bristow; I wrote Tank as well so I'm surprised I forgot about that.
Thanks for reviewing (again) and the copyedits! --PresN 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I'd like to see a source review from someone outside the video game project, likewise a comprehensive review from someone outside the video games project, just so we're sure that it's clear to non-specialists. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: how is the source review looking? And we're still trying for an outside the video game reviewer for this..I'm putting it on the urgents list. --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Not super-happy with the Starlog rationale but it's otherwise fine and I'm not going to oppose over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The anchor for the Smith source differs between References and Sources
  • FN5: is this an authorized republication?
  • What makes Technologizer a high-quality reliable source?
  • Infolab is a publisher not a work
  • Our article on Cash Box identifies it as a trade magazine for the music industry - is that an accurate characterization? Similarly Starlog is identified as a science fiction magazine?
  • I haven't found a website or anything for Syzygy Press - is there any more information available about this publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Cash Box primarily functioned as a music trade, but because the jukebox was a big part of music and jukebox route operators also operated coin-operated amusements, each issue into the 1980s contained a “Coin Machine News” section that functioned as an amusement industry trade. After Billboard basically stopped covering amusements circa 1970, Cash Box and Vending Times were the only trades covering the coin-op amusement industry in the United States until Replay and Play Meter appeared in the middle of the 1970s. The founder of Replay had actually been the editor of the Coin Machine News section in Cash Box. Indrian (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed the anchor
    • unlinked ref 5 as I can't prove it's authorized
    • Technologizer is a tech site founded/run by Harry McCracken, the former chief editor of PC World, an editor for Time, and the current technology editor for Fast Company; it was for a couple years part of though it's now independent.
    • Fixed Infolab formatting
    • As Indrian said, Cash Box was a music industry trade magazine, but at the time of this game (aka the founding of the video game industry) it also covered the "arcade" industry due to its connection to jukeboxes, and therefore was the trade magazine for that as well.
      • What about Starlog? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
        • Starlog is (was) a magazine focused on scifi entertainment; by 1983 it had been in publication for 7 years. I've added a They Create Worlds cite as it covers the same thing, but I want to leave the Starlog cite in as I think it's useful to have a source from 1983 saying the same thing as the 2019 source. --PresN 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't know about Syzygy Press; I know that specific book is cited by a lot of other ones, such as They Create Worlds (used in the article), as well as The History of Visual Magic in Computers, Tempest: Geometries of Play, Breakout: How Atari 8-Bit Computers Defined a Generation, Adventure: The Atari 2600 at the Dawn of Console Gaming, and Troublemakers: Silicon Valley's Coming of Age, to name a few from different authors and publishers. --PresN 02:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Is FN14 part of the same book or a different source? If the former suggest formatting it like that; if the latter, what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
        • FN14 is not part of the book. It is a blog post crafted by one of the authors of the book, Marty Goldberg, describing his research into the computers available at Utah at the time Nolan Bushnell attended the university and his conclusion based on that research that Nolan Bushnell could not have seen the game Spacewar at the university in the mid-1960s. This is a key point of historical contention in the evolution of Computer Space specifically and video games generally. Mr. Goldberg is considered an expert on Atari who has been published in multiple reliable publications including the magazine Retro Gamer. He also co-authored an article for the online academic journal Kinephanos with Devin Monnens on the spread of Spacewar that references this research and this blog post, which was central to the writing of that article. Kinephanos is a proper academic journal with an editorial board and therefore should qualify as a reliable source. Goldberg's record should qualify his blog post as a situationally reliable self-published source. In this case, the source is used to illuminate Mr. Goldberg's own research methods and activities alongside his conclusions based on that research. As Mr. Goldberg should qualify as a subject-matter expert based on his prior publication history and the numerous cites to his self-published book in reliable published scholarly works, that should meet Wikipedia's requirements for a self-published source. If you have any other questions or concerns about the source, I would be happy to answer them to the best of my ability. Indrian (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria: +1 on what Indrian said; also responded to your other point. Sorry for taking so long. --PresN 02:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

"Late in the evening of September 29, 1975, a sudden electrical storm struck a rural sea coast area of Georgia. Power lines, felled by high winds, sent hundreds of thousands of volts surging into the muddy ground, cutting off all electricity to the small, secluded town of Fly Creek. During the period that followed the storm, the citizens of Fly Creek experienced what scientists believe to be one of the most bizarre freaks of nature ever recorded. This is the story...."

That is the opening text to the movie Squirm, a movie about killer worms. And what would seem to be a hokey concept that would eventually be a subject on Mystery Science Theater 3000, it ended up being a much more interesting topic to cover. Mostly funded by Broadway executives, this movie also caused the state of Maine to have their local fishing industry devastated by the lack of worms that were instead used for the movie. And while not well received at the time, it has seen be the subject of analysis by critics for its place in 1970s "revenge of nature" films.

And I think this article has what it takes to become a Featured Article in its current status. If nothing else better to say, Squirm. GamerPro64 16:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Both taken care of. GamerPro64 23:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Andrzejbanas

Some information in the infobox is not anywhere in the article. specifically, the production company, the cinematographer, original theatrical run time, and its production country. Also, per MOS:FILM standards, we usually say "film" in an article, not "movie". Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Cinematographer is mentioned in the articles body. "Joe Mangine was the director of photography". Never heard of needing the theatrical run time in the body. Added it anyway. Changed movie to film in a few instances. GamerPro64 20:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Whups thank you. The theatrical runtime can be sourced in the infobox if its hard to include in the prose. I usually squeeze it in to a release section like Squirm was distributed theatrically by American International Pictures with a __ minute running time." It's more or less for having the running time in the infobox reflect an original release running time opposed to any "uncut" or "extended" version that may be on home video. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't know where to mention its production comapny and not sure the point of adding the production country. Not sure what that means either. GamerPro64 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Production company indicates a company or team formed that funded the film project. In this case, this one mentioned is a one off for the film in question. if you can't find a way to properly fit it in the prose, I would cite it in the infobox. the AFI database should handle it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I added the AFI source in the infobox. GamerPro64 04:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In the release section, you state it was shown at the Cannes Film Festival, was this at the Cannes Market, or as part of the festival? Cause those are two different things entirely.
I think it might mean the festival. I cant find any evidence to the contrary. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't see it on this section [24] here, so I'm assuming its the market. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
If thats the case I cannot find any sources saying that. The AFI link sources an article from the Daily Variety and I do not have access to the article. It just does not seem to have been talked about. What if I change the sentence to it being shown during Cannes? GamerPro64 16:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably for the best. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
When describing the films the editor has worked on, those names aren't going to mean anything to anyone who is not familiar with the history of these films or their reputation. Are they known for having high quality editing or are we just trying to say he's had a prolific career here?
I did it for the latter but I removed it from the article. I thought I read somewhere that Lieberman hired the editor because of his work for Performance but I cannot find a reliable source for that. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I would try and separate contemporary and retrospective reviews of the film to show how its grown or shrunk in reception at the time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I moved one review to the second paragraph as the second paragraph is more retrospective. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would use a source other than for its release date. information on release dates and technical details are all supplied by its users. I know, as I've done it myself! :) Might be a good starting off point to find another source though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I replaced the source. GamerPro64 03:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I would split up the page sources from Fangoria. It appears to be going over two pages, when sources from books should be limited to one and two pages. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which Fangoria link? There are two in the article. GamerPro64 15:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I know which source you mean now. I don't see where that is a requirement for magazines. GamerPro64 18:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I would split it up so it doesn't get tagged for going above and beyond. Doesn't really hurt to get specific. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean getting tagged for going above and beyond? When I nominated Soultaker I didn't get flak for one of my sources being multiple pages. GamerPro64 03:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: With the Fangoria link nonwithstanding, would you say the article meets the standards for FA or oppose its nomination? GamerPro64 22:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I might change the Leonard Maltin review to just say its from his book. His book has several editors, so I don't think it's just him reviewing the films in those books. Having trouble finding confirmation. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed it to the book. GamerPro64 18:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
As all my suggestions have been met, I support this article for as FA-status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

I don't think I'll have time to do a full review, but on looking through I think the reception section needs some work. See WP:RECEPTION for some ideas; you have the "A said B" problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: That is a fair assessment. I reworked the Reception to make it better. GamerPro64 20:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    That's a little better, but not what I think is needed. Take a look at the before and after versions of Open Here; I think that's a great example of how to take a reception section from a listing of quotes to an integrated narrative of the critical opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    I think I understand now. I reworked paragraph one. Hopefully that works better. Not entirely sure if paragraph two can be worked out the same way. GamerPro64 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    That's much improved. I do think the second paragraph needs similar treatment. I've copyedited the first paragraph but I have one question: what do you mean by "though considered there was admirable earnestness for the effort"? This is qualifying the comment about the "clumsy and amateurish" production, which is in turn qualifying the comment about the special effects, so I can't tell if the "effort" is towards the effects or the production. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'll just remove that bit out of the sentence. GamerPro64 15:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    The second paragraph has been reworked. GamerPro64 16:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mike Christie: Are you only looking at the Reception page for this review? GamerPro64 19:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, at least unless I get more time than I have now. I have glanced at the second paragraph and I think it's improved but could do with some copyediting. I'm going to hold off on commenting again till I see what other reviewers think and may revisit if I have time then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

  • I would simplify the following sentence, (Makeup artist Rick Baker provided special effects for the film using prosthetic makeup for the first time in his career.), by just saying "prosthetics" to avoid repeating the word "makeup" twice in the same sentence.
  • I would mention the split between contemporary and retrospective reviews in the lead.
  • I am assuming an exact production budget and box office are either not known or simply unavailable, but I just want to make sure that I am correct.
    • At the least they got $470,000 from the two Broadway producers. In terms of box office I can not find any source about what it got but at the least it was financially successful. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence of the "Plot" section, I would link Georgia to be consistent with the lead where the state is linked.
  • I think a link for worm farm would be helpful. It may just be me, but I have actually never heard of this concept or phrase before reading this article.
  • I think this part, (The original filming location and setting was planned for New England), could be simplified by removing "planned for" as I do not think it is needed.
  • I am uncertain if the United States link is entirely necessary in this part, (who released it theatrically in the United States on July 14, 1976,) since I think a majority of readers would be familiar with the country.
    • You are probably right. Removed. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but do we know what was removed from the film to meet the PG rating?
    • In the next paragraph it mentions a shower scene with Patricia Pearcy, where she is nude in it. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have seen some editors/reviewers say they dislike having the Rotten Tomatoes score in the prose, specifically for a film released prior to the website being founded and for something without a "critics consensus". I am not saying you should remove it, as I am indifferent about the topic, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • If someone else here has a problem with it, I can definitely remove it from the article. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I will leave the discussion on the "Reception" subsection to Mike Christie as he is more qualified than I am for that. I do agree with his suggestion, though I think the separation between contemporary and retrospective reviews is a good idea.
  • For the Mystery Science Theater 3000 part, I would clarify that Lieberman did not care about "goofing on the movie" (according to the citation) and was more angry about MGM than anyone with MST3K. This is conveyed in this part, (saying it cheapened the value of the movie), but I still think it would be helpful to emphasize his criticism was not directed at the show to avoid potential misinterpretations.
  • I would avoid Wikipedia:SHOUTING (i.e. having titles in all caps) in references 32 and 35.
  • The formatting for AllMovie is inconsistent in references 11 and 19. In 11, it is not in italics, and in 19, it is in italics. In either case, the M should be capitalized.
    • Fixed that issue. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Random question, but is there any information on the song that plays over the credits?
    • Besides it being written by the movies composer Robert Prince, I don't see any other information. GamerPro64 01:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. I could not find any other information on it as well. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I must admit this is 100% not my kind of movie, but this article was very engaging and genuinely enjoyed learning about the film. I am surprised this FAC has not received more attention. This is what I noticed from my first read-through. Once everything is addressed, I will go through the article again to make sure I give everything the proper time and attention. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

  • There seems to be an error with reference 16. Aoba47 (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Gonna make it easier and just remove the url. You can still find it on the Wayback Machine but the url is a bit wack. GamerPro64 04:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the clarification. Citation formatting can be annoying, and I think your edit makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I support this for promotion based on the prose. I will leave the "Reception" subsection to the more experienced Mike Christie, but I do have one quick suggestion. It may be beneficial to start new paragraphs on the critical reviews for Jeff Liberman's direction and the less than positive retrospective reviews, but that is just a suggestion. Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Apologies for adding another message here, but if you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC about a very different type of film. I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Aoba47 (talk) 01:04, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Hi, just a heads-up that this is getting on a bit without much in evidence of consensus to promote -- I'll add to the FAC Urgents list and aim to revisit in the coming week to see how things are going. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I would really like to see a comprehensive review from outside the movie project, and I'm not seeing a source review either. I'm close to archiving this - it's been on the urgents list for over three weeks now and hasn't really gotten much traction or a source review either. Giving it a day or so but... --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it be possible to forgo waiting two weeks to renominate? I think this almost had a chance to become a Featured Article but the lack of eyes killed it. GamerPro64 19:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC), BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the most well known snooker tournament of all-time. The Snooker World Championship dates back to 1927, but the 1985 event was the first to have drugs testing and a prize fund of £250,000. Three-time and defending champion Steve Davis had become a dominant player by the time of the event, and reached the final, where he played Northern Irishman Dennis Taylor. In a first-to-18 frames final, Davis took an 8-0 lead, but Taylor made a comeback after the first day to trail 8-9. The final became very close, and went to 17-17. Davis went ahead in the deciding frame, with Taylor needing the remaining four balls to win the final. Both players missed shots on these balls, but Taylor potted the final ball to win the tournament and his only world championship.

The final finished after midnight watched by 18.5 million viewers, holding the record for the highest television audience on BBC Two and for any UK broadcast after midnight to date. Alongside BennyOnTheLoose, I've put a lot of work into this one, so I look forward to any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:1985_World_Snooker_Championship_book_cover.jpg needs a more expansive FUR and a more specific source, and is it a book cover or a poster? Tag doesn't match description. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
    • I have added some more info for the FUR, and a full link to the page source. It's strictly speaking neither, it's an event programme. I suppose it is closer to a book cover, so I've changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Betty Logan (support)

Please bear with me on this. I will be looking at this over the next few days and will be periodically updating my comments. Betty Logan (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • The lead looks fine overall although the following sentence could do with some sort of punctuation between the bolded words: ...and was the ninth consecutive World Snooker Championship to be held at the Crucible the first event taking place in 1977.
  • this was Davis' third world championship having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. – I understand this, but it could be slightly ambiguous. A "third world championship" could be misinterpreted as implying that it is the third time Davis had competed in the world championship. Maybe something on the following lines would remove the ambiguity: this was Davis' third world title, having also won in 1981 and 1983.
    • I've put this as "Championship win, which removes all ambiguity. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • As defending champion, Steve Davis was seeded first for the event; the remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on world rankings for the previous season. – I think "previous" is the wrong choice of word here. The rankings were technically for the current season (even though the points themselves came from the preceding two seasons).
  • Bill Werbeniuk (seeded 14th) had not won a single match all season, but defeated Joe Johnson 10–8 and scored a 143 break in the tenth frame – the third-highest break at the championship to date. – This is ambiguous wording. A reader could take "to date" to mean 2020, and they could interpret it to mean just the 1985 Championship. The timeframe and Championship chronology needs to be made explicit.
  • With only a few shots left to play to win the match, Reardon borrowed Fagan's cue for the victory. – Is there any backstory to this or was Reardon just larking around?
    • I think he broke it - BennyOnTheLoose as I'm still waiting on TWL, is there more details? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Reardon was around 50 points ahead and safe in the last frame when his cue tip came off. He would have been given 15 minutes to re-tip it, but Fagan offered the use of his own cue instead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Davis won the second session to lead 10–6, but looked back and lost frame 17. Griffiths committed a waistcoat foul, allowing Davis to win the frame and (eventually) win 13–6 to reach his fourth World Championship semi-final. – A couple of problems here. First, this comes across as WP:JARGON. Can't we just explain in simple English how Davis lost the frame? Second, if Davis led 10–6 and lost the 17th frame, wouldn't this have taken Griffith's frame score to 7? Yet the final score is stated to be 13–6. This needs to be cleared up.
    • Benny could you quantify this for me? I think it was that Davis needed a couple snookers but was helped with the waistcoat foul. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • It was 10-6 to Davis at the end of the second session. In the 17th frame, Davis made a break of 80 after the foul by Griffiths. (The frame score ended up being 84-6 to Davis so he hadn't needed snookers.) Davis won all three frames in the third session to go from a 10-6 lead to a 13-6 win.(Snooker Scene, June 1985, p.15; Guardian, 24 April 1985, p.26.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Reardon won all five frames of the third session (seven in a row) to lead 12–9, and Parrott won the next three frames to force a deciding frame. – Presumably this is a mistype? I think that should probably read "the first five frames"
  • The session was called interesting by Clive Everton of The Guardian, however, due to the "high quality of the tactical play." – I think this would read better if "called" was replaced with "described as".
  • He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible, a 106 break in frame 13. – I think this needs to be double checked. According to our articles Davis made two in 1980, three in 1981, two in 1983, one in 1984 and three in 1985, for a grand total of eleven. I think that should read 10th.
    • No, I think this is the 100th overall. I'll clarify Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      @Lee Vilenski: Actually I just took a look at the source used for this, and the section is called "Crucible milestone centuries", so it's highly likely the 100th century at the Crucible. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      @Lee Vilenski: I reworded this sentence a couple of days ago, but I think I was wrong. I had understood it to mean that Davis compiled his 100th career century in this match, but I now agree with Armbrust that it must have been the 100th century ever compiled at the Crucible rather than Davis's personal milestone. Hence, the original wording: "He compiled his 100th century break at the Crucible..." was also wrong. This tweet might also bear this out... "I've just heared that they not gonna show the '85 final,but the 100th Crucible century,that also was made that year" although of course we can't use that as a source! Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
    The image caption in the same section speaks about career century break. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
    Ah, of course, it is referring to career centuries. The fact that it confused me means it could confuse other readers though, so it needs to be clarified. Betty Logan (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Restarting the match, Davis took the eighth frame and was leading in frame nine but missed a thin cut on the green ball which was later considered the turning point of the match – The match resumed, not restarted.
  • Davis also lost the following year's final, this time to qualifier Joe Johnson – I am pretty sure this is incorrect. According to 1986 World Snooker Championship Johnson was 16th seed.
  • If the defending champion was ranked outside the top 16 in the world rankings as an automatic qualifier – I have read this note over several times and it doesn't make any sense to me. I know what it is meant to say (that if the defending champion is ranked outside the top 16 then they still automatically qualify). I am not sure the note is even necessary here. The only time I know of that this has happened is in 2006.
    • Clarified. I'm not sure it's so much of an issue being here. That's why it's a note, rather than in the prose, as it doesn't effect the article, but worth clarifying. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Betty Logan - is there anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
No I give my full support to its promotion. Great job Lee and Benny. Betty Logan (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Potentially unreliable sources
  • [] – I know there is some debate about this source at the Snooker Project. However, here it is only used to source a single claim, which is reproduced in Eric Hayton's Cue Sport Book of Professional Snooker (on page 1), so we could replace it without prejudice.
  • [] – Used extensively throughout the article; this source is duplicated in many cases so it may be possible to remove without much disruption.
    • I've replaced some of these, and will look for alternative sources for the others. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • [] – Ditto this one too.

Comments by Epicgenius

I intend to start reviewing this by tomorrow. Feel free to ping me if I forget. epicgenius (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • 16 of whom reached the main stage, where they met the 16 invited seeded players. - this is not a complete sentence, but it's preceded by a semicolon. Maybe the semicolon should be changed to a comma.
  • The match, often referred to as the "black ball final" - this specific quoted text only appears in the lead.
  • this was Davis' third world championship win, having also won the title in 1981 and 1983. - seems like this is a dangling modifier, as it appears from the wording that the world championship win also won the title in 1981 and 1983. But "also won the title in 1981 and 1983" applies to Davis, so it should be rephrased.
  • the tests were proposed by WPBSA board member Barry Hearn. - is there a particular reason?
    • The source says "Rumours of drug-taking preceded the association's decision to start tests." Hearn is quoted as saying, of testing, "It was the best thing to do for the image of the sport." (title=Drug snooker tests can't detect |author=Foster, Jonathan |author2=Hale, Janice |work=The Observer |date=14 April 1985 |page=3). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The event had a total prize fund of £250,000, an increase of £50,000 in the total prize pool from the previous year, and the winner received £60,000, an increase of £16,000 from the previous year - is it standard to include increases in prize funds? Is there a reason why, or do prize funds just change from year to year?
    • It's quite normal. There isn't all that much you can comment on a prize fund, other than what it is, and how it equates to similar events. Nothing is particularly made public as to why it is more - most likely because of sponsorship, and TV rights. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The 16 winners from the fifth (and final) - does this need the parentheses?
  • aged 71 and eight-time champion between 1948 and 1956 - interesting. Is there a maximum age limit for contestants?
    • There is not. It's a completely open event (other than being of sufficient quality to appear in the qualification rounds. Seniors, women and junior players have all appeared in the qualifiers. (Seniors in snooker is actually 40s and over, and we've had players over that age win the main championships, (see Mark Williams in 2018.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • A Daily Star series of articles about drug abuse from within the championship was based on statements reportedly by Silvino Francisco. - this seems like it's related to the drug tests
  • Davis made a break to 80 win the frame - is this missing a word (e.g. 80 to win the frame)?

More later. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Was there more Epicgenius? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I'll leave some more comments today. epicgenius (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • At the 2010 World Snooker Championship, to celebrate 25 years since the event, - would it be better to say "to celebrate the 25th anniversary"?

@Lee Vilenski: Actually, I guess this is it. epicgenius (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Support epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Rodney Baggins

Sorry it's taken me so long to get this ready for you. I've done some copyediting – I hope you've had chance to look through the changes I've made and that you're OK with it all. These are my outstanding observations and suggestions:

  • "the first tournament taking place" > "the first tournament having taken place" (tense)
  • (thought we weren't linking £ sign any more?)
  • "took an early 8–0 lead" — this might be misleading as the first session had 7 frames, maybe better to just say "won the first eight frames of the match" ?
  • "The final frame was contested over the final black ball" > "The 35th frame was contested over the final black ball" (rm final/final rep)
  • "After both players missed, Taylor potted the black" > "After both players missed the black twice, Taylor potted the ball" ? otherwise it sounds like they both missed it ONCE which is not accurate
  • "before spreading to" unfortunately puts me in mind of a virus, would it be possible to change that to "before being introduced to"?
  • The draw for the tournament was made at the Savoy Hotel in London > (do we need to say when?)
  • Shouldn't seed be linked at first mention? > "progressed into the main draw to play the top 16 seeds"
  • Don't we need to link 1984–85 snooker season? (and use en dash)
  • "Four players made their world championship debuts, all through the qualifying event" — sounds odd, as if they all made their debuts right the way through the qualifying event, or throughout the qualifying event — could change to " way of the qualifying event" or even just "...via the qualifying event" or "all via qualifying" or some such alternative wording.
  • Would it be best to change "Reigning champion" to "Defending champion" here for consistency/accuracy?
    • I don't see why it makes a difference, both are true Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The picture of Steve Davis in this section is misleading as it's clearly him as an older man so I don't think it's a good idea to include it.
    • Nothing wrong with using the image. I'll expand the caption Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although Reardon had won previous matches" > "Although Reardon had won his previous matches" (i.e. the ones he'd played earlier in this competition, rather than just some arbitrary previous matches)
  • I don't get this sentence: "Reardon was the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, but failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." as the two clauses don't really relate to one another. Just because he was the oldest WC semi-finalist doesn't mean he would be expected to play at the level he had played against Parrott! I'd change it to something like: "Reardon, the oldest World Championship semi-finalist, failed to play at the level he had played against Parrott." (plus maybe put it higher up before the strong safety play sentence)
  • Also might be best to say oldest-ever WC semi-finalist otherwise it might sound as if he was just the oldest of the four semi-finalists in 1985!
  • Not sure about cuegloss links for "thin cut" — should we be linking feather as there is no cuegloss link specifically for "thin cut"!
    • I always though feather was to do with the stroke of the cue ball!Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
      • the WPBSA rules say "A stroke is made when the striker strikes the cue-ball with the tip of the cue, except whilst addressing the cue-ball (known as feathering)". I think feather in the Cue Sports Glossary is North American usage - maybe "thin cut" here ? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I chose to link to "feather" because the glossary describes it primarily as "A very thin cut shot" which is what we are describing here, but it doesn't say anything about it being an American term, hence my confusion. I think Benny's "thin cut" suggestion is good, but wouldn't we need to explain what is meant by "thin"? Maybe the glossary entry needs a bit of clarification. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "although he had not been ahead at any point during the game," irrelevant in context of him waggling his finger & kissing the trophy. Just say "After potting the final ball, Taylor raised his cue stick, "waggled" his finger and kissed the winner's trophy." Maybe "Taylor had not been ahead at any point during the match." could be worked in somewhere else?
  • I've identified some problems with the details in the Final table (Main draw section) as explained on Talk page
  • In Century breaks section, I've added wikilinks for all four championships (1979/1982/1983/1981) even though they are already linked higher up in article, because I thought it likely that reader might want to check out the events directly off the information presented here.
  • In the Qualifying tables, what does "scr" stand for in place of score when the other player gets a walkover? Scratched? Would w/d be better here?

Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodney Baggins did you have anything further? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Lee. I've had another look through and I'm happy to support the article. Just some final points that you might want to look at:
  • Lead: "the 16 invited seeded players" > does Seed (sports) need to be linked in here as it's the first mention of the word in whole article? It's a special term that's linked for the purposes of clarity in Format section, so should probably also be linked in lead section for same reason, as other links are repeated from lead at first mention in body, e.g. Crucible Theatre, etc.
Indeed it should. For reference, WP:OL seperates links in the lede and the body. So, if it's suitable for a link, it should be linked in both the lede, and the body (but not twice in the lede, or twice in the body). Execptions are things like tables, graphs and image captions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead: "The winner received £60,000, which was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." > "The winner received £60,000, which at the time was the highest amount ever received by the winner of a snooker event." (otherwise it says that's the all-time highest winner's prize!)
I think this made more sense before we removed a sentence before it - clarified. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Second round: "his cue tip came off" > "his cue tip broke off"?
  • I'm not sure I agree (although, I don't have the source, it could say broke), cue tips are generally glued to the end of the cue. We should follow what the source says here, as it's possible it simply came apart. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • (?) Semi-finals: The image caption has been bugging me as it's quite long and the fact that he reached the final is implicit in that he beat Reardon in the semi-finals. Maybe reduce to "Defending champion Steve Davis (pictured in 2007) defeated Ray Reardon in the semi-finals, completing the 100th Crucible century break."
  • (?) Final: We have "[Taylor] was never ahead at any point" in 2nd para, and "Taylor was not ahead at any point during the match" in 3rd para, which is a bit repetitious. I'd just change "ahead" to "in the lead" for one of these.
  • (general) Davis' or Davis's...? It turns out this should really be Davis's per MOS:POSS which says that you should add 's after proper names that already end with an s. I guess it's so it sounds like normal speech / more natural if reading aloud?
I didn't realise there was a distinction! Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Lee. I think you missed a couple (points 4 & 5 above) or did you dismiss them? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Armbrust

According to both sources in the "Century breaks" section, the highest break of the 1979 championship was 142. (The reference need to be rearchived too). Armbrust The Homunculus 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

According to page 21 of the Crucible Almanac (2012) the final had 7 frames in the 1st sesssion, 9 in the 2nd, 8 in the 3rd and 11 in the 4th. Thus the table for the final is wrong. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I have updated this since your comments in the talk page Armbrust. 11 frames for the final session is ridiculous though! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Maybe, but that's how the four sessions of the final were between 1984 and 1996 (7-9-8-11). (In 1980 & 1981 it was 9-9-8-9, in 1982 & 1983 8-9-8-10, between 1997 & 2010 8-8-8-11, and since 2011 8-9-8-10). And this also doesn't take into account that slow play. (In 2006 there were a maximum of 13 frames to be played in the last session, but only 10 were necessary.) Armbrust The Homunculus 13:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Armbrust: After doing some rewording, I've removed the failed verification tag you added about prize money. In Guinness Snooker – The Records (p.86), Everton writes that it was "the game's richest ever first prize - £60,000." Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Armbrust thanks for taking a look at this - was there anything else you wanted me to clarify/change? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@Betty Logan: have the source concerns been met? @Nikkimaria: Have your image concerns been dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes. The sourcing is of a high quality now. There is nothing here causing me any concern. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Portraits of Odaenathus

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Odaenathus king of Palmyra is a much celebrated figure in Roman history, credited with saving the Empire from the Persian monarch Shapur I. Sadly, we do not know how he looked like, but we do have portraits that are more likely to represent him than others. Some of those sculptures are lost, and we only have photos of them. This article traces every single possible depiction of the king, and clarify what portraits do not represent him despite being promoted as such more than the ones that might be actual depictions. The article is definitely for lovers of obscure artifacts and antiquities, and was copy-edited by a member of the copy-edit guild to guarantee its reading quality. This is the second attempt after the first one few months ago failed to attract more than one reviewer.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • I would have a better portrait for the lead image.
  • "he defeated the Sasanian emperor of Persia Shapur I". Persia Shapur I is MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • "besieged him in his capital Ctesiphon in 263". If you mention the siege, you should say what the result was.
  • The account of Odaenathus's life in the first paragraph is brief and unsatisfactory. I suggest that it would be better to provide a summary of the lead to Odaenathus for the portrait article.
  • "which is fitting of Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle" This is ungrammatical. Maybe "which fits Shapur's description in the thirteenth Sibylline Oracle".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Dudley. The portrait is an issue as most portraits do not represent Odaenathus but are popularly held to be representations of him, which was the reason I wrote this article to clarify the matter. Therefore, the portraits that most likely represent Odaenathus are of bad quality because they are mostly clay Palmyrene tesserae (though tessera is a piece of mosaic, academics use the designation Palmyrene tessera to indicate a clay engraved token that allowed entry to temple feasts and important celebrations and occasions). The lead image is the best I found, unless Im gonna use the mosaic photo, which is tentatively identified as depicting Odaenathus but the figure in it has no royal attributes nor a name is mentioned nor a royal title. Actually, the most likely portrait of Odaenathus is available here, but I cant use it due to Wikipedia's rule of no "NonCommercial" photos (which is counterproductive tbh). I have dealt with your other comments, and expanded the overview section to be a short summary of his life.
  • "presided over Palmyra's apogee". This is unreferenced and controversial. Most historians would say that the apogee was under Zenobia.
  • "Mosaic panels found in Palmyra might have a depiction of Odaenathus" I am not clear what the purpose is of this sentence. They might have a depiction of anyone.
  • "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and became the ruler "ras" of Palmyra in the 240s." This is vague. What does "ras" mean? Was he appointed "ras" by the Roman emperor?
  • "After a successful campaign in 263, where Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon,[5] and resulted in the eviction of the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered,[6] he assumed the title of King of Kings in 263 and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler." This is ungrammatical and clumsy. Maybe "In 263 Odaenathus besieged the Persian capital Ctesiphon[5] and evicted the Persians out of the Roman provinces they conquered.[6] In the same year he assumed the title of King of Kings and declared his son Herodianus co-ruler."
  • The more I read of this article the more doubtful I am that Wikipedia is the right place for it. It is too technical for a general readership, and it is very unlikely that specialists will come across it. Have you tried submitting it to a scholarly journal? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
While not the easiest read, it is still a very descriptive article that does not satisfy the criteria of scholarly journals. I did not introduce any new insights, just provided what scholars had to say. Technical articles still belong to Wikipedia, but we need to make them easy to understand as much as possible without jeopardizing the quality and knowledge value of them, which is something I hope I managed to do.
  • "photos of it survive". I think you should say "photographs".
  • "Alexander the Great of Macedon". I do not think you need "of Macedon".
  • "This tessera is at the museum in Damascus". Should be "This tessera is in National Museum of Damascus. Similarly the next two tesserae should be described as "in Damascus Museum".
  • "on macroscopic observations". What does this mean?
I added a wikilink. The guy counted on his eyesight to determine its marble
  • At the start of the article "the king of Palmyra from 260 to 267". This should be 260 to 267 CE (or AD). Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine now. You might try submitting the article to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [25]. This accepts submission of Wikipedia articles and publishes them after peer review by experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks alot for your support, and for the suggestion.


  • So now that image we found on Flickr has finally come to good use! I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey FunkMonk! Yes, that photo opened the door for this article, was a very nice find
  • Link names of places and people in captions?
  • Mention museums in all captions for artifacts?
  • There are some duplinks.
Done- Gallienus is linked in the overview section, and in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" section, there is another link to that page when I mention the Gallienic model. I dont think many readers will understand what its meant with the Gallienic model if I dont link it to Gallienus because we have no page on the Gallienic style of portraits
Link Palmyrene kingdom, Vaballathus, Herodianus, Hairan, and Heracles too in captions? FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Odaenathus belonged to an important Palmyrene family and was elected as "ras" (lord) of Palmyra by the city's council in the 240s." Quite a few names and term here that are not linked at first mention in the article body. I wonder if ras should link to anyone, would Rais be misleading?
As far as I read, no scholar compared it with the Arabic rais. It is translated as lord, and for me this indicates some kind of monarchical power (specially that Odaenathus was gifted a throne when he was ras by a city notable. Today in Arabic you can use rais to indicate a captain of a ship, so Im not sure its wise to link ras to rais
  • "As a Roman city on the borders with Persia, Palmyra was affected by the constant war between the two empires,[3] which culminated in 260 with the defeat and capture of the Roman emperor Valerian by the Persian Sasanian emperor Shapur I" Here Roman is only linked at second mention, and could Shapur I be linked?
  • "assumed the title of King of Kings" King of Kings also has an article, wonder if it is relevant.
  • "Germanic raiders" Link?
  • "A few small clay tesserae" Link term?
We have no article for Palmyrene tesserae which are banquets tokens (invitation cards) and not the same as a mosaic tessera
  • It seems most of the intro is a repeat of the overview section, more so than a summary about the subject itself, which are the portraits? I wonder if it could be more balanced?
Intro expanded and re-written
  • "Depicting a "strong, severe personality"" According to who? Such direct quotes should probably get in text attribution.
  • "and the Istanbul specimen is 40 centimetres" Isn't specimen more properly used for biological examples?
  • "Ingholt concluded that the heads should be dated to 250, and represent Odaenathus I" Represented?
  • Any info on where and when the Copenhagen and Istanbul heads were found?
Sadly no. Ingholt does not know, and it is probably that this will never be known as they were excavated before the age of academic archaeology when documenting the provenance of finds was not of importance
  • "Three head sculptures were excavated from a hexagonal tomb in Palmyra's northern necropolis by its head of antiquities, Khaled al-As'ad" Dates?
  • Having read a few of the first examples, it is unclear to me when and by who each was claimed to depict Odaenathus, maybe it could be stated clearer for each of them?
Here is a problem as I start with explaining about the piece and how it was found before mentioing which shcolars identified it with Odaenathus. It is clear however in each section, though normally at the end of it
  • It is also a bit difficult to figure out where to look for when these claims were doubted, and where one overall section begins and ends. Maybe this would become clearer if you could make more top level sections so that for example limestone portraits are broken more clearly away from Marble portraits with a line, so that the conclusion section is more easily seen as belonging within the former section? Then also the Tesserae portraits could begin after a line as their own section, etc.? In that regard, the "Portraits" top level section is perhaps redundant, since the article is already called Portraits of Odaenathus?
  • "drawing on exclusively on macroscopic" First on is unnecessary.
  • "found a material indicating the presence" Not sure if the a is necessary.
  • "Mosaic of the tiger hunt" You put this title in italics and with capitals in the article body, shouldn't it be in the caption too?
  • "the tigers are Panthera tigris virgata and were once common in the region" maybe ", which were once common"?
  • Yu link Hellenistic at the last instead of first mention.
  • "he most likely portraits are two marble heads depicting a man in a royal diadem, and an eastern royal tiara, in addition to Palmyrene tesserae of a bearded king wearing a diadem." I think this could maybe also be made clearer in their individual sections?
  • Support - nice to see an article from you strictly about art also! I think the new section layout makes the article much easier to navigate. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. However, I am seeing sandwiching in the "In the Damascus and Palmyra museums" (see MOS:IMAGELOC). buidhe 03:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
In the Damascus and Palmyra museums is a short section and thats the problem as its photos will push into the next one. If I dont sandwich, the photos of the Limestone sculptures section will push to the marble section, and so I believe that this single case of sandwiching is justified.
I fixed the sandwiching myself, as long as the issue does not reoccur, the image review can be considered passed. (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

  • I don't see a source review and I'm going to add this to the urgents list for another comprehensive review. Also @Buidhe: over the image concerns, are you satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Space Shuttle

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the NASA Space Shuttle, specifically the system itself and not the program or a particular mission. I figured this iconic spacecraft was worth improving an article over. I recently got it to Good Article status and would like to continue its improvement! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


As a bit of a drive-by comment, I'm surprised to see that this article doesn't appear to discuss the cost-effectiveness of the Space Shuttles. As I understand it, while the main rationale for the program was that reusable space shuttles would be cheaper than single-use spacecraft this turned out to not be the case in practice for a wide range of reasons. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the discussion on the costs/cost-effectiveness are more appropriate for the Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program. While it is certainly an important part of the discussion about the decision to use the Space Shuttle, this article's focus is primarily on the Space Shuttle itself and not the missions/program/pros and cons. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that the often-made argument that the design didn't meet its goals deserves some space in the article. It helps to explain why the Space Shuttle is being replaced with a concept similar to that which it itself replaced, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Where do you see it as most appropriate to put this in the page? I'm not trying to come across as if I'm disregarding your critique, but I feel like this article largely stays away from the criticisms and defenses of the Space Shuttle, so there's not a logical place to put it without an adding a long section discussing the cost-benefits of the shuttle. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
What would be the problem with that? FA level articles on aircraft and ship types, for instance, discuss whether the design met its goals (or similar) as this is typically a topic the sources have a focus on. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay! I'll take a look at some examples and work it in! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I put this in under the "Criticism" sub-section, specifically focusing on its lack of cost-effectiveness and spotty safety record. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if you have any more feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


  • I might say something in the lede about the external tiles, and how damage to them made the shuttle vulnerable.
  • I added in the tiles to the lead section, but it seems inconsistent to mention that they are a potential weakness of the shuttle, as there's no similar mention about how SRB damage would harm the vehicle/crew. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Beginning in the early 1950s, NASA and the Air Force" NASA did not exist in the early 1950s.
  • "The program tested aerodynamic characteristics that would later be applied to the Space Shuttle, " I don't think you can apply characteristics. I'd change one word or the other.
  • I updated this to say that the characteristics were incorporated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Are the Space Task Group and the Space Shuttle Task Group different things? I might then find means to distinguish them, such as the use of abbreviations.
  • I'm not thrilled about using an entire book as a source, without page numbers, as you do several times.
  • Are you talking about the specifications section that references the Jenkins book as a whole? I've begun referencing individual pages, but just to make sure I understand, you are looking for a page reference for every specification? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that where a source with page numbers is used, page numbers should be used. There was a recent discussion of this at WT:FAC FYI.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion of the decision to have a shuttle makes it sound rather inevitable, which I'm not certain it was.
  • Can you point me to where you think it sounds inevitable? I'm reading it over and my take is that it comes across like a study was conducted that concluded a reusable system was ideal. But it's hard to view your own writing critically, so please let me know what you want me to consider. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I was reading this book some weeks ago that presented it as not inevitable.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I was unclear. I understand that the Shuttle itself wasn't an inevitable decision, and I don't feel like the article presents it as such. Could you point me to where it comes across like that? Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Mentions of the repeated delays in the shuttle, that resulted in NASA going almost six years between spaceflights, would be good.
  • I think I adequately address the delays in the development of Columbia and the RS-25; what else are you looking to be brought up? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The shuttle was originally supposed to fly in 1977, it flew in 1981.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The orbiter used retractable landing gear with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear, " should one or more of the "gear" be "gears"?
  • "The crew compartment comprised three decks, and was the pressurized, habitable area on all Space Shuttle missions. The cockpit consisted of two seats for the commander and pilot, as well as an additional two to four seats for crew members. The mid-deck is located below the cockpit, and is where the galley and crew bunks were set up, as well as three or four crew member seats." Is there a reason why you mix past and present tense?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The mid-deck was located underneath the flight deck" We know. You already told us three paragraphs before. Suggest omit, similar get rid of the repetition of the fact that the cockpit had 2-4 additional seats for crew members.
  • You are not consistent "S band" vs. "S-band".
  • "Although the orbiter could not be flown without a crew," Is this entirely correct? I thought I read in the "would a rescue have been possible" of the Columbia disaster report that if the crew had been taken on board another shuttle, that Columbia could have been deorbited (to destruction) under Houston's control.
  • Reworded. I can't speak for the Columbia disaster, but the autonomous landing of the orbiter was possible, but never tested or proven. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I would mention the tiles in "Thermal Protection System" might higher, in the first sentence preferably.
  • That's it for the moment, but glancing ahead, I don't see any mention of the fact that the Shuttle never had the Air Force participation that was expected (and that this and other reasons left the Shuttle short on customers), that it never flew the number of missions that NASA had expected (and told Congress) and that every few years, a shuttle had to go back to California for lengthy refurbishment.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree on adding in the refurbishment info, but I would like to leave out the commentary on the program's success to other pages (such as Space Shuttle program and Criticism of the Space Shuttle program). I think there's going to be some overlap between these pages, but my thoughts for this page are its primarily about the Space Shuttle itself and not the program. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't insist on it but I think you could say a few words at the start of the "Retirement" section without too much of a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Shuttle Launch Weather Officer monitored conditions until the final decision to scrub a launch was announced." Or, presumably until some point at launch or soon thereafter?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed this sentence; it seems redundant considering the other sentences about how weather is monitored to make sure it's safe to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Who do the various orbiters and equipment actually belong to? With the Apollo material, it's often the Smithsonian on loan.
  • In the popular culture section, I might mention Lee Correy's Shuttle Down, especially as it apparently led NASA to secure emergency landing rights on Easter Island.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't find any sources linking the book with establishing Easter Island as an abort site. I'm fine with mentioning the book itself; any idea on a reliable source to see the plot summary (the Shuttle Down page references print media and the Internet Speculative Fiction Database). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have a copy of the book itself (that I took ashore in my backpack on my visit to Easter Island in February 2014).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Wehwalt: Do you have a source for this? Easter Island was needed for an abort for a polar launch from Vandenberg, and was developed as a base by the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project in the 1960s. I thought it was abandoned in 1969, but if not I will add a note to that effect to the MOL article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    • No source, just remember reading it at the time. And part of the premise of the book was that there were no such rights.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
      I found some references [26][27] and have updated the MOL article to note this. 20:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good with the changes and what Hawkeye7 has suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the orbiter illustration in the Specifications section
    Scalled up to 600 px. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    What do you think should be expanded? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
    Alt text added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:LiftingBodies.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:President_Nixon_and_James_Fletcher_Discuss_the_Space_Shuttle_-_GPN-2002-000109.jpg. Same with File:Hubble_First_Servicing_EVA_-_GPN-2000-001085.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_Orbiter-Illustration.jpg, File:020408_STS110_Atlantis_launch.jpg.
    Changed the sources to their archive links. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7

A pity that WP:Spaceflight has no A class assessment process, so we come here. The article is a top-level one, so each section has a sub-article. Writing top-down like this is more difficult (but much quicker) than working bottom up, and the main problems with the article are structural, but fixable.

  • Following from Nick-D's comments, I agree that the cost of launches and operations should be added to this page. I would put it in the Post-landing processing section.
    Despite my misgivings, the consensus seems to be that this page should be more about the program and not the spacecraft. I will add it in. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    I have added it in (took me long enough!). I decided to make a new section about the program as a whole, and have added it under there. Let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • My first thought was that a {{for}} template should be added to clarify the relationship between this article and the Space Shuttle Program article. However, on looking at that article, I find that there isn't anything in it that is not duplicated in this one, except for the Support vehicles section, which I believe belongs here. My strong recommendation is that that section be moved here and the Space Shuttle Program article be reduced to a redirect, and that this article, as is, becomes the top level article.
    Sounds good. I will work on that. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the Specifications section, which belongs in the Orbiter article.
    Sounds good. I'm not a fan of specifications sections ever, so no complaints from me on removing it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Move the Support vehicles section here in its place.
    Will do. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Currently working on getting the support vehicles properly sources. Any idea on info about the Orbiter Transfer System? I can't find any good sources about it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Remove the Orbiters on display section, which belongs in the Orbiter article and not here.
    I'm glad you agree. I didn't like putting it in the original article, but it was already there when I started working on it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we need two Buran links in the See Also? Remove one. Suggest adding List of Space Shuttle missions instead.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a section on the crew and their roles
    Where would you put this in the article? My thought is to put it as a sub-section under the Orbiter section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

NB: Space Shuttle design process is a tragic mess. Do you have designs on overhauling it? I can add it to my own work list.

Unfortunately a lot of Shuttle-related articles are a bit of a mess. I do intend to work on it and other Shuttle articles. Fortunately for me but unfortunately for my Wikipedia editing, I'm moving to the UK next month, so I'll be without most of my reference material until that arrives in the late summer/early fall. But the 2016 book by Jenkins has an entire volume dedicated to the development of the Shuttle, so I'm looking forward to eventually getting around to that. But there will be no hurt feelings if you get to it before me! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I have Heppenheimer's books, and just finished reading reading John Logsdon's After Apollo? Richard Nixon and the American Space Program, which I highly recommend. I have Jenkins on order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Jenkins books arrived in the mail the other day. May take a while to get through them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear it! Mine is getting packed up next week for my move; I need to get what quality time I have with it left before I don't see it until the fall! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: I think I have addressed all of your comments; please let me know if you have any other feedback! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Some typos:

  • "inputer/output" should be "input/output"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "maneuvring" should be "maneuvering"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "sciences.Spacelab" shoulkd be "sciences. Spacelab"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "pressue" should be "pressure"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "velocity change" link to "Delta-v"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "hydrogren" should be "hydrogen"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "disspiate" should be "dissipate"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "James Bond" doesn't need to be italicised.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Space Shuttle also appears in a number of" suggest "The Space Shuttle appears in"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Two of the external links go to the same page.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Metric units are usually first in the article, except for nautical miles?
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for all of your feedback Hawkeye7. I was definitely pretty intimidated for an FAC when I saw the efforts that you and Kees08 had to put in for some of your previous collaborations, but I figured there would at least be no lack of information about the Space Shuttle. I appreciate your specific and guided feedback that made it clear what you want, and look forward to further improving the Space Shuttle articles (especially on my upcoming funemployment period). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • fn 1 publisher?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 2 page number?
    Hawkeye7 I don't have access to the book, and I'm striking out on finding an alternate source of that information in Jenkins or on the web. My vote is to leave it as is, but I defer to your experience on this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 4, 6, 7, 10, 17, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and 37 link NASA but fn 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 38, 39, 41 and 47 do not. (Suggest not linking publishers)
    Unlinked NASA as a publisher. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 7 and 15 are the only books with a location (which need not be linked)
    Pardon my ignorance, but what are you looking to change here? Is the issue that they have a link to a PDF for them? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 11 link Max Faget
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 18 publisher?
    Added as a website parameter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 29 use website instead of publisher
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 36 replace website with publisher NASA
    Fixed; used publisher parameter instead. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 40 capitalise "the"
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 42 use magazine instead of publisher for Aviation Week
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 43 use magazine instead of publisher for Air & Space Magazine.
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 44 is the only one where a magazine also has a publisher. Possibly because its correct name is IEEE Spectrum (consider using cite magazine instead)
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Spot checks
  • fn 4 is okay, but the "Space Transport System" naming appears only in the lead, and nowhere in the body. If it's no important, why is it in the lead?
    Updated. Although it's not a commmonly-used term compared to "Space Shuttle" I did want it to stay on the page because of the use of "STS." Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 40 is pretty contentious, and is not supported by the source
    Added reference from Jenkins (Old Reliable when it comes to references needing backup during this review) Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 42 does not support the statement, nor does the associated fn 13. (Although both contain a lot of good information not in the article.)
    Updated page for fn 13 to include III-490, when there is a breakdown of the budget, which was based upon 24 missions per year. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 48 does not support the (true) statement
    The description was updated to match what is in the synopsis of the ref. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fn 20, 30, 46 okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Passed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Huricanehink

Support. I came here from an FAC that I'm co-nomming (so if you have time, I'd appreciate a review in return).

Thanks for doing this review! I'll take a look at your FAC as well! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you explain jettison on its first usage?
    I added a wikilink for its use in the SRB category. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • After landing at Edwards, the orbiter was flown back to the KSC on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, a specially modified Boeing 747. - the previous sentence mentioned two possible landing locations. Given that, I suggest this sentence say After landing, the orbiter...'
    I took a different approach and wrote "If the landing occurred at Edwards, the orbiter..." to make it more clear that the SCA was conditional on where the landing occurred; it didn't make much sense the way I had previously written it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Due to how important it is, could you perhaps go into a tiny bit more detail on Commercial Crew Development on its first usage? Perhaps something about why it didn't have to rely on Russia at that point?
    I disagree with your point here. While the Commercial Crew program is an awesome step forward (in my opinion), the Space Shuttle had little to do with it, and the only connection between the two is that they were different generations of human-capable American-launched spacecraft. I think the sentence in the lead communicates that the US was reliant on Russia in between the two programs. But I did realize that I only included commercial launch info in the lead and not the body of the article, so I have put in a new sentence in the retirement section. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • such as reconnaissance, satellite attack, and employing air-to-ground weapons - since the first two are nouns, I believe you should strike employing to make all three of this list as nouns.
    I changed it to "employment" and moved it to the end to keep it consistent with nouns. I just felt like it was awkward to leave it as "air-to-ground weapons"
  • In the late-1950s, the Air Force began developing the partially reusable X-20 Dyna-Soar. - I'd like something added here, like "the first craft capable of being in low Earth orbit", or whyever it is important.
    Little confused by this point. The DynaSoar was conceived as a reusable piloted glider, which is explained to me a need of the Air Force in the previous sentence. I feel like this sentence explains that this is what was developed to fulfill that need. Thoughts? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Yup, I realize now that it was my own confusion from going between the FAC page and the article. This is fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • In July 1969, the Space Shuttle Task Group issued a report that determined the Shuttle would support a space station, launch, service, and retrieve satellites, and support short-duration crewed missions - the end of this sentence doesn't work well with regards to finishing the clause "that determined the Shuttle would..." I guess because "would support" is a vague type of verb. I suggest splitting it into something like - "the Shuttle would support short-duration crewed missions and a space station, as well as the capability to launch, service, and retrieve satellites." Or however you prefer.
    Didn't realize it until now, but my version was definitely an awkward sentence structure. I went with your recommendation! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Link Rocketdyne in lede?
    Linked! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What is a "space tug "? Likewise "nuclear stage"
    Linked to its Wiki page! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • After establishing the need for a reusable, heavy-lift spacecraft, NASA and the Air Force began determining the design requirements of their respective services --> "determined"
    Done. I also changed "establishing" to "they established" earlier in the sentence to keep the tense consistent. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The instrument panels contained over 2,100 displays and controls - is there no exact number? 5,000 is technically "over 2,100"
    I wasn't able to find an exact number, and the "over 2,100" is directly from the source. I understand the inexact figure leaves the door open for any number of displays and consoles, but I want to lift directly from a reliable source when its ambiguous. My guess is that the unspecific answer comes from variations between orbiters (and even for a single orbiter as it underwent changes) as well as different interpretations of what constitutes a control and a display. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, makes sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "once they were travelling slower than Mach 5" - could you add km/h and mph after Mach 5?
    The sources I have for this info (both of Jenkins's books) simply state Mach 5. As the speed of sound, and subsequently Mach numbers, vary depending upon air density, I'm hesitant to estimate the speed in km/h or mph to which this is referring. Since the use and safety of the instrument deployment will only really be affected by true airspeed, they would also only be accounting for the Mach number and not a speed relative to the ground. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Totally understood. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • up to 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter - the rest of the article has metric first
    Fixed! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You're inconsistent whether you abbreviate kg or not. Ditto km
    Fixed (I think I got every example)! I switched them all to the abbreviations. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How many landings were at KSC?
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • a runway at least 7,500 feet (2,300 m) long - again, metric first
    In the case of aviation terms (primarily altitude, but also this example of runway length) I chose to use feet because that is the internationally accepted unit for those measurements. Thoughts on leaving it as is? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, the featured article Shuttle–Mir program uses metric units first (but only briefly). Since the infobox of the SS article uses metric first, I suggest changing the order so all of the units in the article are metric first, then imperial second. I won't make a big stink out of it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I decided to make it all metric-first. I was just being too set in my ways, despite preferring metric. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is most of the budget in 2012 USD instead of 2020 USD? Have you considered whether it's worth adding inflation figures?
    The 2012 USD estimates are the official figures published by NASA in a review of the Space Shuttle's cost. I did consider using the inflation template, but decided not to. As those values are already estimating inflation and costs over the 40ish years of the development and operation of the Space Shuttle, I didn't want to add further uncertainty by using two inflation estimates. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Was the shuttle retirement because of the Columbia disaster? The timing is close.
    Public opinion about the Space Shuttle may have swayed decisions on the shuttle getting cancelled specifically when it did, but the retirement was not because of the Columbia disaster. The shuttle's original lifespan was never intended to be that long (although it was expected to launch more regularly). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Is there anything more about the discussions about the retirement? Like, "NASA administrator announced on January X..." The article goes from everything generally fine for the mission, then it stops. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I agree that it seems to end abruptly. I added this: "President George W. Bush announced his Vision for Space Exploration, which called for the retirement of the Space Shuttle once it completed construction of the ISS." Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • it was safed in preparation for display - is "safed" normal wording?
    It's a common aviation term. A synonym is "disarmed" but I don't think that's appropriate with a non-weapon like the Space Shuttle. It's the best term I can think of for the permanent deactivation of the orbiter. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Is "decommissioned" or anything equivalent like that appropriate? I had never heard of it that, but then, I'm not around aviation terms everyday. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    I decided to go with "Following each orbiter's final flight, it was processed to make it safe for display." I don't like "decommissioned," but I think saying "safed" may be too much jargon. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • You don't mention anything about where the shuttles ended up after their retirement.
    I had previously removed the section about the retirement locations per the recommendation from Hawkeye7, but your comment made me think there should at least be a mention of them, so I added the sentence stating the retirement location of the 4 orbiters (including Enterprise). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The links in See Also could use some explanation (I wondered what Buran was)
    I added a quick description for the Buran, but felt the other titles were self-explanatory. Please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

All in all, the article is in decent shape. I don't think it would take much to get my support. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Thanks for working on this important article! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I think I have addressed all of your comments! Please let me know if you have any further feedback. I appreciate the help! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the work. I just wanted a little follow up on metric, the retirement, "safed". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: I made some edits based upon your comments; please let me know what you think! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

@Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the images? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Evelyn Mase

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This fairly short article is about Nelson Mandela's first wife. I got the Mandela article through the FAC process several years ago and it would be good if this article, currently a GA, could join it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This is a very complete looking article, though as a proviso to the following comments I know nothing about this lady, and have only a broad familiarity with South African history.

  • "Moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse, it was there she met and married Mandela." - bit over-complex (how about something like "She met Mandela after moving to Johannesburg to train as a nurse"?)
  • My only concern about this change is that it reverses the chronology, which might make things a little less clear for the reader. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know when Mase and Mandela first met?
  • Unfortunately not, but if said information ever surfaces (perhaps unlikely) then it would certainly make for a worthwhile addition to the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That's a shame Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The biographer David James Smith later argued that Mandela's presentation here was "not quite the whole story"." - what does Smith say was missing?
  • Smith argues that the account Mandela provides in his autobiography overlooks his own adultery at this period by emphasising the idea that his disagreement with his wife was primarily ideological. At present, I've used the Smith quote at the end of this article to help lead onto the next paragraph, which discusses the adultery. I you think it is just causing confusion, however, then it could be removed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest removing if it's discussed elsewhere, as this is confusing. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I've removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "may have been so as not to damage the heroic reputation he had at this time" - bit complex
  • I've changed this to "may have been to avoid damaging his heroic reputation." Do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked this Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not fond of describing Mase's life after she and Mandela's wedding ended as merely her "Later life" - it suggests she was defined by who she was married to.
  • I can see your point here, but I'm not sure whether any of the obvious alternatives would be preferable. Something like "Life after Mandela" would replicate the same problem. Anyone out there have any suggestions on this count? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a heading like that would be much better - Something like "post-divorce" is another possibility. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • " Mase travelled there to meet with him, but Mandela refused to see her" - do we know why? Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thoughts, Nick-D! I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Mandela_e_Evelyn_1944.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • Unfortunately, that's not clear. The image appears in various biographies of Mandela, but I do not know what was its first appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, so that's a potential problem since the URAA tag partially relies on publication date. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay on this. I've done some delving, and I've not been able to find any published version of this image prior to David James Smith's 2011 book Young Mandela. That being the case, I don't think we can continue to use this image under a URAA tag. I've replaced the tags with a non-free tag attached to a slightly different version of the image, which I have uploaded locally at Wikipedia (File:Nelson Mandela and Evelyn Mase.jpg). Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Nelson_Mandela,_2000_(5).jpg: as per the Flickr tag this should include more specific copyright tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed this image from the template at the bottom of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I've made some copyedits; please revert anything you don't agree with.

  • She initially filed for divorce, but withdrew this action: "this action" is a bit stilted. I don't know the right legal term, but could this be changed to something like "but later withdrew the petition" or "did not go through with the legal proceedings"? Similarly did not contest this, in the next sentence, isn't as smooth as it could be; how about "In 1958, Mandela, who was hoping to marry Winnie Mandela, obtained an uncontested divorse from Mase"?
  • I've gone with "did not go through with the legal proceedings" and have made the latter change that you propose too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • was attended by Mandela, Winnie, and Mandela's third wife, Graça Machel: I can't find it, but I think somewhere in the MoS it's discouraged to speak of women using their first names only, as it can be regarded as demeaning. Could we make this "was attended by Nelson and Winnie Mandela, and..."?
  • This is a tricky one; I've changed it to "Winnie Madikizela-Mandela" but that does look a bit clunky and repetitive given that we already give her full name in the paragraph above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • a man with whom he went to school: how about just "schoolmate"?
  • I've changed this to "former schoolmate Walter Sisulu". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • they were also related, with their respective mothers being sisters: seems easier to say they were cousins than "related". Perhaps "they were cousins, as their mothers were sisters"?
  • That's a definite improvement. I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to avoid having some members of Mase's family starting two consecutive sentences. How about joining them with a comma and making the second one "and some of them"?
  • I've merged the two sentences with a semi-colon and start the second part with "moreover, some blamed Winnie". Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

That's everything I can see. The article is in good shape and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to offer these comments, Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. The fixes look good. I agree Winnie’s full name looks a little clunky but I don’t see a better solution. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

I've added this to the urgents list to hopefully drum up some more reviews. It also needs a source review, it appears? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

  • Her father, a mineworker, died when she was a child, leaving his second wife and their six children,[2] three of whom died in infancy.—this is a bit unclear I think because it's trying to sandwich together two different facts. I assume not all the children died after Evelyn was born and after the father. Might want to split up the details about them having six kids, three of whom died, and then explain the father died when she was a child.
  • I've now split this up into multiple sentences along the lines you recommend. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In 1939, Evelyn joined her brother and Sisulu in Johannesburg. I don't think you need the "in Johannesburg" bit since the previous paragraph ended explaining that.
  • A fair point. I've removed "in Johannesburg" here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother. What was her mother's wish? That she be a nurse, or that she work at the non-European hospital?
  • To be a nurse, I believe. I shall make this clearer in the text by changing the sentence to the following: "She trained as a nurse in the city's non-European hospital at Hillbrow, fulfilling the wishes of her late mother that she would enter that profession." Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • When the Sisulus moved to a larger house at 7372 Orlando West—It's kind of weird you give the address the people who are not the subject of the biography moved to, but we have no idea where the house that is relevant was. The new address makes much more sense in the following sentence; alternatively, I don't see why it's really necessary to mention they gave the house to Sam when it's not relevant to the following passages.
  • I don't think that the address house which Sam Mase took over is actually known publicly; if it were, it would definitely be worth including it. I agree with your point that the second address, 7372 Orlando West, is better mentioned in the second sentence than the first here, so have moved it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, David! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It'd be a shame to lose the only image of the article subject, but we need publishing info for File:Mandela e Evelyn 1944.jpg to verify it is in fact PD, and right now it's missing that.
  • Sources look okay. I did a NYPL and Google Books search for the subject and found some more recent scholarship, but it appeared much of them relied on sources presented in this article, so I don't think there's much evidence anything is missing. I did a spot-check to statements attributed to current refs 2, 11, 18, 34, 45, 51, 72, 75, 76, and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or inaccuracies; I don't have access to the print sources used besides Meredith and Sampson but don't see any issues with what I can. I would say it would be preferable to split references in some cases to make it clearer which source exactly is covering what part of the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi David, Midnightblueowl, where are we at now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only thing we have to sort out is where the lede image was first published. I'm having a bit of trouble with that and wondering if the image should be changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
If there's a verifiable free image, I would definitely swap it. Otherwise, you can just remove this one and work on finding one without the deadline of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a verifiable free image so I've added a local version of the same image with a non-free tag. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
The fair use rationale could use some elaboration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Hi, looking at the article my first thought was that a lot of it is based on Mandela's autobiography, a primary source. I'm happy to give a full review, but first I'd like hear your thoughts on this. According to WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources". I'm concerned that the extent of the reliance might be too great.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It's true that the article does cite Mandela's autobiography 34 times, but in 26 of those instances it is used alongside other, secondary sources. Of those seven instances where Mandela's autobiography is the only citation, four are used to cite direct quotations from Mandela. In the three other examples, Mandela's autobiography is specifying particular facts that I don't think are contentious. In addition, it might be worth noting that we also use Mandela's autobiography as a source in the Nelson Mandela article, which has been FA-rated for several years now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I have removed one of the sentences that relies solely on Mandela's autobiography, which takes the overall total down to six. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bikini Porn

Nominator(s): Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the song "Bikini Porn", released as a single in 2020 by Swedish singer Tove Lo. She has stated that the lyrics are about "letting go of your worries", while the title means "tan lines". The music video attracted media coverage due to the cameo made by Finneas, "Bikini Porn"'s songwriter and producer. The single also included another song, "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak", which was considered to be totally opposite to "Bikini Porn" in terms of composition.

This is the second article about a Tove Lo song that I nominate for FA, the first one being "Habits (Stay High)", which was promoted in 2017. This is currently a GA, it has received a peer review and a copy-edit by the GOCE. I consider it meets the criteria for FA, and I'm open to receive further comments. Thank you, Paparazzzi (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose comments from Coolmarc

  • O'Connell should be Finneas in the producer parameter in the infobox since he is known mononymously as Finneas.
  • released as a single on 15 January 2020 for download and on streaming services. Needs work. "released for download and streaming services" is an awkward way to say this.
  • Does "released on 15 January 2020 as a single for download and on streaming services" sound better?--Paparazzzi (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "instrumentation" is too formal and awkward for a song about a pop song, just say instruments.
  • Changed. I don't believe "instrumentation" is too formal, but I'm going to follow your suggestion.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Lo, the track's title refers to "tan lines" and its lyrics are about "letting go of your worries". Per WP:LEADCITE a citation is needed here, but this could be paraphrased with a little effort.
  • who complimented its composition and noted the contrast between the track and "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak". more context is needed here. What about its composition? What contrast?
  • Added context regarding the composition. Removed the "noted the contrast between the track and "Passion and Pain Taste the Same When I'm Weak"".--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • accompanying music video for "Bikini Porn" use either "accompanying music video" or "music video for "Bikini Porn", not both.
  • "depicts" is very formal for an article on a pop song, "shows" would easily suffice.
  • Honestly, I don't understand the problem here.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "dancing in several locations" what several locations? WP:WHATPLACE
  • Critics had different opinions about the clip, with some deeming Finneas' appearance as its highlight what were the different opinions and why was Finneas' appearance the highlight? More context needed here.
  • Tove Lo wrote "Bikini Porn" while drinking champagne during a recording session, feeling she was "in a happy place".[1] She showed the song to her team, who gave it a lukewarm response to it. Grammar issues in both sentences.
  • Fixed the second sentence.--Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Lo contacted musician Finneas through mutual friends The source says they met through "a songwriting collective that both were privy to." This is not the same as "mutual friends"
  • he felt honored and excited he wanted to work with her. trivial details. Singers say that about everyone they collaborate with.
  • Mmm, well, I guess she said that because Finneas is a better known artist than her, and he could have picked someone more famous to work with...Anyways, I have removed the sentence. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Lo told Finneas, "I love writing with you, you're bringing out this other side of me, I think, a lot of people try to push more of a happier way."[5] Awkward placement and could be paraphrased for better context.
  • "According to Tidal" is unnecessary.
  • I'm not a fan of Composition as a section title as the term is more commonly used for music pieces and poems, not pop songs. "Music and lyrics" is a better section title.
  • Its instrumentation incorporates too formal and awkward for an article about a pop song.
  • Honestly, I don't see why that could be a problem. --Paparazzzi (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "On Beats 1, Lo" mentioned twice in the same section - grammar, Beats 1 is not really needed here anyway, I doubt they influenced her statement.
  • What makes this a high-quality reputable source?
  • MuuMuse is run by Bradley Stern, who has written for others reliable publications, such as Idolator, MTV, Queerty, V Magazine, Attitude and Interview Magazine. I consider he has enough expertise regarding pop music journalism, but I want to know your opinion about this.--Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The About us of the website says ME...I AM BRADLEY Stern. The Elusive Bloggeuse. Founded in 2007, MuuMuse is a pop music blog dedicated to music commentary, reviews, interviews, exclusives and extensive analysis of the artistry of Britney Spears. This is not a high-quality reputable FAC source. Cool Marc 06:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
According to WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." MuuMuse can be used according to this. Reading this thread might be helpful too. Paparazzzi (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
The FAC criteria is sources to be not only reliable but