Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. 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, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Do not use graphics or complex 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. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

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.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. 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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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.

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

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.


Nominations[edit]

Homo antecessor[edit]

Nominator(s): Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first identified human species to colonize Western Europe, part of my massive overhaul of prehistoric humans and allies. This is the article's 2nd time here because I was forced to go inactive all the way back in January, and the nomination of course had to be archived. Now that I (finally) have the time, I have re-nominated the article Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I supported last time around after a detailed review, so here it is again. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Bakker-Nort[edit]

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of post-war Dutch parliamentarian Corry Tendeloo a few months ago, I started the article about her pre-war predecessor, another women's rights fighter largely forgotten these days. Thanks to the thorough reviews of Johannes Schade at GA and SusunW at PR the article is in much better shape than I could manage. Yet no doubt more improvements are needed, which I look forward to hear about. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Betsy-Bakker-Nort-1922-by-AS-Weinberg.jpg does not appear to be PD-US, unless there is a known publication before 1927
  • File:Group photo International Woman Suffrage Alliance June 1908 in Amsterdam.jpg A publication before 1927 is probably needed to make it PD-US, unless it was out of copyright in NL on 1 January 1996
  • File:Peace Palace in the Hague in 1922.jpg Need to know publication date and/or author's death date to determine copyright status

(t · c) buidhe 03:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to reserve a spot. Poke me if it slips my mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SusunW[edit]

I'm putting a placeholder here and will review it in the next couple of days. SusunW (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry ring road[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Described as a "roller coaster" and a "Scalextric" by sources over the years, the Coventry ring road is either a marvel of engineering or the world's worst-designed road and a source of urban decay, depending on your point of view. Its multiple lanes, slip roads and short weaving distances make it a bit of a nightmare for drivers new to the area, something I've witnessed first-hand a few times over the years! The article goes into some detail, chronicling the history of the project from its early conception to completion, a mid-project redesign and later remodelling of one of the junctions and the road's reputation. All comments and feedback welcome. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

  • The article seems somewhat under-illustrated, though the pickings on Commons are surprisingly slim. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another drive by comment[edit]

  • The "Junctions" section lists the junctions by number and states the roads they intersect with and the names of the following section of the ring road.
On the source given I cannot see the junction numbers. Am I missing something? Or is there another source which could give these? If not, it may be better to replace the numbers with bullet points.
Could it be stated somewhere that the "Beginning[s]" mentioned are clockwise from that junctiion?

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleed American[edit]

Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American. We had previously taken this to FAC, but the nomination stalled after only receiving one support, so this is the second attempt. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For any passer-bys, I can't seem to remove the error message with ref #116, even though it is defined. MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very familiar with the album, one of my favorites.

  • I am somewhat surprised not to see Andy Greenwald's book, Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, used as a source, since it includes discussion of Jimmy Eat World and Bleed American. You should be able to get the relevant parts from Google Books preview. Sellout: The Major Label Feeding Frenzy That Swept Punk by Dan Ozzi may also have something.
Ping me when you're ready for me to continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Added.[1][2] MusicforthePeople (talk) 08:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trombino offered to work for free during the recording sessions, confident he would be reimbursed by the album's predicted commercial success.[13] " If I read this right, he wasn't working for free, he was just deferring payment until the band had cash.
  • ""various popular songs". The source does not say popular.
  • The music video for "The Middle" is described twice in the same paragraph, probably better the second time.
  • "The music video for "Sweetness" shows the band in stationary " in stationary?
  • "The band supported on Blink-182 and Green Day" strike "on"
  • ""the Promise Ring" is double-linked.
  • Greenwald's comments about "music, any music, equals salvation" as a theme of the record (page 107) seems worth including.
  • "Greenwald said Bleed American going platinum was one factor in emo reaching mainstream media attention in mid-2002, alongside Vagrant Records have significant sales figures on its releases and Dashboard Confessional appearing on MTV Unplugged.[141] " Should "have" be "having"?
That's what I got.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Done. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images given are appropriately licensed, but could a sample be included under a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Easily could, we just haven't decided on which to use. "The Middle" is probably a good bet. dannymusiceditor oops 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Danny and myself were wondering, does the sample have to be of a certain section? For example, we were thinking the intro/first verse would be a better selection instead of, say, the chorus. MusicforthePeople (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, we think the song's opening riff may be its biggest defining part. Unusual, for sure, but we firmly believe this kept the song memorable over the years. dannymusiceditor oops 19:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally you're going to want to pick something that is the subject of sourced commentary. See WP:SAMPLE for additional guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. I nominated this article for FA status back in May, but that nomination was archived due to a lack of feedback. I hope this is more successful the second time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
  • "Gilbert was selected as an architect following a competition." Since no one else is credited, I would strike "an". Which leads to the question, should French be credited as an architect in the infobox?
    • I've removed the word "an". French was only responsible for the sculptural detail, so he probably should not be mentioned as architect in the infobox. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anything more in the "site" section be said about the history of the location? I see some scattered info later in the article.
  • "Unlike most custom houses, which face the waterfront, the Alexander Hamilton Custom House faces inland toward Bowling Green.[11][16]" I wonder if it could be stated more clearly that it faces the one direction (north) where there is no nearby water.
  • "Near the building's south end is space formerly used by the United States Postal Service, " if I recall correctly, this was for the Bowling Green Station of the New York post office, which might be worth mentioning.
  • "The new New York Custom House was only the fourth building to be built under the Tarsney Act.[82]" Didn't the competition take place, not under the Tarsney Act, but under Section 3 of the 1899 act? Admittedly, they seem to be more or less the same.
    • Technically yes, you are correct. Would it be better if I said that the Custom House was "only the fourth building to be built following the passage of the Tarsney Act"? Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doubt it, from what I saw of the Congressional Record, they were passing several new building bills at a time. Maybe "only the fourth building to be built following competitions such as that authorized by the Tarsney Act"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'd capitalize Platt's and Quigg's titles.
  • " The next February, during the 55th Congress, Platt and Quigg proposed bills to acquire the Bowling Green site, providing $5 million (about $136 million in 2020[a]) for land acquisition and construction." According to Congressional ProQuest, H.R. 9077, which became the authorizing act, was introduced by Rep. Philip Low (R-NY) on 2/14/1898. It came out of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on 2/6/1899, entirely rewritten, along with a report by a Congressman Mercer of that committee.
  • The bill passed both houses on February 28, 1899, not during March. McKinley seems to have signed it on March 2.
  • "The selection of Gilbert was controversial, drawing opposition from Platt and several other groups" Platt was not a group. Also, it's worth a mention (see here that Platt's opposition was based in part on Gilbert not being a Republican, that being typical of Platt if you look him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the word "other". I'm actually not surprised that Platt would oppose based on Gilbert's political party, either. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Gilbert was a "westerner" who had newly arrived to New York City," I'd change "to" to "in". And if he had moved to NYC, should he be referred to, as you do, as "Minnesota architect"?
    • I've fixed the first issue and clarified that Gilbert was previously from Minnesota. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A branch of the United States Postal Service" the United States Post Office Department, as we are pre-1971. And it was a station. Stations were usually within city limits, branches outside.
  • "From 1974 on, the Custom House was vacant," Wasn't the post office still open?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks for your feedback. I have responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • All images of statues/sculptures will need tags for the original work in addition to the photo. Ditto photos of 2D works.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_ceiling_(40511s).jpg and File:Alexander_Hamilton_Custom_House_Collector's_Room_panels_(40521s).jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:King's_Color-graphs_of_New_York_City6.jpg: source? Not sure what is referenced by the current image description
  • File:US_Customs_House_New_York_of_to-day._(1912)_(14782617492).jpg: is more specific tagging available? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Branford Steam Railroad[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Performing source spot-check at FAC's talk page, for this article version. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Round-up: Spotted some cases of original synthesis, but nothing too serious. Please give page numbers to newspaper source, as finding the passage can be pretty difficult without it. Will check one or two more frequently cited source later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • What does "exchanges freight" mean?
    Ah, that's one of the sentences I didn't rewrite when I redid the article last year. This is referring to Interchange (freight rail), where rail cars are transferred from one railroad company to another for continued transport. BSRR rail cars are transferred to the Providence and Worcester Railroad which runs dedicated trains to Fresh Pond Junction near New York City. At the docks, the BSRR transfers much of the trap rock from the quarry to barges. I have revised the article to state this information. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a little strange that the lead states neither the length nor the gauge of the railway. It may also be helpful to overtly state that it is still running.
    I can specify standard gauge, but as 99% of U.S. railroads are standard gauge, it's usually assumed. I note that AirTrain JFK, a FA, does not mention the gauge in the lead, likely for this reason. The gauge is listed in the infobox. I have added the length to the lead section. That the line is still running is established by the use of "is" rather than "was" and the lead being in present tense. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built an extension from the BSRR's northern terminus". "BSRR" - see MOS:ACRO1STUSE.
    Abbreviation now introduced at the first mention of Branford Steam Railroad in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Events outside of the area set in motion the line's conversion to an industrial railroad hauling rock." I don't see that this adds anything, and suggest deletion.
  • "Fisk initially responded to this demand by opening a quarry at Pine Orchard in January 1902." How is this connected to the BSRR?
  • "another railroad, known as the Damascus Railroad, which built an extension". You have the railroad doing the building. Suggest rephrasing.
  • "a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter allowing it to expand further into North Branford". !. "expand" seems an odd thing for a railroad to do. Perhaps 'extend'?
  • "where he planned to open a quarry." Suggest "a" → 'the'.
  • "and advocated for support from the town's residents for the railroad extension, finding most residents supportive. Despite local support". "... support ... supportive ... support". Perhaps a bit of variation?
  • "to exercise eminent domain". Could we have an in line explanation per "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so" in MOS:LINKSTYLE.
  • "pronounced the bill as legal". This may be a USEng thing, but in BritEng this would read better without the "as".
  • "allowing the modified charter to take effect." What modification?
  • "While the Damascus Railroad allowed Fisk to expand rail operations northward". Don't you mean "Damascus Railroad" → 'new charter'?
  • "Fisk applied for a modification to the Damascus Railroad's charter"; "the Branford Steam Railroad would apply for an amendment to its charter". Exactly which body was chartered?
  • "along with improved interchange facilities with the New Haven Railroad." This is the first mention of the New Haven Railroad and of interchange facilities. Perhaps they could be explained earlier? Ie, prior to improvement.
  • "allow the Branford Steam Railroad to assume control of the Damascus Railroad by purchasing its stock." Could you clarify throughout the article when you are using a term to describe a physical structure, eg a railroad, and when an incorporated body, eg a company.
  • "By April 29, 1909, the General Assembly approved". "By" - is the precise date not known?
  • "the General Assembly approved", 1. The general assembly of what? 2. What is a General Assembly? 3. Why the upper case initial letters?
  • "by crossing most streets at grade". Possibly this is clear to US readers. It isn't elsewhere. What does "at grade" mean?
  • "intersect with a diamond crossing". Is it possible t explain what a diamond crossing is in line?
  • "something the Branford Steam Railroad was strongly opposed to." Why?
  • Link "injunction".
  • "and again obtained an injunction forcing the Shore Line to cease construction". Is it known when?
  • "construction, which had begun in earnest on the night of February 5." This may fit more naturally into the previous sentence.
  • "As such, the Connecticut Superior Court ordered". I am not sure what "As such" adds - or even means.
  • Optional: it would be helpful to be told what "trap rock" was and how it was used.
  • "for the construction of the nearby Lake Gaillard." Just checking that the spur was constructed so that a lake could be built?
  • "A number of locomotives were used within the 300-acre (120 ha) quarry complex." What/which quarry complex?
  • "with fronting 1.25 miles (2.01 km) in length." What is fronting?
  • "Ownership of the company changed several times". Which company? (Quarry or railroad?)
  • There seem to be an excessive number of very short paragraphs.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.

I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge[edit]

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
  • "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
    • Done.
  • "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112  Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
    • Done.
  • "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
    • Done.
  • It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
    • I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
    • I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
  • " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
    • Reworded.
  • "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
    • Removed.
  • " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
    • That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
  • " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
    • Good catch; fixed.
  • "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
    • I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.
I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel by John Neal (writer), considered by scholars to be his best. Nobody's ever heard of it, but it is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials and had a clear impact on later works by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Whittier, and Whitman. If you have heard of it, that may be only because of the book's preface, which is somehow more famous than the novel itself. It deals with universal themes like justice, sexual frustration, and cultural pluralism. I've taken a few articles through FAC and one of them was about a novel, so I feel pretty equipped for this nomination. The article just went through GAN review, so it's somewhat polished already. I'm excited to read and respond to whatever comments people have to help me further improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rachel_Dyer_by_John_Neal_Title_Page.jpg: it's unlikely this is creative enough to warrant copyright protection
Good point. I just switched the licensing tag to {{PD-ineligible}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Philip_King_of_Mount_Hope_by_Paul_Revere.jpeg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed and licensing tag seitched to {{PD-old-70-expired}}. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review! Let me know if you find something else or if you think the licensing tags should be changed again. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Johnston (DD-557)[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is finally my great pleasure to submit to FAC the fightin'est ship the US Navy ever saw. This article is about the destroyer Johnston, famed for its two-hour brawl with basically the whole Japanese surface fleet in October 1944. If it is not the most famous destroyer to ever sailed, or even the most famous US destroyer, then it is certainly the most famous the 175 Fletcher-class destroyers. Speaking of, I hope this to be the first of a long, long line of submissions to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to MILHIST A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All of the images have licenses that seem feasible, but all of the source links are currently dead. Not sure if that's a permanent problem, but if it persists in a day or two I would suggest looking at archives or updated links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Suggest running the first paragraph of the lead straight into the second.
  • "the Liberation of the Philippines." I suspect that should be a lower case l. Do a majority of hte HQRSs capitalise liberation?
    • A cursory search on Google Books would imply "no", so I've lower-cased "liberation" (I've changed the second instance of "Liberation of the Philippines" to a piped link, "invade the Philippines"). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 25 October 1944, Johnston ... were engaged by a large Imperial Japanese Navy flotilla." Could we have an introduction to this? If only 'While doing this ...' or similar.
  • "with 187 losses". By "losses", do you mean 'killed'?
    • Yes; changed (and the sentence shortened by removing the mention of the Johnston' being crewed by 327 personnel.)
  • "which included Evans." → 'including Evans.'
  • "Johnston was laid down in May 1942 and was launched a little more than a year later." The article states "Her launch ... took place on 25 March 1943." This is not "a little more than a year later."
    • Replaced "a little more year later" with the exact date of launching. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Design and characteristics" section: I think that it would be helpful to introduce this section with something like 'USS Johnston was a Fletcher-class destroyer built for the US Navy.'
  • Somewhere in the article could what "DD-557" means be explained.
  • "The Fletcher-class destroyers were designed, beginning in October 1939, to be large enough to". This is an odd construction, usually dates are at the start of a sentence. 'Beginning in October 1939, the Fletcher-class destroyers were designed to be large enough to' reads more felicitously to my eye.
  • "to be large enough to adequately carry the armament of the preceding Gleaves-class destroyers." Does this mean that the Gleaves-class destroyers were not large enough to adequately carry their armament? Is any further information on the Fletchers' design specification or requirements known?
  • Link "standard load" and "full load".
  • "and 0.5 inches (13 mm) on the deck over its machinery". Was the rest of the deck armoured? If not, is in known what it was made of?
  • "five dual-purpose 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal. guns". Were they in single mounts? Where on the vessel were they positioned?
  • "Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Torpedo Fire Control System"; "Mark 27 Depth Charge Fire Control System"; "Mark 51 Fire Control System". Why all the upper case initial letters?
  • "at the Seattle-Tacoma Shipbuilding Corporation's yard". Is it known where this was located?
  • "fitted out into early November." Should "into" be 'in'?

I am going to pause here. Vami_IV, this is looking distinctly under-prepared for FAC. While some of the above is minor, some is not, and there are a lot of issues given that I have not yet got into the meat of the article. I am thinking that withdrawal, a visit to PA and possibly GoCE prior to a renomination may be the way to go. Or are you quite confident that things will improve once I move into service history? Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. I will act on these comments and withdraw the nomination. Feel free to make further comments on the talk page; we only stand to gain from them. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • A revised edition of Friedman was published last year
  • Conway's is an anthology with chapters by different authors
    • Revised reference (removed Gardiner, credited Friedman). –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rohwer is the 3rd edition and needs the full subtitle added
  • The DANFS entry needs a date
  • While I appreciate your use of Hornfischer and McComb, I'm afraid that I cannot regard Morison and Roscoe as highly reliable sources due to their age and lack of access to Japanese sources
  • I'd strongly suggest cross-referencing Hornfischer's account of Johnston's final action with the individual Japanese ship pages on combinedfleet.com to see exactly which ships engaged the destroyer at which time and any effects their fire might have had on the ship.
  • While I'm not fully up to date on recent publications on the Battle of Leyte/off Samar, I've found Milan Vego's The Battle for Leyte, 1944: Allied and Japanese Plans, Preparations, and Execution and John Prados's Storm over Leyte: The Philippine Invasion and the Destruction of the Japanese Navy helpful for my Japanese ship articles that were involved in the battles.
  • Oppose--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to tag on, Wilmott's The Battle of Leyte Gulf: The Last Fleet Action would be a good choice to consult. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title (EP)[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • The lead says the EP received mixed reviews, but only the negative aspects are highlighted.
  • Added the positive aspect.
  • It may be worthwhile to link catchiness in the "the catchiest stuff" quote.
  • Linked.
  • Agreed on both.
  • I'd change the ballad link to sentimental ballad as I believe that is more accurate and reflective of this type of music.
  • Done.
  • For Citation 41, there appears to be an author named for the article (i.e. Ians). It's not much of a by-line, but I'd include it in the citation for completion sake.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds great to me.--NØ 01:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. It's going well. Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Elias[edit]

  • Article's prose is looking good so far, although some concerns present themselves.
  • The standout one - the article says that the EP "received mixed reviews"; however, no source directly says this. We need to be careful with summarising reception like this, since this counts as novel synthesis and goes against the original research policy. Does Metacritic aggregate reviews for EPs? They might help.
  • Metacritic usually picks up releases with more than four mainstream reviews so this one didn't get a page, unfortunately. However, I think a summary sentence is necessary and "mixed reviews" is the best way of putting it. A true example of synthesis would be if I said "Every critic in the universe raved about the EP and thought Trainor's vocals resembled Mariah Carey"
  • Ah, I see. With the reviews using a five-star system to indicate a positive, negative, or mediocre review, I suppose I'll let this one slide as a summary sentence. Usually I'm more critical of things like these in song articles, where multiple, separate reviews for songs are rare, and it's harder to make value judgments of commentary. Consider this resolved
  • Minor nitpick - "It additionally entered charts", shouldn't this be "It also entered charts"?
  • Done.
  • "Trainor's eponymous 2009 release" we can simplify this to "Meghan Trainor (2009)" since the previous sentence doesn't mention her name and there's no concern with repetition.
  • Probably it would cause confusion to any readers that don't understand italics demarcate album titles.
  • We could sidestep that by changing "These included ..." to "these albums included ..."
  • I see that the above suggestion has been implemented, though I'm still keen on simplifying "eponymous ... release". Both album and release are already in the previous sentence, so there's some clunkiness in here
  • Switched.
  • For the "Music and lyrics" section, I've added some commas and semicolons in places where I think they were missing, as well some (hopefully) minor copyedits. Diff to visualize. Feel free to revert some of these. Otherwise, this section is pretty good.
  • The copyedits look good to me, though I really prefer making all the changes myself, lol.
  • That's neat to know. I'm just concerned with asking editors to make really really minor and nitpicky changes that would be resolved faster if I were to boldly do them myself.
  • "Epic Records released the EP as a ... digital download four days later." - "released the EP in compact disc (CD) and digital download formats"
  • Hmm, I'm not sure about using "in" in the sentence with "formats". Can we keep the existing wording if it's not too much of an issue?
  • Fuck, miswrote this, I meant to write as "released the EP through CD and download formats" etc.
  • "The October 3, 2014, digital release of 'All About That Bass' ... shared an identical track list." this would fit better in the second paragraph, preferably after the opening sentence
  • The second paragraph is about singles and the first one is about release formats for the EP. Since it shares an identical tracklist (aka basically is the EP), I think it goes in the first paragraph.
  • Perhaps it's because of the way it's currently worded that made me think it was out of place. That sentence alone is giving me a lot of details, overwhelming me. I would suggest trimming the release dates for the German-speaking countries
  • I hope the revised wording addressed your concern.
  • Way better; thank you
  • The body shaming wikilink can be expanded to "shaming thin women" to reduce WP:EASTEREGG issues
  • Done.
  • "The title track became a trend" hard to parse. -> "The title track went viral" might be better
  • Worded this a bit differently and I kind of prefer to link to Viral marketing instead since the other one is too general.
  • Fair enough
  • "various television shows." she also performed this on concerts
  • Added, sans the Jingle Ball Tour which isn't noteworthy enough for the lead in my opinion.
  • I was referring to the wording in "Release and promotion", but nonetheless good catch
  • Added there too.
  • Also performed some copyedits on the "Critical reception" section. Diff to visualize. Again, feel free to revert anything here.
  • "...as 'soulful' and 'highly resonant' and deemed it catchy" you can simplify this to 'soulful, highly resonant, and catchy'
  • Done.
  • "Others criticized the repetitive lyrical themes on Title given its short duration. I don't understand the "short duration" bit.
  • The criticism seemed to come from the fact that the EP is short in duration but still features repetitive lyrical themes.
  • I see, this explains things. Though I imagine there is a clearer way to express this meaning in the article, no?
  • Changed to "despite", can't think of simpler wording than that.
  • Is it possible to split the critical reception section into two paragraphs, dividing the positive/not-very-negative details from the more critical ones?
  • Compared to other paragraphs in the article, two split paragraphs here would stick out and look too short.
  • I'll allow it. There is still some cohesion in this one paragraph, so a split isn't too necessary
  • Omg, thanks for allowing it!
  • Tables and lists are okay.
  • Glad to hear that.
  • That is all from me. The article covers all the important details of the EP with sufficient comprehension, and apart from the stuff I pointed out, it's written and researched pretty well! Ran Earwig for any copyvio; no glaring issues found. Will support(tm) once all my concerns have been addressed. Well done for another great article, Marano.
‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work
03:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks.--NØ 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to prose, five two concerns remain. I've striked the ones that are already addressed.

Image review (Pass)[edit]

Will also do this since I have free time. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work
03:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Meghan Trainor Title EP Album Cover.png - infobox image and cover art; FUR is good. ALT text is fine. For the source link, including an archived version would help for posterity and verifiability.
  • Included an archive.
  • File:KK Fano.JPG - licensed to public domain by the photographer, a Wikipedia user. It shows Kadish in a recording studio, which is appropriate given its placement in the article. ALT text is sufficient.
  • Agreed.
  • File:Meghan Trainor (15996126761).jpg - optional, but this photo looks too big on my screen, so I would recommend doing |upright=0.7 on it. Flickr licensing is verified. There's ALT text, although only the first sentence is really essential; try to keep them short and avoid oversharing.
  • Shortened alt text; the picture looks fine on desktop as well as mobile for me, though, and looks too small with upright. Also in the past I have been discouraged from modifying image sizes.
  • Thanks for clipping. From my observations of FAC throughout the months, it seems like using fixed px size isn't allowed. Scaling is fine - see MOS:UPRIGHT

Wizards of Waverly Place[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed[edit]

Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • These two terms, wizard (from the lead) and wizards-in-training (from the article), link to different articles and I would be consistent with one or the other.
  • Did any scholarly sources discuss the competition aspect of the series or Max being temporarily turned into a woman?
  • I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
  • I'd revise this part, such as the Quinceañera., into something like such as having a quinceañera. I think the use of the determiner (i.e. the) to be a little awkward, and I'm not sure the italics are necessary. Even though it is a foreign language word, I think it has passed into the English lexicon to the point that it is not entirely necessary.
  • I'm uncertain about "claimed" in Murrieta claimed he changed the family's surname. Unless this claim is more contentious, I'd use something more neutral like "said".
  • Done both above.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes as they are not particularly beneficial in my opinion. This comment is tied specifically to "edgy", "dumb", "weird", and "heartbroken". I think it would be better to paraphrase these and focus on more impactful quotes, and I'd encourage you to look throughout the article to see if I had missed any others.
  • There are a few spots where the quotes need clearer attribution in the prose. This is in reference to "slightly goofy", "comic relief", "sweet and sassy", and "absurdly hilarious". As with my above point, I'd look throughout the article to see if there. are any other quotes without clear attribution.
  • I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
  • I would reexamine this part, Reviewers like Garron described the central characters, as this claim is not supported in the citation. This part claims that multiple reviewers described the characters in this way when it is only Garron doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, after Murrieta left the program in April. Is there any information on why he left the show?
  • I have added a brief explanation on this.
  • I do not really seen an explanation for this in the prose. It now says he left prior the renewal, but that's not really an explanation (and it is okay if one is not available as some people just do not share this information publicly). Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment about this part, with the episode depicting the family's wizard competition. I have received and seen the following note in the FAC space a fair bit. I would avoid the sentence structure "with X verb-ing" as I have been told that is not appropriate for FA writing. I'd look throughout the article for any other instances of this and revise where necessary.
  • Fixed a couple of these I think.
  • I have a few comments for this part, while reviewing the video game, Jack DeVries said that the series was not as much of a rip-off as people might expect. This is the first time the article mentions the video game so it is somewhat jarring. I also think the rip-off criticism would benefit from further expansion because it seems more like a brief mention at the moment.
  • I am not sure of the value of this sentence, The show was also compared to Bewitched. It does not really convey that much information so I'd either remove it or go into more detail.
  • I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
  • I hate to be this person, but what makes Plugged In a high-quality source? I also found it a little jarring to have a single, more religious citation used in the article.
  • That is understandable. I will leave this for whoever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the comments. I would specifically appreciate if you looked over the new additions I have made. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks great so far. I have left some responses above, and I will read through everything again tomorrow morning (as I have the day off work). Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this FAC based on the prose. Wonderful work with everything and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Gandy[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Evelyn Gandy, the first woman elected to a statewide constitutional office in the American state of Mississippi, and the first woman to serve as a lieutenant governor in the Southern United States. Ambitious from a young age, she was the only woman in her law school class and even served as the school's student body president before being hired as a research assistant by Senator Theodore Bilbo. In that capacity she ghostwrite his book outlining and defending his racist views. From there she trailblazed her way through state government, serving variously as a legislator, welfare commissioner, state treasurer, and insurance commissioner, before being elected lieutenant governor in 1975. Her politics were something of a mixed bag of reform and status quo. Her two subsequent gubernatorial campaigns were narrowly brought down due to her gender and her old views on race, which she repudiated. Considered something of an enigma in her day by her contemporaries and distrusted by black leaders of the time for her erstwhile segregationist platform, in death she has become a hero of Mississippi feminists for overcoming a fair amount of sexism to achieve her career aspirations. Before she was buried, she broke through one final barrier by being the first woman to lie in state at the Mississippi Capitol Building. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review: File:Cliff Finch, Evelyn Gandy and Thomas Hal Phillips. (8795718613).jpg Flickr link no longer works. Claimed status "no known copyright restrictions". It's unlikely this work is public domain unless it was published without a copyright notice before 1989 but I see no indication of that. (t · c) buidhe 07:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was published by the official Mississippi Department of Archives and History Flickr account, which no longer exits. Hundreds of those photos were imported to the commons before the account was suspended. This appears to have been an official government photo, so the MDAH opinion on its rights status would be definitive as another Mississippi state agency. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF Will review at some point over the next three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was her Mississippi House seat a 4-year term or multiple terms?
    • Single term, clarified.
  • Is it worth noting who she lost re-election to in 1952?
    • Neither the Brown et al. nor the Hawks et al. papers say who she lost to (election was in 1951 btw, Mississippi state officials are usually seated at the beginning of the year following their election)
  • The link for the War Between the States goes to Names of the American Civil War, would it be better to link it directly to the Civil War article? (War Between the States and The War Between the States target different articles)
    • Relinked to the Civil War, though her choice of language was certainly geared towards invoking the Lost Cause feelings which the names article explains.
  • I think a sentence or two explaining how the primary/runoff system worked would be useful - I can't tell if the second place finisher had the right to call for a runoff in certain circumstances, or if this is a Louisiana primary-style thing where the runoff was automatically triggered if a certain condition wasn't met
    • I'm not finding very much information on the state's primary laws at the time. I know that if a candidate won over 50% of the first primary vote they would win the nomination outright and there could be no runoff. But it is not clear to me whether if no candidate took a majority that the second place finisher could concede to the plurality winner or if there was a required runoff.
  • "Her campaign literature omitted any mention of her employment under Senator Bilbo" - does the source specify if this was an attempt to distance herself from Bilbo's segregationist views?
    • Clarified that this is noteworthy because she had in years past billed her connections to Bilbo as a reason to vote for her. The source doesn't explicitly say why this was done, but the implication is that she was trying to modernize her style.
  • "It opened in 2006" - the highway itself opened, or the named stretch was dedicated, or something else? This isn't clear
    • Revised. The state stated it would name the parkway in 2002, but the actual roadway was not complete and open until 2006.
  • her Mississippi Encyclopedia entry (p. 487) notes that she "implemented a program to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of state funds to all banks across Mississippi", refers to the public school land leasing bill as "her most important legacy" and states that she received the Margaret Brent Award from the American Bar Association. (author is Martha Swain). Is any of that worth mentioning?
    • Gee don't know why I overlooked that. I've now incorporated these elements.

I think that's pretty much all from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's That Man Again[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago, together with a cherished and respected but now-retired colleague, I brought a celebrated BBC radio comedy series – Round the Horne – to FAC, where, I am pleased to say, it was successful. Before my collaborator retired we worked together on the article of an earlier BBC radio show, ITMA, which was a much-loved feature of British life during the Second World War, and did quite a bit to keep people's morale up during the darker years of the war. Looking at it again I think the article is of similar thoroughness and readability to our earlier effort, and I present it for FAC. Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Only a few quibbles thus far:

  • "government departments and the ostensibly petty wartime regulations" it's a bit jarring to recognise exact phrasings from the lead in the body.
  • "Foster and Furst observe that averages a laugh every eleven seconds" Do we need inline attribution for mathematics?
  • "Worsley began experimenting with the size of the audience to see which worked best" I'm sure it's an EngVar thing, but I would say "what" for "which".
  • Yes, EngVar: "what" would seem odd here to my eye. It's "which size" rather than "what audience" we are emphasising. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The premise of the show changed again with Handley now dismissed as the mayor of Foaming-in-the-Mouth, and now the manager of a munitions factory." Are both "now"s necessary?
  • "Before the sixth series began recording, a film version It's That Man Again was released." should there be an "of" after "version"?
  • I've put in a pair of commas, making the title non-restrictive, rather than restrictive, which I think clarifies the point. Alternatively we could make it "also called It's That Man Again" but the blue link might then look a bit odd to the casual reader. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Handley's health was beginning to decline by the end of the 38-week series, and it was suggested that series 12 was delayed." Again likely engvar but I would conclude "be delayed".
  • It is indeed an EngVar thing, and in my younger days we thought the subjunctive was dying out in such constructions. But now, rather to my regret, it seems to be making a comeback, no doubt under the influence of American English. Nonetheless "suggested that series 12 be delayed" strikes an inappropriately ultra-formal note here, to my ear. I have made it "suggested that series 12 should be delayed".
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent so far; looking forward to the rest at your leisure. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prototype of the character appeared in the third series:" perhaps "unnamed" before "prototype"?
  • I might move up the wiktionary definition of twerp to the first referent of Handley's office.
  • "The phrase "It's That Man Again" was originally used by members of the American Republican Party when referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he introduced another element of the New Deal," the source no doubt says what it says but FDR was more likely to be called "That Man in the White House". (probably no action required)
  • I'll follow this up and tweak the note if the sources allow. Thank you for the pointer. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. There's so little that I'll Support now. I'm glad to have made my acquaintance with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support and helpful comments. I'm so pleased you enjoyed making the acquaintance of ITMA. My collaborator and I certainly enjoyed researching it and writing it up. TTFN. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. It looks as if you and you retiring collaborator had fun.

  • "around whom all the other characters orbited." Is the "all" necessary?
  • Strictly no, I admit, but I feel the "all" emphasises Handley's centrality with everyone else revolving round him. I'll remove the "all" if you insist, but I'd rather keep it. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist. I merely pose the question.
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality." "shows" → 'show'. (Or "its" → their".)
  • The singular pronoun relates to "broadcast"; the syntax stands up and I think I'm happy with the wording, but if you press the point we could go full-on plural: "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure their topicality" (or perhaps, though I don't think it flows well, just "to ensure topicality".)
It reads a little oddly to me, but if you are content with it after further consideration, then fine.
On further pondering I think just "to ensure topicality" is probably the best phrasing. Thanks for this point. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure its topicality. The show broke away from the conventions of previous radio comedies, and from the humour of the music halls. The shows used numerous sound effects in a novel manner, which, alongside a wide range of voices and accents, created the programme's atmosphere. The show presented more than". "... the shows ... The show ... The shows ... The show ..."
  • Good point. Duly tweaked. (The show must go on, but not necessarily on and on.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, and thank you for what we have so far. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was recorded at the Criterion". Is it known where the Criterion was located?
  • Well, yes: at Piccadilly Circus, as we say in the text.
  • "but the show failed". In what way?
  • Worsley's phrase (p. 45) was "a near-'flop' ... it simply did not come off". He doesn't enlarge on the reasons. Should we perhaps say "the show was not well received", do you think? Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind that would be much better.
Done. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sources - Books: I don't think Gaye (1967) is cited to.

Priceless. Such a gem of an article that I shall IAR a couple of MoS points. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog, for your review and kind comment. It's so pleasing when other editors give the thumbs-up to an article one has worked on and is fond of. Just wondering if in your current FAC for the Second Punic War you can find room for a mention of Radio Cunctator's show Hic Est Homo Iterum? Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Absolutely! Done. Can't think how I came to omit it. Tim riley talk 06:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like IWM linking has changed - all images except File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg include a dead first source link
  • So it does. Thank goodness the second source links are all fine. Should I delete the first links in the Commons pages of all those images?
  • Would suggest doing so if they are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sam_Costa_2_radio_personality121.jpg has a warning template - is there any evidence to support that the image was released by the copyright holder under the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of further information, would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (as ever), Nikkimaria. Where would FAC be without your indefatigable image reviewing! We are in your debt. I'll follow your advice on both outstanding points. Tim riley talk 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Afterthought: if I may further impose on you, may I ask for your thoughts on the sizing of the three images remaining in the article? I'd rather like to make them a bit bigger, but I don't want to overdo it, and your comments would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could go up to 1.3 or even 1.4 on the images in the body; for the lead image suggest switching over to upright scaling instead of using fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with grateful thanks for the steer. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Looks good. I might not have much in the way of comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Broadcasts[reply]

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes..." - shouldn't this be "The writer and comedian Barry Took wrote..."?
  • This construction is of long standing and widely used. It's a variant of the historic present, so that even with long-dead writers we might say, e.g. "In Hamlet, Shakespeare makes extensive use of the soliloquy". You'll find it in the standard style guide, Modern English Usage: "Meredith writes…", "Swift writes…", "Stevenson writes…" and so on. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading characters

  • "Some of the best known are described below, in order of first appearance in the show." - not directly sourced. How do we know that they are some of the best-known, and, for example, that Cecil and Claude did not appear before The Diver?
  • We're following the main sources here: these are the ones particularly mentioned in Foster and Furst, Kavanagh, Took, and Gifford. Citations added after the end of the introductory para of the section. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • "These are among the best known of the catchphrases from the show. Some became common currency among the general public for many years; others were more ephemeral." - not supported by the cited source, as far as I can see.
  • I've added an additional citation to confirm the statement. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going" also remains in use, seen in British newspapers more than 100 times in the first two decades of the 21st century." - isn't this WP:OR?
  • I only get 70 results since 1990 for "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going", which includes some duplicates. I think you used a different search term, or perhaps the sources indexed vary depending on who the NewsBank provider is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! You have the advantage of me here, as my access to Newsbank went phut not long after we wrote the present text. 100 was right enough then, but from what you say, perhaps we should change "more than 100 times" to "on numerous occasions"? Tim riley talk 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that proposed wording is safer. I had a quick look in the British Newspaper Archive, which has limitations of scope (e.g. very few national papers) and often-appallling OCR transcriptions, and found only 38 instances since 1950. By coincidence, PressReader also gave me 38 results, all since 2008. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • "In the show's early days critical response was not enthusiastic." - this seems to be based only on a single review.
  • Redrawn. Took (p. 26) quotes other less than laudatory reviews, but I don't want to overload our text with quotations, and have footnoted one example of them. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & Lead

  • "more than seventy regular characters" - I make the count of Leading characters and Other characters mentioned less than 70.
  • I've just run through them again, adding the "regular roles" in the Performers table to those listed in Leading Character and I make the count very nearly 100. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "half-hour show"/"30 minutes" doesn't seem to be explicitly cited in the body, although there is "... between 8.30 and 9 p.m. on a Thursday night..."
  • No harm in spelling out the duration in the main text: done. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats the support for "305, plus 5 specials"
  • Took, p. 29 and Foster and & Furst p. 27 (total) and pp. 28–39 (stats per series). I've added this in the main text, avoiding having citations in the i-box, which I think looks clunky.

Sources

  • "Eric Egan". British Film Institute seems to be unused.
  • Indeed. An editor added some excellent information about Egan in November 2021, and removed my somewhat despairing statement "he is not mentioned in Who's Who in the Theatre or on the British Film Institute's website", but he/she omitted to remove either Who's Who or the BFI site from the sources. Both now removed. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see for now, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading the article, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you very much for these really excellent points. I think I've attended to them all – satisfactorily, I hope. And I'm so glad you enjoyed the article. – Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TTFN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BennyOnTheLoose for your suggestions and your support. The article is decidedly improved and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

I'll try to do a full review in due course, but one thing that jumped out at me is that in the "catchphrases" section, there is absolutely no reason to have a full stop after each character's name in the second column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By a curious coincidence the same thought struck me earlier this morning when looking again at the article. I blush to say I thought "Oh, the Hell with it!", but your comment has spurred me to action. Thank you, and I hope to see further suggestions if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the detailed article about a subject I know nothing about. Curious. I'll write as I read, leaving the lead for last. At the moment I could only say that it works well as an introduction, but not if a good mirror of the article. I insert comments hear, to leave Tense to general attention. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tense I didn't know the guideline, and it makes no sense to me. It reads like recommending: "ABC is a comedian who lived from then to then." Why not indicate by the tense that we talk about something that doesn't exist anymore. It's not like a book, read again, or a sonata, played again.

Infobox

  • I wonder why Bristol and Manchester are not linked.

TOC

  • brief and efficient

Background

  • I'd have a comma after London, but am never sure about UK commas (nor others). Actually, instead, I'd probably say "in London".
  • "Ministry of Universal Gratification" tells me nothing, - does that matter?
  • I think it might help to add when (which year) the phrase was used for Hitler in the English press.

Format

  • "... their own catchphrase or phrases. The catchphrases ..." - I'm sure that can be said with less repetition.

S 2

  • "The writer and comedian Barry Took writes ..." - another repetition, and how about past tense for this also?

S 3 and 4

  • "George VI and his queen" - I'd prefer to be fair and call her by name

S 5 and 6

  • "but thought Forde "manages his difficult task extremely well"" - I feel a tense clash here and believe it's not an unusual wording requiring exact quotation.

Mrs. Mopp

  • TFN puzzled me until I read the dialogue. Extra thanks for all that entertainment!
  • General for Characters: Do we have to repeat the word Catchphrase in each box?

Need a break. - I have to tend to a FAR, Duino Elegies, - all help wanted. The author of the 2013 article is gone, and we need to track down the mostly offline sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense[edit]

An IP has objected to our use of the past tense for the show. For our earlier FAC, Round the Horne, we used the present tense, because the series was recorded in its entirety and is regularly rebroadcast to this day. Few recordings of ITMA survive and those that do are not often heard, for reasons we explain in the text, and so from the outset we thought it sensible to use the past tense. If any editors have views on this I'd be glad to hear them. Tim riley talk 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:TENSE, which would seem to support use of present tense for that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, Nikkimaria. I hope the other editors who have also commented in the review will feel able to comment too. Pinging Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose. Tim riley talk 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article, going just on my vague memory of the guideline, past tense seemed appropriate. Rereading it, it still does - "use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist". I can see how either view could be argued, but past tense seems both most naturally appropriate and the best binary-choice fit to the guideline. I write this in opposition to Nikkimaria's view with some trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a personal preference, and if writing off-wiki may have made the same choice. But the guideline as written - "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering...works that have been discontinued" and the example of Earth: Final Conflict - IMO more supports present. (I don't know the background of why the peculiar division of print vs non-print media was set up, so that might be worth looking into or revisiting). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's a good point. I am tempted to reverse course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works that still exist (including Round the Horne, which is still broadcast on occasion and which can still be purchased) “is” is appropriate. There is only a little left of ITMA, it’s never broadcast and I think I’m right in saying that it’s not available for purchase any more. As the guideline says to use past tense when subjects “no longer meaningfully exist”, “was” seems far more appropriate in this case. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E160:3432:925D:975C (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, present tense seems correct, but your use of past tense makes sense, especially since the work no longer exists in its entirety. If I were reading the entry, I would have no problem either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabri-class submarine[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Specify in the infobox that the length figure is overall (o/a)
  • "but regulations restricted them to a maximum depth of 55 m (180 ft)" - is this internal regulations or one of those post-WWI international navy regulations
  • "En route one of the boats suffered from engine trouble" - Hvar or one of the submarines?

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HF! All done I reckon. Here are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Their maximum diving depth was restricted to 55 metres (180 ft) by regulations." Which/whose regulations? (Also in the main body.)
  • "Hrabri was captured by the Italians at the surrender". Could we have a little elaboration on what "the surrender" was?
  • "a revolt by Yugoslav generals based in Egypt." Any link? Ok, I see it red linked in the body.
  • "they were deployed them around the world". ?
  • Link "aft" at first mention.
  • No link for Austro-Hungarian Navy?
  • "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" and "10.5 kn (19.4 km/h; 12.1 mph)." Does 0.5 kn really equal 0.1 mph?
  • "during her sea trials ... During her trials ... during trials ... During the trials".
  • "The crews of all four vessels were commended for their good behaviour on the cruise." Optional: "on" → 'during'.
  • "was captured there by the Italians after the Yugoslav surrender. In the interim, the commanding officer of Sitnica had been willing to take command of Hrabri and captain the boat to Greece". The break in the chronological flow jars a little.
  • "the pending surrender". As with the lead, what is/was "the surrender "?
  • "At 02:45 on 26 April, the group of vessels was met by a British warship and escorted towards Alexandria. At 12:20 on 27 April Nebojša's ..." Personally I don't like (or even understand) commas after dates, but you should be consistent.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilson (basketball)[edit]

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anna Wilson, the sister of NFL quarterback Russell Wilson and the woman who holds the Stanford Cardinal record for most career games played, with 160. She won the 2021 NCAA tournament with the Cardinal, and was in the final four in 2022 until losing to Uconn. I believe this is ready for FA status. I don't believe she is pursuing WNBA but she is keeping her options open. If anything changes I'll be sure to update the article. Now that her college career is over, I think the article is stable enough to be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Please bear in mind I know almost nothing about basketball, although I did attend a game once while on holiday in New York........

  • "Wilson played as a senior, Wilson averaged" - could probably change one of the two Wilsons to "she"
  • "Wilson played primarily a bench role" - what's a "bench role"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "year, where she started" - a year isn't a place, so I don't think "where" is the right conjunction to use here
  • "Her father played football" - presumably what he played was American football rather than real football soccer......? ;-)
  • "By age five, Anna played basketball" - wikilink basketball (as far as I can see it isn't actually linked anywhere in the article......
  • "As a high school sophomore" - what is a "sophomore"? Is there an appropriate wikilink?
  • "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year" - what is a "freshman year"?
  • "Wilson only played in six games her freshman year due to health issues: Wilson missed the first eleven games of her freshman year" - could change the second Wilson to "she" and lose the second "freshman year" as it's obvious you are still talking about that year
  • "In her junior year" - what's a "junior year"?
  • "As a senior" - what's a "senior" in this context?
  • "As a fifth-year senior" - what's a "fifth-year senior"? Presumably someone in their fifth year at university?
  • "who played college football as a wide receiver, and college baseball" - could lose the "as a wide receiver" as extraneous detail given that it isn't his article (it would help the sentence flow a bit better as well)

That's what I got. A good read although I got lost trying to figure out some terminology which would probably be really clear to someone from the United States but isn't to someone from the other side of the pond....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Sportzeditz[edit]

  • "American college basketball player" → "American former college basketball player"
  • "At the 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship for Women, Wilson won a gold medal as a part of Team USA" - link Team USA to United States women's national under-17 basketball team and make this a separate sentence.
  • McDonald's All-American selection and state championship, as well as Pac-12 Co-Defensive Player of the Year award, may be worth including in the lead. High school statistics can be removed from lead.
  • Rename "Early life" section to "Early life and high school career".
  • 2014 FIBA Under-17 World Championship information can be moved to a separate "National team career" section following "College career", if there is enough info. Participation in 2013 USA Basketball Women's U16 National Team Trials could be added here as well.
    • I'm not sure there's enough for an entire section but I did add that she participated in U16 trials. I also added some from her time at Collegiate. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve comprehensiveness, add more information from this article about early life and early high school career. Wilson's relationship with her late father is also notable to include in this section.
    • Added first article. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will add the second soon. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added a line from the second article but I couldn't find specifics on her relationship with her father. I remember reading about it somewhere. I'll be sure to add a line on it. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson entered the 2022 WNBA draft and was undrafted, which should be included in the body and infobox.
  • In personal life: add information about undergraduate and master's degrees, as described here. Sportzeditz (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportzeditz: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurl.com[edit]

Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Gurl_2011_logo.png: FUR is incomplete - since the article includes two non-free logos there needs to be strong justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text added in the infobox. Justification for the 2011 logo is added; please let me know if there is anything I need to fix. lullabying (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Late Registration[edit]

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Resolved comments from Wehwalt
  • "Late Registration was often viewed as a vast progression " the phrase "was often viewed" almost creates an implication that this has changed, and I don't think you mean to imply that. Also, "vast" seems a bit strong. Maybe "Late Registration was seen as a considerable improvement" or similar? You could include "by a number of reviewers" if you deem what I wrote vague.
  • I changed to has been and removed the usage of vast, while keeping progression. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album led to West receiving eight nominations at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, including the award of Best Rap Album, which it won." I would cut "the award of".
  • "while reaching the top 10 in nine other countries, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom." I might change the second half to "including the United Kingdom and Ireland" (mention the country with larger population first
  • Done, not only is there no specific rule on alphabetical order for the lead but also the album was more successful in the UK. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It eventually reached more than 3,000,000 copies sold in the US " I would simplify as "It eventually sold more than 3,000,000 copies in the US"
  • Done, the previous was a bit too wordy. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became highly imitated" maybe "was widely imitated"
  • Changed to something similar, rearranging the sentence for flow. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper gathered interest in Brion's music while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reacting positively to his score," Maybe "The rapper heard and liked Brion's score while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
  • "after only one afternoon in the studio" I would move this earlier in the sentence, to after "discovered".
  • Done, adding when to the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recording it in over a year" Over a year sounds indefinite by itself. Will sources support "just over a year"?
  • Yes, but I used slightly since that is a better tone for Wiki. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow Hollywood locations" "fellow" reads oddly when we're talking about places
  • Used other instead, writing further sessions earlier on in the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working in the studio" Are we talking about Sony? If so, I'd say so. If we're talking generally, I'd say "studio work"
  • This is actually not specified, so I simply changed to begin recording material. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done, as this has already been linked earlier in the body. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and ensuring all being synchronized " maybe "and ensuring all were synchronized"
  • "completely reconfigure the entire song in a manner that its verses are built around the rhythm of his vocals, " maybe substitute "so that" for "in a manner that".
  • Done, also changed to the verses for consistency with the choruses part. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "raw instruments"? Is there a way the reader can understand what is meant?
  • The source originally uses real instruments, but I replaced with the term authentic in prose since that reads smoother and doesn't sound potentially biased. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating, " some problem with the prose here.
  • Done using the term heavy, unless large would work better here? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "outro" to something?
  • "features the last vocals fading out as various bells and whistles are incorporated, succeeded by the bass synthesizer" Are these really bells and whistles? Given that this can mean something extraneous, I'd try to make it clearer that these actual sounds are meant if so.
  • The actual source (PopMatters, listed as generally reliable) says that various bells and whistles are used. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of which initially come in brief staccato bursts and act" I think come should be comes and act should be acts
  • Done, changing the preceding part as well to be less wordy. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A University of North Carolina scholar" Why not name the scholar?
  • " In his analysis, the former" it is unclear who is meant.
  • Replaced with the album, per the sentence's language making it clear he is talking about the later one. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the bonus track "Diamonds from Sierra Leone", West links Sierra Leone's civil war to the jewellery trade.[7][51]" This is, I think, the third time you've discussed this track. Can't this sentence be placed with one of the other two?
  • Done, rewording slightly. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper was then supposed to support U2's Australian concerts on their Vertigo Tour in March 2006, until the shows were postponed.[72]" I might say "but" instead of "until".
  • "who both served their roles for Partos" What does this mean?
  • Removed the "who both served their roles" part and added the company before Partos, as that is what this refers to. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropout Bear is an animated figure of an animal, and probably should be referred to as "which" rather than "who".
  • Removed who, but used alternate language from which still. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and shows West serving the role of a cab driver in an imaginary city." I might say "taking" rather than "serving"
  • I decided to use taking on. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and what is acheivable within hip hop's appropriate boundaries.[27]" Appropriate?
  • Changed to traditional, per this being the truly "appropriate" term. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and assured that West is arrogant, "only that's not why he always samples".[26]" I'm not sure you can use "assured" in that way.
  • Reworded most of this. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration appeared on year-end best album lists for 2005 by numerous publications, including being named the best album of the year by Spin,[103] Time,[45] and USA Today.[104] Rolling Stone also gave the album this ranking," Appearing on a year-end album list is not a ranking.
  • Changed to this accolade. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It scored a 107-point lead, standing as the narrowest margin in the poll's history.[108] " Is this going to mean anything to the reader?
  • This is historic, especially with Robert Christgau being a veteran critic, so it can be kept. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was West's second consecutive album to be rated "XXL" by XXL, the magazine's highest rank, which has been awarded to only 16 other hip hop albums.[112]" Given that this is a 2005 source you're citing from, "has been" should likely be "had been"
  • Done, adding by 2005 at the end. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the staff noted that West's ambition to be "bigger than hip-hop" was correct.[116]" How can an ambition be correct? Do you mean "realized"?
  • Reworded quite a bit. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was ultimately nominated for the award at the ceremony, " I gather it did not win the Album of the Year and that should be made clearer.
  • "Despite West's previously instated problem of failure to win, he was happy with eight nominations.[130] Both "instated" and "failure to win" sound like odd phrasings.
  • Reworded to "having stated that he would have a problem with not winning". --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave him nearly double that of The College Dropout's first-week sales." Maybe "and gave him first-week sales nearly double those of The College Dropout."
  • "In the United Kingdom, the album reached number two on the UK Albums Chart for the issue date of September 5, 2005, being prevented from topping the chart by McFly's album Wonderland; however, both albums were new entries that week.[155] " Why the "however"?
  • Removed that and I don't really think both debuting is notable anyway. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt All covered, are you sure there is nothing left and will you now support? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive thanks, I really mean it! --K. Peake 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Late registration cd cover.jpg - cover art. FUR is expansive and the ALT text looks good. Would suggest including an archived version of the source link for posterity
  • Done, with a mention of it being archived in brackets. --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CAM 4037 (175437630) (cropped).jpg - cropped version of this, which was posted to Flickr under a suitable license. Placement in article is appropriate; ALT text and captions are a-ok
  • File:West performing.jpg - while the ALT text, licensing, and caption are OK, this is causing MOS:SANDWICH issues for me on my screen along with the sample. And frankly it comes across as somewhat decorative, as I don't see how an image of a performance strongly corresponds to the songs' composition. Would suggest removing it
  • The reason for inclusion is because it demonstrates a picture of West with his orchestra, who are mentioned as accompanying him on all the songs listed on the text. Also, I moved to the para above instead since it continues into the one below if this is acceptable now? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll allow this, then
  • File:Heymamakanye.ogg - the FUR can use a little more tweaking: "Respect for commercial opportunities / No" ? Caption is alright.
  • I've added more to this now, does it look alright? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that changed in the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter was that "No" became "Yes", which is still not good to me. Usually I see these filled out with "A short audio sample will not harm the commercial viability of the album in any way", so that should suffice.
  • Done, with a few changes. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The FUR for this article should be good to go then. Won't stop me from passing the review, but if you ask me, the FUR for the "Hey Mama" article itself can also use work.
  • File:Kanye West in Portland.jpg - Relevant, licensed appropriately, good captions and ALT text, etc. etc.
  • File:AlphaCabinet.jpg - placement is relevant to the article, as it accompanies lots of commentary on the album's themes and lyricism. ALT text and captions are good, and this is VRT-confirmed.
  • File:Kanye West Portland Vertigo Tour 2005.jpg - no problems other than its alignment in the article (MOS:IMAGELOC). It's pushing the "Artwork and packaging" subheader to the right of my screen; please move it
  • Done; moved to the left. --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same issue is still there, only that the Princeton Uni photo is pushing the "Singles" subheader this time
  • I have removed this photo altogether, finding no size that stops it overlapping. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good but... you moved the tour photo back to the left, leaving us back with where we started (somewhat).
  • File:Andlinger Center for the Humanities, East Pyne - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - DSC00970.jpg AND File:Pop Conference 2014 - Robert Christgau 02.jpg - both are properly licensed with good ALT text and captions. The first file is accompanied by a fairly expansive commentary on the packaging, so it's not super decorative; Christgau's picture seems okay to include here given that he's a prominent music critic
  • File:Kanye West at the Brit Awards 2006.jpg - placement in the article makes sense and the caption is OK. Posted to Flickr under appropriate license; ALT text "West performed a song medley at the 26th Brit Awards" seems somewhat ungrammatical to me.
  • Troubled.elias I have addressed any of your concerns regarding the media content; do you have any more comments to make? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Troubled.elias I have fixed the persisting issues and the BRIT Awards one, which I did not notice at first. Any problems remaining? --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @K. Peake: sorry, was away from home when you posted. Unfortunately, the photo still pushes the header in my screen... I actually quite liked the size of the image earlier; removing the Princeton Uni photo and keeping the tour photo to the right seems like the best option here, IMO. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me
    📝see my work
    23:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of sizes, almost forgot - to adjust image scale, don't use px (e.g. 190px) and use the |upright= parameter instead, per MOS:UPRIGHT. This goes for the Jon Brion photo, the Kanye in Portland photo, and the Vertigo Tour photo.
  • Troubled.elias I have changed all the photos as you requested, except the Jon Brion one that I simply removed a photo size for since the first image being on the left goes best.

Mick Jagger[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid sandwiching text between images
    @Nikkimaria: How would you recommend addressing this? Removing some images? Are there any particular sections of concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one option, but there are others - for example use of multiple image templates. The worst example at the moment is the pop-culture section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Good idea. Used a multiple image template for the pop-culture section. How does that (section) look now to you? --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stones_ad_1965-2.jpg: contrary to the tag, there is a copyright notice in the source (page 4)
    That is a good catch. We can bring this local to remedy that? Do you have any idea who would hold the copyright? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to bring it locally we'd either need it to be free in the US, or have a feasible fair-use claim. The problematic tag is for US status so that would need sorting whether to leave where it is or bring locally as free. As for who would hold copyright, not sure, but you could see if it's listed in the copyright catalogue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in the catalogue from that year or surrounding it. Could that potentially mean that it wasn't listed in the states? link --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't draw that conclusion from just that search - listings can be a bit "creative" in their titling. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Image replaced with File:Rolling Stones op Schiphol, Bestanddeelnr 916-7422.jpg. I was tempted to bring this one in (at a reduced quality and smaller) but discovered a free one so went that route. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

Several comments to start this assessment.

(1) On my 13 inch screen there are several problems with image sandwiches; these should be dealt with and addressed.

  • For the left-right image pairs in your article, that is, when you have a left aligned image immediately follwed by a right aligned image, there appear to be image sandwiches in the 1960s section, in the 2000s section flowing into the 2010s section, and the Popular culture section. Let me know if it needs more pinpointing on your screen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to 'all on the right side' format does not always work, since it sometimes leads to image 'bunching' on the right side; that is, when a sequence of several images carry-over into the next section where they don't really belong. The approach which other editors sometimes find successful is to deal with the left-right image pairs by trying to separate them by an extra paragraph of narrative text if the section is large enough to do this. Its sometimes possible to simply move one of the images in the image pairs down one paragraph in the section or up one paragraph in the section, in order to remove the image sandwich. In some cases, sometimes you may need to prune some images out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved them around a bit for the 1960s section as a test. Does that help any? I might try replacing both of those with another (singular) image from the '60s if I can find a suitable one. I wonder if we should remove the photos from the personal life section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ErnestKrause: I have removed an image from the 1960s section and replaced the other per the above image review section. Do you think we should remove the photos from the personal life section? They aren't adding that much to the article and that would also help with the crowding. As for the 2000s image overflowing, I do see what you mean. Hmm...I think that both images are important to keep...would reducing the size of that image potentially help you figure? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sandwiches on my size screen seem better now; you might want to double check with Nikkimaria on how it looks on her screen. Regarding your use of multiple image formats, did you try the Bianca and Jerry Hall image in landscape mode for comparison; seeing the two of them side by side might be an interesting feature to see. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I have now done that. How does it look to you now? @Nikkimaria: do you still see the image sandwiching on your display or has that been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen there is minor sandwiching in 2000s/2010s, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you. I don't remember if Template:Clear is permissible in articles. If it is, would that help? Do you think that this now passes the image review? I believe I've addressed your listed concerns? TheSandDoctor Talk 05:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Nikkimaria on the image in the 2010s, I'm agreeing with her and it should be pushed down one paragraph lower in that section on the left side. Regarding the landscape mode for Bianca and Jerry Hall, it looks improved over the portait mode version. It would be nice to see some comment on his wealth added into the article; if he is supporting philantrophies and charities as you state in the article, then readers will want to see how much money he is using to support them. See this article [3] and see this book [4] for Jagger's wealth. I'll try to have something done by way of a source analysis for your article by early next week if that is useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I moved the image down a bit and found some better references than an illustration book (The Times, namely) and added 2021 wealth estimates. How does that look for you now? The downside is that neither of the sources you had or the two I found specify how much he gives to charity. He is very much a private individual offstage. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The lead section could use a little more summary from this fairly long article. Possibly some more about the distinction of his solo career and of his career as lead singer of The Rolling Stones.

  • What would you suggest adding? I think the lede summarizes the article fairly well? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seemed that the third paragraph in the lead section could add a little more... there's nothing you could add about his solo career versus his appearances with the group? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the third paragraph of the lead section to include more legacy/honours related content. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Business career profits and commercial success numbers would be nice to see more of in this article. How profitable were his mechandising attempts over the years? How profitable was his solo career? How profitable was it in comparison to his career and profits from The Rolling Stones? Is it known just how large his commercial success has been when royalties and everything else is taken in account?

  • This information doesn't seem readily available for the stones or his solo career. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the individual album articles on Wikipedia and concert articles on Wikipedia do speak about profitability, marketing, promotion, etc.; also, are you saying that there is no information about what percentage of his wealth comes from his efforts with The Rolling Stones as opposed to everything else he does? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to mention a networth of $360 million, if I recall correctly, but it was removed as being not exactly relevant during the peer review. The only net worth mention that I have seen is that number by The Richest and other sites of questionable reliability for an FA. I have never seen a breakdown of percentages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to retract part of that. The Richest now includes a breakdown, but it stops at 2016 (there have been tours in the last 6 years) and the intro appears to have been written when A Bigger Bang was their last tour, meaning it is closing in on 20 years out of date. That said, I am not confident about The Richest's reliability for an FA and neither was Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to confirm reading that his wealth in over $300 million, and that its useful to the article to include this. It means that he is not on the verge of bankruptcy, that he is actually very wealthy, and that he is not suffering from insolvency in any way. Aoba can of course offer his views on this as you have pinged him above. It looks like useful data to know about Jagger. Regarding profits from individual concert tours and individual album sales, this is also useful; Wikipedia has many articles on this subject such as the 3 articles about Bridges to Babylon and the related tour. Where did his money come from questions seem relevant to an article about a person like Jagger who has accumulated this much wealth. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware of a better source for that figure or the other financials you propose, though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Private life and progeny. My understanding is that Jagger's family of children and grand-children is rather large, exceeding 2-3 dozen at this point and prominently discussed in the press. Could some more be added in this article? How many children does he recognize as his own? How may grand-children does he recognize? Also, how many children have been alleged to be his? There were several high profile court cases which disputed these facts; can they be added to the article here?

  • We don't typically name minors. From what I've found he only has one great-grandchild and I don't see why he wouldn't recognize grandchildren etc. "Two or three dozen", based on reliable sources, is also a massive overstatement; I count 14 total kids (great/grand/otherwise included). Do you have any specific examples of court cases? Of grandchildren he doesn't recognize? This section is already fairly long and complicated and this seems a tad excessive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC); updated with realization 16:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I have found on illegitimate kids is a single article in The Globe and Mail about a theatre(?) performance of a parody of Jagger with a fictitious "Jack" who is a "member of that ever-expanding, worldwide club made up of Mick Jagger's illegitimate children." That article isn't about real life and I haven't so far found any (real life) mentions in reliable sources. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's useful to read here. The reliable sources I've just searched using the Google engine seem fairly consistent that he recognizes: "Mick Jagger has eight children with five different women, five grandchildren, and is a great-grandfather." For example here: [5]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) By "That's useful to read here" do you mean that that parody should be included (presumably in the "In popular culture" section)? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is always important at Wikipedia. If there are reliable sources for a rock star's life and his girlfriends then it should be included in this article. From his various book-length biographers, Jagger is not portrayed as an innocent touring the world. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is indeed important, I never said that it wasn't. The article mentions his adultery already in the personal life section. If you have any specific examples in mind that pass WP:DUE, I am all ears and you are welcome to add them. Going back to my actual question, I added mention of the parody to the "In popular culture" section and the number of grandchildren/great-grandchildren to the relationships section. I was also asking about if you had sources for ones he (allegedly) doesn't recognize, not the ones he does; it is already established well in reliable sources and in the article already for the ones he does recognize. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just discovered that for some reason my Newspapers.com subscription through TWL expired despite, from what I can tell, supposedly being valid still; I've requested a renewal. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Adding #5 by way of Source review. There appears to be an issue of whether the Bibliography and References sections are comprehensive for FAC when they are compared to the article and Bibliography in the GA for The Rolling Stones. Much of the biography of Mick Jagger is covered in the many published books about The Rolling Stones, though the list of books in this article for Mick Jagger is not matching up with the sources used in The Rolling Stones Wikipedia article. Has a check been done to ensure that the comments and information about Mick Jagger covered in the Rolling Stones Wikipedia article are also adequately covered in this Mick Jagger article along with the sources and citations which appear in the group's separate Wikipedia article? For example, in the Early History section of The Rolling Stones article it is stated that "In the mid-1950s, Jagger formed a garage band with his friend Dick Taylor; the group mainly played material by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry...", while giving credit to the book by Nelson which does not appear in this Mick Jagger article. The same for the other sections of The Rolling Stones article and the many citations and sources there which deal with Mick Jagger directly by name. Have you done this check of sources and citations in the group's article and compared them to this Mick Jagger article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have looked through The Rolling Stones and ported some sources and content over. My concern, though, is that we don't want to essentially clone that article entirely (there is a reason there are two articles and {{main}} is in use). They don't need to match up for those sections by sources or verbatim, at the very least, and can be more shallow versions. That said, I have added a few thousand more bytes of content from the main Stones article. Does that look any better to you? Any areas that jump out as needing more? Willing to work with you on this. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching you add the materials over the last day or two with your positive results. The main insight for doing that, I think, is to single out the material which focuses on Mick Jagger when using the books about The Rolling Stones. It looks like you've been adding sfn sources to supplement your previous list and it looks more complete now. Nikkimaria looks like she is ok with your images and passing based on images, and I think I'm ok with your upgrades to the sources and cites in the article and am now going to support the promotion of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the review! It is greatly appreciated. You might want to make the support vote in bold so that it better leaps out at coordinators? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I am posting this as a placeholder. I will post a review once ErnestKrause is done with their comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It looks like Nikkimaria is answering the part about image sandwiching, and I'm planning to switch over to look at the source review sometime early next week if all goes well. If you have any FAC comments then you can add them at this time without waiting if that works for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I will look through the article tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to do a review today, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nitpick-y, but the lead and the article say Dartford, Kent and the infobox says Dartford, England. I would be consistent with one way or the other.
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, and they continue to collaborate musically. Are they still collaborating on music (i.e. in 2022 and beyond)? The Jagger–Richards article makes it seem like that is more of a past thing rather than a current and potential feature venture.
    This is ongoing. I changed it to "His ongoing songwriting partnership with Keith Richards". Does that address your concern? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, He has been married and divorced once, would it be worthwhile to mention Bianca Jagger by name since she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article?
    Probably, yes. Just not sure how to word that in with the current structure. Add in when they married/divorced? "He has been married and divorced once to Bianca Jagger, and has..." would read funny to me. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, and I debated on including this in my original comment, I found the "married and divorced once" wording to be a little odd as it places the emphasis on the fact that he was married/divorced once. I would expect that wording more so for an individual married/divorced multiple times where the amount would get the focus, but since he has only been married/divorced once, it seems a little odd to put the focus on the number rather than the person he married, even more so since she has her own article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: I reworded it. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the value of putting citations in the middle of a sentence (i.e. to clarify what is being cited by what citation), there are a few spots where I believe this impairs readability. Having a citation right after "a former gymnast," and "was a hairdresser" awkwardly cuts up the sentence and distracts from the prose in my opinion. In both cases, there is a citation, three words, and then immediately another citation before the sentence continues. I'd move these citations to the end of the sentence.
    Moved in those two instances. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks much better now. I do not know if this is required for a FA, but I'd put the citations in numeric order. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, an excerpt from Shelley's poem Adonaïs, why not use Percy Bysshe Shelley's full name?
    That is a good point. I've changed it to be the full name now. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Life is linked twice in the article.
    Good catch! I've removed the second link. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if this sentence, Jagger portrays an English art dealer-collector and patron in Giuseppe Capotondi's thriller The Burnt Orange Heresy (2020)., needs to be a separate, one-sentence paragraph.
    Merged it with the paragraph above. How does that look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks better to me. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make sure to archive the web citations to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
    Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure that I catch everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! It is very helpful, as always. Please see the above where I've either addressed all points or asked for clarification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left responses to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I think I have now addressed everything you raised. Please let me know if you see anything else. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, Aoba47! TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Jagger has had two genera named after him, Jaggermeryx naida and Aegrotocatellus jaggeri. "If I understand this correctly, only one is a genus, the other being a species.
@Wehwalt: Good catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the birthdays of Jagger's parents and brother?
Probably not. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the RS's first number one UK singles are significant enough to cover in main text, rather than just a footnote.
I agree. Where would you recommend putting that in the prose?
Maybe start a new paragraph with "The group played songs by American rhythm and blues artists like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, " and then describe the two covers that became #1. Then pick up again with how they were urged to write their own songs in a new paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk)
That worked, thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, he learned to play guitar" I assume after going back two sentences that we are talking about the south of France. But given I had to go back two sentences to figure out what was meant, some better formulation might do.
Changed. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director Alejandro Jodorowsky approached him in the same year to play the role of Feyd-Rautha[148] " This had no connection with the version in the 1980s with Sting in that role?
Based on the LA Times writing "Herbert's book would eventually be broguht to the screen in 1984 by David Lynch" and the surrounding context, no, no relation. Jodorowsky's project fizzled. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCarthy predicted the film would fare better once released to video than in its limited theatrical runs. (Unnecessary detail imo)[164] " Some commentary here? If I could put my oar in, I'd say I'd agree unless you tie up whether it did in fact do better on video.
I thought that that was your commentary, but then saw it in the article. Wow. Not sure how that ended up there and it wasn't mine. Huh. Anyhow, based on data from The-numbers.com, that estimate was well off the mark. Do you think that that should be referenced in the article or just drop the sentence? I've already cut the parenthesis bit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger has been married and divorced once,[170][171] and has had other relationships, resulting in eight children with five women, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.[172]" This could be read to say that his children were with the aid of his descendants. I might also toss in an "as of 2016" as the statistics might have changed by now.
How would you propose clarifying it? I've tossed in an "as of 2016". --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "... five women. He also has, as of 2016, five grandchildren ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Implemented. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to give exact birthdates for non-notable people?
Probably not. Do you think a year by itself would be appropriate for timeline sake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger's father and daughters Karis and Elizabeth were in attendance." Since you can be "in attendance" on royalty, I might say "present" instead.
Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000 film Almost Famous, set in 1973, refers to Jagger: "Because if you think Mick Jagger'll still be out there, trying to be a rock star at age 50 ... you're sadly, sadly mistaken."[221]" I'm a little dubious about this, cute as that line is, and as much as I love that movie, if it's only a "mentioned in" and there's no explanation of why it's relevant that he's mentioned.
He has similarly shared this view in the past, though he said 45 and said it two years after the year the show was set in. Source. I've added a bit more, but would also be okay cutting it or tweaking further. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it in but it's among my favorite films so I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN should be linked and I don't think it should be italicised.
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! Could you please take a look at the theatrical vs video release point again? Otherwise I think I've covered everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro[edit]

Staking my place here as you requested. I should get to this in no time but if I don't say anything by the end of the week please ping me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Monza[edit]

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In order to be freely licensed in both the US and Italy, the photographs must have been out of copyright in Italy on 1 January 1996. This means that photographs that cannot be dated to before 1976 should not be used (File:Monza lineup in 1975-76 (1).jpg). Other images look ok for licensing based on my non-expert understanding of Italian copyright law. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
  • Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelenken[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass Maybe I'm missing something but where does the source say that File:Feeding Kelenken.jpg is released under a CC license? Other image licensing looks ok. (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the upload by the original artist:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: work should be italicized, and exact date and page should be included
Fixed now, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should include book editors
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
What ref would be an example of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11 is missing publisher
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.

Re: "dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked.
Ah, good catch, the source specifies placental mammals, which I somehow overlooked, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified as "The describers concluded these bones belonged to a single specimen" to keep it in past tense for the narrative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it hasn't been done to this particular area I can't say, and I have looked for newer articles that might have done it, but nothing came up. But I have added "from different areas of the Collón Curá Formation". 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Mostly support[edit]

I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is

  • Article: "...hunting in areas with tall vegetation, providing the agility needed to move amongst vertical obstacles, while the narrow upper maxilla permitted greater access to small prey animals hidden among tree trunks or stones"
  • Source: "...hunted in regions with high vegetation, permitting their greater agility between verticle obstacles. A very narrow upper maxilla would furthermore facilitate the apprehension of small animals hidden amongst trunks or stones"

Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller prey animals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird", an extinct group of large, predatory birds)". Suggest 'Kelenken is a genus of phorusrhacid (or "terror bird") an extinct group of large, predatory birds'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The long and slender tarsometatarsus of Kelenken instead shows". "instead" of what?
  • "and eat small animals". As we have just been told that it is a predator, "and eat" this add anything to the lead. Why else would it chase them down? And this is covered again in the next sentence. Similarly in the main article.
  • "the most completely known skull of a large phorusrhacid known at the time." "known ... known". Any chance of some variation?
  • "Previously, such skulls were known only from the fragmentary Devincenzia and Phorusrhacos, the latter of which disintegrated during collection (leaving only the tip of the beak), which hampered comparison between phorusrhacid taxa of different sizes, until the discovery of Kelenken." This doesn't really work as a single sentence. Suggest breaking after "Phorusrhacos".
  • "the latter of which disintegrated". Delete "of which".
  • "though their validity had not yet been confirmed through cladistic analysis". Perhaps 'had not then been ...'?
  • "birds around the world developed a tendency towards gigantism". Anything in the sources which wuold allow you to suggest why.
  • "while there are records from Europe, these are disputed." This doesn't make sense to me. (Records of what? Do you mean remains? What is disputed? Obviously not that they are Phorusrhacids as you have just said there are records of them in Europe.) I realise that this is summary style, but any chance of unpacking it a little?
  • "they may also have made reverse movements." Which would be what?
  • "that invaded from North America in the Pleistocene." "invaded"! Really? Is there not a more neutral synonym?
  • "very small wings". Actually, they weren't. The word 'relatively' needs to be worked in somewhere.
Went with "proportionally", since they were almost comically small compared to the overall size of the animal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid". Is it known how it ranks amongst post-dinosaur avians more generally?
  • "437.14 mm (17.210 in)". This seems a ridiculous level of purported accuracy, given what is being measured. Suggest rounding to the nearest mm.
  • "Kelenken is the largest known phorusrhacid ... Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known". If you are going to repeat this, could the two statements appear next to each other? And why the switch in tense - "is" to ""was"?
  • "3 m (9.8 ft)". Decimal feet?[!]
  • "Such a strong downwards projection resembles most closely the condition seen in large to medium sized phorusrhacids such as Phorusrhacos, Patagornis, Andrewsornis, and Andalgalornis than the weaker projections of the smaller psilopterines." I think you are missing something like 'more' or 'rather' before "than".
  • "though apparently not as high as in the patagornithines". Is there a reason for the havering "apparently"?
  • Link process.
  • "is almost quadrangular, which is different from that of brontornithines, which are rectangular". Are rectangles not a category of quadrangles? (Do you mean 'square?) Likewise with "The fourth trochlea is quadrangular, which contrasts with the rectangular trochlea of Devicenzia."
  • "Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology were mainly based on them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks rather than through detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies". This construction does not work. It's the "rather than". Maybe something like 'Earlier hypotheses of phorusrhacid feeding ecology had them possessing large skulls with hooked beaks. These were not based on detailed hypotheses and biomechanical studies ...'?
  • "14 m s−1 ~50 km h−1". Should the conversion not be in parentheses? And the "-1" should be superscript.
  • Cheetahs - is their speed known? Even if only in a foot note. Almost any reader is going to be looking it up.
  • "This could be used for accessing the marrow inside the bones". What is "This"?
  • "These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle, the skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”." → 'These researchers interpreted this loss as an adaptation for enhanced rigidity of the skull, and compared to the modern red-legged seriema and white-tailed eagle. The skull of the phorusrhacid showed relatively high stress under sideways loadings, but low stress where force was applied up and down, and in simulations of “pullback”.'
  • "a maximum downwards strike". What is being maximised? (I am guessing either extension or force.)
  • "A 2020 study of phorusrhacid skull morphology by Degrange found that there were two main morphotypes within the group, derived from a seriema-like ancestor; the "Psilopterine Skull Type", which was plesiomorphic (more similar to the ancestral type), and the "Terror Bird Skull Type", which included Kelenken and other large members, that was more specialized, with more rigid and stiff skulls." That's a heck of a sentence. Perhaps break it up?
  • "the earlier late Early ..." Anything you can do about this?
  • "and instead allowed ..." Which of the two allowed this?

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • Could you break up the sections into smaller subsections? Giant 1,500 word essays can look pretty daunting to read Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did to with paleobiology (added "Limb function" and "Skull and neck function" sections), but there isn't much of a natural cut-off point in the description, which apart from a short paragraph, is almost entirely about the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried with a skull and leg bone section under description, not sure if it works well. Wish they had described the known toe bone too. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you could also cleave off Beak or Mouth or Jaws? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't more in the relevant sources (would be beyond the scope of this article to use sources not related to the subject), but could be nice with a dedicated article that could be linked, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kelenken was about 10% larger than the largest phorusrhacids previously known, such as Phorusrhacos" I feel like this is supposed to be saying that Phorusrhacos was the largest phorusrhacid previously known, unless the other largest phorusrhacids (mysteriously unnamed) were roughly the same height Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wubslin[edit]

  • Phorusrhacids were large, flightless birds with long hind limbs, narrow pelves, very small wings, and huge skulls, with a tall, long, sideways compressed hooked beak. Are "pelves" pelvises? I think an English plural is more suitable for our general readership than a Latin one, as this may make the meaning unclear.
Changed, can't say if that is indeed the most common spelling, but sounds plausible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kelenken differed from other phorusrhacids in a combination of features, including the length of its beak, in having a supraorbital ossification (a rounded edge above the eye socket) that fit into a socket of the postorbital process, and in having an almost triangular foramen magnum (the large opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord enters). That's quite a sentence! I suggest removing "a combination of features, including"
  • Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and have often been considered apex predators that dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of placental mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals. Rather than the apparent contradiction of saying one thing, then the contrary, I suggest recasting this sentence as "Phorusrhacids are thought to have been ground predators or scavengers, and apex predators. They dominated Cenozoic South America when there were few placental mammalian predators, and co-existed with some large, carnivorous borhyaenid mammals." or something similar.

That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Year's Model[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. Even better than his debut My Aim Is True, Model really shows the artist and band at their best in terms of songwriting and musicality. I've been rebuilding a few of Costello's albums from the ground up now and I believe this one is ready for the star. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver Would appreciate feedback sooner rather than later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

(1) Lead section. Use of the word 'viscious' seems a quote of Costello in his interview but you do not quote this word in quote marks. Suggest you quote it, or change it to 'cynical' or 'sarcastic' without quote marks.

(2) Side one section. It seems like a good idea to quote Elvis's opening words which kick off the song. Direct quote of the first 9-10 words before the band kicks in.

Its "I don't want to see you, I don't want to touch." Its surprising to see that none of the songs on this album have a Wikipedia page. It would be nice to see the opening lyrics from this song in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Packaging and artwork section. Its obvious, but mention that he is photographed in his signature black frame glasses.

(4) Critical reception section. It says that it was album of the year 1978 here, but its not stated as such in the lead section. Album of the year for the Village Voice is worth putting in lead section.

  • I mean "appeared on several year-end lists" I think makes that clear. And is it? Since it appeared on multiple lists stating an American publication and not the others seems odd to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could select the top 2-3 in the list to add to the lead section at your option. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally feel like it would make it feel cluttered, as through my previous FAs, I was told to keep things simple and not over-indulge. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The phrase "ranked as one of Costello's best...", may look better as, "ranked as among Costello's best...".

(6) No Legacy section? No one has ever tried to copy one of his songs with any success?

There is a duet with Elvis Costello & Billie Joe Armstrong doing No Action. Since there are no singles articles from this album on Wikipedia (other than Radio, Radio?), then it would be nice to see a Legacy section for the album and its hits, listing any notable covers which might be out there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Wasn't able to find much stuff on potential legacy, unlike something like Low. If we go on a song-by-song basis I guess we could add something like that, or Linda Rondstadt's covers, or even Olivia Rodrigo's potential plagiarism of "Pump It Up" for "Brutal". But then again, I'd want legacy or influence to about the album as a whole rather than that. Might be just a me thing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should serve as some start comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of optional further edits that I am listing above which you might add to the article, and I'm supporting this nomination. The article already has a top to bottom copy edit from its good GAN and the sources are well-developed and comprehensive. Supporting this nomination. If you have time to make some comments, then I've put in a nomination for the pop music group BTS for possible support/oppose comments from you if you can get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

Cool, this is one of my all-time favourite albums and I always had it at the back of my mind I'd like to expand it someday, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) (Ha, it looks like I made two edits to this in 2006 but haven't edited it since.) I will try to review this soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in my impressionable mid-teens I'm pretty sure it what sparked my interest in this was the 1987 Rolling Stone issue ranking it #11 best album of the last 20 years. I was instantly won over by its energy and catchy hooks, and have been a big fan ever since. OK, enough gushing, better get started with the review!

First read-through:

  • Critical reception: "calling the album "more potent" than its Aim". Should this be "its predecessor Aim" or is this meant to be part of the direct quote? If it's not part of the direct quote (this may be personal preference but) it feels a bit casual to me for an encyclopedia article to use a shortened version of the album name. But if you disagree, no worries (I know I've seen other people in Wikipedia do that kind of thing, so again, it may be personal preference).
  • "In the midst of the punk movement, Christgau dismissed This Year's Model as punk rock, but acknowledged the genre's influence on the album and artist". How I naturally read "dismissed as" is meaning "dismissed as being" which I understand from the context is the opposite meaning to what is intended here. How you intend it is also a valid reading, but would it be possible to rewrite this so there is no ambiguity? Moisejp (talk) 05:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospective appraisal: "finding the material "gall"... He considered the package "unfeasibly invigorating" following its "mild-mannered" predecessor, but commended Lowe's production." I found this confusing—not sure what the overall message is supposed to be. "Invigorating" has a positive connotation, "unfeasibly" perhaps not, "but...commended" suggests what follows is good and what precedes is bad. Also "gall" seems to be used as an adjective, a usage I'm not familiar with and didn't immediately find with a quick internet search. Also, while I'm in this section, "package" seems a bit of a casual usage to me (at first I assumed it was talking about the packaging). Could I suggest Jim Irvin's section be reworked? Moisejp (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: This seems like a run-on sentence: "La Marisoul, a huge fan of Costello's, felt honoured to sing "Little Triggers", now titled "Detonantes", who approached the track by saying "Okay, I'm gonna live in these lyrics." Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Model: I wonder if it might be worthwhile to mention the release date of September 2021 earlier in this section. The start of this section mentions 2018 and then "led Costello to conceive reimagining the entirety of This Year's Model in Spanish". For three or four paragraphs, I was assuming this was shortly after, but finally realized it didn't happen for another three years. I guess I could have looked at the infobox, which I didn't. I don't know, it's just an idea to fit in mention of the release date earlier somehow, but if it proves not feasible, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to keep this chronological but I see what you mean. Do you think it should be worded like the start of a normal album article? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Elvis_Costello_Spanish_Model.jpg needs a more expansive FUR in order to justify having two non-free album covers. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely better, but now it's basically the same as the other cover - what's the rationale for including both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • I seem to be 300km away from the nearest library copy of Perone's The words and music of Elvis Costello, but looks like it could be a valuable source, from the preview pages. If you have access to the relevant chapter, I think it can provide some further material. I can't say it's an essential source, but it does look like it might be useful. (I did have a browse of Perone's Elvis Costello: A Bio-Bibliography earlier today, but that has only a dozen pages of biography preceding lengthy discographies and a bibliography.)
  • I just bought the book cuz why not. Figure I'll be doing quite a few more of his anyways. I'll see what I can dim I'll probably be making quite a few new additions. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of the sleeve notes as a source, except for the catalogue number, seems a bit like original research. I think the St Michael source (page 34) supports the content without needing to add the sleeve notes. The Attractions weren't named on the cover, but they were pictured (on the back, with Costello), I believe. Might be worth mentioning that, if it's in reliable sources.
  • They are not OR. Costello himself wrote extensive liner notes for the reissues by both Rykodisc and Rhino for all of his early albums, so they constitute WP:PRIMARY here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably have mentioned that the reference in question is to "Anon. (1978). This Year's Model (LP sleeve notes)" rather than to the later editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's in reliable sources, consider mentioning:
  • there were videos for "(I Don't Want To Go To) Chelsea", "Pump It Up", and "Radio, Radio". (The "Pump It Up" one is mentioned in passing under the Spanish Model part of the article.)
  • Unfortunately none of the bios talk about any of his videos from Model nor Get Happy!! (maybe for Armed Forces but can't recall atm) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can find on that because that would be good to mention. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Year's Girl"/"Big Tears" was released as a single in the US.
  • Unfortunately none of the bios discuss non-UK singles either; definitely not as in-depth as Bowie (ugh). I'll check out some websites but I don't recall many mentioning them. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clayton-Lea writes that most of the relationships in the songs concentrate on the artist failing to get the girl" seems quite a close paraphrasing of "..mostly concentrated on how Costello failed to get the girl" (p.38)
  • "provokes and invokes" - I couldn't see this in the St. Michael book. Which page is it from?
  • What makes acclaimedmusic.net a reliable source?
  • It's just an aggregate website similar to Metacritic. It's only being used for overall album rankings and nothing else. I used it in my previous FAs Hunky Dory and Low and they passed just fine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for specifying the nationalities of "American writer Jon Pareles" and " English writer Colin Larkin"?

Banded broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

  • "Mainland Southeast Asia". Why the upper case M? Also in the main article.
    • No reason, just used it because it was in the main article.
Could we make them both lower case then.
  • "On Java, the broadbill might breed year-round." "might" doesn't seem helpful here. Do you mean something like 'sometimes' or 'has been observed to'?
    • Replaced "might" with "is thought to".
  • "are sister to the Grauer's broadbill". Why the definite article? Which is not used in the preceding sentence.
    • Removed definite article.
  • "has more metallic grey underparts and pinker throats and upperparts." Just checking: the underparts are both "more metallic grey" and "pinker"?
    • Second reference is to upperparts.
D'oh! Sorry.
  • "with an indistinct neckband, blacker foreheads, and pinker throats". Either all singular or all plural.
    • Changed all to singular.
  • "with pale dark streaks". I am unsure how something can be both pale and dark.
    • Dark compared to the background, but pale overall. For example, look at the photo of the West Javan juvenile. The streaks on the breast are rather pale overall, but dark compared to the yellowish background.
Hmm. Ok.
  • Perhaps link still-hunting to Hunting strategy#Still hunting?
    • Added link, but the hunting strategy article is about human hunters, so unsure how helpful it would be.
That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.
  • "as well as catching prey in flight in more elegantly." Is there a word missing?
    • Rephrased.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a closer look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all subspecies names and synonyms here, if they aren't already.
    • Done.
  • This individual[7] seems much lighter than the ones shown in the article. If it's a juvenile, perhaps clearer than the current juveniles shown in the article?
    • Definitely not a juvenile. I suspect that it's due to the lighting, since the background indicates the bird is captive. It might be an immature or perhaps a different subspecies, but I can't be sure since the photo doesn't provide any location info.
  • "All the subspecies excluding javanicus are sometimes split as a separate species on the basis of morphology, which would make the current species monotypic (having only one subspecies)." but does anyone still follow that scheme? If it is an old proposition, could be said in past tense.
    • IUCN/Birdlife still split it into two.
You could add "according to this scheme" to this sentence then: "The nominate subspecies is called the Javan broadbill,[1] while the three subspecies in E. harterti (harterti, brookei, and pallidus) are called the banded broadbill.[13]" FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species is called takau rimba in Malay and Nok Phaya Paak Kwaang laay leuang in Thai." Considering the nominate is from Indonesia, and some of the other subspecies occur there too, wouldn't it make sense to have the Indonesian name there?
    • Haven't found any sources with the Indonesian name. The source for the Thai and Malay names is only a guide for the Malay Peninsula and thus restricts itself to those.
  • "This larger clade is sister to one formed by the long-tailed broadbill and dusky broadbill. Both of these clades are sister to Grauer's broadbill." Is this level of text description detail needed when it is shown in the cladogram?
    • Can't hurt, and might be helpful for those with screen readers or those who don't know how to "read" a cladogram.
  • What do the subspecies names mean?
    • Generally, this information isn't given in the article, as it's a bit excessively detailed.
Hmmm, is it really? I think this is of much more interest than describing sister taxa relationships in-text of every clade in the cladogram, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, I could add the meaning in a footnote after each ssp name. AryKun (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly couldn't hurt, it could even be in the main text. Since this is the article that covers those subspecies too, this is where people will have to look for the meaning of their names and any other info about them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the type species of the genus Eurylaimus, which was created for it." Both parts of the sentence means the same, but I can see the latter part could be needed as an explanation.
    • Yep, the second part is meant as an explanation for those unfamiliar with taxonomy.
  • "The weight of 10 specimens of adults of pallidus" unnecessarily wordy, what about "The weight of 10 adult pallidus specimens"
    • Done.
  • "that allows it to mash and "chew" its food, helping the species consume relatively large prey." Isn't this more suited for the diet section?
    • Well, I guess it might fit in there, but the first part of the sentence is actually describing its bill's appearance and size; the latter part is just there to provide an explanation for why the bill is so large.
  • Explain anatomical terms like supercilium in parenthesis.
    • Added glosses for supercilium and lores, but haven't added them for all the feathers, since those require a rather lengthy explanation of their function and position that would obscure the focus of the paragraph.
  • You state the location of some pictured specimens, but not others, could be consistent.
    • Added location for the picture lacking it, don't think the infobox image needs location as the subspecies is already mentioned.
  • In one place you say "coloration", though the rest seems to be UK "colour".
    • Fixed.
  • "which splits the banded broadbill into two species" Which two species?
    • Mentioned earlier in the taxonomy section, assuming readers are at least skimming it as they go through.
  • And on that issue, what authority are we following here in only having one species? I believe we generally follow IOC, what do they say? In case the article will have to be split.
    • IOC keeps it as one species, so that's how I've treated it.
  • Terms like ovoid and lateral could be explained or replaced with common terms.
    • Done.
  • "is a striking species" Seems rather informal and hyperbolic for the very first sentence.
    • Striking means distinctive or conspicuous, which it is; also, since the BOW account calls it "remarkable-looking" and "comical-looking", I thought that at least a cursory mention of its distinctive appearance was needed at the start.
Shouldn't this be at the start of the description part of the intro then? Now you instantly characterise it as "striking", which I don't think is common for the first introductory sentence in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the mention in the lead to the description part, instead of the first sentence. AryKun (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is sometimes split into two species, one including only the nominate subspecies, E. j. javanicus, and one including all the remaining subspecies." The article body should go into this in more detail under taxonomy. What is the name of the other supposed species, and what is its nominate subspecies?
    • Adde extra detail in taxonomy.
  • On what basis are the other subspecies grouped together to the exclusion of the nominate?
    • Added.
  • Link arthropod in intro.
    • Done.
  • Not a big deal, but instead of having the very long double image of immatures, perhaps use one of them under reproduction where immatures are mentioned, and perhaps give the month the photo was taken (can be seen in the exif data of the photos) in the image caption, since this seems important in the text?
    • Added months, but I think the images are best placed where they are.
  • "the other subspecies as being of least concern" Shouldn't this be the other species? I don't think they cover subspecies.
    • The other subspecies as in all three of them, changed to "and all the other" to make it clearer. I think saying subspecies maintains internal consistency, since the rest of the article treats it as one species, not two.
  • Should be possible to identify which subspecies are pictured from their locations?
    • I guess, since the subspecies live on different islands.
    • FunkMonk, I've addressed or replied to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 08:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz[edit]

Description

  • "The weight of adults of pallidus from the Malay Peninsula was ..." I suggest the present tense "is" – unless you specify a particular study.
    • Reworded.
  • "with a black band across the neck." and "a pure grey breast-band". This is confusing. Is this the same band? Does the male of the nominate subspecies have a band on the upper breast? Perhaps also mention the breastband/neckband when listing ssp in Taxonomy and systematics
    • The neck-band is black and across the neck; the breast-band is gray and lower down across the breast. This can be seen in the infobox image, where there is a black band across the neck and another grayish streak below the neck-band. The entire description para refers to the nominate ssp as mentioned at the beginning ("Adult males of the nominate subspecies"), while the neckband is mentioned in the ssp descriptions where it differs (eg in brookei - "with an indistinct neckband").
      • Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps "and a pure grey breast-band." -> "and a pure grey breast-band beneath the black neckband." - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider mentioning the white spots visible on the underside of the retrices.
    • Already mentioned ("The tail..and has white spots on the underside").
  • The sentence beginning "It is among the widest-billed broadbills, ..." seems out of place. Consider moving the sentence to before "The irises are pale yellow...".
    • Done.

Distribution

  • link Indochina
    • That redirects to Mainland Southeast Asia, which is linked earlier.
      • Yes, I noticed that, but it wasn't obvious to me that "Indochina" is a synonym for "Mainland Southeast Asia". - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

  • Perhaps mention that both sexes collect nest material (Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 p. 16)
    • Added.

References

  • The references are cluttered with links from overzealous archiving. For many Wikipedia articles link rot is a serious problem, but fortunately this is not the case for most of the references in this article. There is no need to archive links to scans available from the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) or those from the Internet Archive (IA). (Note that the BHL and the archived copies are on the same IA web server.) I'm unable to display the archived copies of the BHL book scans.
    • Removed archive links to BHL content.
  • The archived copy for Kirwan et al 2021 (Cornell BOW) is useless – the article is behind a paywall so the archive contains no useful information.
    • Removed link.
  • Gulson-Castillo et al 2019 – the page numbers should be 8–27.
    • But 11–15 are the ones supporting cited info. The field pages in the ref template says "Pages in the source that support the content (not an indication of the number of pages in the source".
      • For journal articles and edited book chapters I use page ranges such as: 8–27 [11–15] – but I admit that this not standard. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dekker et 2000 Notes 3 – For journal articles it is usual to specify the page numbers of the article rather than the actual page. (as with your Notes 2 reference) The pages are 77-88.
    • See above

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still find the description of the neckband unsatisfactory. When describing the female you write: "although the neckband is faint or absent in males as well on Borneo and Java." Presumably the race on Java is E. j. javanicus, the nominate subspecies, which you've described earlier as "with a black band across the neck." Perhaps you should make it clear earlier that not all males of the nominate subspecies have a black band across the neck. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the description and moved the sentence mentioning the lack of a neckband in Bornean and Javan males into the para describing males, which I think should make this clearer. AryKun (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the changes look good. Great work. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:EurylaimusJavanicusDist.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
  • File:Banded_Broadbill_-_Adult_feeding_juvenile.jpg is of rather poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As always, a great article by our FA regulars. I haven't read through the whole article, but the paragraphs are a bit odd: some are really long (>200 words), and some are just one sentence long. I also think that center-aligning captions is a bit odd, but feel free to ignore this complaint. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:

  • "a now-largely-lost manual" – I'm often unsure about hyphens, but I rather think we don't need them here, as the adverb in the middle does the necessary work. I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
  • "personally interviewed participants" – can you interview people in any other way than personally?
Certainly, but point taken.
  • "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" – just checking: does this mean they were allowed to join up or were liable to be made to do so?
An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
  • "The latter were usually Numidians" – pedantry alert: you can only have the latter of two. With any more it is "last"
Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
  • "if it were to again confront Rome" – curiously convoluted construction: wouldn't "to confront Rome again" be more natural?
What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
  • "but was then ambushed and besieged itself" – how do you besiege yourself? (From my press cuttings file: "Lampard twice had chances to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)
:-) Fixed.
  • "nevertheless his is the best surviving source for this part of the war.[14][12][15]" – refs would be better in numerical order.
This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A significant part of Hannibal's campaign – what did it signify? I think you probably mean important or major or substantial. Yes, I know we've argued about this before, but I continue to press the Fowler line that "significant" should not be wasted as a mere synonym of "important".
I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
  • "the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate" – unwanted definite article
Hmm. Gone.

More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

Only four more comments:

  • The caption in the Iberia 218–215 BC section could be made more concise by changing "The warrior" to "He".
Good thinking. Done.
  • The caption of the bust in the Iberia, 214–209 BC section is a bit ambiguous: "identified" as Scipio could mean anything from "generally thought to be" to "someone has speculated".
Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
  • "they routed back through the Carthaginian ranks" – assuming this is "routed" to rhyme with "shouted" rather than with "suited" it is an intransitive construction unfamiliar to me. I'm guessing it means they routed the opposition, but I'm not sure.
Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
You expose my ignorance: I didn't know "rout" could be an intransitive verb. Now I know. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Shock' troops are those trained and used to close rapidly with an opponent, with the intention of breaking them before, or immediately upon, contact". – I struggle with this. First, why "them" rather than "him" – non-gender-specific language is hardly required unless there were soldieresses in the ranks of the troops, and secondly, I'm not sure what you mean by "breaking"? Killing? Making him flee?
"them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's much clearer, thank you. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by T8612[edit]

Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.

  • Polybius The main source for almost every aspect of the Punic Wars etc. This is largely true for the 1PW and 3PW, but not the 2PW, because Polybius' text breaks off in 216 after the battle of Cannae. The main source for the war is Livy (discussed below). Polybius is nevertheless a very important source for the beginning of the war, but "fairly reliable" has to be toned down a bit for the 2PW. The most damning example is about Cannae, because one of the consuls (Aemilius Paullus) was the grandfather of Scipio Aemilianus, Polybius' patron and friend. Therefore, Polybius put the blame of the defeat on the other consul, Gaius Terentius Varro. This is quite a big manipulation that ought to be noted. In general, Polybius is much less reliable when he deals with the family of Scipio, or his native Achaean League (he is therefore biased against the Aetolians also mentioned in the article).
I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
  • Livy. The main source for the 2PW is thus Livy, whose books had been lost for the 1PW, but are still extent for the years from 218. Livy almost only used Polybius for the events of the Greek East, but for the Italian theatre he mixed him with the previous Roman historians, up to Fabius Pictor (also used by Polybius). Livy's book is much more pro-Roman than Polybius. He also dramatised battle descriptions in a way that is much less accurate than Polybius. Livy could also be biased: interestingly, he too put the blame on Varro for Cannae, but not for the same reason as Polybius; Livy describes Varro as a careless demagogue, while Paullus is a moderate (Livy often uses this opposition demagogue/conservative in his book, with disdain for the former).
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
  • You mention Plutarch, I think you should cite the relevant biographies of his Parallel Lives: Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus (and some parts of the lives of Cato the Elder and Titus Flamininus). For example: Living during the Empire, the Greek moralist Plutarch wrote valuable biographies of several Roman protagonists of the war in his famous Parallel Lives, especially Fabius Maximus and Claudius Marcellus.
  • Two modern sources:
    • A. E. Astin wrote a very useful chapter on primary sources for the period in the 1st chapter (especially pp. 3-11) of the Cambridge Ancient History volume 8. Check also pp. 51-52 for Polybius' treatment of Cannae.
    • John Briscoe & Simon Hornblower, Livy: Ab urbe condita Book XXII (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 22), is a recent source (2020) and has a very good introduction on the whole war, and details the relationship between Polybius and Livy (there are also dicussions on Roman manpower or political factions in Rome). I can send you a pdf if you need it. T8612 (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi T8612, response in two parts:
1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612:
2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
Done.
  • "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay.
  • " by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
  • "Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
  • "After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High praise indeed. Thank you Wehwalt. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up all maps except Hannibal's allies, and see MOS:COLOUR
  • Background map is missing a legend
  • File:Altar_Domitius_Ahenobarbus_Louvre_n3_(cropped).jpg: the citation to the French code for the original work includes a non-commercial clause, which is non-free for the purposes of Commons
  • File:Second_Punic_war_(cropped).png: source links are dead
  • File:Archimedes_before_his_death_with_the_Roman_soldier,_Roman_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Relieve_de_Osuna_(M.A.N._Madrid)_03.jpg needs a tag for original work. Ditto File:Bust_of_Sulla_(loan_from_Ny_Carlsberg_Glyptotek)_-_Glyptothek_-_Munich_-_Germany_2017.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Compassionate727[edit]

Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.

  • First, I can tell you really hate commas. In fact, I'm not even going to bother pointing out all the places there should be commas but aren't; I'm just going to fix them.
Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says: Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used. (Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma.
I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • The Romans established a lodgement in north-east Iberia When did this happen? A year would be nice.
Good point. Done.
  • took the offensive in Iberia and were badly defeated, while maintaining their hold Don't like this construction, would prefer "were badly defeated but maintained": parallelism is pretty.
I slightly prefer mine, but done.
  • The final engagement of the war took place between armies under Scipio and Hannibal at the battle of Zama in 202 strike "battle of", it's unnecessary when we already mentioned it was an engagement. If you prefer specifying that it was a battle (don't know what else it would be, but whatever), you can replace "engagement" with "battle"
Done.
  • resulted in Hannibal's defeat and in Carthage suing for peace. Personally, I think it would sound better without repeating the second "in", but this is a mild preference.
Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
  • The peace treaty imposed on the Carthaginians stripped them I would strike the imposition part. It seems odd to speak of a peace treaty being imposed when it didn't follow an unconditional surrender, and even if there is a sourcing reason for it, here it's just clunky. As it is, we can already tell that the treaty was quite harsh from the fact that most Carthaginian politicians opposed it
Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henceforth it was clear that Carthage was politically
Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scipio was awarded a triumph and received the agnomen "Africanus". "received" seems redundant
Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Would that not be a fair statement? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write: Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing forces[edit]
  • The balance were equipped as heavy infantry "rest" or "remainder", not "balance". This isn't a bank account.Face-smile.svg
Done.
  • into three ranks, of which the front rank would prefer these clauses be separated by a colon or semi-colon (not certain off-hand which is correct) and "of which" eliminated
Done.
  • second and third ranks had a thrusting spear carried? bore? wielded? just not "had", please
Changed.
  • Both legionary sub-units and individual legionaries For some reason, when "both" leads like that, my brain's first reaction is to think that it means two sub-units. Maybe move it to afterward? Also, what the heck is a "sub-unit" in this context?
1. Done. 2. sub unit
The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
  • legionaries fought in a? relatively open order
Er, no.
Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • elect two men each year, known as consuls, as senior magistrates, who Is it really necessary to specify that consuls were senior magistrates? I think everyone can infer this. If you feel like it is, the sentence would flow better if the title came after category of job (e.g., "two mean each year as senior magistrates, called consuls").
I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
  • at time of war "at" should be "during," and "time of" is a waste of words
'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in" is fine. Changed.
  • would each lead an army. An army was usually formed by combining two Roman legions This implies that there would be four Roman legions fielded during war (2+2=4), when the second sentence says that traditionally only two total legions of Romans were fielded. Not sure which is correct, but please fix.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
  • Carthage recruited foreigners to make up its army i.e., mercenaries, or should I understand something else here?
You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
  • were from North Africa and so were frequently Does this mean that even non-North African troops were called "Libyans," so long as they weren't Carthaginians?
Clarified.
  • provided several types of fighter, including: close order infantry while I understand why you wanted a colon there, I doubt it is correct
Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • experienced infantry and cavalry. These infantry were
Done.
  • The Gallic cavalry, and possibly some of the Iberians, wore armour Unless your sources are stressing the possibility that some Iberians were heavy calvary, I would leave the possibilizing to the next sentence ("most or all" is adequate, I think)
Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
  • I'm realizing I don't really understand what "open-order" and "close-order" means. I don't suppose there's something you could wikilink?
The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources[edit]

I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I might propose text like this: The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island, (Sicily?) and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider glossing the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • Would dropping "which were" from the first sentence be an improvement?
  • There is some inconsistency in the content of the captions. Sometimes there is a bit of context on the artwork, and elsewhere it only has the name of who is depicted.
  • In the 'Primary sources' section, "Carthaginian" and "Roman" are linked yet "Greek" isn't.
  • Link Craige B. Champion
  • 'Much of Polybius's account of the Second Punic War is missing, or only exists in fragmentary form." needs a source.
  • "if there was a direct threat to the city" Should that be if there were? I'm unsure myself...
  • "When they did they fought" clunky
  • "if a combat" is the 'a' needed?
  • "Carthage never attempted to use its fleet decisively" I'm not sure what that means.... Is there a more clear way to word that?

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Baltic