User:Mathglot/sandbox/Test pages/FAC rev. 1184648286

Copy of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates rev. 1184648286 of 19:39, 11 November 2023, augmented with the addition of Test table with approx. 100 rows; related to this proposal.

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

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, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—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. 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 are 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 Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. 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 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. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. 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.

Transcluded test table

See proposal at Template talk:FAC-instructions for an explanation of this test.

Table mockup related to FAC page load time proposal, with longer remarks in column three.

Article	Status	Longer remarks within {{tq}}
DeLancey W. Gill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Benty Grange hanging bowl	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Red Clay State Historic Park	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Begotten (film)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Parliament Hill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Mark Murphy (American football executive)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Philosophy	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
History of military logistics	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
My Little Love	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Teloschistaceae	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brother Jonathan (novel)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Bruton Smith	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Nyctibatrachus major	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Argosy (magazine)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
The Firebird	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Israeli citizenship law	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Hypericum sechmenii	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John B. Creeden	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Arab–Khazar wars	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John Spencer (snooker player)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1873–74 Scottish Cup	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Phoolan Devi	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
DeLancey W. Gill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Benty Grange hanging bowl	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Red Clay State Historic Park	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Begotten (film)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Parliament Hill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Mark Murphy (American football executive)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Philosophy	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
History of military logistics	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
My Little Love	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Teloschistaceae	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brother Jonathan (novel)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Bruton Smith	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Nyctibatrachus major	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Argosy (magazine)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
The Firebird	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Israeli citizenship law	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Hypericum sechmenii	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John B. Creeden	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Arab–Khazar wars	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John Spencer (snooker player)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1873–74 Scottish Cup	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Phoolan Devi	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
DeLancey W. Gill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Benty Grange hanging bowl	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Red Clay State Historic Park	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Begotten (film)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Parliament Hill	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Mark Murphy (American football executive)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Philosophy	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
History of military logistics	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
My Little Love	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Teloschistaceae	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brother Jonathan (novel)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Bruton Smith	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Nyctibatrachus major	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Argosy (magazine)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
The Firebird	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Israeli citizenship law	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Hypericum sechmenii	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John B. Creeden	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Arab–Khazar wars	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
John Spencer (snooker player)	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
1873–74 Scottish Cup	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
In the Aeroplane Over the Sea	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.
Phoolan Devi	Not done	Curabitur pretium tincidunt lacus. Nulla gravida orci a odio. Nullam varius, turpis et commodo pharetra, est eros bibendum elit, nec luctus magna felis sollicitudin mauris. Integer in mauris eu nibh euismod gravida. Duis ac tellus et risus vulputate vehicula. Donec lobortis risus a elit. Etiam tempor. Ut ullamcorper, ligula eu tempor congue, eros est euismod turpis, id tincidunt sapien risus a quam. Maecenas fermentum consequat mi. Donec fermentum. Pellentesque malesuada nulla a mi. Duis sapien sem, aliquet nec, commodo eget, consequat quis, neque. Aliquam faucibus, elit ut dictum aliquet, felis nisl adipiscing sapien, sed malesuada diam lacus eget erat. Cras mollis scelerisque nunc. Nullam arcu. Aliquam consequat. Curabitur augue lorem, dapibus quis, laoreet et, pretium ac, nisi. Aenean magna nisl, mollis quis, molestie eu, feugiat in, orci. In hac habitasse platea dictumst.

Nominations

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2023 [2].

---

DeLancey W. Gill

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is DeLancey W. Gill, a D.C. watercolor landscape painter and prolific Smithsonian photographer of Native Americans. His work ties in pretty heavily to how Native Americans were seen in contemporary documentation, especially less savory understandings like phrenology. Generalissima (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC

Hi Generalissima and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
• Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
• Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from PMC

Congrats on your first FAC! Putting myself down here for comments. I usually get back to it within a week, but hassle me if I let it slide.

Here we go:

Lead

• Why link drafting and landscape painting but not photography?
• "Characterized as precise and exact in his landscapes" I'm not entirely sure this phrasing works, although I'm not sure how to rephrase it.
• Not sure about "In this duty". "In this role" perhaps
• "As well as in BAE...". This whole sentence is a bit knotted up. You could trim the "as well as in" bit and say "Gill's photography appeared in X, Y, and Z" (or similar)
• "Gill's photographic work" is repeated in the next sentence, it should be revised in one of them
• I might revise or split that final sentence. It's a long one and you've got some passive voice going on. "Contemporary critics regarded Gill's work as strong and pictorialist" might work for the opener. It's also somewhat ambiguous what strong means in this context, paired with pictorialist - a fancy way of saying "good work" or a technical term?

Early life

• Please, god, do sfns or some other thing for sources where you've cited different pages in the same source. Ref 1 needs it especially badly given how reliant you are on it. It is...somewhat unfair to expect people to have to skim or ctrl+F an entire 17 page article to verify source-text integrity.
• Link Washington, D.C. in the body (generally if you mention something in lead and body, you link it the first time in each)
• Nitpick but his dad was a merchant too, that's probably worth mentioning for background
• I find the same thing Vati did wrt the paraphrase about the ironwork. It's not clear that he designed those things, the source says he "rendered" them, as in he drew them in a blueprint. They're not quite the same.
• "especially focused" you can probably ditch "especially" here as redundant to "focused"
• "considerable amount of local acclaim" vs the source saying "established a reputation" - is it clear that the reputation was strictly local? I'm not reading that, especially considering he had exhibited in New York. (By the way - why not mention that in the article? Seems relevant.)
• "a Brooklyn reviewer" do we know who?
• The split between paragraphs 2 and 3 is awkward. I would either merge them into one large para all about painting in general, or take the last sentence in 2 and add it to 3 so you have one para entirely about critical reception.
• When was Gill hired? How was his career in the USGS? The citation implies it was successful - promotions and raises for a few years - but we go right to him getting Holmes's job with no indication of how that happened (and note that Glenn says it's almost all due to Holmes's patronage)
• "Gill was tasked to succeed" - "Gill succeeded". You may want to check out WP:REDEX for some ideas about removing superfluous words/phrases from your writing - the less distance between the reader and the content, the better
• Also, why did Gill get Holmes's job?
• You can also merge this with the next sentence for smoother flow
• "John Wesley Powell, in a dual role as director of the USGS..." I don't think this sentence is quite a correct reading of the source, which says "During those days, when John Wesley Powell was director of both the USGS and the BAE, work for one often meant additional duties with the other. Gill thus became supervisor of illustrations of the BAE, but without additional salary." It's not clear that Powell tasked Gill with this specifically. It reads to me more like, if you were the supervisor of one, you wound up being the supervisor of the other, a condition that would have been true for Holmes as well.
• "lithics" could use explanation in-text. Even substituting "stone tools" would be fine - until I clicked, I assumed it meant some type of photography he had encountered for the first time
  • Fixed things up per your very thorough review of the initial sections. I will try to resolve the citation situation tomorrow - I need to get used to sfns anyhow. -Generalissima (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude

• Image captions which are not complete sentences (eg the Mouth of James Creek one) should not have full stops
• "William Henry Holmes, a fellow watercolor painter and chief of illustration" => "William Henry Holmes, a fellow watercolor painter and the chief of illustration" (existing wording makes it sounds like he was a "fellow chief of illustration")
• "came to greatly respect Gill's artistic work, who was tasked" - I think "came to greatly respect the artistic work of Gill, who was tasked" reads more smoothly
• "Gill accounted for minutia" => "Gill accounted for minutiae"
• "Government photography of native delegations to Washington, D.C. began in the 1860s and 1870s. The Smithsonian geologist Ferdinand V. Hayden requesting in 1874 for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to send delegations to his office to be photographed." - this doesn't work grammatically as two separate sentences but would if you use a comma to join them together as one
• "measuring greatly disliked by native subjects[1]," - ref should go after comma
• "living in Washington at Beveridge House. Beveridge House served" - any way to avoid this repetition?
• That's what I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Recommended changes implemented per request; thank you very much for your feedback! :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Pulling up a section to take a look myself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• When he was five, his father was killed in action in service of the Confederate Army. When he was fourteen, his mother and stepfather moved to Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory. Maybe combine with a semicolon? Right now, two sentences are starting with the same word.
• the ruins of the Ancestral Puebloan Pueblo Bonito Is there a way to phrase this so as to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue as at present? There is one other back-to-back link at "Otoe / breechclout" later.
• sent to Washington, D.C. during Probably can remove the "D.C.", but if it needs to stay, an MOS:GEOCOMMA is missing here.
• (a glyph substituting for signature) maybe "a signature"?
• The lead section and article presently conflict on the date of the postage stamp. 1922 or 1923?
• He later married Katharine Schley Hemmick on January 2, 1905, with whom he had one additional child. Reword, because Gill didn't have a child with January 2, 1905.
• He taught classes at the Corcoran School of Art and the Art Students League of Washington, and collected antique art, including rugs and East Asian porcelain. The first comma is unnecessary as there is only one subject. See WP:CINS.

This is not a source review, but the Clotho's Temple citation should link to https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-clothos-temple/134933231/. The citation should read Arizona Days and Ways Magazine, pp. 18–19. The author is not Neal but Kyle Leatham.

• Fixed copy errors per review. Thank you so much for catching all those! - Generalissima (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Copy is looking good, and I am happy to support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Vat

I came in here with a neutral eye a couple days ago, and have been looking through the article since.

• Prose concerns -- seeking to racially classify indigenous peoples due to their skull and facial proportions ("due to"?), the structuring of Personal life (e.g. with whom he had one additional child, when "additional" isn't used elsewhere and where the word seems superfluous), one incident where (is "incident" the right term here? that has implications of an uproar/reaction, which the article gives no impression of), having one daughter, suffragist and librarian Minna P. Gill (the false title debate is controversial, but here its absence makes the sentence double back, in the same way you see in some Oxford comma jokes).
• Source-text -- cite 13 is supporting a lot of strongly-worded statements, yet the article does not mention Gill. No hits for "Kickapoo" either, and "Dakota"'s two responses are about the state of South Dakota. Cite 1 supports some but not all of what cite 13 is being used for, but substantially downplays Gill's role in this compared to his contemporaries. his specialty was rendering 'ornamental iron, tile floors, and linear perspective' in cite 1 is paraphrased to designing ornamental ironwork and tiles. He was noted for his abilities in capturing linear perspective, which extrapolates both the proportion of his work that was this and the success of it in ways unsupported by the source, and doesn't mention anyone to be "noting" this. Anthropometric measurements, otherwise taken from casts and other physical measuring greatly disliked by native subjects extrapolates this from a mention that some subjects rejected it, later followed up by mentioning that it was fairly common nonetheless, and that the photos were used alongside it rather than the replacement implied here.
• Gaps from sources -- cite 1 engages more with how Gill interacted with the phrenological and ethnological cross-purposes, which the article touches on a lot less despite this being fairly core to the subject. The article gives the impression that he mostly abandoned other artforms after beginning photography, which the source doesn't agree with and indeed talks about works he continued to be commissioned for. There's little talk of Gill's own intent or his influence on how he photographed, which again cite 1 talks more about (e.g. discussing his control over what appeared where, his curatorship, etc) -- the article touches on this with how he edited images, but I was surprised to read the cite and see how much more detail it went to, considering the length of this article.

Oppose at this juncture, unfortunately. The prose concerns are samples; the article could use another look-over prosewise. I'm really concerned by cite 13 -- given some of the information seems to be elsewhere I'm sure it's citable, but there are already significant content concerns with that paragraph, and when I checked it to trace down the correct implication of "incident" I turned up nothing. There are parts of the article that are hard to parse, and comparing them with cite 1 makes me uncertain how representative they are of the subject. Vaticidalprophet 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UC

Having reviewed this at PR, I feel obliged to reiterate my assessment from there that this does generally read and feel like a good GA: in particular, I don't really have the reassuring sense of comprehensiveness that I'd hope to get from an FA. The prose often reads as if it's skimming quite lightly over material where there might or should be much more to say.

A few more concrete comments:

• The formatting in the references is very inconsistent: almost any system is fine, but it's best to pick one and stick with it.
• "Critique" means "assessment and feedback"; we mean "criticism".
• As noted at PR, I don't really see comprehensiveness here in terms of Gill's place within the broader practice of phrenology, racism and so on: it's mentioned in the lead but not really discussed.
• Agreed with Vati that some points of the prose could do with a look to make sure that they are clear, grammatical and that they really stand up to scrutiny (one that I noticed: the walk downtown was disliked by the delegations, who preferred to stay in the vicinity of the Smithsonian: did someone ask all of those delegations? Greater precision is needed here.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Vaticidalprophet, @UndercoverClassicist - I combed through the article and added a good deal more context (esp. about the motivations of Gill's work and his place in this) and copyedited as per both reviews. UC, I would like clarification on reference formatting - I have been using just the default source editing citation style for these. Generalissima (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I'm not seeing all that much more context (I note the addition of ~3500 bytes since 7 Nov): in particular, in the critique/criticism section, there's no mention of the idea that photographing people as anthropological specimens is now considered pseudoscientific and racist, and we allow the moniker seeking to capture subjects as "nothing but an Indian" to pass without comment, context or criticism. Why did people like Gill go into this kind of photography, who else was doing it, and what was the place of people like him in the intellectual world? Then, what happened, and when, to change American science's attitude towards race, anthropology and photography?

  On citations, the key issue is capitalisation. Normally, we use title case for headings -- so nouns, pronouns, verbs, first words, last words and words immediately following a colon are capitalised. Take a look, for instance, at the difference currently between ref 8 (Poskett, title case) and ref 5 (Elderidge, sentence case with extra space before colon) or ref 7 (sentence case). Any system is fine, but it does need to be a coherent system. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I standardized the capitalization for the citations. In regards to additional background information — I had considered adding a background subsection on contemporary photography and anthropological practices, but it would break up the standard flow of a biographical article like this and introduce sources that do not mention Gill or indeed the BAE at all. Maybe footnotes could give context in a fitting manner? I am to be honest unsure on how to add context here without exceeding the scope of the article. Generalissima (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's always useful to look at FAs in a similar topic area: taking James B. Longacre and V. Gordon Childe as examples, you can straight away see a difference in the level of coverage and detail. Even where we have someone like John Doubleday (restorer), who in lots of ways is similar to Gill (a museum employee involved in work with objects and people rather than constructing academic theories) and about whom relatively little is known, what we do know is covered in extensive, comprehensive detail. I'm not yet seeing this article as comparable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero

• The title of Glenn 1983 is wrong.
• Can we get ISBNs for the books?
• Did Weidman come from Newspapers.com?
• "Such errors were shared by contemporary photographers of Native Americans such as Curtis and Frank Rinehart, seeking to capture subjects as "nothing but an Indian" in order to document what was considered by contemporary anthropologists to be a disappearing race and culture" feels like a COATRACK to me because the source does not mention Gill
• Were there any other obits? The sourcing feels thin and the reliance on one source feels off to me

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Sadly, no other obituaries for Gill exist. I have corrected the title of Glenn 1983, added ISBNs, and gave a link for the Wieidman source. Per the penultimate point, this is a needle I am having to thread between giving as much context to his role and the state of American anthropology as feasible while avoiding a coatrack article! I hope to find a way to make reviewers on both sides of that divide happy. - Generalissima (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias – Oppose

Unfortunately, this article just suffers from too many little flaws for me at the moment. I haven't looked into the sourcing concerns raised by Vaticidalprophet above, but purely looking at the prose, I agree with their analysis and think it needs a significant copy-edit to approach FA standards. A few general issues:

• Lots of noun plus -ing constructions.
• Parts of the article seems to be excessive detail for a biography of Gill. For example, what does the paragraph starting "Prior to 1904, native delegations were photographed at.." tell us about Gill?
• Some of the prose is excessively clunky and difficult to understand, for example "Anthropometric measurements, otherwise taken from casts and other physical measuring greatly disliked by native subjects.."

Recommend withdrawing for a thorough copy-edit before bringing back to FAC. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment. Due to concerns raised by three reviewers regarding prose, sourcing, and comprehensiveness, I am archiving this nomination. It's recommended to seek mentorship at WP:FAM. Additionally, consider initiating another peer review, given the premature closure of the last one, and collaborate with reviewers to address concerns before reattempting FAC.FrB.TG (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2023 [3].

---

Benty Grange hanging bowl

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

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

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

Support from Gog the Mild

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

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

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

Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [4] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?

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

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

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

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

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

Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "The city purchased". Similarly.

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

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

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

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

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

Take 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UC

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

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

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

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

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

Resolved matters

that are associated with Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art: associated with feels a bit vague and woolly here. Now "a fixture of". --Usernameunique (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC) The original purpose of hanging bowls, and their place of manufacture, is unknown: this sounds like we mean that we don't know where they were originally made, but reads as if they were all made in some single location, which hasn't yet been found. Changed "place" to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC) They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times: I would put some chronological information in here. Do we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times? Are they used throughout the Roman period at all? Butting in, since this has sat around a bit. No I don't think "we mean that they were all manufactured in Celtic (pre-Roman) times" at all, indeed probably no surviving hanging bowls are from before the Roman conquest (might be wrong there). "Celtic (pre-Roman)" is the problem; the idea at least used to be that they used Celtic ie British legacy traditions, especially enamel, for an AS market. Perhaps they were made in Hen Ogledd, or just British workshops in AS kingdoms (B-M p. 29). The Staffordshire Moorlands Pan, clearly made for a Roman market in the 2nd century AD, shows a similar mix of contexts for manufacturing and usage. The word "still" should be dropped. I haven't read much of Bruce-Mitford, but his first line says "late Celtic", meaning after the Romans had come and gone. Pre-Roman would be "Early Celtic" in the normal terminology. It's clear to me he regards the finds in AS contexts as not too old when buried (see p 4 for example); on p. 17 his "earlier bowls" start in the 5th century. Johnbod (talk) 08:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for this, John -- a great bit of digging (sorry...). It would be useful for the article to clarify the timeframe here, then. "Celtic" is a particularly tricky term, as it's not-always-simultaneously a chronological marker, a set of archaeological cultures, a set of related languages, an artistic idiom and an ethno-national classification. It might be useful to clarify the sense of "Celtic" that we mean here, and perhaps to consider an alternative or additional label (as John does, many now will contrast "British" with "English/Anglo-Saxon", though I think that would need a footnote if we were doing it in a general-audience source). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Yes, thanks - one always has to be careful with "Celtic" (which isn't linked here). Expand to explain is the answer. British can introduce a further set of possible misunderstandings. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Apologies for letting this one sit, but thanks, UC and John, for carrying on such a helpful conversation in my absence. I've changed it to Hanging bowls are thin-walled bronze vessels, with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension, that are a fixture of Late Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Viking archaeology and art—a period spanning approximately 400 AD to 1100 AD. I've also added B-M 2005 page 34 to the cite; it states that The bowls of our series, found in Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Viking contexts, range in date from c. ad 400 to c. ad 1100. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC) votive chalices hung in churches: this would be tricky as an original use if their origin predates Christianity, as we've just said. No sign that he does, imo. Christianity among the AS certainly, but the idea is presumably Roman house-churches etc (B-M p.30.) Johnbod (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Btw, "chalices" bothered me a bit, but I haven't seen the source. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) Here's what the source says: Speaking in general, there is no evidence whatsoever for hanging bowls having been used in the churches of the Celtic lands as liturgical water-vessels or as lamps. A third possible explanation might be advanced: Celtic churches were influenced by ecclesiastical customs prevailing on the Continent, and during the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, it was fashionable to present votive chalices to be hung up in churches. The Roman basilicas had great numbers of these votive chalices (the gifts of successive popes), and the palatine churches of Carlovingian princes also led in this fashion. There is no doubt that reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands, and manuscripts, like those emanating from the court of Charles the Bald (PI. XXIV, i), or carved ivories, like the panels of the Pola Casket (PI. XXIV, 2), showing the interiors of churches with hanging chalices and vases, would help to spread the fashion. The hanging bowls of Celtic churches may simply have been votive gifts, presented to these churches in accordance with the popular Continental fashion. In such a theory, hanging bowls would have, generally speaking, no utilitarian purpose but would simply express the piety and generosity of the donor. Such a supposition would, however, give some explanation of the enrichment of the insides of these bowls (as in the Sutton Hoo example or the Lincoln example from the River Witham), which makes the bowls more elaborate and costly as votive offerings but renders the bowls much less useful for any practical purpose. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC) It does sound like a) "Celtic" means "the Brythonic-speaking parts of the Early Medieval British Isles" (given the "pilgrims" comment, perhaps particularly Ireland and the Western Isles) and b) "Roman" means "in the city of Rome" rather than "subject to a guy called Caesar", and again refers to the same Early Medieval period. I think both should be clarified for our audience. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Thanks for all that typing! It seems clear that in this passage "Celtic churches" means churches of Celtic Christianity, which might not always imply use of Celtic languages, and Roman basilicas means basilicas around Rome. I don't see your point about pilgrims and Ireland and the Western Isles. Could "chalices" be changed to "vessels" perhaps? We don't I think want to imply that hanging-bowls were ever used or thought of as chalices. Johnbod (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC) The pilgrims comment was purely a guess, based on the fact that most of the likely sites that I know for pilgrimage in Celtic Britain were in that part of the world, rather than in (say) Cornwall, mid-Wales or Cumbria. Good point on the churches; I don't know enough about the topic to say whether there would have been Celtic churches in English-speaking areas. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC) In "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back by pilgrims and travelers to the Celtic lands" the meaning would be clearer as "reports of these rich votive gifts were duly brought back to the Celtic lands by pilgrims and travelers". The travel is to the Continental sites he's been tallking about. Johnbod (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC) "Chalices" is now "vessels". Not the biggest fan of the newfound alliteration, but better that than creating confusion. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Whether they are hook or basal escutcheons is uncertain: Schoolbook punctuation would be hook- or basal-escutcheons, but that may be a bit archaic now. Is there a rule you can point me to? Happy to add if appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC) It's called suspended hyphens, but it's quite an ugly thing anyway and an edge case when you wouldn't necessarily write e.g. basal-escutcheons on its own. There might be a way to rework so that hook more clearly modifies eschutcheons, but there's not really a problem here, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC) a ring on the back of one fragment suggests an association with the suspension chains: would rephrase: perhaps may have been used to secure a suspension chain vel. sim. An association with is a bit flowery while also being rather imprecise. Reworded and added. It was admittedly a bit misleading—the ring is stuck, and perhaps originally part of a chain, not part of the escutcheon itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC) As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968: I would name the museum here. Reworded. The location of the escutcheons is not introduced by this point, so I've gone with a general statement in the text, and named the museum in the footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) three "ribbon-style fish or dolphin-like creatures": we should attribute the quotation: "what Soandso has called..." Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) They are limbless, the tails curled in a circle, and the jaws both long and curved; where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind, gaps appear, creating slight separations between segments of tail: separate from the copyright issues raised elsewhere, this is a bit poetic for an encyclopaedia. It's been reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC) and the contours and eyes of the animals, are all tinned or silvered.: drop the comma before are. It's a cumbersome sentence, but I can't immediately see a good way to resolve it. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The escutcheons were undoubtedly part of an entire hanging bowl when buried: can we cut undoubtedly? I don't think we generally assume that what we write is doubtful. This point was made above, but I do think that "undoubtedly" conveys that this is an extrapolated, rather than definitive, fact—it is not known, but there is no reason to doubt it. We could perhaps change to "presumably" if you think it worth it. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Perhaps "almost certainly", or "are believed to have been..."? "Presumably" works fine too. As you say, the reason to put an adverbial phrase here is because there's a tiny bit of doubt, so undoubtedly doesn't quite work to fill that gap. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC) "Presumably" it is. Note that Bruce-Mitford himself goes with "no doubt". --Usernameunique (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2023 (UTC) The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away: we've generally converted imperial measurements, so should do so here as well. We could, but does saying that six feet is approximately two metres really add anything? Most people can probably figure that out, whereas the two conversions in the article (both 40 mm to 1.6 in) are perhaps more useful. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Never mind, I missed all the {{cvt}} (rather than {{convert}}) templates. Changed. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The Benty Grange chainwork was also likely too heavy: a frequent flier here would advise probably; likely in this context is a little AmerE. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC) more developed bodies: what does that mean here: more muscular? Changed to "detailed". In other words, the Benty Grange creatures are basically line drawings defined by their outlines, whereas the Faversham creatures are more elaborate (see here). --Usernameunique (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The third escutcheon from Benty Grange, meanwhile, surviving only in illustration, is most closely parallelled by the basal disc of the Winchester hanging bowl.: could we give some context for when that bowl is from and what it is? Added the date. What other sort of information about the bowl are you thinking of? --Usernameunique (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Actually, just removed the date. The Winchester bowl is already covered in the "Date" section. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with this; I didn't have any particular additional information in mind, unless there was something you felt worth adding. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) There's plenty that could be added—there are several articles etc. about the bowl—but it might be best left for if the red link ever turns blue. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Happy with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Despite the similarities with other escutcheon and disc designs, several manuscript illustrations are more closely related to the Benty Grange designs: I'm not seeing how this sentence goes together. More closely compared with what? What's the sense of despite here? Reworded: Even closer parallels to the Benty Grange designs are found in manuscript illustrations. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC) "shrewdly" as it turned out: if going to stay, this quote needs attribution, but I'm not sure how much value it really adds. Reworded. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Advice changing several manuscripts of the VIIth Century to seventh per MOS:CONFORM. Not a big fan of changing quoted text without noting the change, so have gone with [Seventh] Century. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC) the INI monogram: is it worth explaining what INI meant to a medieval Christian (come to think of it: what does it represent: is this INRI - Iesus Nazarei Rex Iudaeorum?) Went down a lot of rabbit holes on this one (including a very unhelpful discussion with ChatGPT) before realizing that "INI" is simply the first three letters of the first line: Initium Evangelii Jesu Christi, Filii Dei. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC) based on its design, and the associated finds: no comma needed. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC) from the barrow: We haven't really talked about the context of deposition yet, outside the lead, and so this comes in a bit oddly. Perhaps "the barrow in which it was discovered"? Ideally, we'd want to introduce its deposition first, but we don't want to pull the whole discovery/excavation section before the date, I don't think. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Do we know the date of the barrow? As far as I know, most are Neolithic, but we've implied that this one was post-Roman. A bit more than implied, no? Given the presence of a helmet and cup with silver crosses, wrote Audrey Ozanne, "[t]he straightforward interpretation of this find would seem to be that it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". --Usernameunique (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I think I may have missed that on first read. Are the burial and the barrow definitely contemporary? Lots of Neolithic barrows were re-used for burials in later periods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I haven't seen anything suggesting that they are not. If anything, the proximity to the Roman road (and resulting indication that the barrow was meant to be seen therefrom) would militate towards a later date. (Of course, the Roman road could have been following an existing route.) --Usernameunique (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) All true. Happy here in the absence of evidence to the contrary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC) a small buffer state: Is state, with all its Weberian and Westphalian connotations, the right word here? I've changed to "province", which is the word used by the source. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The area came under the fold of the Mercian kingdom: a slightly mixed metaphor (into the fold or under the wing: a fold is a place you keep sheep), but in any case worth reworking per MOS:IDIOM. Now "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC) MOS:IDIOM would still prefer something more literal, for those who speak English as an additional language or don't have much experience of sheepfolds. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC) under the control it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC) the Benty Grange and other rich barrows suggest that the Pecsæte may have had their own dynasty beforehand, but there is no written evidence for this.: this may be slightly disingenuous, given that we're in a place where there isn't a whole lot of written evidence for anything. That's true, but there's practically nothing written about the Pecsæte, whereas a number of other political entities (particularly the larger ones) in and around Mercia got at least something written about them, even if it was written later, or by sources in other kingdoms. Yorke 1990 has a good discussion of this (under the heading Sources) at pages 100–101. And page 108 is the cite for the line in question: "A separate dynasty amoung the Pecsæte might be assumed from the series of rich burials in barrows, including that at Benty Grange which produced the only other helmet found in an Anglo-Saxon burial besides that of Sutton Hoo, but the archaeological remains cannot be supplemented by any written records which would clarify their significance." --Usernameunique (talk) 06:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC) All fair enough. Perhaps we could be even bolder and say something to the effect that this [the existence of the barrows] is the only reason to suspect that the Pecsæte had their own dynasty? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC) I almost went with "no written or other evidence for this", but, technically speaking, I think that goes beyond the source. As written, it's at least clear that the only evidence offered is the barrows. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC) The fact that the objects were found in two clusters separated by 6 ft (1.8 m): Separated by looks wrong, to my eyes, with the abbreviated units: suggest 6 ft apart. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) that other objects that normally accompany a helmet were absent, such as a sword and shield,: I think the relative clause should really go after helmet. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Being so large it may alternatively or additionally have contained two burials, only one of which was discovered by Bateman: might be worth rephrasing for elegance, but if not, comma after large. I'm not sure I understand alternatively or additionally: if the latter (for three total), surely neither of them was discovered by Bateman? Reworded: Given the size of the mound, an alternative (or additional) explanation is that it originally contained two burials, only one of which Bateman discovered. Alternatively/additionally is intended to convey that the clustering could be due to the barrow being (a) looted, (b) a double burial, or (c) both looted and a double burial. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Much clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC) In 1861 Bateman died at 39: this reads a little clunkily to me: died, aged 39 would feel more natural. Went with died at age 39. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) loaned the collection to Sheffield: to Museums Sheffield? You can't loan something to a city in the abstract; some body has to take custody of it. Clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2023 (UTC) having seen to his father's fortune: is seen to a slightly archaic synonym for spent? Less archaic than understated, I think, but have changed to "spent." --Usernameunique (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Grave-mounds and their Contents: per MOS:CONFORM, use our orthography per standard title case: Grave-Mounds and Their Contents. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC) British Archæological Association: similarly, change the digraph to ae. That's a step too far for me. Given that it's the name of an organization, it's also arguably within at least the spirit of the MOS exception for proper names. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC) I'm not sure it is the name: looking at their website, the digraph is used only in the logo (never in text), and I'd argue that it's therefore merely a decorative part of the logo itself, rather than their own sense of their own name. It's a bit odd for Wikipedia to be claiming to be more correct than the organisation itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC) The relevant question, I think, is what was the name at the time in question—and the newspaper articles use the "æ". Looking at the organization's journal from the time, however, both "æ" and "ae" are used. If they're not going to be consistent, then it's no longer a step too far to drop the "æ", which I’ve just done. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC) Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974: MOS:IDIOM: I think we mean "wrote another book about", rather than simply "walked to". Yep, now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC) and published what he termed a "definitive" reconstruction: MOS:SCAREQUOTES might encourage that we simply say "what he termed a definitive reconstruction". Looking at that part of the MOS, it doesn't seem as if the quotation marks are an issue: Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing themself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. (emphasis added and footnote omitted). If anything, it's probably the "what he termed" part of the sentence that suggests doubt. But I think there's some value to noting that he's the one who made that statement. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Wasn't the best link: better is MOS:QUOTEPOV, which has Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation. Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted; sarcasm or weasel words such as supposedly or so-called, might be inferred.. It then gives the example to avoid underneath as Siskel and Ebert called the film "interesting"., which seems to be almost exactly what we have here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC) That makes more sense, thanks. Dropped the quotation marks. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC) Llewellynn Jewitt suggested there were two burials in 1870: less ambiguous as suggested in 1870 that there had been two burials. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Source A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with An Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia.: decap an. Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Capitalisation in the Brenan ref: why is Bowls capitalised but the rest in sentence case? The other vowel in the title (as opposed to the words in the subtitle) is also capitalized. I just followed how the report styles itself. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Our Manual of Style would go the other way: make the formatting fit the norms of the article (as long as doing so requires only superficial changes, such as capitalisation, digraphs, ampersands and so on), not whatever happened to be the norm in the time and place where each individual source was published. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Done, here and for a couple other books. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

caeciliusinhorto

Some initial thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Usernameunique: see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; templates like tq cause template limit problems in the FAC archives, and slow down the load time for the entire FAC page. I have replaced them here as right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

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

IB

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

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

• I'm not suggesting it, MOS:GEOLINK is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Excavation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Johnbod

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

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

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

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

• I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a helpful source, thanks. How do you feel about: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes - it might be tinkered with, but that does the job. There's sometimes talk of "native" Romano-British populations, at least in the early Roman period. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Comments by Dudley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further comments

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

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

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

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

• Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [5]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  Dudley Miles, this is taken from p. 225 of Wales and the Britons by Charles-Edwards: Hanging-bowls, a form of thin copper-alloy bowl designed to be suspended from three or four hooks, provide evidence for a quite different pattern of exchange. They usually have Celtic decoration but are mainly found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the period 550–650. When they have been repaired locally in the area in which they are found, the craftsmanship of the repairs is sufficiently different from that of the original manufacture to show that they were imports from somewhere else. They were not made by Celtic craftsmen working for Anglo-Saxon employers in eastern Britain; and thus the Celtic form of decoration is the best guide to their place of origin. Unfortunately it is not known from where in Celtic Britain or Ireland they were imported into Anglo-Saxon England. This uncertainty is itself, however, a symptom of the shared material culture on either side of the Irish Sea and reaching up into the Hebrides. That shared material culture began to emerge in the fifth century, as shown by the development of one fourth-century British type of Brooch into the standard form, the pennanular brooch, class 1, in both Celtic Britain and Ireland and at very much the same date. And per Youngs 2009 p. 228 (doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image and source review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [6].

---

Red Clay State Historic Park

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a state park in southeastern Tennessee that was the site of the last capital of the Cherokee Nation in the eastern United States before the Cherokee removal, without a doubt one of the most tragic and shameful events in American history. Here, from 1832 to 1838, the Cherokee fought to retain their ancestral lands, before they were forcibly removed under the enforcement of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Arguably the location where the Trail of Tears really began, today Red Clay State Historic Park preserves one of the most historically significant sites in the state of Tennessee and Southeastern United States. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.

• File:Cherokee-eternal-flame-tn1.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what the issue is. The photo is the work of the uploader. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • The photo is, yes - but what is shown in the photo is not. US copyright law does not include freedom of panorama for 3D works other than buildings, so we need to include some sort of tag indicating the status of that work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie

Tentative oppose (with sadness), primarily on comprehensiveness. Looking at other FAs on state parks, there is much more detail on climate, geology, the site itself. I think you ought to be able to add information in regards to these factors. For instance, there is only one sentence worth of information about the Blue Hole Spring, which seems significant to the point that you ought to be able to say more. Have you been able to access/find the NRHP nomination form? That may be a valuable source. Has there been anything else scholarly published since 1980? I also have some concerns about the sourcing-- for instance, FN 38 needs a page number, what makes FN 40 (hosted at tnstateparks.com) reliable, FNs 14 and 15 ought to use the same citation style. It's an interesting article, and you've done a really great job bringing this up from where it was, but I think more is needed. Suggest maybe a peer review before nom. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: - this is primarily a historic park, not a park about a natural feature. Other than the Blue Hole Spring, there really aren't any "interesting" features to talk about. There are a few sentences about the geography and physiography of the park (which is in no way unique to the area it is located), as well as endangered species. This is also a relatively small park at just 263 acres. Also, have you read the article thoroughly? There is more than one sentence about the Blue Hole Spring. tnstateparks.com is an official website of the Tennessee State government, and Lillard and Ehle use different citation styles because the latter is only cited twice in the article. The NRHP nomination form should be accessible by following the link. Finally, I have researched this park extensively, and have not found any scholarly studies on the site since 1980 other than the 2019 study that is cited. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the Blue Hole Spring, I got distracted in read-through. Apologies on that. My point was more that if you're going to say something is "iconic", I'd expect to see some explanation why, beyond that present in the article. If it is widely represented, what shows that? Do quantifiable numbers of people visit the spring? Is its image widely published? Is it well-known? See MOS:PUFFERY.
Information like climate factors should be accessible, and is, imo, relevant to any park with oudoors recreation activities.
However, are you sure there's nothing else? The first thing I found on a search was this 300+ page 2021 PhD thesis by a seemingly qualified author that could arguably be reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and at the very least probably has some other potential sources. For Lillard and Ehle, you should pick between sfn or harvp. Your link to FN 1 doesn't point to the NRHP form, at least for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

this book suggests that Kelton, Cherokee Medicine may also hold more information, and itself includes the quote "Creeks nevertheless suggest that Red Clay is their territory", something I don't see mentioned in the article. What about this guidebook? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I found the NRHP nomination form. Pitifully under-detailed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to strike my oppose because there's definitely less written on this park than I thought there was, the nominator is clearly editing in good faith, and peer review would probably have been an exercise in futility based upon how few people head over there to comment. I would still like to hear back about some of these points, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If I remember right, Corn's book refers to the spring as "iconic", but I'll have to find my copy. If I had to guess why, it's because the blue hue of the spring is a rarity in this area. I believe there's also something in there about the mineralogical explanation for the blue hue; I'll try to add a sentence about that. The thesis, which I must admit I have not read, is by the same person who authored the study that is cited in the article, but I'll take a look at it. With regards to whether there are "other sources" about this park, there are a lot of books and scholarly works that briefly mention it, such as books about the history of Native Americans or Tennessee for example. But I know of no other books, studies, etc., that extensively go into depth about the history of this site, other than the ones that are with cited in this article, or are the partial sources for sources in the article. Also, with regards to the "Creeks nevertheless suggest that Red Clay is their territory", this may refer to the state of Georgia (or another location), which is known for its red clay soils. It certainly does not refer to the council grounds. I the meantime, I will take a look later today at the dissertation and see if I can find any other sources about the history of this place, as well as make the changes you suggested. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Update - actually, I had totally forgot about this, but there was a minor controversy related to the establishment of the state park where the Creeks were critical of the park because they had inhabitated the area prior to the Cherokee. I don't remember any thing about the council grounds being an important site to them, however; I think it was just the area. But I will take a look at this. On a related note, I have actually wondered about the history of the site prior to the relocation of the Cherokee Nation (i.e., when did Red Clay become an important site to the Cherokee). As far as I have been able to find, information about this is scant, so it's likely that we really don't know. But I haven't seen any sources that explicitly say this. Maybe the thesis also has some information about this too. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to check out what Kelton has to say on it, I would be happy to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

re "other sources", I just think it kinda odd we don't have a single book source (to my eyes, on a skim) from the past 20 years, especially for citing history of a Native American tribe, the studies of which have been greatly improved in recent decades. Can you replace any of the sources on those topics with more modern book sources, even if they aren't as in depth? For instance, a 40-year old source is probably not the most recent scholarship we can use to cite Before the arrival of the first European settlers, the area was inhabited by the Cherokees, an Iroquoian-speaking people believed to have migrated south from the Great Lakes area, where other Iroquoian tribes arose. Their territory encompassed parts of present-day western North Carolina, western South Carolina, East Tennessee, northern Georgia, and northern Alabama.. I'd want to see the most up-to date stuff as possible where we can. If you're having trouble getting access to more recent publications, WP:REX is a great place to ask. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You can look it up if you'd like. With regards to the books that are 40+ years old, those were both written by local historians, and are primarily about the area, not the history of the Cherokee. I can definitely find more up-to-date sources for the latter, even though generic facts like the one above have been known for a very long time. I shouldn't have trouble finding any of this. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that local historians are good sources for the local history, just think the Cherokee history can be replaced with more up-to-date sourcing, especially because it likely shouldn't be too hard to do. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to have to wait until this weekend to do any work on this article. 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Bneu2013 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Update - Eddie891 - just to let you know, I am currently reading Shelton's thesis, and as such will have my changes made in the next few hours. I'll let you know when I'm done. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence and the updates. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero

Thoughts

• others= isn't doing what I think you are trying to.
  • Actually it is what I am trying to do because Lillard is the primary author. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I didn't see that they were editors at first glance. I made the change to make the template mirror the credits given by the publisher. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• I continue my objection to google maps as a high-quality reliable source. There should be a map published by the federal, state, county, or local government that shows the same thing.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. If you object to Google Maps as a "high-quality reliable source", then I wouldn't expect you to use it to navigate. But I will replace with a USGS topo map. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Update - I've replaced the GM with USGS, using it to cite forest cover. Shelton is now used to cite the boundaries and roads in the park. I do agree that USGS is a far superior source than GM for physical features, but I do maintain that the latter should be allowed to cite things like roads. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Why is Minges 1998 a high-quality reliable source? us-data.org looks like his personal website to me
  • I don't think this is his personal website, but this wasn't my addition. I will take a look. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Update - replaced with a source from the National Park Service. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe it is because I am in the EU, but tnstateparks.com throws a 403 error for me.
  • That's probably why. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Is Hunter 1972 from Newspapers.com?
  • No; no articles from the Cleveland Daily Banner prior to 1998 are not available online. These were accessed on microfilm at a library. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Same with Rowland 1978
  • See above. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• 33 pages of Ehle 1988 is a big range for one citation
  • Because this is mentioned more than one time in this book. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • To make spotchecks easier, can you provide the pages you used rather than the range? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• TNGenWeb should be a via=
  • Done. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Treaties and Land Cessions Involving the Cherokee Nation" is notes from a 2016 undergrad class
  • An undergrad class at Vanderbilt University, one of the most prestigious and top-ranked universities in the world. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It is a SPS by an unknown author. We can't just its reliability. The rank of the university is neither here nor there because I would have the same objection to a similar PDF hosted on ox.ac.uk or mit.edu --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend that this gets archived early and is renominated only after a close look at the citations. This is just what I found after a quick review. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am reviewing the citations now, but I do not agree that all of these are problems or that this should be archived early. I will update when I am finished. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Eddie891: - Unfortunately something has come up which is hindering my activity on Wikipedia, but I will try to address your remaining comments over the next few days. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given the issues on sourcing, can I suggest this is withdrawn and worked on away from FAC before being returned? There is no downside to this step and the article would be in a better shape for a smoother run at FAC? - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. After careful consideration, I would like to withdraw this nomination. While I do think the sourcing issues are a bit overblown, they do need some work. Also it looks like I'm not going to be able to be as active over the next few weeks as I'd hoped, so I should probably wait. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2023 [7].

---

Begotten (film)

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, after two failed nominations in regards to sourcing and structure, I have done a complete revision by removing unreliable sources, adding more reliable ones and revising some problematic portions while updating the material when it was necessary.Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wingwatchers

Finally a film article at FAC. I will post comments/suggestions shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "According to art historian Scott MacDonald, the film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations." such as what? I wouldn't recommend shoving it to a single art historian because the lead is supposed to be written in a summary style. Rewrite that sentence to reflect the themes of in the body and avoid attributing to any single author. For example just explicitly say that the "The film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations including XXX.

I am gonna redo that and make a separate paragraph that summarizes the film's themes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest relocating the theme part after the plot in the lead and remove the part about Merhige acknowledging the thematic elements since it doesn't really provide any real content basis. You have already mentioned the "mythic and religious elements" and mentioning it is "intentionally incorporated into the film." is not very important or useful either. In addition, I would also suggest replacing the word argued with critiqued and readjusting it so it transitions well from the plot part wherever you see fit. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reworded it a little and placed it after the plot section lead as you suggested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to have it placed after the story in the same paragraph but this also works. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I see. my bad. If its fine as how I changed it I will leave it alone. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was shot on location in New York City and New Jersey over a period of three and a half years – although, in an interview, Merhige said filming took only five and a half months." I would think that Merhige's claim is more reliable and accurate since he is directly involved with the film. This sentence is conflicted and I cannot grasp if it is shot over three and a half years or the latter.

I will reword that to reflect the incorrect timespan with Merhige correcting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it." -> "After the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, with development for the film beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984." -> "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, and development began in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Principal photography took place in the mid-to-late 1980s" -> "Principal photography occured in the mid-to-late 1980s"

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the Influences section be part of the production? And we have two sections with confusingly similar names.

That sounds good, I will try to incorporate that into the development sub-section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Some more comments

• "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." I disliked attributing a director's vision to an interview because it gave the impression that the director's vision was incorrect. I suggest changing it to "Merhige said that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke." to make it more concise and the fact that he stated such things in an interview doesn't necessarily add any context to the sentence.

I agree, did a short rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." "later", as opposed to "early"? To the best of my knowledge, the directors normally revealed a film's development process after that film had been published, so the use of "later" here doesn't make sense. Even if he is stating in retrospect, I would still remove the word "later" because he at the time was indeed drawn by the use of performer.

Redid it a bit to say "Merhige has stated he was drawn to the utilization of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement".--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project," "next project"? What is his first project?

From all my diggin, I have not found the exact productions he directed and have only found sources that have stated that he previously worked on some with Theatreofmaterial.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project, which was initially for the theater." I am sorry if the "next project" is Begotten. This sentence doesn't make any sense since the first paragraph suggests that the film in question is already being developed because you mentioned how he is drawing inspiration from Japanese dance and how he sought to replicate the same group dynamic.

Both Begotten and the start of his interest in film/theatre. The dance troupe planted the seeds for the film and what would become both Begotten and Theatrofmaterial as a background to its maker and what would be the film. Dont know how you feel it could be reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I must have misinterpreted that part as Merhige's general approach to the filmmaking process rather than the film's production itself. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

All is good. I restructured that a little to be more clear.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." I assume that the "next project" is the Begotten but the way it is presented suggests that is another project, which is amplified by the lack of context regarding his "earlier projects". The way I look at it, it can be reworded to "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing the film, which was initially for the theater." although I am still puzzled on how the fact he is intrigued by Japanese dances and sought to replicate Japanese group dynamic is relevant here since he began developing the film "after working on several different experimental theater productions". His Japanese vision based on my understanding is for the theater rather than the film itself.

reworded that starting sentance as the first paragraph is meant as background information leading up to the film's development.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." -> "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was conceived as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra."

This has been reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria, Merhige revealed that the film itself had also been an attempt to document many of the thoughts and ideas he was going through at the time, believing that if he did not "get it out there" they would overwhelm him" Remove interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria since it doesn't really add context to the production process. Just Merhige revealed will do.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Still only twenty at the time, he wrote the film's script in six months." Why does his age matter?

I am going off of a couple of FA article's that used the youth of the director as notworthy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Before working on Begotten, he had previously made several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" -> "Before working on Begotten, he had previously developed several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" more formal

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "These were well-received, and gave the director the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" -> "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten"

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Principal photography occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s" most film FA usually use began instead of occurred

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving on to Themes

• How did critics identify so many themes when the film itself received "little to no" critical attention? Do you mean scholars? Kane is not a critic so this should be changed to both critics and scholars.

The few that even bothered to review it pointed these things out. But, you are right most are scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• " who noted the film's intentional grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image" note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Alternately, critic David Annwn Jones noted the film's use of certain underminings of 1930s horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein (both released in 1931)" Same thing

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• You really like using stated and noted as opposed to said, see MOS:SAID. Said is in no way informal and is a very consistent and concise way to express academic interpretations.

Alright, will adjust accordingly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Removed all instances like "In her review of Merhige's third film Suspect Zero for the Los Angeles Times," "Author and independent filmmaker", "Film and literary scholar" because it would be very lengthy and dull to address people's journals and professions. See FA The Empire Strikes Back#Thematic analysis as an example.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Instances such as "we are encouraged to mourn the film's characters (father/mother/son) through the agony and torment inflicted upon them." are written in a non-encyclopedic tone.

Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Dont know. Just avoid using "we". Wingwatchers (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will tinker with it a little. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the quote "We would breathe to the point of hysteria and create these moments of panic. Afterwards, we would analyze what the experience was all about. It was an intimate science" is genuine. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Redid the quote to specify the director's intention. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect, author and independent filmmaker John Kenneth Muir is not a critic, so the previous statement, "Several critics have noted that Begotten contains an underlying theme of death and rebirth,[1][12][20] recurring throughout most of the director's works. [22]" would be incorrect.

Removed that title to reflect that because his books are partial reviews on horror films and because of the previous problem of extended titles being long and unnecessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Instances such as "Merhige acknowledged" should be converted to "said" because it conveys that the film was indeed "deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology" but the statement itself is of his own interpretation.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wingwatchers, I think all of your comments have been addressed. Do you have any come backs and/or further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil

Still reading through, but just to note the quality of sources has improved significantly since the last FAC. Am a major fan of this style of horror. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it took a while and some suggestions/digging to find satisfactory, High quality sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this be held open for a week please, would like to review but life events have happened. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Ceoil was probably addressing the coordinators :-) . Sure Ceoil, in anticipation of one of your thorough reviews, we can hold it for a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sound Gog, and to hold myself to that deadline, have always though your innovation of reminding reviewers is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaning support and trilled to see this at FAC - feel free to revert any edits made during my re-read...

lead:

• Link motifs. Also motifs are not so much "explored" as placed or employed.

altered in the body and lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• conquer the earth through various means - last bit is redundant. Also the claim is vague, would be good to expand here.

Reworked.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• were major influences on Begotten, as Merhige believed their ideas and theories had not been explored in film to their full extent

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• As the first part of a trilogy would drop this as the next two claims say the same thing

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Plot:

• Rephrase barren landscape", which is used three times in this sect

Changed to desolate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Good choice. Ceoil (talk)

General

• would put the cast section much lower in the TOC. Also, the Brian Salzberg and Donna Dempsey entries here are uncited. And do we need "which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen"...which seems to credit extras

The Son of Earth credit is cited due to the actor reappearing in Merhige's later works. The extras cast listing is there in fitting with other Featured articles that list extras if they are significant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Principal photography lasted from a period of "three and five-and-a-half months". Guessing that it lasted three months, with some additional shots after 5 and a half months.

Unknown, most information I found only listed as this and not describing the half month period.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is a real mouthful and diffucult to parse - can you break down pls - While comparing Begotten's opening sequence to the eye slicing scene in Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), Film Comment's Robert DiMatteo stated Dimitri Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant (1926), tribal art, ethnographic studies, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), as well as the paintings of Piero della Francesca as possible influences on the film.[12]

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Have concerns over the reliability of SplicedWire, FilmThreat.com & WorldScreen (the last of which gives a lot of pop up ads). Given the film's art house origin and appeal, would have expected more academic analysis.

I did too, I checked out the reliability of all three and they appear to be reliable and sound enough for inclusion as per Wikipiedia guidelines.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The usual test is editorial oversight; if you can prove this then great, but it needs to be demonstrated with links. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will see what I can do. Might do that tomorrow or the day after cause I have work. How do you suggest I go about doing it? Paleface Jack (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Removed the questionable sources. Will add more reliable ones when I find them. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• more to follow Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to note, given all the improvements, since the last nom, and during this one, esp wrt to sourcing, am leaning support here. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

• You revered me on changing who sets out on a journey of death and rebirth through a barren landscape - which is totally fine, but still don't like "barren landscape" as it seems vague and lacking

Redid.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• twenty of her closest friends? (re Sontag) Maybe just 20 people

Would seem a bit more specific and better flowing for the overall structure if it remained as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Eh, dunno. Most people have 3 to 4 close friends, maybe just loose the word "closest" as it seems a bit swoony and pretentious. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• The word "disturbing" is used 13 times. It is certainly that, but can you reduce, especially in the legacy sect, where we have hough initially mixed in his response to the film, Muir has since called Begotten "one of the most disturbing films ever made".[108] Natalia Keogan of Paste described the film as one of the best and the most disturbing avante-garde films.[24] Several publications selected it as one of the most disturbing films, including Highsnobiety (2016),[109] Entertainment Weekly (2017),[94] Screen Rant (2019),[110] NME (2023),[111] Similarly, Begotten has appeared on several lists of the top all-time disturbing...

Redid it to cut down on some of that wording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• 'Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s - surely it began only once, do you know the actual year?

All sources use this wording so it is hard to tell withough asking the director himself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometime in mid-to-late 1980s. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Done.Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Development commenced sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s" is in this style, but it still says "Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Film scholars have identified several major themes in Begotten. Merhige has said that he incorporated these themes into the film' - No mention of what those themes are. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  He was referring to the mythological and alchemical themes. Will reword that sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Worded it so it just says "certain themes", because he wanted to invite audience interpretation. The section elaborates these themes within the subsections. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  reworded to "Merhige has said that he incorporated certain mystic and existential themes into the film" Paleface Jack (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Members of Merhige's theater company Theatreofmaterial – which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen – provided credits for other characters in the film such as the Nomads and Robed Figures - dont get provided credits for - 'are credited as, or played? Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  reworded for clarity. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paleface Jack, have you addressed all of the comments in this review? If so, could you ping the reviewer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have. And i messaged them on their page and they have not replied yet. I still need to message the first reviewer which I will do later today. I am confident this will pass as all the issues have been addressed so we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for tardy response, will sign-off in next few days. A spot-check on source is needed, will action. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good mate. Any problematic sources shall he removed accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paleface, you shouldn't count on my support just yet; the interpretation sections are very muddled and not well done. Very repetitive and vague; mentioning again and again an archetypal figure - without going into examples of who that might point to. Will clarify this complaint in a few days, but for now, the article seems confused in what specific sources it draws from, and how it interprets them Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I will get working on that and complete it as soon as possible. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking over the themes section there are pieces that I am gonna try to reword a little, starting with renaming the section as "Analysis", the suggestions and complaints to that section that you will explain once you get back shall be adressed once that is done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Great. Look forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

For coords, myself and Jack are going to move this discussion to article talk, and report back in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This nomination has not shown signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I will get in touch with the reviewer and see where to go from there. Hopefully there shall be a consensus soon as possible, we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As there's still no substantial movement towards support, I'm archiving the nomination. I encourage you to continue working on the prose issues with reviewers and see about getting them to sign off on the article before resubmission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by source comments

• BroadwayWorld.com (ref #143) is listed on WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable", so shouldn't be used in a Featured article without significant justification.

Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• There is a fair bit of inconsistency in how sources are presented. For a glaring example, see refs #3 and #128. More generally, some websites/publications are italicised while others aren't. Some list a website and publisher, while others don't. Some give the website address, some give the website name. A quick glance suggests that these issues were raised at the last nom, so should have been resolved prior to this nomination. I would echo some of the queries raised there about whether some of the sources used qualify as "high-quality" per the FA criteria, but I'm not well enough versed in the subject area to be able to offer any real expertise on this.

Yeah, I removed a lot of unreliable and questionable ones while rewriting the entire citation style, so some of that stuff sifted through the cracks in those edits. I will work on that today and get that all sorted out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In terms of listing a website for some of the sources, some of those sources did not come from a website or the "Website" was also the publisher. In some of those cases the publisher was not originally a website so just the publisher is listed. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• There are a few CS1 maintenance errors in the references, it looks like you've got some |ref= tags just duplicating what the reference would naturally be called anyway.

Yeah that might have been the ones that sifted through the cracks of my reference revamp.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Found and fixed the errored citations. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This could really do with a source reviewer who knows the field, if possible. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I tried reaching out to some when editing the article before the nomination this time but no response.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A number of reviews in this and earlier noms wen through the reliability of sources, and from what I can see, all non-formatting issues have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review

• Unlinked non-book/journal sources -

1. WorldScreen - ok, "30-year-old publication covering the international media business", publishes in print and online.
2. JoBlo, ie JoBlo.com - seems dodgy - is this not just a very popular/insiderish blog?

   Not to my knowledge. Some major publishers have used it as a source and has been listed as reliable by Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Fine as listed on the RT Critics List as a "JOBLO - Tomatometer-approved critic"

   Keep, modify or remove? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Keep as used Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

3. shortfilms.org.uk - ok, is the London Short Film Festival[8]
4. World Artists Home Video - Small distribution company, but they are used only to cited that they did actually release the movie on VHS.

   Searching, see that the release is on WorldCat[9]. Maybe use that ref also

   Looking over that, they imply that it was released on VHS in 1989 but there was no such release from newspaper reports, or any other outlet so I am not sure if this would be reliable enough to use as a source. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

5. RevistaCinefagia.com - dodgy Ceoil

   See its removed Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

6. HorrorNews - dodgy

   That was my original assessment, however, I have seen some literary sources that use that interview as a source. I have also seen some FA horror articles that have that as a source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   If its an interview and is used for direct quotes only, then am fine with it. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Removed and will find a new review to replace later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Do you need to though? The article is already quite long. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   True, then again so are many other FA Film articles I have seen. I will not add a review. But later if this nomination passes or not I have found some sources to add (We Got This Covered, is one of them) Paleface Jack (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Review sections can bloat easily with quotes, and as indicated on the talk, I would be more concerned with expanding on the film's visual style and its sources, rather "I liked" "I didn't like" back and forth. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

7. Forum des Images - Fine, well established in the industry, high quality contributors
8. Not sure what to make of "Merhige 2016", which seem's fine it's ex an instagram post by the director. The claim is "On July 29, 2016, Merhige announced via Instagram that the film was to be released for the first time on Blu-ray in the fall of that year" - can we source this from elsewhere. (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Looking over everything and how far down the rabbit hole I went, I could not find an alternate source for that and it does have some reliability if the filmmaker is making that statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, was highlighting only to make the point that Instagram< is used only to source that the director made claims on instagram Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Ah, alr. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

9. The Film Stage - site has editorial oversite, professional RT approved writers who are regularly invited to major film festivals

Spot-checks to follow this evening. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Serial

Placeholder until tomorrow UTC. ——Serial 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver

I will try to get comments by Thursday. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• "Its plot draws from various creation myths", "The film is based on various creation myths, including Christian, Celtic mythology, and Slavic paganism." I would suggest removing the first instance of this in the lead, as it it kind of repetitive.

Rewrote that based on your comment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, but was switched to film after..." --> "Conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, Begotten was switched to film after..."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I'd really like to see this article hit FA status, and it's clear how much work has gone into it (and how improved it is compared to when I last looked).

• Opening paragraph requires work. Repetition of word 'violence', creation myths mentioned twice, and the sentence about 'narrative motifs' (without details of those motifs) is pretty useless. I worry that the second paragraph then returns to issues around silent films and influences; the structure of the lead could be a little better, I think.

Done

• "Mother Earth and her son appear in a flashback" Do we know it's a flashback?

I think that was added in a copyedit by another user, while the scene is reminiscent of the beginning where Mother Earth and her son walk through a dead forest. Some reviews suggest this is a flashback so I will reword it a little for context.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "consisted of a handful of core members highly in tune with one another, knowing each other completely on both a professional and personal level" This doesn't come across as that neutral

Did a little tinkering with the sentence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• " producing several theater productions" Repetition

removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Be consistent in your use (or non-use) of the Oxford comma

I will try my best.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• You discuss the writing of the script after mentioning the start of production; is script writing part of the production, or did it come prior to the production? You mention his earlier films after that; I wonder if this section would benefit from being a little more chronological?

Did a little resituating of things.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "the group followed up by discussing these experiences, filtering the and emotions into something he could replicate for the film" Incomplete

Incomplete in what way?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Final sentence of the development section could be much smoother.

Redid it a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• " it was intended that the visuals had a decayed look" Beware of passive voice. Who intended this?

reworked to reflect Merhige's intention

• "through analog format, with the development of Begotten realizing the filmmaker's ideas through this format" Repetition

removed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Repetiton in discusion of Robert DiMatteo

Where at?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reached the end of the production section. I think the prose probably needs a bit more work before this is FA-ready. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, prose needs work and I am still trying to learn how best to do that. Any Suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2023 [10].

---

Parliament Hill

Nominator(s): Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Parliament Hill is home to Canada's government. It contains the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Library of Parliament, and other important buildings. Thanks to Reidgreg for his detailed GAN review more than 2 years ago (crazy how time flies, eh?) — Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC

Hi Aknell4 and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
• Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
• Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Hill-old.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Hill-old.jpg is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Construction_of_central_parliament_building.jpg, File:Cartier-sm.jpg, File:Victoria-sm.jpg, File:Mackenzie-sm.jpg, File:Harper-sm.jpg, File:Brown-sm.jpg, File:McGee-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg, File:The_Honourable_Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_Photo_C_(HS85-10-16873)_-_medium_crop.jpg, File:Borden-sm.jpg, File:Pearson-sm.jpg, File:Persons-sm.jpg
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Some of these will also need publication dates added. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:Feu-de-joie_at_Ottawa,_1868.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg
  • Both of these files have publish dates. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Both of the files have dates; how do you know they are publication dates? I don't see that at the given sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:S-Macdonald-sm.jpg has contradictory licensing information: the Permission field says its in the public domain, but the tag is CC. Which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. The original photo was taken off of Flickr, so I deleted the field that said in the public domain. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

First comments

• You write in the lead, "It accommodates a suite of Gothic revival buildings whose architectural elements are of national symbolic importance, including the Parliament of Canada."... but I cannot find anywhere else in the body of the text where you use "National" or "symbolic" in this sense.
  • Changed it. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) is responsible for law enforcement on Parliament Hill and in the parliamentary precinct" YOu write this in the lead, but don't use the abbreviation in the text and don't state this in the text either, only in the lead
  • Changed it. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

THese are my first thoughts when reading the article! --TheUzbek (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship

Welcome to FAC. I'm sorry to say that I don't quite think this article is FA-standard yet. It's hard to define, but after a little bit of thought I think that there is a general pattern of disorganisation, almost certainly because of a reliance on disparate online pages rather than individual high-quality reliable sources. I'll provide a brief outline of my thinking below#.

• The lead section primarily summarizes the history section; per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the Grounds and name section as well. This is a GA requirement.
  • The only part of the lead that does deal with the grounds and name section is the sentence "Parliament Hill attracts approximately three million visitors each year", also featuring prominently in the infobox. The source for this statement dates to 2007.
  • Added summary of Grounds and name. Let me know if I need to add anything else to the lead. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• The "Fire, incidents, and renovations" subsection, sourced to unconnected web pages, feels disjointed. "Incidents" are described in varying detail—one shooting incident names the perpetrator but no-one else, while the other includes significant unnecessary detail, such as the names of everyone but the perpetrator. They are separated by a paragraph on a memorial and commemorating royalty, which feels rather out of place. I would recommend that the "incidents" be separated from information about two reconstructions, and that they be organised thematically.
• The "Parliament Buildings" subsection does not adequately expand on the information already present in the history section.
• There are a fair few occasions where prose is unnecessary or too unclear. E.g. "marking their journeys to the interior of the continent" is unnecessary; "for which 298 drawings were submitted. The number of entries was reduced to three" does not mean what you want it to be.

This article has potential; however the prose and sourcing must be improved from its current state. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything in "Further reading" should probably be used as a source. The lack of books and peer-reviewed articles raises questions about the breath of research done. I recommend that the coords archive this to allow for the the nominator to do more research. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

Based on he above I'll be archiving this shortly. I see there was a Peer Review a few months ago but it was pretty brief and another might be warranted. Aknell, you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [11].

---

Mark Murphy (American football executive)

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Mark Murphy is the current president of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team in the National Football League (NFL). Unlike most NFL teams, the Packers are owned by a publicly-held, non-profit corporation (Green Bay Packers, Inc.) that is led by an elected board of directors. Murphy was elected to the presidency of the organization in 2007, assuming the roles in 2008. Prior to this role, he played for the Washington Redskins for 8 seasons, received his undergrad, masters and JD degrees, served as an athletic director for two colleges and worked for the NFL Players Association.

This will be my third FAC, after Bob Mann and Packers sweep. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Look forward to resolving any concerns promptly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

The use of non-independent sources (Commanders.com, Packers.com, ColgateAthletics.com, and NFL.com) and questionable ones (BuffaloSportsHallFame.com) makes me think this article isn't ready for prime time --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, thank you for your input and happy to work with you if there are specific statements that would be better backed up by a different source or removed altogether. That said, context matters; none of the statements supported by the sources you identified are contentious or questionable, nor are any of the sources unduly praiseworthy/harsh. Within the realm of reporting on sports figures, many details just aren't reported on by scholarly sources. That said, I'll take a look and see if some of the existing sources can replace some of the ones you noted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, just as a note of some progress: I replaced or removed all instances of Commanders.com and BuffaloSportsHallFame.com. I also replaced all instances of NFL.com except for one and Packers.com except for two. Still working on ColgateAthletics.com. I'm guessing you have concerns about the American.edu source as well? I'll see what I can do with those. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, more progress: I have removed or replaced American.edu and ColgateAthletics.com. Regarding this NFL.com source, are you opposed to its inclusion in this article. It covers two statements regarding the changes the NFL made due to Covid-19, both of which are not controversial. It is also authored by Judy Battista, a former New York Times journalist with a good reputation. Still looking on the Packers.com sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, I removed or replaced the NFL.com source and the Packers.com bio of Murphy. That leaves the press release by the Packers. Are you opposed to this source, considering context and the statements that it supports (which are generally not controversial or overly praiseworthy/critical). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• "a position he would hold until 2007" => "a position he held until 2007"
• "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011, made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016 and Rodgers won four MVP awards" => "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011 and made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016, and Rodgers won four MVP awards"
• "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three" sports" - that looks weird with the last word outside the quote marks. If the word wasn't in the original quote, I'd be tempted to present it as "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three [sports]"."
• "Halfway through his freshmen year" - freshmAn, surely? I'd also link this as it is not a commonly understood word outside the United States
• "During his junior year" - link this term too
• "as the Redskins starting safety" => "as the Redskins' starting safety"
• "17-straight points" - no reason for that hyphen
• "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career though," => "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career, though,"
• "The Redskins would go on to play in" => "The Redskins went on to play in"
• "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the Redskins' representative" => "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the team's representative" (less repetitive)
• "his prominent role in the strike shortened led to" - this doesn't seem to make sense, are there words missing?
• "he worked on player counseling program," => either "he worked on a player counseling program," or "he worked on player counseling programs,"
• "Murphy returned to his alma mater in 1992 " - I would re-name the university as it's been a long time since it was mentioned before
• "with two bowl games" - what is a "bowl game"?
• "the Packers announced Murphy as the organization's ele president" - what's an "ele president"?
• "The lock out ended in July 2011" - isn't lockout one word?
• Fort McCoy image caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
• "This mixed use development would provide new commercial space" - in the lead "mixed use" had a hyphen....?
• "The 2017 season saw the Packers consecutive playoff appearance streak end" => "The 2017 season saw the Packers' consecutive playoff appearance streak end"
• "to be the Packers 15th head coach" => "to be the Packers' 15th head coach"
• "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers starting quarterback" => "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers' starting quarterback"
• "in this case Love, as the Packers new starting quarterback" => "in this case Love, as the Packers' new starting quarterback"
• "The Packers record since he became president" => "The Packers' record since he became president"
• "Murphy noted in his remaining years as president, he would" => "Murphy noted that in his remaining years as president he would"
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, thank you for the review. I believe I addressed all your comments here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • You changed "the organization's ele president" to "the organization's elenth president". As "elenth" isn't a word, I presume that's meant to say "eleventh".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
      • ChrisTheDude, you are correct, and it has been fixed. Thank you for your c/e as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Cheers :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1. Article — "Murphy worked for a year for the Street Law Clinic after graduating with Juris Doctor in 1988, where he received an award for developing a program educating inmates on the law. He then was hired as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1992."

Where does the source mention that he worked at the Street Law Clinic "for a year"?

Likewise, I don't see the source mentioning that he worked at the Street Law Clinic (SLC) "after" graduating. All it says is that he received that award we mention "during" his time at SLC.

Are we treating "a law degree" (from source) as "Juris Doctor"? (from article). If we have a source that makes it a bit more explicit, it would be better. Else, I'd maybe IAR on this particular one.

2. Article — "... including basketball, volleyball, softball, and hockey."

I can't see the source mentioning "hockey". What is mentions in "ice hockey". Not an expert on sports (have worked on just 2 sporting articles), so I am unaware if treating "ice hockey" as "hockey" is a standard practice or not.

3. Pretty similar, I feel:

Article: On the football side ... with two bowl games under Murphy

Source: On the football field ... in two bowl games during Murphy's tenure

4. Article — "Murphy married his wife Laurie after they met at Colgate University and they have four children together."

The source does not specify the year of their marriage. Neither does the source specify whether that "event" took place before or after their meeting at the Colgate University. All it says is that his wife "is a Colgate graduate".

5. Article — "Murphy also donated $250,000 to 'causes in Wisconsin that support social justice and racial equality' following"

The source just says that he "pledged" to donate. From my reading of the cited source, we are unaware whether he actually donated that amount or now. However, the way we present that in the article, it very clearly says that he has donated. There is a difference in pledging and donating.

Apologies for doing this, but unfortunately (and sadly), I have to oppose this nomination. I have spot checked a total of seven citations, of which, five are problematic. This is a biography of a living person, we need to be extra careful about this, and that can be reflected in my above comments; I have been a bit more nitpicky than I usually am (due to this being a blp), but many of the above mentioned issues should really not have existed. Most of the issues I mention are not difficult to find, any spot-checker with access to the sources can find them; it took me no more than 40 minutes to find and compile these issues. Based on the review and problematic spot checks (5 of 7), I unfortunately do not have confidence in rest 85 citations which I did not check, and therefore did not find any need to check more citations. I am willing to revisit my oppose on the grounds that (1) All the 92 citations in the article be checked by the nominator for source-to-text integrity (2) Some other independent reviewer conducts and passes a spot-check. Since it is really hard to do this top-to-bottom check within the time and boundations of the FA process, I also suggest withdrawal. However, if you are willing to do the same during the FA process, I am willing to strike the "suggesting withdrawal" part. Feel free to ping me for any help, of if you ever need me to do more spot-checks outside of this process. Thanks for all your work on this article and other articles! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, comments #2, #3, #4, and #5 have been addressed. Hockey in the US generally means "ice hockey", but that is a good comment for clarifying. #3 is borderline close paraphrasing (there is no other way to say "two bowl games"). #4 I changed to note that it was just her alma mater (again, a minor word choice clarification, its implied they met at their alma mater, but again, needs to be clarified). #5 is again a minor word choice. Yes there is a big difference between pledging and actually giving, but this was likely more a slip of the tongue ("keyboard") then anything else. #1 is the only one I see that is a definite miss on a spot check, and that came about from the comment above about changing sources from Packers.com to other more independent sources. I just did not do a good enough job of rewording the sentence to better match the new source. Let me take a look at that one and your larger comment about spot checks and get back to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed comment #1. The JD is mentioned in another source, which has been added, and I reworded the offending sense to match the source. Taking a look at the sources now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gonzo fan2007, how are you getting on with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please withdraw this. My elderly mother fell and broke her hip on Friday. Not going to have a lot of editing time for a while. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. Of course. My apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [12].

---

Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891

Nominator(s): Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully reviewers aren't bored of season review articles for sports clubs, as I present this one for your perusal. Inspired by the excellent work of ChrisTheDude, I've brought this one up to what I believe is FA level. This was Somerset County Cricket Club's first season in the County Championship when they provided a great shock by defeating the all-conquering Surrey side. As always, all feedback will be warmly received. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am touched that you cite me as inspiration :-) I will endeavour to give this a review over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "scoring 560 runs at an average of 31.11" - link average
  • Already linked earlier in the sentence. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Meetings were held at Somerset" - not sure "at Somerset" really works - you don't say "at" with a county ("at Lancashire" makes no sense). I'd say "at [specific town]", or if that level of detail isn't known then just say "Meetings were held"
  • Changed to "Meetings were held at the club" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "such as Lionel and Richard Palairet," - I'd be tempted to change that to "such as the brothers Lionel and Richard Palairet," so it doesn't look like they had a player with the mononym Lional
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, including home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties" => "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, consisting of home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "only delivered a hundred overs between them" - link overs
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• " Lionel Palairet was the club's leading run-scorer by over 200 runs" - link runs
  • It's linked in "run-scorer". Can switch it if you think that would be clearer? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "There was no play on the first or last days of the game" => "There was no play on the first and last days of the game"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game is linked twice
  • Removed the second. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Lionel Palairet scored 100 runs exactly" - I think "Lionel Palairet scored exactly 100 runs" would be slightly better
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "and finished third in the Championship table with eight wins and five losses, a position they would not equal again until 1958" - this makes it sound like they didn't finish with 8 wins and 5 losses again until 1958. Suggest changing to "and finished the season with eight wins and five losses, placing third in the Championship table, a position they would not equal again until 1958"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Cheers :) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - apologies for being a dumb-ass and missing that a couple of things were in fact already linked...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that under recent changes Wikilinking more than once is allowed so long as the second mention is in a different section and is considered helpful to a reader - broadly construed. You may already be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:County_Ground,_Taunton,_1895.jpg is missing author date of death. Ditto File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png
  • I think I've covered both of these now. Found the year of death for the County Ground picture, so that's included. For the Palairet one, I couldn't ascertain which of the Chaffin brothers took the photo, but they all died over 70 years ago, so I've switched it to a PD-unknown with an explanation, is that okay? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:HTHewett.jpg is missing a US tag, and the tags that are given are contradictory. If the UK-specific tag is kept, details on research will need to be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I switched that image out as I couldn't find any more details, including a date of publication, for it. Added File:Ranji 1897 page 295 H. T. Hewett.jpg instead, which is another with a PD-unknown because only the photography studio information is provided.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for this, I've made a few changes to licenses and what-not, as detailed above. Please let me know if these are okay. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When and where was File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Not necessarily the first time it was published, but I've found a copy of it in an 1893 book, so added that to the Commons information. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Pedant's corner, and I hate myself for doing this. Is the article mistitled? Should it be "Somerset County Cricket Club's 1891 season"? Because that's what it seems to be about. (If you are sticking with the current title, I have several queries about information I would expect to see and don't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Indeed, the naming of cricket team articles is an anomaly. In other sports we have:
    • 1913–14 Gillingham F.C. season
    • 1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers season
    • 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
    • 1984 Dallas Cowboys season
  • After the conclusion of this FAC (for simplicity) I would intend to start a discussion in the cricket project about moving all cricket team season articles to a similar format, so this would end up as 1891 Somerset County Cricket Club season. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing seems fine to me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero, hi is this a pass on sourcing based on formatting, reliability and verifiability or should a request for an "official" source review be placed at WT:FACSR? FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Given Guerillero's lack of response, I have added a request for a full source review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Surrey were undefeated in first-class matches and were champions-elect": does this mean they had already mathematically won the championship, or just that everyone expected them to do so?
  • The second. Changed to "considered champions-elect" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• In Somerset's last match they were three runs short of avoiding the follow-on, at 172; so since Gloucestershire's first innings was 254 apparently the follow-on score for a three day match was then 80 runs. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the rule then was not the same as it is now?
  • I've added a footnote about this on the first mention of the follow-on: do you think it is worth duplicating the footnote for this instance too? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think it would be helpful. Could it perhaps be phrased to make it clear that the follow-on is still a rule of cricket, but the number of runs has changed? As written one could read it as saying that the follow-on is no longer a rule of cricket and that when it was a rule it was 80 runs in all circumstances. I knew what the follow-on was but am not an avid cricket fan, so I actually went to the follow-on article thinking, based on your footnote, that the rule had perhaps been abolished some time in the last few years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And mentioning that following on was compulsory for teams with deficits of 80 runs or more. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just these two minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Okay, tweaked the wording of the footnote, and duplicated it for the match in question. Let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Reserving a place. Harrias, could you give me a poke once you are in a position to respond to review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yeah, I'm here or hereabouts. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "against six of the eight other first-class counties". Which two didn't they play and why not?
  • They didn't play Nottinghamshire or Sussex. I can add that, but as for the reason, it is never plainly stated. Reading between the lines, it seems like Somerset couldn't manage a full schedule, either due to player availability or just the financial cost. There is some suggestion that Notts wouldn't agree to play them, but none of this is stated clearly enough for inclusion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Naming the two they didn't play would help. Possibly 'for reasons which are unclear' or similar?

Okay, lots of searching Newspapers.com has come up with something, so have added: "During a subsequent gathering in Taunton, Spencer explained that the decision to restrict their fixture list to twelve matches, which meant they did not face either Nottinghamshire or Sussex, was primarily a financial decision." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Slow left-arm orthodox". Perhaps append 'spin'?
  • Unpiped, so it now shows the linked (and clearer) "Left-arm orthodox spin". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "County Championship": the paragraphs are on the long side.
  • I can play around with this if you really feel they are too long to meet the criteria, but realistically, the only other option is each match having its own paragraph, and I prefer long paragraphs over very short. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "a heavily rain-affected match". Optional: 'a match heavily affected by rain'.
  • Yes, done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "just under five hours on the other." Perhaps "other" → 'third'? Or mention somewhere how long each match was.
  • Changed to "There was no play on the first and last days of the three-day game and just under five hours on the other." The close repetition of "day/days" is slightly irking, but I wasn't keen on your suggestion as "the third" might have drawn readers to think it meant day three of the match. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "As of 2023, the defeat remains Somerset's fourth-largest innings loss." They have lost by more? Three times! Good lord.
  • Indeed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "to score his 41 runs." Suggest deleting "his".
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Nichols bowled economically and claimed five wickets". You not gonna tell us how many runs he leaked?
  • Added, although without also saying how many overs he bowled, it is half a story. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The joys of summary style.

• "and with eight minutes to go, Woods bowled out Read." Either no comma, or add one after "and". (Guess which I think works best?)
  • Removed all commas. Ever. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You won't regret it.

• "Woods then collected his fifth wicket of the innings in either the final or penultimate over allowed by the time". You what? I don't think "allowed by the time" does what you want it to.
  • Changed to "in either the final or penultimate over of the day's play", but I'm not sure that solves anything to be honest! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That works. It skips over why this was the case, but non-experts won't even realise it's an issue and fans will understand why.

• "while similar sentiments were echoed". I don't think that one can echo a similar sentiment. Maybe 'while these sentiments were echoed'?
  • Changed to "while similar sentiments were expressed". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps footnotes to explain "to win by nine wickets" and "Lost by an innings and 375 runs".
  • I linked the latter to Result (cricket)#Statement of result on the first appearance in the body prose. I'm loathe to try and repeat that section for all the result variants in the footnotes of this article. I wouldn't be opposed to linking more of the results to that page, if you think that might help? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I liked your note c, and think an explanation somewhere of, just, the two main, non-obvious, expressions of victory - by x wickets; and by an innings and y runs - would avoid MOS:NOFORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

Added a couple of footnotes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest archiving the links.
  • Do you have a link to the auto archiver you use? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No. For me it's in "page/tools" at the top of the page. I must have clicked something in preferences. I have done it, revert if you don't like it.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers, replies given. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just two points open I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Further remedial action completed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review/ passed

In half a mo. ——Serial 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Newspaper sources are mostly local, which in the 19th century were thus papers of local record.
• Primary sources galore, almost solely wrt match stats and other contemporary info.
• Missing idents/archives are irrelevant since the papers are hosted by established archival sites.
• Standardise your 13-digit ISBNs in whatever fashion you choose (I'd suggest XXXX-XXXX as that ties in with your 8s).
  • @Serial Number 54129: There's only one ISBN 13 that I can see. All ISBNs are presented in the format they appear in the source. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Harrias: Bizarre! I must be going blind. You're quite correct, of course, so apologies for holding this up (although FTR, consistency within articles seems generally preferred). Nice article, many thanks! ——Serial 19:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Authors are known authorities. Publishers are respected houses.

The source review is almost passed. ——Serial 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [13].

---

Philosophy

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

Philosophy is a systematic, rational, and critical inquiry that discusses general and fundamental topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, and mind. It spans several millennia and historically included the individual sciences. Thanks to PatrickJWelsh for the fruitful collaboration to get this article to GA status, to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, and to Cerebellum for their recent peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from AK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Done. I'm not 100% clear on how to best handle duplinks that occur in different sections. According to my interpretation the current formulation of WP:DUPLINK, one link per section is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• "the sciences" Linked to the wrong term.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review by SilverTiger

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

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

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

• "et al." should be italicized.

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

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

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

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You raise a valid point and I'm not sure which guideline to follow here. The guideline MOS:FOREIGNITALIC you cite states that foreign terms require italics but makes an exception for "phrases that have been assimilated". The alternative would be to spell the three names out. Some style guides recommend using "et al." starting with three authors while others require more than three authors. Maybe someone with a better MOS-knowledge can solve the confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, if we keep the Latin, it should be spelled out as et alia with the italics. Latin abbreviations such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." and so forth do not receive italics and should not normally be used outside of a footnote or parenthetical when there is a perfectly suitable English equivalent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support

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

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

Query for the coordinators

• Question: I helped Phlsph7 bring this article up to GA status. Am I allowed to weigh in here to support or oppose the FA nomination? My assumption was no, but this suggests it is okay as long as I declare my involvement when I do so. If it is permissible for me to participate in such an official capacity, I will hold off for another week or so to see what other editors have to say—then I will review the FA criteria and read the current article against them in order to weigh in for or against. Otherwise, I am happy to just follow the proceedings and comment as appropriate on what others have to say. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

  Hi @FrB.TG, thanks for clarifying. That makes perfect sense and seems like a good policy. @Phlsph7 did invite me to jointly pursue the FA nomination, but I declined because I was not willing to do my fair share of hunting around for ISBNs and the like. (Another concern was not to sabotage someone else's hard work by taking a hard stand against a reviewer whose requests, in my considered judgment, were misguided—as, for instance, I was basically prepared to do when our GA reviewer seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia to say that it was wrong to discriminate against women. NPOV, give me a break! I don't want that dude's approval.) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Shapeyness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I oppose this change.

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

For what it's worth, the mentions of Socrates and Russell both cite to introductory texts, and the Kant material is so famous that such a citation could surely be adduced were this actually somehow helpful. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

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

This seems a lot better to me, I prefer this to removing the section altogether. I have no problem with this if it is also ok with PatrickJWelsh. Shapeyness (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

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

(Background: I was once conscripted to oversee the philosophy table at a sort of informational fair where incoming students could learn about different departments and courses of study. A young woman approached and asked, rather tentatively, "What is it?" I started by saying that this itself is a philosophical question. She literally backed away. I don't think she said a word.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • @Shapeyness, this is also mostly my doing. Although I most naturally write in long paragraphs composed of long sentences, I make a conscious effort in the opposite direction for Internet content. Especially considering how many people are reading this stuff on their phones, I think that readers are well-served by shorter paragraphs than would be appropriate for a print publication. If, however, other editors do not find this reasoning compelling, by all means, condense away! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking. This emphasizes its self-critical, reflective nature. This seems to be a repetition of the point at the beginning of the General conceptions section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Methods: Some of the earlier paragraphs are quite short and could probably be combined. I also think empirical views such as experimental philosophy or naturalism should probably be mentioned here. For reference, 60% of philosophers accept empirical methods in the most recent philpapers survey and 32% accept experimental philosophy (this is more controversial though with 36% rejecting). In general, my impression is that naturalistic and experimental philosophy is covered in most metaphilosophy or philosophical method textbooks/overviews, I can find examples if useful for assessing due weight.
  • @Shapeyness, "naturalism" is an extremely contested term. Even Hegel, arguably the idealist par excellence, has been labeled a naturalist in recent academic literature. I'm also extremely skeptical of "experimental philosophy", most of which in my experience is just sloppy social science that only demonstrates what only a professional philosopher would ever think to question in the first place. If there is good evidence that the field has developed in the past ten years, however, I would be happy to revise my assessment. So, while I do not wish to diminish the significance of these discussions, I am inclined to keep them out of such a high-level article. (Oh, and thanks for sharing that survey!) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

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

  Methodological naturalists place great emphasis on the empirical approach and the resulting theories found in the natural sciences in contrast to methods that focus on pure reasoning and introspection. Experimental philosophy follows methodological naturalism and tries to answer philosophical questions by gathering empirical data in ways similar to psychology and the cognitive sciences.

References

• • Fisher, Eugen; Sytsma, Justin (20 November 2023). "Projects and Methods of Experimental Philosophy". In Bauer, Alexander Max; Kornmesser, Stephan (eds.). The Compact Compendium of Experimental Philosophy. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. ISBN 978-3-11-071702-0.
  • Fischer, Eugen; Collins, John (24 April 2015). Experimental Philosophy, Rationalism, and Naturalism: Rethinking Philosophical Method. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-50027-8.
  • Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (2017). "Experimental Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 4 November 2023.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with PatrickJWelsh that experimental philosophy is more questionable / contentious than many of the other methods traditionally used in philosophy, but I do think it (and empirical methods more broadly) are an important viewpoint that should be included. This is my own personal view, but more importantly I think it reflects the coverage of RSes. I would support the paragraph proposed by Phlsph7 if other editors don't have any problems with it. Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If the article implies that philosophers are generally dismissive of empirical data, that is a falsehood that must be addressed. On the fraught nature of "naturalism," however, just follow the Wikilink above. The term is borderline meaningless.

Experimental philosophy is the only approach in the above-linked survey that more respondents than not consider bogus. It is good that this philosophical endeavor has its own article, but I cannot see how there is any reason to bring it up here. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a short passage. I removed the part on experimental philosophy and reformulated the contrast to avoid implying that other philosophy is in general dismissive of empirical data. I used the term "methodological naturalism", which has a more specific meaning than the wide term "naturalism". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving out experimental philosophy if empirical methods and methodological naturalism are included to some extent. Shapeyness (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Relation to other fields: Historically, philosophy is often considered the "mother of all sciences" since most of the individual sciences formed part of philosophy until they reached their status as autonomous disciplines this idea has already been covered a few times by this point in the article.

  I'm not sure how to best handle this since it is important in this context but also a repetition of what was said earlier. For now, I shortened the sentence to the bare minimum. It could be removed altogether but that might mean that readers who skip other sections miss it. C (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  • @Shapeyness, I have only responded on points of disagreement. Your review here, however, is carefully thought and highly attuned to nuance. Many, many thanks! Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Here are a few more comments, these should probably be the last ones. Once again, feel free to push back on these - I may be quite busy until next week but will try to respond to any comments. Shapeyness (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've read through some comments in other sections and agree with PatrickJWelsh that it might be better to expand on the Greek/Roman paragraph in the academic definitions section (and possibly cut the Wittgenstein sentence). It seems strange to mention Foucault and Hadot without talking about eudaimonia as a purpose of philosophy, or movements such as Stoicism.
• Western history: this might be a bit nit-picky, but I don't think postmodernism is confined to continental philosophy (and depending on how pedantic we want to be, I'm not sure it's really a "movement")
• Do you think there is room to discuss briefly some of the main views on the analysis of knowledge? This could be a short sentence on e.g. reliabilism, sensitivity to truth, and/or knowledge first epistemology, maybe virtue epistemology. My only worry is that this area of epistemology is introduced but major views are not presented (JTB is not a commonly held view).

  • For the responses, see below. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  • @Shapeyness and @Phlsph7:

• Two points in favor of mentioning Stoicism: (i) the article is good, and (ii) a superficial version of the doctrine has currency in recent self-help/managerial literature. So let's point readers who might be interested in the direction of something better!

  I added one sentence on Stoicism and eudaimonia. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I strongly support the removal of any mention of postmodernism without much stronger sourcing. The primary reason for this is that, to my knowledge, none of the famous philosophers categorized as postmodern accept that designation. (Even if, yes, I do understand that it serves as a useful catch-all for the mostly French philosophers operating under the influence of Nietzsche against a horizon defined by Heidegger—more or less.) The secondary reason (and hence the strongly) is that this term is frequently deployed among anti-democratic conspiracy theorists, some of whom directly or indirectly promote political violence. So why not just go with post-structuralism, which captures much the same group of thinkers without feeding into misrepresentations of academic philosophy that possibly contribute to real harms?

  From Grayling 2019: Continental philosophy ... is associated with ... trends and movements ...: ... postmodernism .... I followed your suggestion to change it to post-structuralism and added a corresponding source. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on Shapeyness's other suggestions: on Wittgenstein because I can see both sides of the argument, and on the epistemological schools of thought because I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to have a view.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I added one sentence on alternative definitions of knowledge. I left the Wittgenstein sentence since without it, we would have a one-sentence paragraph and merging this sentence into another paragraph was rejected before. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm less busy than I thought so will finish off the review with some comments on sources for criteria 1c and 2c. Shapeyness (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps sources are not formatted consistently

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• In general, source dates are not formatted consistently, even for sources of the same type - they vary between just year, year and month, and full date

  I defaulted to just year. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Chapter / section titles are not formatted consistently - some are sentence case and others are title case, my understanding is they should all be the same regardless of how they appear in the sources. I didn't see any problems for book titles but they should also be formatted consistently.

  I'm only aware of title case for book titles. Chapter and section titles are currently spelled as they appear in the works. I'll ping @Gog the Mild: since they gave me some notes on this topic earlier. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some books have a location (e.g. London) and others don't

  I removed all location parameters. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Oxford Handbook of World Philosophy is missing Oxford University Press as a publisher

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Banhatti 1995, is this a high quality reliable source? I'm not aware of Atlantic Publishers and can't find anything on Banhatti from a quick google. Same for Shivendra 2006.

  Atlantic Publishers is an Indian publisher. This is a problem with many non-Western publishers: it is often questionable whether they can be considered high-quality and whether it might be better to replace them with high-quality sources from Western publishers. I replaced Shivendra 2006. In regard to Banhatti 1995, I found the following high-quality sources that cite it: [14] & [15]. I can also look for a replacement if this is not sufficient. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  These search results may be helpful for the publisher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Bawden 1904 - this is a very old source, surely there are more up-to-date sources for this (the IEP is already being used)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Blackburn 2022 and Blackburn 2008, I assume these are both Simon Blackburn - one has a middle initial and the other doesn't - not sure if that is too important but thought I'd point it out. Same for Daly, Chris vs Daly, Christopher and Dowden, Bradley vs Dowden, Bradley H.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Crary 2013 - doi not found

  This is the doi provided by https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/transcript.9783839424629.321/pdf. I removed it since we already have an ISBN. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hindson & Caner 2008 - this doesn't seem to be a high quality RS to me

  I replaced it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Ichikawa 2011 - it seems quite strange to cite a book and a review of that book for the same information, why not just cite the book? The same for Riedel 1999.

  For both: the review is freely accessible online, while the book isn't. For Ichikawa 2011: the key information is contained on the cited page 9 but some of the additional information is spread around, so several pages would have to be cited while the review supports the passage in a more concise manner. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Kenny 2009 & 2018 - is there a reason these are cited separately? Also, minor point, but the Kenny sources should probably be ordered chronologically

  Their page numbers don't match. I would have to do some digging to see where the 2009 information is contained in the 2018 version. I ordered them chronologically. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  If they are just different editions but same information in each then I would stick to whichever edition you used / had access to. Shapeyness (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oglesby et al. 2021 - is this a high-quality RS for philosophy?

  I replaced it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Quine 2008 - not sure if this source is needed when other better sources are already being used

  I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - some have Routledge as a publisher, others don't

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• I made some minor changes, hopefully they are all ok

Thanks for all the work addressing my other comments! A few more that I missed before. Shapeyness (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• SEP - some have editor listed, others don't - the way the editor is listed is also inconsistent with other books etc. in the bibliography, not sure if it's to do with the citation template being used

  The pages on the individual SEP articles don't list any editors so I removed them. The inconsistency could be in cases where there is no author listed. For example in Lagerlund 2020, Lagerlund is listed as editor but there is no official author since cited page is not part of a regular chapter but is found in the preface. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Nagel 2006 and Pojman 2009 - should these have an entry / chapter?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sider et al. 2013 - I believe this is an edited collection - is a specific chapter being cited?

  Done. Thanks a lot for all these helpful observations! Phlsph7 (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Phlsph7! I'll just wait for the title formatting issue to be clarified and then that should be it. Shapeyness (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I've asked the question at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Should_title_case_be_used_for_book_titles,_article_titles,_chapter_titles,_and_section_titles?. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  There seem to be no exceptions for chapter and section titles. I implemented the changes, I hope I got everything. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for all the work Phlsph7 (and PatrickJWelsh)! I tried to give a particularly thorough review for this given the importance of the article and everything I can think of is now resolved. Support. Shapeyness (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your detailed and thorough analysis and the many improvement ideas! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Shapeyness: Seconding @Phlsph7! The article and its nomination have benefited greatly from your close attention and suggested edits. Many thanks! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks PatrickJWelsh, glad my comments were helpful. Shapeyness (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Shapeyness, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: it's hidden behind a few more recent replies, but I've supported above already. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

So you have. Thanks for helping me out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• There's a significant amount of whitespace in the Etymology section

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Plato_by_Raphael.png is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Nietzsche1882_smaller.jpeg, File:Konfuzius-1770.jpg, File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg, File:Half_Portraits_of_the_Great_Sage_and_Virtuous_Men_of_Old_-_Confucius.jpg, File:JohnStuartMill.jpg, File:Aristotle,_Metaphysics,_Incunabulum.jpg

  Done for all except the image File:Avicenna_(980_-_1037).jpg. This image already has the text This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1928.. Is this sufficient or does it additionally require the template "PD-US-expired"? Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• You are correct, I had missed that. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Gandhara_Buddha_(tnm).jpeg is missing a tag for the status of the original work. Ditto File:Aristoteles_der_Stagirit.jpg, File:Avicenna_Portrait_on_Silver_Vase_-_Museum_at_BuAli_Sina_(Avicenna)_Mausoleum_-_Hamadan_-_Western_Iran_(7423560860).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done for File:Gandhara_Buddha_(tnm).jpeg. I asked at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#License_tags_for_photographs_of_original_works for help with tags of the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: Done. I added a license tag to Avicenna's image and I replaced Aristotle's image with File:Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Phlsph7 and @Nikkimaria, the image of Butler in the final section hangs over into "See also" in a way that looks weird on a full-sized monitor. I tried shrinking the image, but that didn't help so I left it as is. Is there a good solution for this? For I do think that we should keep the image. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Phlsph7 has added a clear tag, but IMO that looks worse. The image could just be moved further up. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

For now, I added a clear-tag. This is also not ideal since it creates an empty space for some display devices. An alternative would be to move the image further up but this could separate the image from the relevant paragraph depending on the display device. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it seems you responded faster than me. I tried moving the image up one paragraph. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

What about using this one instead: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg? We could also probably shave a line off the caption. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Or this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Judith_Butler_(2011).jpg? I don't like it as much as a photo, but it's landscape oriented, which would almost certainly resolve the issue. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I used the cropped image. It should help since it has less height. It could still cause problems for some display devices but I hope it is managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Viewed full-screen on a 27" monitor, there appears to be about one extra line space between the closing text of the section and the beginning of the next. I do not find this distracting, however, and don't consider further tweaks necessary. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Does the article pass the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg is missing evidence of permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The source-field asserts that the photo was directly provided by Judith Butler. Is that sufficient as evidence of consent? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

That page refers to personality rights, which is a different issue from copyright. commons:COM:VRT outlines the process for copyright permission. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The original image on which our cropped version is based has evidence of permission. I'm not sure how to handle the cropped image itself so I asked at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

According to the feedback I got from the noticeboard, there seems to be no problem with the permission of our image. Please let me know if any additional tags should be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Do you consider the issue concerning File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg solved or are there more points to be addressed? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest linking to the VRT ticket from the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I saw that the edit to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JudithButler2013_(cropped).jpg in which I added the link got reverted by a VRT member. I assume it is because adding permissions is the responsibility of the VRT and because the earlier noticeboard discussion resulted in the conclusion that no additional permission statement is required. Personally, I agree with the argument presented in that discussion. Do you consider this point essential in order for the image review to pass? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

No, but I'm not convinced that rationale makes sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: You could articulate your concerns at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Evidence_of_permission_for_a_cropped_version_of_an_image_whose_permission_has_been_confirmed_by_the_VRT and I would be happy to implement your suggestion if there is consensus for it. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed for the image review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Fritz

• Drive by comment (I may give the article a more in-depth read later): I think that the History section could use an additional subsection, for the mentioned "other influential philosophical traditions". It looks like the claim that Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy are the main tradition derives primarily from Grayling's book, but (while I am absolutely not an expert) I am somewhat dubious of this 'ranking'. I'm not advocating that every tradition have an equal amount of article space, but a subsection for "Other traditions" could at least cover the central historical aspect of Japanese, Latin American, and African philosophy, and give some more worldwide coverage to the section. Please let me know your thoughts! Fritzmann (message me) 18:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hello Fritzmann2002 and thanks for your first review comments. I would try to implement your suggestion if there is consensus on this point but there are some considerations that make me hesitate. A key point here is WP:PROPORTION and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It is very easy to find overview sources that give a narrower perspective on the history of philosophy than our current section. A great example in this regard is the 10-volume Routledge History of Philosophy, which focuses exclusively (or almost exclusively) on Western philosophy (which is understood in the sense of including certain forms of Arabic-Persian philosophy). Scharfstein 1998 is a little bit broader: he dedicates the whole first chapter of his book to explaining and defending the claim that there are only three great philosophical traditions, the Indian, the Chinese, and the European. I found it tricky to find wide overview sources that give a broader outline of the history of philosophy than the one we have here. It's often necessary to use sources from adjacent fields, such as comparative philosophy or world philosophy. For example, Smart's book "World Philosophies" covers many additional traditions. However, he justifies this by using a very wide definition of "philosophy" that is not typical of how philosophy is usually defined. It goes well beyond systematic and rational inquiry by encompassing traditional worldviews, including myths of origin and ... proverbial lore.

  I'm not sure if you find these points convincing and I don't want to impose my own view here. Shapeyness in their comments above also asked a question similar to yours. If there is consensus between the two of you that adding such a section would be an improvement then I would give it a try to see what I can come up with. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Aren't we falling into the trap of Eurocentrism and English language source centrism by that logic? TheUzbek (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. I implemented the suggestion, which I hope solves the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, I reformulated the passage in question. As I see it, there is always an implicit "ranking" that decides what needs to be included in the article, what could be included, and what is not important enough to merrit a detailed discussion. But maybe you are right that this shouldn't be made too explicit. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your well-argued response; it's very clear you have a strong understanding of the subject matter! I think the one other concern I had is that those other traditions are just sort of name-dropped and then not elaborated upon within the history section. Even if those three just got a single combined paragraph that is basically a summary of their lede in their respective articles, that would more than satiate what I am looking for as a reader. Again, not at all a requirement and just my two cents - I would also be interested to hear input from other reviewers on the matter. Fritzmann (message me) 13:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Fritzmann, a small subsection for "other traditions" with just a single paragraph or two would be enough. There are due weight concerns but I think they are outweighed by concerns on the other side over providing a global perspective (WP:WORLDVIEW). Shapeyness (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  I made a first attempt at implementing this suggestion. I hope this is roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Fritzmann and Shapeyness: any come back on this? No need for any, I'm just checking. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Source suitability review

Spot-check upon request and warning that given the sheer width of the topic, only an expert can really judge whether there aren't any major omissions. Reviewing this version, I notice that a large number of § aren't followed by a space. Source formatting is unusual but that doesn't need to be a problem. Retrieval dates are not applied consistently. Are there no non-Western sources besides Jha, Meenakshi and the Economic and Political Weekly? I am not sure that Baggini, Julian; Krauss, Lawrence as well as Britannica are a good source for such a topic? Speaking of Britannica is not consistently formatted. Dowden, Bradley H. (2020). is apparently unused. I am not sure that the Routledge source needs to say "www.rep.routledge.com". OUP Oxford and OUP ought to be standardized to one or the other. Quinton, Anthony Meredith lacks a bullet point. Of the sources I know, they all seem to be suitable for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and thanks for doing the source review! I hope I managed to sort out all the formatting and consistency issues. I used the template multiref2 instead of the more usual sfmn mainly because it uses a new line for each bundled reference rather than putting them all in one line, which can get confusing if there are many references. I added retrieval dates to all reference templates that use a URL parameter. Please let me know if there are others that also require it. After a short random look through some of the sources, I encountered the following non-Western authors: Jonathan Chimakonam (University of Calabar, Nigeria and University of Pretoria, South Africa), Fainos Mangena (University of Zimbabwe), Antonio Cua (Filipino Chinese), Tu Wei-Ming (Chinese), and Licheng Ma (Chinese). There should be many more and I could have a more thorough look if this is a concern.

I removed the source "Baggini & Krauss 2012" since the claim is well supported by the remaining sources. As for Britannica, I agree that it is not ideal for in-depth claims on very specific topics. However, this is not so much of a problem for this article since it doesn't go into depth on any specific point and has mostly the goal of providing a broad overview instead. I tried to avoid using Britannica as a standalone source by having it in addition to other sources of the same claim as an accessible alternative for readers to consult. If you have the impression that it is not appropriate for a certain claim then I will try to find an alternative.

Dowden 2020 itself is used several times. The error message comes because I added an earlier version to link it to an ISBN. The 2020 version is freely available online and the page numbers refer to this version. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that there are many non-Western authors, but are there also non-Western publications/publishers? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I was not aware that your point was focused on the geographical location of the publishers rather than of the authors. You are right that most of the sources used in this article are published by Western publishers. The main reason is that these publishers globally dominate the field of high-quality academic sources written in the English language on philosophy in general, including non-Western philosophy. If you have a specific source that you would like to see included in the article then I would be happy to take a look at it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't have any specific source in mind, just a general observation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Does the article pass the source review? Phlsph7 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Dowden 2020 needs to be fixed, it throws a harv error for me. Probably because there is another template there, Dowden 1993. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the harv warning comes from a user script. I added the parameter "|ref=none" to the 2nd template, which seems to have solved the problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Then it's a pass, with the caveat that this isn't a topic on which I have much familiarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment from UC

Perhaps fittingly for the subject, I worry that we've become tied in terminological knots in the section about definitions of philosophy. To me, the latter two paragraphs (about philosophy being a form of therapy or an exercise in self-improvement) strike me more as statements about what philosophy does rather than attempts to form an all-encompassing definition of what it is -- a bit like you might say "running is a form of outdoor therapy", "God is love" or "a dog is man's best friend": nobody would seriously argue that "man's best friend" is even trying to be sufficient information to explain to an unfamiliar outsider what a dog is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You are right that whether these paragraphs express definitions of philosophy in the strict sense is itself a philosophical question. Overgaard et al. 2013 consider the question "What is philosophy" and discuss philosophy as a form of therapy as one of the answers to this question in contrast to other answers, such as philosophy as a form of science. Banicki 2014 talks of "philosophy as a kind of therapy" and of "the therapeutic model of philosophy". One consideration in this regard would be whether the features in question are considered essential aspects of philosophy rather than merely accidental features that philosophy just happens to have. For example, is it essential to philosophy that it aims at curing certain (linguistic) maladies? In any case, the positions discussed in these paragraphs are influential characterizations of philosophy that should be discussed somewhere. It seems to me that this section is the most fitting place to do so. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that these things need to be discussed somewhere. I wonder if the answer is to have a subsection on the functions of philosophy - which could then have (for example) some material on the role of philosophy within society (I immediately thought of the Greek idea of the kaloskagathos - a man both beautiful of body and cultivated of mind), as an adjunct to other fields, and so on. I do feel like the definitions section loses focus some time in the last three paragraphs and has moved, without really stating it, from what philosophy is to what philosophy does. If nothing else, those last two paragraphs tread lightly indeed and may be on the wrong side of brevity versus comprehensiveness UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with defining something in terms of its aim. The case of philosophy as a spiritual practice of self-improvement goes back to Greco-Roman times (would it be worth incorporating a Wikilink to Stoicism, which is the most obvious example?) and has been taken up by recent philosophers who are themselves the subjects a considerable scholarly literature.

I feel less strongly about linguistic therapy as it is so strongly associated with a single 20th-century figure. It seems like a nice addition the article, but its case for being encyclopedic at this high level is debatable.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As a step towards a compromise, I merged the last two paragraphs into one to give less emphasis to the therapy-conception of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate work towards compromise, but these two forms of "therapy" are wildly different. One aims to bring the practitioner into sync with the rational structure of the cosmos by way of living according to the rational principles uncovered by way of philosophical reflection and spiritual exercises. The other aims to liberate just those who have confused themselves into being upset about philosophical problems that are actually just confusions about how language works. Does any source actually treat these as different approaches to the same thing?

I support restoring the previous version. Or, if for some reason the length of these paragraphs relative to those preceding them is actually an issue – which I really do not think that it is – then we could cut the Wittgenstein paragraph and add another sentence or two to the other mentioning a couple Ancient/Hellenistic philosophers by name.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

They are surely not the same thing, they are merely related as forms of therapy. For now, I replaced the expression "closely related" with "related" to not overemphasize the connection. Personally, I don't see a problem with the original version. I would go ahead and restore it unless others see it differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Only @UndercoverClassicist appears to object, and we should certainly allow a few more days, but they have possibly abandoned that objection in view of our comments. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't, but that need not be a problem: I haven't offered a review and so it's merely a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are aware of a good overview source that makes this precise distinction between the definition and the functions of philosophy and provides a detailed discussion of those functions then I would be happy to read it. I'm not sure that it's always possible to draw such a clear division between what something is and what it does. Some things may be defined by their function or by what they do. This could be true for philosophy. In our current article, the section "Relation to other fields" was intended to cover some of the expansion ideas you mentioned. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"Central description"?

According to the article's Information page[16], the "Central description" of this article, unlike the "Local description", does not capitalize the first word. I don't know if this is an issue, however, because I can't find the former in either the article or the project sidebar and don't know where on Wikipedia it appears. Is this something that should be addressed? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&action=info

I think the central description is taken from wikidata, in our case https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5891. I'm not sure about their rules, but comparing it with a few other items, lower-case seems to be standard. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay cool. I have no experience with Wikidata. I only brought it up because it looks like a stylistic inconsistency, but I couldn't figure out where it was coming from or in what contexts it might be displayed. It seems, though, like we should probably just leave it alone. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero

I will sign myself up to some work on the formatting and reliability of the citations, but not spot checks. Maybe some thoughts on completeness, but Adamson is on 6 volumes of his History of Philosophy and we haven't even passed the Renaissance. I suspect he will do 6 volumes just on what is traditionally covered in an undergrad Modern Philosophy class. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the sources. Adamson's A History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps is a huge undertaking indeed. I'm not sure how many volumes are planned in total. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• [13] uses a primary source but [12] does not although both have direct quotes. Cite all direct quotes of primary works to your favorite translation or edition.

  Done. I didn't spot any others. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Regenbogen 2010 and all other non-English sources should include a lang= flag

  Done. I hope I got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I am used to "et al." in italics, but I will let the MOS specialists tell you if it is common enough to be upright.

  The short answer is that opinions are divided but style guides tend to favor no italics. For the long answer, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics and SilverTiger's review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• History seems well balanced to me over all. There is a strong temptation to make it 90% western and 10% "eastern", but the major traditions makes sense to me.
  • I might mention the critical traditions (Marx, Feminism, etc) in the Western philosophy section since you introduce Marx vis-a-vis China in the article and that seems off to me.

    I found a way to mention Marxism. Feminism has its own paragraph in the section "Relation to other fields". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I would retool the Latin American section to cover the traditions of Indigenous North Americans as well.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have some worry that outside of the History section the article is pretty much pure-Western Philosophy. Can you weave in anyone from another traditions

  I don't think the presentation is pure-Western since the topics covered are not restricted to Western philosophy. I tried to follow how high-quality overview sources present the different subjects. For example, overview sources on epistemology in general (not specifically on Western epistemology) usually do not mention things pramanas even though they are discussed in Indian philosophy. But they mention sources of knowledge that are discussed as pramanas in Indian epistemology, like perception, inference, and testimony. In this sense, the territory they cover does not exclude Indian epistemology. We could explicitly introduce the term pramana. However, given how the overview sources treat the subject, I think this is not a good idea. The same overlap is there for the other fields as well, such as the existence of matter and souls discussed in metaphysics.

  A different approach would be to use examples from other traditions. For instance, we currently use utilitarianism as an example of consequentialism. We could replace it with a discussion of mohism. But the influence of utilitarianism and mohism is orders of magnitudes different, which is why this probably would not be a good idea. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• The quality of the sourcing is incredible. Very well done. I might push you on the following sources:
  • Zack 2009, because it is your only pop work in a sea of academic ones

    I replaced it. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • EB Staff articles

    They are not ideal for sourcing in-depth claims on a very specific subject but I don't think this is a problem here given that we are trying to provide a broad overview and that they are accompanied by additional high-quality sources. If some specific instances are not appropriate for the claim they support then I would try to find alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe it is because my upper-levels were done in feminism, critical race theory, standpoint epistemology, queer theory, etc., but it feels like it was given the short end of the stick.

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• In regard to feminism, see above. For the others, I think there is not much we can do here about these relatively recent developments given that we are trying to cover a discipline stretching over several millenia. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, you are probably right. I think I did more contemporary philosophy in my BA than most. Your comments all seem to be reasonable. I have a few more comments:

  • Relation to other fields reads as choppy to me due to the short paragraphs. Further, "In the field of politics, philosophy addresses issues such as how to assess whether a government policy is just." should be in the politics paragraph.

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Can you find a better source for the claim about Gandhi claim than a UN observance?

    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Law can join the epistemology at work paragraph

  -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  • I moved to science instead since both paragraphs concern the relation to epistemology while the work paragraph is about ethics. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii: Comments

I think it's fantastic that you're bringing these broad topics up to GA/FA standards. I have not participated in a Featured Article Candidate discussion before, so I won't support/oppose. Logic is the part that I'm most familiar with, so I'll focus entirely on that section.

Source spot-checking for this version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy&oldid=1184786104#Logic

• [107]: Verfies the source and no close paraphrasing. Really solid summary of someting that is kind of complicated in the sources' phrasing.
• [109]: The term "modus ponens" is used beginning on page 367 in Dowden; it's very clearly laid out on the cited page (p. 103) in Velleman, so good use of multiple sources without WP:OR. The example quoted is from the other cited page in Velleman (p. 8). In addition to using high quality sources, this is about the way deductive reasoning is introduced in college-level Intro to Logic classes.
• [110]: The sources verify the article and there's no close paraphrasing. Again a good summary of something with complicated language in the source texts.
• [113]: Vleet (2011) seems to verify the whole paragraph on its own.

I'll try to come back soon to comment on the prose, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rjjiii and welcome to FA process! Your knowledge in the field of logic is appreciated and I'm looking forward to your prose comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting from the top:

• The piped link would be more clear to me if it was "correct reasoning".

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is clear except for this sentence, "In this way, it formulates exact criteria and methods based on the structure of arguments to determine whether they are correct or incorrect." I think that "formulates exact criteria and methods based on" could be shortened down to a single verb like "examines" without losing any meaning to nearly all readers. If there is some nuance in the current wording, it's not clear to me.

  I slightly tweaked your suggestions to include the term "exact criteria" since formal logic is mainly interested in general criteria of validity rather than whether a specific argument is valid.

• "analyze and evaluate" Would the single verb "assess" cover both?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "However, this support is not as certain and does not guarantee that the conclusion is true." The "is not as certain and" seems redundant.

  That's true, I removed it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

And a couple of comments from other sections of this FAC page:

• I find "et al." to be the common form and appreciate the change.
• Regarding the bundled citations, the way you've done it has a benefit for accessibility. Bundling citations into lists either with bullets (*) or a template that generates html lists, will allow screen readers to parse the short footnotes as separate items. Template:sfnm could one day be updated to make use of this, but currently it does not.

Good luck, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Gog the Mild

Recusing to comment. Leaning oppose.

• In the image gallery at the top of the page, I am a little unhappy that all three of the non-Western philosophers are on the second row; it sends an unfortunate (not so) subliminal message.

  The rationale behind the current arrangement is the following. One way to divide philosophy is in Western and non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to group the philosophers together in one row each. In regard to philosophy in general, Western philosophy has been more influential than non-Western philosophy. So it makes sense to have it in the first row.

  One alternative would be to arrange the philosophers chronologically: Buddha, Confucius, Plato, Avicenna, Kant, and Nietzsche. However, Plato is much more important in the field of philosophy than Buddha and Confucius. So it might be a good idea to keep him in the first place. Maybe there are other organizing principles that avoid this problem. In any case, the sidebar is used in many articles and there were already several discussions on who should be included on the talk page. So we would have to start a discussion there first and get some input before making any changes. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not commenting on who is displayed, just on the order they are displayed in. If there is a discussion you could point me towards where this is discussed, and ideally agreed, that may be helpful. That the current order is based on the perceived importance of each in the field makes me more uncomfortable. I assume there is a HQ RS which so ranks them? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems there is a misunderstanding here but I'm not sure who is misunderstanding whom. According to my understanding, the current order is not based on the perceived importance of the individual philosophers. They are sorted by association with Western and non-Western philosophy: Plato, Kant, and Nietzsche belong to Western philosophy. Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna belong to non-Western philosophy. This way, we have two rows of images: the Western row and the non-Western row. The philosophers within each row are sorted chronologically: Plato was born before Kant and Kant was born before Nietzsche; Buddha was born before Confucius and Confucius was born before Avicenna.

It shouldn't be a problem to provide reliable sources for their association and their birth dates. There were talk page discussions on who should be included but I'm not aware of discussions on the order in which these philosophers are presented. I appologize if I'm talking past the point you were trying to make. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog is quite right to raise this, and to feel uncomfortable with the current division. Comments that intimate western philosophy is more important than that of the East is mildly eyebrow raising, and does not alleviate that discomfort. To get as close to a random list as p[possible, I suggest either aphpabetizing them, or possibly chronologically. Unfortuantely, what would be perfect—{{Random slideshow}}—is not an option open to us. MOS:ACCESS, you see. ——Serial 20:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Serial and thanks for your input and your suggestions. I think the claim that some philosophical traditions have been more influential than others is not controversial. Maybe pointing to some high-quality reliable overview sources can alleviate the discomfort caused by contempating this idea. I just had a look at the entry "Philosophy" in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy: correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to discuss almost exclusively Western philosophers. I also tried the entry "Philosophy" in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy with the same result. If you know of some high-quality reliable overview sources on philosophy in general that paint a very different picture then I would be interested in looking at them.

Plato is often considered the most influential philosopher so it would make sense to consider an ordering principle that makes him come to the first position. A chronological order would make Buddha come first. This could be surprising to readers. For example, I didn't spot a discussion of Buddha in the two overview articles mentioned above but they both discuss Plato. In the alphabetical order, Plato would come last. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose the natural question, then, is why images of the Buddha, Confucius, and Avicenna are displayed at all... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, this would be the more relevant concern than the question of whether the current order of images is biased. I don't think they are included because they are among the 6 most influential philosophers overall. The main argument for their inclusion is probably that non-Western traditions should also be represented and the images in question each depict one of the most influential figures within their tradition. For related discussions, see Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Justification_of_additions and Template_talk:Philosophy_sidebar#Averroes?. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Third-party comment: I've commented in an existing (if not especially active) discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery. The image isn't appropriate for the navbox in general, regardless of the ordering. If the image is removed from the navbox, there could still be a lead image or gallery in this particular article. For example, a two-by-two gallery containing Buddha, Confucius, Plato, and Avicenna, could represent the four major traditions that are discussed in the subsections of Philosophy#History. --RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! It's probably better to have the main discussion at Template talk:Philosophy sidebar#Picture shouldn't be a gallery rather than here. I'll post an update here once we've reached a conclusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Short update: I removed the image from the sidebar and added it as a lead image instead. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Another thought: I think the inclusion of Nietzsche is an odd choice, as he has not been nearly as influential as either Plato or Kant. Western philosophy is often divided into three periods: ancient, medieval and modern. The current display has an image of an ancient philosopher (Plato), two modern philosophers (Kant and Nietzsche) and none from the medieval period. Might I suggest replacing Nietzsche with an influential figure from that period? Thomas Aquinas feels like the obvious pick. Other influential philosophers from the period include Duns Scotus, Anselm of Canterbury and William of Ockham. Tkbrett (✉) 16:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Aquinas would be a solid choice. What do you think of the following? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Philbar 5.png

I note in passing that this does nothing to address the concern I raised to kick off the discussion this image. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made my case for the current order but I don't want to impose my view. The following has a chronological order. Would that be acceptable? Phlsph7 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It would. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Philbar 6.png

I think the updated image is better. I can't say I share the concern of the original drive-by comment. Tkbrett (✉) 17:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It provides an interdisciplinary perspective and studies their scope and fundamental concepts." I am unsure what "their" refers to. Is it possible to clarify or rephrase?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• I had originally posted two points which I saw as readily fixable with a view to then closing the nomination. As the discussion has become rather more than a drive by it seems appropriate for me to recuse and allow one of my fellow coordinators close it. Not least because as the article stands I am unconvinced that it meets criterion 1d and so have indicated that I am leaning oppose at the head of this section. Obviously I am open to being convinced otherwise, but have not yet been. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think MOS:PEOPLEGALLERY, while not binding is persuasive as to why a gallery might not be a good idea. I would honestly prefer nothing in the leade to cherry picking 6 philosophers. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree on both points. But while that is my preference, it is not something I am going to oppose over. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur that having no lead images would solve various problems, like the ones we have been struggling with here. If there are no objections, I would go ahead and remove them. Phlsph7 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I implemented the suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog, does this resolve your concern? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose:. It does. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Support

I co-nominated this article for GA status with Phlsph7 just this past August, and so it largely goes without saying that I approve of the overall structure and coverage of the article. There is more discussion on these matters than anyone would want to read here and in the article Talk page and its archives.

To this I will just add that I am quite impressed with the way that they have handled the issue of balancing Eastern and Western traditions, which I flagged prior to FA nomination (skip down halfway) as probably the biggest challenge, and one for which there is no perfect solution. To the best of my ability to assess, they seem also to have done an admirable job of bringing everything into compliance with all the niceties and finer points of Wikipedia style.

Much gratitude as well to everyone else whose edits and comments have contributed to making this such an excellent article!

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks a lot for your support, your countless valuable contributions, and your guidance in getting this article FA-ready. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [17].

---

History of military logistics

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, rewriting, and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

There are good reasons why these sort of top-level articles do not get the attention that many readers would expect, the major one being that they are so hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars. A conscious effort was made to avoid making the article Euro-centric, and to incorporate examples from around the world. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

UC

Chucking in a few peanuts, mostly on the really old stuff, for now:

• Feudalism in the lead: something of a dirty word among medieval scholars, who haven't really been happy with the idea of "Feudalism" as a single coherent Thing for a few decades now. Certainly, the idea of calling it "a system" (rather than, at the most charitable, a series of slightly-ad-hoc systems with some similarities but also important differences) is really quite dated. Articles and books on big topics like this often end up with blind-spots when it comes to the specifics of individual disciplines: suggest something like "in medieval Europe, responsibility for military logistics was often delegated to the magnates of individual households (and mercenary companies?), who would supply their own troops".

  It comes from a 2021 source. Deleted that from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century there was the shift from a centrally organised army to a combination of military forces made up of local troops: if we're (admirably and correctly) going to avoid Eurocentricism, we need to put sentences like this into geographic context: I doubt the fall of Rome had much impact in China or North America.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking a little on this, I'm not sure the basic point here is valid. Firstly, the Roman empire didn't (all) fall in the fifth century, and the Byzantinists are now getting increasingly comfortable and consistent at calling their subject the "(Eastern) Roman Empire" until the 15th century. Secondly, the Roman army wasn't straightforwardly a single, centralised organisation in the fourth and fifth centuries: units were increasingly tied to the areas in which they served and recruited from those areas, particularly from children of soldiers - in many ways not all that different to your textbook "feudal" model (see lots of work on this at Banna (Birdoswald). Thirdly, I'm not sure what the distinction here is between a "centrally organised army" and one "made up of local troops": isn't everyone local to somewhere? Professional troops were fairly rare after 500 Thinking on it, that's not true either: professional militaries, perhaps, but they were also pretty rare before that, and certainly people serving by obligation were part of the show in the "late Roman" army and indeed very much the norm outside the high Roman professional army and perhaps some of the Hellenistic monarchies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• On the same note, the lead still reads as pretty Euro-heavy to me, especially in the second paragraph, which is explicitly about Europe only but also the only material on a three-century period.
• Is there anything to add to the lead about logistics post 1948?

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to see something done about gendered language in the very early sections: for instance, Neolithic armies ... rarely exceeded 20,000 men (given how little we know about Neolithic warfare in general, I don't think we can say that all Neolithic societies had no fighting women, or indeed no alternative gender categories), and A king or warlord might use his army...

  Changed to more gener neutral terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I still see rarely exceeded 20,000 men in the lead. More generally, there's a fairly regular use of "men" for "soldiers", "warriors", "troops", "combatants" and so on, which I think should be avoided. Yes, it's a commonplace/cliché in (particularly older) military writing and yes, it's more-or-less accurate for most of our time periods, but we don't do that for other situations where the same is true: nobody would write about the "privileges granted by the Roman senate to its men", for example. Given the general nature of this field I think this is a case where we have to be particularly proactive about systemic bias. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• On which: 20,000 seems very big for the time we're talking about: I'd be interested to know what that's based on. The biggest mass-death sites I've seen from the Neolithic have bodies in the low hundreds, which doesn't really seem to fit with armies that massive wandering around. I'm also curious about where all these people are coming from, and who's feeding them when they're on the move: a really big Neolithic site had a population of a couple of thousand people total.

  I was looking through Prehistoric warfare to see if I could find a better source.

• Roman soldiers are generally called legionaries in English (see Ngrams); legionnaire is best kept for the French.

  Heh. Because I'm reading a French language source and not thinking. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Seems odd to pass over the whole Mycenaean/Classical world until Alexander, and then devote an entire paragraph to the guy. There's also a bit of a buried lead here: if Philip was banning carts, it implies that someone was previously using them. (There's another problem here: we say that Alexander banned carts, but then that he used them to lug his siege engines around: this sounds like the commonplace in classical military historiography where the historian has a virtuous commander force the soldiers to carry their own gear to restore discipline or general manliness) In particular, I'm sure much work has been done on how the Persian armies of Xerxes and Darius I were supplied.

  Do you have a suggested source? I have amassed a library of books and journal articles on logistics but have nothing on the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Those in the field will know better, but some that come up on a quick search:

  • • Quite a few useful things in this big Blackwell companion: Hassan's chapter on the army and logistics would seem the obvious starting point. Henkelmann and Jacobs have a chapter on communication in the empire too. These books normally carry a lot of good bibliography as well.
    • This book is pretty introductory, but does put some numbers on the logistical machinery for both sides in 480.
    • This 2013 article discusses connectivity and logistics within the Achaemenid empire in general
    • This article on logistics in the Ancient Med discusses Persia at some length, and is generally healthily and usefully sceptical about ancient empires acting in all-seeing, board-game-like grand-strategic ways.

      The link here is broken. Looks like part of a doi instead of the jstor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

      Sorry, you're absolutely right - try this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

    • This one is by the ever-sensible Roel Konijnendijk, whose work is generally a good corrective to outdated views of ancient warfare, and talks about logistics as a major factor in the Persian defeat of 479,
    • This article looks slightly dated to me, but discusses the Persian campaigns of 490 and 480-479 with a lot of focus on their logistical demands and failures.
    • Another useful book might be this Oxford handbook: Engels, whose work from the 80s is cited in the article, has a chapter on logistics there. There's a few other similar companions on the market, either to Greek, Roman or to Ancient warfare, that would be worth a look.

Again, I'm not suggesting putting everything in here, but this article needs to be a judicious summary of that everything, and therefore we need to start from a position of knowing what the whole topic looks like before we can summarise and cut down. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest pointing out that the Romans were by no means the first to construct a network of roads for military and other logistics: the Persians got there a few centuries earlier.

  Added the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciated, though we now have the weird situation that the Romans get all the focus and the credit, whereas the Persians - who did it first - get relegated to being one of many in a list of "and the rest". I think this is another respect in which taking another swing at this section with the (Graeco-)Persian context in mind would help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Again, on Eurocentrism: we make a brief gesture to China, India and South America about roads, but otherwise our conception of Antiquity basically happens between the Alps and the Euphrates: we did briefly wander into Persia, but only when we had some Macedonian armies to follow there. We've named a whole lot of influential commanders, empires and societies from Greece, Rome and areas often associated with them: what are the equivalents (say) in Egypt, the Far East and the Americas?

  There is a whole paragraph on logistics in medieval America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is, but nothing for the pre-medieval period (the meaning of Antiquity intended in my comment above). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Moving a bit outside my area, the Medieval section is curiously early Medieval (and quite strongly Carolingian): in particular, it makes a slightly odd move to Crecy, then back to the ninth century, then to the Mongols (though it isn't massively clear on the chronology of the latter two), then out to the wider world (good), then back to Big Charlie. Given that the Early Modern section doesn't pick up until 1530 (a rather late date, in my view: I think most would use 1453 or 1492), it's odd that the High and Late Middle Ages have received so little treatment: there's loads in Anne Curry's recent-ish book on Agincourt, for example, on how the English and French were supplied, and that's very different to the "king calls the lords, lords call their vassals and sort their own provisions" model that we sketched in the lead.

  Do you mean Agincourt (2015) or The Hundred Years War (2023)? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've only read Agincourt, but I'm sure her newer book has equally good if not better material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think our sketch of "the Vikings" gives them too much coherency (as if we've written from Alfred's perspective rather than Guthrum's): Viking was something you did, not something you were, and Scandinavians hardly spent the whole period getting along and working together.
• Did anything interesting happen in western Asia and north Africa during the early medieval period?
• I notice at the moment that the "Antiquity" section has six sources cited, only two of which are 21st century: that's a big topic divided between very few voices/perspectives.

Certainly looking at these two sections, I wonder if there's an element of WP:WRITEITFIRST here: there's a difficult balance between summary style and comprehensiveness to be struck, and it might be difficult to establish it without a bigger, more detailed and more global account of military logistics in the ancient and medieval worlds. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Being a top-level article, it calls out for subarticles, but they do not currently exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, but more importantly, it calls out for being a judicious, well-balanced, (as far as possible) error and systemic-bias-free summary of what those articles would or should say. There's no problem if those articles don't exist (yet), but for an article like this to be FA quality, it does need to be written with a good, up-to-date understanding of what its field is. For this one, as you'll know much better than me, that field is massive and has the problem of being both extremely broad and having depth and details which are extremely important. I'm going to stick down an oppose at the moment, purely because of how long I can see this review is getting already: it isn't fair to turn this into an extended peer review and I do think the sections on Antiquity and the Medieval period need a fairly major rework to make them up to date with current scholarship and representative of the world picture. I don't think that sort of rework is within the scope of a normal FAC; however, I am absolutely open to revisiting that !vote if the situation does change. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no other mechanism for review and comment. Our only options are to provide reviews here or leave the article as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Query Hawkeye7, could you glance over the article Operations Research (particularly the World War II section), and the sources there, and have a look at whether your sources give OR (known as Operational Research in the UK) a due-weight role in the evolution of logistics during WWII and ongoing ? The role of OR in military logistics, particularly in WWII, has always been emphasized in the field, and it has a large place in West Point Military Academy training. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the examples in the article concern operations, but I can add a sentence or two about OR and logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment. Sorry Hawkeye but this has been open for more than four weeks now and hasn't gained a single support and even has an oppose. I don't think it makes sense to keep this open any longer now. The usual two-week wait before a new nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2023 [18].

---

My Little Love

Nominator(s): NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Adele's song "My Little Love". I know my reputation is spoiled here due to the godawful Meghan Trainor songs, but sometimes I really enjoy great jazz like this one. Don't be fooled by it not getting a commercial single release, this song very much forms the heart of 30 along with tracks like "To Be Loved" and "I Drink Wine". Just trust me on this and do play it once! Also, it features voice notes of Adele's child. (How has Meghan Trainor not done this yet?) I have been very lucky to receive DYK and GA reviews from Aoba47 and Pseud 14, respectively. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Media review (pass)

• File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png - appropriately licensed
• File:Adele - My Little Love.ogg - has appropriate FUR and permissible per WP:SAMPLE.
• Although not raised in the GAN, have you considered perhaps adding a media file? Since I figured one of the highlights of this song are the voice notes/conversations which embellished the song. I think it would be of value IMO. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get back to you on the sample point.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion with Aoba below, I have added an audio sample to the article.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I think it may be worthwhile to link steel guitar since items like bass are also linked. Also, does bass in this context refer to a bass guitar? If so, I would clarify that in the prose.

• Information about which bass instrument it is is not available, unfortunately.

• Thank you for the clarification. I know that liner notes can unfortunately be ambiguous at times so I understand this situation. I was just curious since Greg Kurstin is credited as playing the bass guitar for "Easy on Me", but I also see that he is credited as playing just bass for "Oh My God" and "I Drink Wine" so it is likely just a case of inconsistency with the liner notes and credits. At least, there is some information here. I have a physical copy of Bluebird of Happiness, and the only thing in the liner notes are the songwriters, producers, and samples. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• For this part, (at the EastWood Scoring Stage in California), I think it would best to specify the city, especially since earlier in the same section, No Expectations Studios is specified as specifically in Los Angeles.

Great work with the article as always. After reading through the article once, I could only find two three very nitpick-y points (well, technically three since the first point has two comments). Once both points have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. What do you think about the potential inclusion of an audio sample in this article? I was being more conservative after the "Easy on Me" nomination but there might be a stronger case to be made for one here.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think an audio sample would be justified here as the voice notes are such an integral part to the song, from its creation all the way down to its reception. I believe it would also help some readers better understand what the prose is conveying as some people may not be as familiar with voice notes or would not fully understand how these messages are interwoven into the song itself. Thank you for addressing everything. I will read the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that you will address anything that ChrisTheDude brings up in his review below. Hope you have a happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris

• "Kurstin plays bass, mellotron, piano, and steel guitar; Chris Dave plays drums and percussion; and David Campbell arranged and conducted the strings" - the tense changes from present to past mid-sentence
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "melisma"? I for one have no idea what it means.......
• "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed they may" => "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed that they may"
• "In the United Kingdom, "My Little Love" debuted at number five on the Official Audio Streaming Chart" - might be worth clarifying that this is not the main Official UK Singles Chart (the UK's equivalent to the Hot 100). It actually missed the UK Singles Chart completely, although this will almost certainly be down to a bizarre rule that no artist can have more than three songs in the chart in the same week.
• That's what I got. Oh, and don't ever feel the need to categorise songs you like as "godawful". They're not bad songs if you derive enjoyment from them. The other day someone told me that my favourite album of the last six months was "absolute garbage" and I just ignored him because hey- I really like it and that's all that matters :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• All done. Thank you so much for the review! I haven't heard the whole Zach Bryan album but the Kacey Musgraves collab was awesome. You should definitely not pay any mind to anyone criticizing you for enjoying it, lol. Hopefully he'll join Trainor and Miss Adkins next year.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re: the first one, I can see that you've split it into multiple sentences, but it still reads a little oddly (to me at least) that David Campbell conducted the strings but Kurstin plays bass. I would suggest it should all be in the past tense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done!--NØ 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Addressed comments from Gog the Mild

"Music critics compared the production of "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye". Did they, or did they 'compare[] "My Little Love" to the work of Marvin Gaye'? "an emotional progression for Adele." I am not sure what this means. (What does it mean?) The critical consensus was along the lines of "Adele delves further into her usual emotional subject matter; gets more emotional than ever". Open to suggestions on better ways to articulate this. " Critics also highlighted the inclusion of the voice notes, praising the songwriting and lyricism." This reads as if the songwriting and lyricism of the voice notes were praised. Is that what is intended? Switched to pre-GAN wording. "and entered the top 40 in some other countries." Maybe "some" → 'several'? "Adele began working on her fourth studio album by 2018. She filed for divorce from her husband". It seems odd that she was working on the album more than a year before the event which inspired it. Odd but true. Maybe she did not conceptualize it as a divorce record initially.--NØ 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) "mended her estranged relationship with her father" reads a little oddly and I am unsure it is grammatical. 'improved her relationship with her estranged father' or similar may work better. This sentence has already passed a few FACs and seems to pass my grammar checker as well. A similar sentence is cited as an example of correct usage of the word on Collins: "People who have conflicted or estranged relationships generally do worse after a bereavement." "The years following the divorce plagued her" doesn't work. Plague in this context means, according to Wiktionary "To harass, pester or annoy someone persistently or incessantly." A period of time cannot harass etc. According to Oxford dictionary, plague in its verb form can mean "to cause pain or trouble to somebody/something over a period of time". I've reframed the sentence along your suggestion, though. I don't think I made a suggestion, but I like the change - it is now tied to something specific. "These inspired her return to the studio". Perhaps you could say prior to this that she had ceased studio recording. And, if known, state when and why. Hmm, I was able to locate some stuff about her announcing she will never tour again in 2017 but nothing about ceasing recording. I think "return" here just means she went back to the studio for a new record cycle, not necessarily that it was after a long break. "Adele released "Easy on Me" as the lead single from the album, entitled 30, on 14 October 2021." Why is this here, rather than the latter part of the last paragraph in this section, with the other details on release order and dates? "Adele co-wrote "My Little Love" with its producer, Greg Kurstin". This jars a little, and thinking about it, probably because you are jumping chronologically. When they co-wrote the song, it was not known that Kurstin would produce it. Suggest deleting "its producer" - which also resolves issue of "producer" and "produced" in the same sentence. Kurstin's role as producer is already covered in the next section. "which Annabel Nugent of The Independent described as "smoke pluming from a lit cigarette perched on an ashtray"." I doubt that she did. Perhaps "described as" → 'likened to' or similar. "and thought it marked an emotional progression for Adele." As above. ('and considered it even more emotionally wrought that Adele's previous work'?) Suggest "spectate" → 'see'. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Thank you for the comments. Done with replies about some of the grammar stuff above.--NØ 21:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Hi Gog the Mild, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. NØ 03:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC) This comment made me giggle. 😂 FrB.TG (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC) All looking good. I'll give it another read through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Take 2

• Any reason why Adele is described as English instead of British?

• English seems to be consistently preferred on biographies of singers like Amy Winehouse, Ed Sheeran, Ellie Goulding, and Adele's own so I've stuck to that.

Do you mean on Wikipedia biographies?

? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Gog! I mean Wikipedia biographies! As in the wording stably in place on her biography over the past five years (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018). Would you like me to change this? It would get swiftly reverted without there being some sort of consensus behind it. <3 Also, I really apologize for the joke above. I don't think you liked it.NØ 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The joke was great. It gave me a belly laugh.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. What happens in one, or even many, Wikipedia articles sets no precedent for what should happen in any other. I was just asking an open question and was anticipating a policy based response. As I didn't get one I looked it up myself. MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". I think it is clear that it is looking for the country of which the subject is a citizen or national and one cannot, since 1707, be a citizen or national of England. However, the addition of "region" confuses the issue, as, to a lesser extent, does England being a country, albeit not a sovereign one; I think this adds enough uncertainty for me to let it go, in spite of my personal feeling that it does not comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I share your willingness to have the MoS-based wording in the article. However, I would also like the same correct wording reflected on other articles like Adele, Ed Sheeran, or Amy Winehouse and hence talk pages of those will be the avenue to achieve the change more broadly.--NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe mention the son's age at first mention of him?
• "She recalled that creating it cleared up some of the chaos that was obstructing her ability to express her feelings." perhaps '... emotional chaos that was ...'?
• "Some praised the lyrics". You then go on to only mention positive opinions. Were any less fulsome?

• There were no negative reviews about the lyrics. Removed the "some" wording.

• "The song received a Gold certification in Brazil." Why the upper-case G?

I capitalize the names of these award titles like I would with any other awards like "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc. The official award titles have them in caps and it makes sense imo since "gold" here is not referring to the metal.--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The "official award titles" are proper nouns and so should be capitalised. I am not at all sure that a "certification" is an award or otherwise deserving of upper-case initials. (Eg, if I were a certified MMA instructor, I would not say that I had 'received Instructor certification' with an upper-case I.) What is the full "official award title" for Brazilian gold certification?

Here's the formal discussion about this a few years ago which ended in a sort-of consensus to leave it up to individual editors but encouraged capitalizing when the certification is referring to a single country (Brazil in this instance) and not needing to do it in a sentence combining certifications from several countries, e.g. "the album was certified gold in five countries." I, of course, have capitalized them on all song articles I have worked on and have a preference for that for the sake of consistency.--NØ 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing that consensus: I see two against capitalisation, one for and two, including you, offering no opinion on this specific issue. Similarly the 2007 discussion you refer to, which only attracted two contributors, ends with "if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine". Is there an official title in Brazil that goes along with such certification? Is the gold award certification trademarked? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gold is not trademarked by Promusicae as far as I can tell. They refer to the certification as "Oro" (capitalized) in Portuguese on their website. Even if you are not satisfied with that discussion, I would say there is a soft consensus the caps usage is okay from all of my own song FAs. Taking Blank Space as an example (admittedly, the other 1989 FAs don't seem to follow this), "multi-platinum" is lowercased when referring to multiple countries grouped together: "It received multi-platinum certifications", then capitalized when referring to individual countries: "Australia (8× Platinum), Canada (4× Platinum), New Zealand (4× Platinum), and the UK (2× Platinum)". You're welcome to start a new discussion about this but said discussion would fall out of the scope of this particular FAC considering there are 10+ other FAs utilizing the caps. Best, NØ 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Three hours after posting this, you changed your mind and made the change. Which is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. You are even allowed to change the article just to get an irritating reviewer off your back. But could you just confirm that going forward you are committed to this version of the article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On this article, sure.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thankss!--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why have you collapsed my addressed comments but not those of other reviewers? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Because this is the longest review (mostly because of my replies). I would prefer to collapse my reply about the certification titles too after you agree Take 2 has been satisfactorily addressed.---NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok. Re take 2, I would prefer you didn't. The closing coordinator may not be as generous as me around MOS:NATIONALITY, so I would like it to be readily see it so they are aware they need to come to a judgement on it. Similarly I would prefer the discussion around G/gold to be easy to spot for the reviewer and for anyone subsequently referring to this discussion. Just one issue above I would like a little more clarity on before supporting. I'm sorry if this FAC has seemed unusually gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement in that last sentence. Descending into lengthy discussions about larger MoS issues affecting several different articles on an FAC about an extremely short article has been unexpected, to say the least. I'll leave take 2 unhatted.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request and cautioning that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Some dates are in parentheses and others aren't. I don't get the impression Otherwise it seems like the sources are formatted consistently. Everything I see appears to be sourced to typical pop-culture sources that I've seen on other FACses on these topics - magazines, news, typically prominent, from what seem to be professional writers. Note my caveat that I am not deeply familiar with any of them. Is Dutch Single Top 100 an official chart or anything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this one and all of the other source reviews you do, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Similarly to the Mckenna Grace article, dates format outside the parentheses when author names are not available. Unfortunately, this is not something I can fix unless the authors for those articles become known. The Dutch Single Top 100 is indeed an official chart recommended by WP:GOODCHARTS.--NØ 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass, then, with the caveat about source unfamiliarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

• 3 I don't see anything about her mending the relationship with her father?

• "Their relationship had long been strained. [...] Adele did go to see Evans before he died. 'I know he loved me, and we actually got our peace before he died.'"

• 4 OK.
• 16 Where is "sentimental"?

• I have now successfully learned that "emotional" can not be swapped out for "sentimental".

• 21 OK
• 24 OK
• 25 OK, but is "low register" a subjective or objective claim?

• Musical register is a technical term so objective. If another journalist said she was singing in a high register they would be objectively wrong.

• 27 Quote's not in the article.

• It is but there are also lyrics in a bracket. Try a search for: "Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child (“Mummy’s been having a lot of big feelings lately”) or blubbering into her phone during bouts of insecurity"

• 30 OK
• 33 OK
• 34 Can I have a quote that supports the sentence?

• "This being an Adele track, Mummy’s a bit blue. 'I don’t really know what I’m doing,' she sighs, to which her nine-year-old squeakily replies: 'At all?'" sort of supports that she feels confused and lost, but the Entertainment Weekly source also cited right after this sentence definitely backs up the whole sentence.

• 40 Can't find the "astonishingly moving" part.

• Switched it out for direct quote "incredibly touching" now

• 44 OK
• 46 OK
• 48 OK
• 49 OK
• 52 OK
• 55 OK
• 57 OK
• 58 OK
• 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Much thanks for investing the time for a spotcheck.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord comment

This review has been stable for a while so I had a look with a view to promote but I'm a little curious about some of the language, particularly something like the song being "complimented" for its "sentimentality". First off, unless there's an EngVar thing, I'd expect a person to be complimented, not a thing; secondly, I'm used to sentimentality being viewed as more pejorative than praise (or perhaps I'm just not that into pop music). Normally I'd recuse and review myself but I'm doing that on a couple of other articles so I wonder if I could take Jo-Jo up on the offer of a spotcheck, and after that call on Mike Christie for a review, mainly of the Reception section as that's what sparked my comment. MaranoFan, please don't make any changes based simply on what I've said here, it's really a drive-by -- let's see Jo-Jo's and Mike's takes before anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just to be clear, "complimented" was one of only five suggestions made at the GAN, that I probably incorporated on a whim. It should not be indicative of any larger problem with the article. The GA reviewer also did spotchecks in case you find that relevant.--NØ 19:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I should be able to pick up the review; I have a house guest at the moment so it might be three or four days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks all, I will aim to take another look at this in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I can nominate another one right?--NØ 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not yet, I starting going through again last night and still have concerns that might impact future noms as well as this one -- pls be patient. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am quite shocked. The rest of the sections are very recently written and ironclad in my opinion. Curious for you to outline the issues.--NØ 12:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Just looking at the reception section.

• "Critics complimented "My Little Love" as one of the most sentimental songs on 30": the sources don't use "sentimental" -- it appears you're using it as a synonym for "emotional", to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. The source phrases appear to be "undoubtedly the record's hardest gut-punch", "one of the most emotional songs on her new album", and one of the two songs described as "its most emotionally wrenching material". I don't think "sentimental" reflects these accurately.
• "considered it even more emotionally wrought than Adele's previous work". This is an odd use of "wrought"; the word's only common figurative use is in the phrase "wrought up", meaning "in an anxious and upset state". The sources have "Adele takes her signature brand of musical heartache to new depths", "Adele gets vulnerable like never before", "Adele has returned with 30, taking bigger risks and revealing enough hard truths to make this her most powerful album yet" (though this is about the album, not this song in particular), and "The song is profoundly vulnerable, and hearing Adele reassure her son that she loves him conveys a truer sense of sadness than any of her past songs about heartbreak." I think vulnerability is the common thread here, rather than a more generic word such as "emotional".
• The rest of the paragraph covers individual comments by reviewers about the emotions and honesty of the song. I think this paragraph (and the whole section, looking further down) has the "A said B" problem. I think you and I have talked about this before in reviews, and if I recall correctly you disagree, but I think keeping the full names of both the journalists and source publications in every case, rather than relegating them to the footnotes, makes it very difficult to write engaging prose. Also, why is Lipshutz's comment here? The source has "never been bolder in her song construction"; I don't understand what he means by that, and rephrasing it as "most intrepid song construction ever" is probably not far enough from the original. I think it's one of those vague phrases that's hard to rephrase because of the vagueness. Similarly, why is Mullin's comment in this paragraph? That comment is about thematic evolution, not emotion and vulnerability.
• I haven't looked at the sources for the second and third paragraphs in as much detail, so I have no comments about the citations to individual reviewers, but the "A said B" problem is definitely there too.

The construction of the section seems sensible to me -- comments about the level of emotion, then the voice notes, then the lyrics. I think if some reviewer and source names were trimmed, and some opinions combined via paraphrase and summarization, it would be shorter, more engaging, and smoother. I am not going to oppose as I have not read the whole article, but I would not be able to support with this section in this form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, how is this my first time realizing you wrote WP:CRS. Highly impressive. @Ian Rose and Mike Christie: I have now significantly reworked the article / section in line with MC's comments. The opinions expressed in paragraph 3 are too diverse to be merged in any meaningful way but done on the others. Cheers.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- I sometimes think that essay is the most influential thing I've written on Wikipedia; it's nice to see other people refer to it.

Here are two options for improvement. I wrote the first set of notes and then realized it's not what I think is the best choice, so I wrote additional notes. I think if you follow these first suggestions it would help, but what I'd do in your shoes is take the second option.

Option 1

• The changes are a big improvement but there are a couple of vocabulary choices I'd like to suggest changing. Looking at the sources I think what's happening is that you're making word choice changes to avoid close paraphrasing. It's usually better to restructure to avoid having to do that.
  • I think you could cut "immensely" in the first paragraph -- we don't need an adverb there.
  • How about "love for" instead of "adulation to"? "Adulation" has connotations we don't want here.
  • "imperative addition" -- this is an example of what happens when you try to change words to avoid paraphrasing problems. The source has "isn't a necessary addition to the record"; you have "didn't form an imperative addition to 30". The CLOP example talks about this sort of paraphrase. How about giving the McCormick quote first, and then adding Kaplan's take: "...during bouts of insecurity', and Consequence's Ilana Kaplan agreed that they weren't needed, though they gave an insight into Adele's state of mind."
• Suggest combining Mapes' and Swann's reviews with "and", moving Petridis before or after them instead of between. They're two very short comments and it would vary the rhythm a bit.
• I see similarities between the first paragraph and the positive comments in the third paragraph from Sanchez, Murray, and Piatkowski. (In fact Piatkowski's review comments aren't really praise at all.)

Option 2. Here's an alternative to the above comments. I think it would be better to quote a bit less. I can see the attraction of some of the quotes but I think our job in a reception section is to summarize and identify common threads in the review. The topic sentences for the paragraph do that to some degree, and you've also done it in the middle of the paragraphs, but I think more could be done. The third paragraph is almost half quotes, for example, and the second paragraph is about 40% quotes. There's no target number, but given that most of the remaining text is names of reviewers or publications that seems like too much to me. I think the key points from the sources are:

• naked, honest song-writing -- perhaps excessively so but some found it touching
• voice notes and closing voicemail -- tells us about Adele's state of mind but some reviewers thought it was excessive
• another of her trademark heartbreak songs, and an evolution of her previous work
• praised for creativity, skill, honesty
• Adele's loneliness and vulnerability

I think if we built a couple of paragraphs that assembled these points into a summary of what reviewers thought, without any quotes at all, then quotes could be re-added for illustration. I think that would give the reader a more natural flow that didn't feel like a list of bullet point quotes. (There are a couple of bits of information such as the Rolling Stone ranking that would have to go in a separate paragraph.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for boiling it down like that. This has been incredibly helpful. I've incorporated both, options 1 and 2, and arrived at a Critical reception section that should hopefully be acceptable. Please feel free to copyedit. Cheers, NØ 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a big improvement. I joined two short and somewhat related paragraphs but otherwise didn't touch the prose. Ian, I'm not going to register a full support on prose as I haven't reviewed the rest of the article but I think this section is now fine. Personally I'd trim some of the reviewer and publication names, but I know not every editor likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review. Marano, Jo-Jo's and Mike's comments and your willingness to take those on board have eliminated some of the initial concerns I had re. the language, but I think there's still a fair bit of room for improvement to get to FA standard. I see issues re. expression, repetition, and overuse of quotes:

• Critics praised the raw and honest songwriting of "My Little Love" and found it touching. -- "and found it touching" seems tacked on, how about Critics praised "My Little Love" as raw, honest and touching.?
• Critics thought the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" conveyed Adele's state of mind but was excessive. -- Aside from another paragraph starting with "Critics", this is cited to only two sources, so I'd suggest "Some reviewers" is more appropriate. Further, you repeat "Adele's state of mind" in a quote later. Why not just say Some reviewers felt the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" was excessive." as that appears to be common to both sources?
• The quote from McCormick could use some trimming: instead of wrote that "the weepy voice notes may be a bit too much. Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child..., consider reducing to wondered "whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child...
• Reviewers also commented on Adele's expression of loneliness and vulnerability in the closing voicemail, which they thought was uncomfortable to listen. -- Do you mean "uncomfortable to listed to"? I think you could lose that last bit entirely and finish the sentence on "voicemail".
• ...and more vulnerable than Adele's previous work -- I don't think a work itself can be vulnerable, but you could say it displayed more vulnerability on Adelle's part...
• They thought it was another one of her trademark heartbreak songs which evolved from her previous work. -- You have stuff on heartbreak songs and her previous work later, you can lose this sentence entirely to avoid the repetition.

I'd have to lean oppose as it reads now, but I can see myself changing that if the above suggestions are acted upon, or if you can convince me it reads better as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All swiftly acted upon. Thanks for helping to polish the prose more. Did this on mobile because I am outside so apologies for any typos. Will correct any when I get home.—NØ 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Ian Rose. I think you can go through it now. While initially rewriting this section, I was trying to match the exact wording of Mike's bullet points above. I think all of your suggestions are improvements, and I have incorporated them. Always here to take care of anything else. Cheers, NØ 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Update: I've also now ran this through repetition-detector.com and it only detects Adele and the song's name as repetition. I believe the Background and Commercial performance sections are free of repetition and mostly free of quotes. In the Composition section, I think losing Aguirre and Chinen's quotes would be detrimental as the adjectives they used seem integral to conveying the comparisons with Gaye and for integrity; other quotes are too small to seem a problem. Reception has already been extensively covered by you and Mike. To my interpretation, all actionable commentary regarding this oppose vote is now exhausted.--NØ 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Tks MF, I expect I'll drop the oppose but let me have another read and perhaps finetune -- I had noticed some of the wording in the lead was identical to parts of the reception section but was going to leave that till reception was attended to; you might have also addressed that now in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I felt the lead and reception could still stand a few tweaks and trims but happy to discuss if it seems too much. Don't have time now to go through in further detail and perhaps support, but striking the oppose. For future reference, I really think it's worth trying PR for music (or other pop culture) articles, given the challenge of creating balanced yet engaging content -- the more eyes before FAC the better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ian. Just for clarity, you no longer object to the article's promotion after the last round of copyedits, correct? The last support to this nomination was added one month ago and it should probably be closed now regardless of the outcome. Regards, NØ 05:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
        • No, if I still objected I wouldn't have struck the oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Query for coordinators

• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: As a smaller article, this has been lucky to get a rigorous go-through by several experts and two recused coords. Can I please go ahead and nominate a Christmas one for December?--NØ 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: I was wondering if I could get a status update on this nomination due to the solid amount of feedback and since the last remaining concerns have also been addressed, and I just can't see anything substantially changing with this now remaining open. Apologies for the double ping and hope you both have a great weekend!--NØ 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 27 December 2023 [19].

---

Teloschistaceae

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

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

Image review

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

• Suggest adding alt text

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

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

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

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

Support from Fritz

• "its their frequent anthraquinone content"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Do any species prey upon Teloschistaceae? I know it was mentioned earlier that some of the chemicals deter herbivory; I'd be interested to know if there are herbivores that are not deterred by that, or if there are species that lack pigments and are consumed more readily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jens

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

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

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

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

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

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

• ascospores – link terms always at first mention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• diverse secondary chemistry – what does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from JM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Is "perforation" jargon?

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

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

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

• "Letrouitineae (containing Brigantiaeaceae and Letrouitiaceae) and its sister clade, Teloschistineae (containing Teloschistaceae and Megalosporaceae)" Are any of these worth linking? Or would they just be properly included within the article on Teloschistales? (If so, might be worth creating redirects and linking anyway.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi J Milburn, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cas Liber

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

• Thanks for looking.

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

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

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

SC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Diarrhea - > diarrhoea (x2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [20].

---

1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season

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

As FAC reviewers may be getting bored of articles about Gillingham F.C., I thought I would instead nominate an article about New Brompton F.C. Oh, hang on - it's the same club - never mind :-) I am particularly pleased with the number of images I was able to find for this one - it's quite unusual to find match action photos in newspapers of this vintage but the Daily Mirror was kind enough to send a photographer along to one of the team's games in 1907. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Pseud 14

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

Comments by Wehwalt

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

Done

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

Added a few words to clarify

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

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

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

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

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

That was embarrassing! Fixed now

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

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

Multiple image template or moving one to another section?

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

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

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

Comments from Mike Christie

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

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

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

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

Source review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

Co-ord query

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

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2023 [21].

---

Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations

Nominator(s): ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If I had a dime for everytime I had an FAC about a book entitled Micronations, I would have exactly one dime. I hope this is not too short. I have exhausted the RS sources I could find. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 04:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The following sources need page numbers for the fact, not just the paper

• de Castro 2022
• Foucher-Dufoix & Dufoix 2012
• Sargent 2006

I have strong questions about BLDGBLOG as a source

Mixing books in both Secondary sources and Bibliography is odd

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Oversight on my part—done. Sargent 2006 only has the one page. As for BLDGBLOG, I am not a fan of it but as it is an interview with one of the authors it should be okay for what it is being used for.. it would be a net negative IMO if the whole section had to be removed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 13:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Not committing to a review yet, but looking at BLDGBLOG's article, it's by an experienced journalist and seems to have a good reputation (the latter I chased up myself, because the article isn't spectacular, but can confirm multiple positive perspectives in RSes). Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Vat

While I'm fine with the use of BLDGBLOG, I'm not sure overall if this article is ready for FAC, or necessarily FACable. Comparing to Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty, there's a noticeable gap.

• The lead is decidedly short; both paragraphs are more like half-paragraphs. There's fairly little about either the content or the background, and no mention at all of the reception.
• The reception is markedly shorter than MtSfS (already a short FA), and its organization is jumbled in the same way I commented on extensively at that FAC. Despite being only two paragraphs long, it's fairly difficult to follow due to its structure of mixing up various names and quotes with one another.
• There are some unusual organizational choices (e.g. the isolated Lonely Planet sentence at the end of Context), and the article as a whole feels perhaps-unavoidably underwritten. The synopsis is very short. Some descriptions are difficult to follow (e.g. The book is authored by Australian journalist John Ryan, freelance journalist George Dunford, and writer and blogger Simon Sellars -- why "Australian journalist" and "freelance journalist"?).

Given the length of the article and the degree to which the sources have been mined, these issues are quite structural/foundational. I'm landing at a weak oppose at the moment, but 'weak' is a meaningful modifier here; I could perhaps be convinced to strike it if other opinions feel otherwise and the article makes progress. Vaticidalprophet 01:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find and address the other points at the same time as the research venturing. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• What is the value of the flag icons?

• File:Micro_cover.jpg has an incomplete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Added alt text and FUR. As for the flag icons, I think they help to illustrate the entries which are otherwise just boring lists and perhaps it makes sense to include them given the context of the section.. they might be fascinating to readers as many of the flags are quite unique and will almost certainly not be known to anyone. I would not do this for countries but for something of this nature I thought eh. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 05:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that they almost certainly will not be known to anyone, how do they meet MOS:DECOR? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I suppose they do not! Removed. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias

I will limit myself to a prose review on this, so my comments do not reflect the quality of the sources used. Generally speaking, the article is well-written and a suitable scope. The article is certainly on the shorter side, but it broadly appears to be sufficient for the subject, with a couple of caveats, listed below.

• The lead could do with expanding slightly to summarise the content of the article. Specifically, I would recommend adding a bit on the structure of the book, in terms of having the three sections for the different 'classifications' of Micronations.
• I would add more context about Lonely Planet as a publisher, to give the reader an understanding that they are a well-known and respected publisher of travel guidebooks, as I think that is quite an important factor in the format of this book.
• "While pitching the idea to the staff at Lonely Planet, Sellars, who founded.." This makes it sound like Sellars was doing the pitching, causing confusion in the second-half of the sentence.
• "They are classified separately from states with limited recognition or quasi-states as.." I know you provide wikilinks, but I wonder if it would be useful to provide brief explanations of each other these things in the article? It may not, particularly if it would get too involved or lengthy.
• Could you provide English translations for the French books titles?
• "..when he was a kid.." "child" rather than "kid", please.
• Broadly speaking, I'm not keen on the use of dashes in place of commas except where it provides additional clarity in complex sentences that also include commas, but I'm not so bothered as to object on these grounds if you leave it as is.
• "It is fully illustrated." What does this mean? Is every single concept or subject of the book illustrated?
• "..as well as a profile of Emperor Norton." Provide some context here; without clicking on the link, I don't know who he is, or why he is relevant to the article/book.
• You mention that later publications change the title to Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations, is that the only change? Does it also have 160 pages and cover exactly the same content, etc?
• "..which includes what the authors equate as serious secessionist attempts.." Personally I think "consider" would be better word than "equate" here. Probably just a personal preference thing.
• Try to avoid repeating "which includes" for all three sections, as it is a bit repetitive. Maybe "which features" / "featuring", "which details" / "detailing" etc. I said I wouldn't cover sourcing, but the P3, P4 and P5 references should cover the content of that section as well as the title.
• "Peter Needham, writing for The Australian, and Jesse Walker in The American Conservative both.." This needs another pair of commas around "in The American Conservative", other it makes it sounds like Needham wrote for both The Australian and The American Conservative.
• "Needham also appreciated.." This feels like an odd start to a paragraph, I think these two paragraphs would be better merged into one, as there isn't a natural break point, and it all covers the same thematic content.
• "He stated that there is only "so many 'wacky' young men.." This should be "there are", not "there is".

That's it from me. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship

Like Vaticidalprophet above, I am unable to satisfy myself that this article could ever exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. Not only is is short, at only 917 words, but it gives the impression of being artificially stuffed to appear longer. The context section of this article seems generally unnecessary; I wouldn't consider it a WP:MAJORASPECT of the article. Then there is the lengthy list of featured micronations, which would seem to be most of List of micronations, as you would surely expect from a micronations gazetteer, right? Finally, the critical reception section includes a quip and a remark that the gazetter might be useful if one wished to use it for its purpose ... ???

Put it this way—I wouldn't like to see it as TFA, unlike Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty (which I note will be there in a couple of weeks). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Sounds fair, I reckon I can copyedit and renominate eventually, but I'll withdraw this article for FA status for now. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 11:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [22].

---

Brother Jonathan (novel)

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

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

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

Comments by Wehwalt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Epicgenius

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

Lead:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Themes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style:

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

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

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

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

Contemporary critique:

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

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

Depiction of Americans:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual content:

• No issues.

Excessive but powerful:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern views:

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

My source for this statement is Richter in 2009 saying Brother Jonathan is "virtually unknown today". Per MOS:DATED, I chose the wording you quoted here. None of the 20th-century scholars I read said anything similar about readers in that century, even though clearly the novel has been obscure almost since it was published. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Realism:

• No issues.

Complexity:

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

Combined.

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

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

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

Eddie891

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review by Vat

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

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

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

Comments from Mike Christie

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my gosh, I know. It turns out 1,324 pages doesn't fit easily into the 700-word max recommended by MOS:PLOTLENGTH. I just trimmed it from 1,078 words to 877. At this point, it is little more than plainly-stated, basic plot points, so I'm stopping there under the plea that this famously long novel with a famously too-complicated plot deserves special permission to exceed the recommended plot summary word limit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• "starts developing relationships with other women: Mrs. P. and Olive Montgomery, whom he met through Harry, but who knows Edith from childhood": "whom" appears to refer to both women so this is easy to misparse. Suggest rephrasing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha! You know, now I'm thinking that the drunk quote is my transcription of somebody else's transcription instead of the original text. The farmer quote certainly is. Here's the original. Based on this fresh look at the original publication, I just standardized those two quotes to spaced en dashes like the rest of the article. Now adherence to MOS:CONFORM is complete! Thank you for keeping on this and helping me figure it out. @Mike Christie: Anything else? Dugan Murphy (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Comments by TompaDompa

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

General comments

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "This included" – inconsistent verb tense.

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

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

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

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

• "mid 1825" – missing hyphen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Themes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Style

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

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

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

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

• "distinct of British precedent" – maybe this is an WP:ENGVAR thing, but I would definitely say "distinct from" (which is also what the WP:LEAD says).

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

• "The novel's prodigious use" – prolific?

  What's wrong with prodigious? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's not wrong, per se, but this is presumably intended to be a statement about quantity. While "prodigious" can be strictly about quantity, it is usually a statement about quality (with or without also being a statement about quantity). "Prolific", on the other hand, is always strictly about quantity. In other words, with "prodigious" the sentence would likely be parsed as "The novel's extensive and skillful use [...]" rather than just "The novel's extensive use [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  I see what you're saying. I switched to "prolific". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "accent marks, italics, and diacritics" – accent marks and diacritics?

"Accent marks" removed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "This experiment comes after Neal played with" – verb tense.

Changed to "came". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Period critique

• As above, I would avoid using "period" here in favour of e.g. "contemporary".

Sure. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Critical reception of Brother Jonathan was mixed but mostly warm. Most of the positive criticism is qualified" – inconsistent verb tense.

Changed "is" to "was". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "[...] commentary on the novel's shortcomings, such as The Ladies' Monthly Museum published: [...]" – this is rather difficult to parse. "Such as" is usually in the sense of "for instance", but here it seems to be in the sense of "of the kind [that]"?

I meant the latter, but anticipating others experiencing the difficulty you did, I added "what" to change it to the former. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Compared to them" – those?

Word swapped. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• "as did readership in general, who largely ignored it" – this is either a sense of "readership" that I am unfamiliar with, or it should be plain "readers" (or possibly "the readership"?). At any rate, articles are supposed to be accessible to most readers, so I would suggest rephrasing this.

"Readers" is a fitting substitute. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• New comment: "Returning to his native Portland, Maine, two years after publishing the novel, he found former friends refusing to meet with him." – this presumably refers to Neal. That should be made explicit (he is not named at all in this paragraph). TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. "He" is now "Neal". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the manners of American characters" – manners or mannerisms? Polite behaviour, general demeanour, customs, peculiarities, or something else?

Changed to "characterization of Americans". Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• New comment: "Conversely, Jeremy Bentham [...]" – "conversely" is analogous to "vice versa" in meaning. The preceding sentence is about finding most of the book poor except for the portrayal of Americans, so "conversely" would be appropriate if Bentham had found the portrayal of Americans to be poor but the rest of the book good. A more appropriate choice of words here might be "on the other hand" or "by contrast". TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  "On the other hand" it is. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• New comment: "blasted the novel" – a bit overly informal. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  Switched to "assailed". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Modern views

• "an incongruous mixture of realism and fantastical Gothic devices" – I would link Gothic fiction.

  There's an earlier use of Gothic that I Wikilinked instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  That works. TompaDompa (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping Dugan Murphy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Thank you for applying your fine-tooth clarity comb to this article! I believe all your comments are addressed and the article is better as a result. The only ones I believe may warrant further discussion are your comments on the NYC skyline, scare quotes, coming-of-age, and prodigious. What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I addressed your new comments, so I believe the only standing comments that may need more discussion are the ones about coming of age and the use of "prodigious". What do you think? Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: Those are indeed the only remaining issues that need to be addressed, apart from a couple of comments that I have just added. See above for my responses to those specific issues and the handful of new ones. TompaDompa (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: Great. I believe I have resolved all the new and old issues you have raised. As long as you think my replacement for "partly" is appropriate. Tell me your thoughts. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy: We're certainly getting there. I spotted one new issue and replied to another. TompaDompa (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I made a couple more tweaks and issued a couple more responses. I think we may be done here. How do you like the last sentence of the lead? Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Cautious support. I have not checked the sourcing and am not sufficiently familiar with the topic to be able to tell whether the article is well-researched, comprehensive, and neutral, but it looks good. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

...working... ——Serial 19:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I can see that some reviewers could have been put off by the amount of black ink thrown up; but it's worse than it looks. That in the cites section are solely due to the use of =N, quote; the comma delineates two items. There's nothing wrong with noting who one's source is quoting, by the way—a good reading of WP:V. But, tbh, I'd go either further or back; if you are going to specify a quoted source, why not the page number as well? After all, the Literary Gazette—fn93, for example—was a weekly publication at its height, so if the reader wants to confirm your quote, they appear to have no small search ahead of them. And precision would not seem to be furthered by a pageless source being not only pageless, but only 'ostensibly' so (fn96). I suggest keeping it simple. I see several works from (random cut-off date for modern scholarship) pre-1970, but they are not overly used, and the most commonly used are modern works. In any case, there's undoubtedly little wrong with the University of Wisconsin or The New England Quarterly. It's a pretty niche topic, and a search of several databases suggests that nothing that should be used here has been overlooked. Couple of other points.

Regarding citation 93 and others like it: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Could you rephrase? If you're saying that I should find what page in what issue of The Literary Gazette is being quoted by Cairns, I don't see why that is necessary. I'm not citing The Literary Gazette. I'm citing Cairns. I'm just making clear that the quote is not Cairns's words, though I got the quote from Cairns. Let me know if you think this should be discussed further. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as yours is a high-quality and independent reliable source, we don't need to know who they cite. You cite what you read; you only need to cite who they cite when you read the second thing through the first. See WP:SAYWHERE: 'follows the practice in academic writing of citing sources directly only if you have read the source yourself. If your knowledge of the source is secondhand—that is, if you have read Jones (2010), who cited Smith (2009), and you want to use what Smith (2009) said—make clear that your knowledge of Smith is based on your reading of Jones'.

Ok. I removed all the references within inline citations to who is being quoted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Gale is a reputable publisher, we don't need to be told it's an A Cengage Company.

Sure! I literally copied how it was written on the title page. I deleted that part. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• If you're citing a chapter in Watts & Carlson, that's the required cite; the complete monograph is unnecessary. Likewise DiMercurio. It's the authors of what you cite the reader needs, not who edited it.

If I understand what you're saying here, then the source listings for chapters in Watts & Carlson and DiMercurio don't need a title parameter. Unfortunately, when I delete those title parameters, those source listings render with an error message. I've left them as-is for now. But if what you're saying is that I should delete the listings for these two books, then see my response to your last comment. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed! Responded there. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• 'Cambridge, England'. UK, I think. Also re. Spiller.

Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Schumacher, Merlob, need publisher/location info for consistency.

Merlob, Pethers, Sivils, Richter, and Schumacher are all book chapters. Each of these source listings include a link at the end to refer to the full book listing. It is designed that way to avoid repeating the same information over and over again in the chapter listings. This is the format settled upon during the FAC review for John Neal (writer) three years ago, which also cites chapters in the same two books. So I've been following that precedent ever since. Do you feel strongly about this format choice? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

As book chapters, they need to be cited within the context of who they are published. See WP:HOWCITE, which basically shows that everything you've got in your chapter cites should be augmented with what you have for the rest of the book. Yes, this might result in the same book being cited several times. This is good, as the reader needs to know where the material is to find on each occasion. And using the full book citation on its own makes it appear as you're using the whole book, which you're not.

Ok. DiMercurio and Watts & Carlson are removed from the source list and their publication information is added to the relevant chapters. That means that I changed all the Richter 2009 inline citations to Richter 2018 to keep them linked to the proper source listing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

——Serial 20:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for reviewing my sources! I responded to your comments about handling chapters vs books and attributing quotes. Do you think either point needs more discussion? Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem, Dugan Murphy, and apologies for the delay getting back to you. I hope I have clarified my queries while emphasizing the importance of following an English Wikipedia content guideline, WP:REF, in this case, an extension of policy, WP:V. ——Serial 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I believe all your comments are fully addressed. Thank you for helping me improve the article! Would you say that this article has passed your review? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No, thank you Dugan Murphy for providing me with a really interesting read. You've clearly put a lot of work into the topic. Congratulations  :) and yes, "consistency being key", etc., @FAC coordinators: I'm happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial 19:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2023 [23].

---

Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln

Nominator(s): Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

After several months of deep diving and a couple years of tinkering, I am reasonably sure that this is the most comprehensive account that exists anywhere of Whitman's lectures. I think it's ready for FAC. Happy to hear any feedback. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. My inputs here may be a bit patchy.

• First sentence: how about 'The American poet Walt Whitman gave a series of lectures on ex-US president Abraham Lincoln between 1879 and 1890.'
• In any event, use 'between ...', not "from ..."
• "The lectures began as a benefit for Whitman". What does this mean?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

tweaked the phrasing a bit Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "several poems in the president's memory." Should probably be 'President'.
• "the 1855 release of Leaves of Grass. The brief volume released in 1855". Do we need telling the year of release twice?
• "sometimes in close quarters." Does that work in USvar? BritVar would have 'at close quarters'.
  • It doesn't sound *wrong* to me, but "at close quarters" sounds better.
• "The historian Stephen B. Oates argued that". It is usual to present author's opinions etc in the present tense. (Which I find odd, but no onw pays any attention to me.)
  • I pay attention to you!

:-)

• "Whitman worked his New York Sun article into a readable format." Why was the version printed in the Sun not readable?
• Suggest linking benefit.
• "the lectures were usually attended only by those who could afford tickets." Any chance of rephrasing this. Especially in the light of the first part of the sentence.

• "in Ford's Theatre upon the night of the assassination." "upon"! Really?
  • well, not really
• "An ad for his Elkton, Maryland, lecture". I think 'advertisement' would be more encyclopedic.
• Notes: it is not normal to give page numbers in line, that is what citations are for.
  • I agree, but I think it works effectively to provide the link to the book in the note, rather than adding the name and the citation (I try to avoid the citation within the explanatory footnote when possible). I've done it before (for instance, here), but if you don't think it works am happy to change both.

Bleh! On one level I am not too fussed, but it definitely is not "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", so I think it needs to go.

*fine*. I'll do it. But not because you asked. Because UndercoverClassicist did below.

• "Sources contemporary to the lecture are similarly conflicted." I think you mean 'in conflict', or perhaps 'Sources contemporary to the lecture similarly conflicted'.
• Link pit.
• "paid Whitman the $350 when he reached New York". If you are going to say "the $350" you need to introduce it.
• "While Whitman had not seen Lincoln's assassination, he interviewed Peter Doyle". How or why would Doyle's account be useful?

Welcome back. It is good to see another lovingly researched article on Whitman. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Gog the Mild, I think I've addressed all of these points through edits. Let me know if there's anything else or something not adequately handled. Much appreciated, as always. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• "They centered around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln". Maybe 'the assassination of Lincoln', as he has now been introduced in full in the previous sentence.

• I think removing "in the President's memory" is a retrograde step. A reader is liable to be left wondering why Whitman read out some random poems and what the "such as" alludes to.
  • I'm not sure where you mean.

Ok. You have changed "in the president's memory" to "in tribute to the fallen President". Fair enough.

• Lead: "sometimes included readings of poems"; article: "Whitman brought a "reading book" with him to the lectures that contained fifteen poems he read at their conclusion." Seems contradictory, as the latter implies that poems were read at every lecture, and "sometimes" only at a minority.

The contradiction is still there.

You are, as always, correct. I am currently knee deep (again) in sourcing and basically, we don't know because we don't have complete accounts of every lecture. Thinking of the best way to phrase it, but leaning towards "usually" with an EFN.

Flattery will get you everywhere. I wasn't sure if it was that or contradictory sources. I hesitate to comment without having read the sources, but yeah, something like 'usually' in the lead and article and an efn commenting on an absence of evidence ruling out a categorical 'always' sounds appropriate.

Or, you could go with " Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes.)"

That's actually what I was going for with the several contradictions that have been pointed out here and below :P Whitman would like things not lining up!

A couple of responses to your responses and three new points above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Think I've responded to all the above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, I've gone ahead and used "often", which is what the Encyclopedia of Whitman uses as well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

added alts. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Abraham_Lincoln_by_Von_Schneidau,_1854.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Added tag, was definitively published by 1896 ... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

UC

No promises on timing, but I'll try to get to this one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Image captions shouldn't have a period/full stop unless they are complete sentences.
  • Seems like most of the images here were in need of full stops rather than having extra ones, unless I'm mistaken. Should be added
    • I still see some extras. For example, the first image has the caption The cover for a program from one of Whitman's lectures on Lincoln.: that's not a full sentence (it doesn't have a verb), so shouldn't have a full stop/period. The second likewise. The programme does need two full stops, because the second sentence is complete (even if the first isn't), but the announcement and the ticket should not have them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Right, cut them. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I get a sense in the lead that we're really talking about one lecture, that he gave or tweaked multiple times, but I'm not sure it's really clear either way.
  • thinking on
    • Does the revised phrasing work better? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
      • There's a bit of a problem with gave a lecture on Abraham Lincoln ... These lectures...: I think the issue is that lecture can refer both to the text and to the performance. Perhaps we could generally use the plural ("Whitman's lectures were generally well received"), but also make clear that they were also generally the same as each other? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
        • I've gone through and replaced most instances of "lectures" with "deliveries [of the lecture]" or something generally similar. How does that work? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Whitman (left) and Lincoln (right) c. 1854 when they were 35 and 45 years old respectively: we need at least one comma here; I'd stick one after 1854 and consider another after (right). Mind you, you could also delete right, given that there's only two images.
  • Done the commas, kept 'right' I think the consistency is nice, though not wedded to it.
    • Not a problem. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Although they never met: suggest something like "never spoke" or "were never introduced"; if I'd seen someone at close quarters, I'd feel I was lying if I said I'd never met them.
  • I think never met is the best description, because I want to avoid the implication that Lincoln was particularly aware of Whitman. Cut "at close quarters" because I don't think it's necessary and might confuse more.
    • I think the current framing works.
• the fallen President: minor, but we might be channelling Whitman's emotions or WP:PUFFERY a bit with fallen.
  • cut the word
• and delivering one as early as the 1850s.: do we know anything more about this lecture or its circumstances – and why he then seems to have done no more for nearly three decades?
  • Not... really. I'd assume Whitman would have struggled to find respectable places that would let him (or want him to) lecture there. He also may have gotten distracted with Leaves of Grass & similar poetry work. Added a date and place to the lecture, but I don't think it's worth going into much more detail, and the secondary sources don't talk a lot about his lecturing efforts in the decades that followed, unfortunately.
• the physician Silas Weir Mitchell attributed this paralysis was attributed to a ruptured blood vessel in Whitman's brain: something's gone awry here.
  • revised
• Money made from these lectures constituted a major source of income for him in the last years of his life: I'd give Whitman's date of death here, as many readers will otherwise go to look it up and lose their flow.
  • added
• associated increase in a perception of Whitman as a more respectable figure: the double comparative is awkward: suggest losing the more.
  • cut
• Can we have the dollar amounts contextualised somehow, if only via the inflation template, perhaps in footnotes?
  • working on
    • I think the problem might be that inflation doesn't tell the whole story, so I'm not sure if it would be really helpful. For instance, for the dollar ticket, {{Inflation|US|1|1887|2022}} gives us 33. Still doesn't, I think, make it really clear how innaccesible the lectures were for most people, because it was just so much less common to have spending money as well.
      • I think of the inflation template as a last resort: when I can, I much prefer to put in a more reckonable figure as context. Could we find, for instance, some sense of what an average person's pay was during this period, or a sense of what else you could get for a dollar? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I just removed it. The available sourcing is super murky on what people *could* have afforded versus *wanted* to spend money on, and I don't think we lose out on much by instead saying that the lectures were generally only attended by members of high society, instead. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• We introduce practically everyone outside the table, but then don't introduce new people within it; I'd nail WP:NOTPAPER to the mast and introduce them all, personally.
  • Working on
    • Introduced all, but grouped the authors as just 'authors', if that works?
• Whitman was described by the scholar Merrill D. Peterson as : a bit of a contentious one, but I'd generally expect the past tense for scholarship to cover broadly historic views (in other words, people who knew him); if we mean broadly current views, I'd expect the present. See later with Gregory Eiselein too.
  • Should be all done
• Demodocus, a divine bard: Demodocus is only metaphorically divine. If you feel it appropriate, you could add some context here: Demodocus tells the glorious but tragic story of Troy, leading Odysseus - who was there, and is listening in disguise - to give away his identity by being moved to weep.
  • Hm, I cut some stuff to hew a little closer to the sourcing. I think more context would go beyond what the sourcing says.
    • Perhaps fair enough (though of course there's plenty of sources on Demodocus, even if not specifically on Whitman and Demodocus): I think the quote gives a nice idea of what Whitman might have been thinking. MOS:CONFORM and MOS:& would advise replacing the ampersand with "and", though. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  done Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• generally began by "downplaying his ability to handle the emotionally challenging task that lay before him": this is a rhetorical commonplace known as (a) captatio benevolentiae: you might wish to get that term in there.
  • I agree, but since the sourcing doesn't use the phrase am not inclined to add
    • That's a reasonable call, though our sources don't have the same audience and editorial considerations as we do (they don't necessarily have to be understandable to a broad audience, for example, or to follow other aspects of the FA criteria): there's plenty of parts of the MoS and other guidelines that draw a distinction between articles being built on sources and articles looking exactly like those sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good point, and I'll go through the sourcing and see if I can justify to myself making the connection more explicit. But if none of them draw the connection between downplaying and catching goodwill (though that's definitely what it is), I'd say it's too much of a stretch. Will get back to you on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing it there. I'd lean against adding a link. But if you feel super strongly I will do it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• condense—A nationality: I think MOS:CONFORM would like us to decapitalise that A, with apologies to Whitman.
  • Done. Whitman would hate the idea of conforming...
• Suggest introducing briefly who Anacreon was; one of these things in the list of poets is quite unlike the others.
  • Working on
    • Should be done
• Whitman revised the text of "The Midnight Visitor" that he delivered.: I'm not sure revised is quite the right word for "changed someone else's work": "made his own alterations to"?
  • done
• as tickets were too expensive: the image to the right seems to suggest that they cost fifty cents; could that be put in and contextualised? I imagine many readers will see that picture and be slightly confused, as that doesn't immediately appear a lot of money today.
• in religious silence, for its sudden grace notes, vibrant tones, hymnlike progress, and Olympian familiarity seemed at times the whispering of the stars: may wish to wikilink grace notes, hymn and Olympian.
  • Done
• Whitman's lecture was intended to give the impression of presenting a very factual account: appropriately where "O Captain, My Captain" is involved: could very be removed or replaced with something more precise?
  • cut
• Whitman's lecture ... They were delivered: antecedent doesn't match pronoun.
  • Fixed, hopefully
• Note C: a long note with lots of citations written out in prose. Suggest moving these to footnotes, as has been done for the NYT: e.g. Loving writes that Carnegie was not in the box that he paid for.[footnote: Loving 1999, p. 450].
  • Done
• emphasizing a final "triumph" for Whitman: I don't think we can use emphasizing ("making more apparent or obvious") like this.
  • Agreedm went with represetnign
• delivering the lecture regularly became "vital to [Whitman's] permanent achievement of [fame].": less ambiguous as regularly delivering the lecture (otherwise, did he deliver it regularly or did it regularly become vital?).
  • Good point, done that
• What's the being edited out or summarised by [fame] in the final quotation?
  • literally, "fame". Blake says something along the lines of "the lecture was a performance of fame and was vital to his permanent achievement of that state." (Not a direct quote, but I just read the relevant passage an hour or so ago and that's exactly what Blake is saying).

A cracking article: most of these things are minor and largely matters of taste, and I am perfectly happy if we end up disagreeing on them. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, I'll respond throughout the week. Currently taking a deep dive into the sourcing... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Responded above, a few I'm still working on. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for taking a look. I have responded to most of your queries directly, a few questions. Not sure what to do to make the prices more understandable. I might be able to dig up something like average salaries in NYC in the late 19th c. for comparison? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've suggested exactly the same thing further up: another good approach is to find something else that you can get for about the same amount, or much less (for example, if a dollar would pay your rent for a month, say as much). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist, I think I've responded to your points above. I think the best way to avoid all the confusion over the ticket price is to say the opposite, which is equally true. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support: looks good to me; I'm perfectly happy to disagree on a few issues and you've made a sensible case in every instance where we do. Nice work and a fascinating article. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "Whitman, who had long aspired to be a lecturer, gave his first lecture in New York City's Steck Hall on April 14 the following year. Over the course of the next eleven years, he gave the lecture at least ten more times," To vary the wording, can se say, "gave his first talk" or use another synonym?

• Done

• "that the poet Richard Watson Gilder also supported the idea" probably Glider is important to this tale not as a poet, but as an influential editor.

• Changed description

• "John Hay". Perhaps the significance of Hay's attendance could be explained in that he was one of Lincoln's secretaries and was in the course of publishing (with John Nicolay) a major Lincoln biography. As Hay knew Lincoln intimately, Hay's presence likely gave Whitman nerves.

• Yes, I think a source goes into more detail about the importance of that. As long as it isn't Epstein, I will find and incorporate.

• I think it was. But I added Hay's most relevant connections.

• Some of the groups of references are out of numerical order. Did you intend that?

• Should be ordered

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk)

Got one point to respond to in more depth, the rest should be done Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt, all your points should be addressed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Is there anything else? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Chris

• "the physician Silas Weir Mitchell attributed this paralysis was attributed" - can we avoid this repetition?

• cut the last two words

• "Silas Weir Mitchell attributed [...] and in May he gave up on plans for delivering the lecture that year" - it wasn't Mitchell who gave up on these plans

• Clarified

• "Ad for Whitman's Lincoln lecture" - "ad" is a bit slangy, can we use the proper word?

• Done

• "However, he also told" => "However, Whitman also told" (the most recent man mentioned was Carnegie, so "he" is ambiguous

• Done

• "Whitman's lecture was intended [...] They were delivered" - subject jumps from singular to plural

• Fixed

• That's it, I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, ChrisTheDude, All your points should be addressed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Failed ping of ChrisTheDude Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review: Pass (no spot checks)

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Bibliography

• I don't supposer Edward Whitley (environmentalist) is the co-author of Whitman in Context.
  • Unfortunately not, this is a Lehigh University professor.
• Recommend Wikilinking Philip Callow, Charles Glicksburg, Jerome Loving, James E. Miller, David Nasaw, William Pannapacker, and Horace Traubel.
• Buinicki book: Iowa is not capitalized.
• Callow book: Internet Archive link is broken
• Larson book: Google Books link goes to a particular page. I recommend the shorter link to the overall entry.
• Same comment for the Pannapacker book. Recomment this link instead.
• Miller book: the book with that ISBN was published 2006, but there was maybe an audiobook version published in 2007. Which are you citing?
  • Assuming you mean Nasaw. It's the 2006 edition
• Grier book: The Google Books link goes to volume 3. Is this a source listing for an entire multi-volume work or just volume 3?
• Some of the ISBNs are hyphenated and some are not. I recomment standardizing their appearance.

Aside from the comments above, the sources are all formatted properly and complete. The sources are all published by academic publishers, written by academic authors, and/or held by academic libraries, so they all seem legit. Given how many of them there are, and how many different authors there are, the source list seems to represent a reasonable breadth of scholarship. Many sources are reasonably new and a few are older as well. Many are focused right on the subject and others are pretty close to being focused right on it.

Thanks for having a look, I think I've addressed all of these. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I notice Glicksberg is still not Wikilinked. Is that not the right Charles Glicksberg or did you miss that one? And you were right about Nasaw vs. Miller. Other than the very minor matter of Wikilinking Glicksberg or not, I see all my comments above are addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Just linked him, It's because I used author-link instead of editor-link Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

References

I'll look at these in-line citations next. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• In footnote C, why use sfn for Krieg and Kaplan, but harvnb for Nasaw? I think the footnote would read more clearly if converted to sfn.
  • Just a mistake, should be standardized
• Why are some of the cited books and academic articles written out in the Bibliography with short citations in the References section, while others are written out in their entirety in the References section? According to WP:FACR 2C, you need consistency, and I recommend going with the short format for all citations with page numbers.
  • Should have gotten the rest of the journals into the bibliography.
• Aside from the above, I think the Moyne citation should be more page-specific than the current 10-page range.
• Citation 6 for "CENSORED": It appears that the page of the online exhibit you are citing is called "Banned, Burned, and Bowlderized". Perhaps that should be the web page title, you should move "CENSORED: Wielding the Red Pen" to the website name, and you should make University of Virginia the publisher.
  • Done
• Pannapacker 1998: I recommend adding an archive link.
• I think the Griffin citation should be formatted like the Pannapacker 1998 citation.
• Same for the Eiselein citation.
  • Added archives and format
• Citation 57 "Notes": the link brings you to page 219, but you want 211, so I suggest switching to this link. Same for the archive link.
  • Changed the actual link, archive.org tells me that the link 'doesn't exist', so can't changei t.
• Is there a relevant web page to link for the Moyne article and/or the Walt Whitman Review?
  • No, has not been digitized. It's the old Walt Whitman Quarterly Review, but we have no wikipedia article for it :(
• Same for the 1887 Washington Post article. Perhaps newspapers.com?
  • Added proquest ID, that's the best I can find
• Citation 70 for Whitman's speech notes: This should mention the Walt Whitman Papers in the Charles E. Feinberg Collection, of which this document is a part.
  • I'm not sure what change you want here. The blog itself isn't a part of the collection? We have a link to the collection in external links
    • After your last round of edits, the citation in question is now number 71: Whitman, Walt. "'Death of Abraham Lincoln,' notes". Library of Congress. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Because this is a manuscript item in the Feinberg Collection at the Library of Congress, I think the collection name should be included. Otherwise, the citation suggests to me that it is for an article published by a publication called Library of Congress, which is not the case. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see. Amended the citation. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Golden 1988: the original link isn't working for me. You? The archive link works fine.
  • Works for me?
• Pannapacker 1998 could use an author-name Wikilink.
  • Done
• Is Arthur Golden the same one as Golden 1988?
  • I don't think so, no.
• In note C, there appears to be an extra space between Blake and a comma.
  • Done

Aside from the comments above, I find the citations listed in the References section to be formatted properly. One of my comments above is about the inconsistency of formatting, which is the largest issue, I think. The sources listed here but not in the Bibliography all seem reliable and so they further broaden the breadth I acknowledged above in the Bibliography section. There are a few primary sources in the References section, but they serve only to complement and reinforce secondary sources, so their use seems aligned with WP:PST. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Dugan Murphy, I have responded to all your points above except the one about narrowing down the page range of Moyne, which I will specify as soon as I can get to the library and look at the book. The Walt Whitman Review articles are not, to my knowledge, digitized. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've got one lingering comment above (formerly citation 70, now citation 71). Everything else is addressed, except for adding a page number to Moyne, which I trust you'll do later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dugan Murphy, I've responded to that point and just specified Moyne to two pages. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Splendid. I'd say this nomination passes my source review. I haven't done any spot checks, but otherwise, these sources and citations look great. I have an FAC of my own that is in need of reviewers. If you are willing to chime in, it would be a big help. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance if you make time to take a look! Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2023 [24].

---

12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam

Nominator(s): TheUzbek (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 12th electoral term of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, and I've been thinking of nominating it since I got the 12th Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam to WP:FL standard.

What is a central committee? It is the highest decision-making body of a socialist state when the party congress is adjourned. It is composed of the entire national leadership of the country. This organ makes decisions on every matter of national importance. This is the only article of its kind (about communist institutions, I think) that has been nominated for FL.

I aim to create a Featured topic of the 12th CC term on members, alternates, politburo composition, secretariat composition, inspection commission composition, military commission composition and the 12th National Congress. Hopefully, this nomination succeeds and I can begin work on the 12th CPV National Congress. --TheUzbek (talk) 11:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC

Hi TheUzbek and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion
• Remember the reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side
• Reviewing also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write this. I will take some of my spare time to review one or more articles :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:Nguyễn_Phú_Trọng_cropped.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and done on all points! :) TheUzbek (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

Part1

• Done "His term and the 12th CC were marked by the nationwide anti-corruption campaign, commonly called blazing furnace, that began in 2013" a nationwide for "the"? and I think it would be good to have the original langauge version of blazing furnace included
  • I don't quite understand what you mean by "the"?

    I meant to suggest "a nationwide anti-corruption campaign" instead of "the nationwide anti-corruption campaign" Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done TheUzbek (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• not sure about the red links in infobox?
  • Some of them are very important articles, such as the Charter of the Communist Party of Vietnam, which is a must article which English WP is currently missing

    it can be added to the infobox when created Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done "The campaign's intensity increased during the 12th term as it began enveloping retired, incumbent and senior leaders at all levels of governance." - enveloping doesn't seem right, perhaps investigating, although that's getting a bit alliterative perhaps

  it seems you've done this but didn't mark done Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Correct, Done TheUzbek (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done link to Trần Quốc Vượng (politician) on first mention in lead
• Done you are getting a few "CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)" error messages in the commmentaries section
  • How do you fix that?

    do you see the error? if you do you can click through to the (convulted) help page Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not done (not the same guy, but introduced interlinking) Le Long Hiep, - is this Lê_Hồng_Hiệp? if it is, prob worth adding an interlanguage link with Template:Interlanguage link. and if there are any similar cases, worth doing for them as well eg Nguyễn Thanh Nghị, Nguyễn Xuân Anh, Lê Quốc Phong,
• Done link Nguyễn Phú Trọng on first mention
• Done could you briefly explain what Đổi Mới is, otherwise it seems like a person
• Done "Seventeen of the 180 members and 3 of the 20 alternates" - 3 can be "three", 20 could be twenty or not, I suppose you are using "Seventeen" because it begins the sentence
• Done " 12th Central Committee. On 26 January, the congress delegates voted on the 11th CC's list of nominees for members and alternates of the 12th CC" - should put (CC) after Central Committee
• Done "16 members of the sitting Governmen" - starting with 16 not sixteen?
• Done "After being elected on 26 January 2016, the 12th CC convened for its 1st Plenary Session on 27 January 2016 at the Headquarters of the Party Central Committee in Hà Nội during the 12th National Congress to elect the 12th Politburo, 12th Central Inspection Commission (CIC) and three members of the 12th Secretariat, as well as the General Secretary and the CIC Chairman" - suggest breaking into two sentences
• Done "Asked about his re-election, Nguyễn Phú Trọng stated, "I did not expect the Congress to introduce and elect me to the Central Committee. Then, the First Plenary Session elected me to the post of General Secretary with almost 100% absolute votes. I was surprised because my age was advanced while my health and qualifications were limited. I also asked for leave, but the Party assigned me the task, and I had to comply."[13]" - I'm seeing both re-election and reelected, can you standardise across the text? also I wouyld expect to see the quotation in its original language in the citation
  • Why? and in this instance it does not make grammatical sense.

    What I meant was it's not good to have forms of both "re-elect" and "reelect" in the same article, it needs to be standardised to one or the other Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Aha, I misunderstood! :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Done "The election results were announced in the morning of 28 January by Đinh Thế Huynh, on behalf of the Presidium of the 12th National Congress, to the congress delegates.[14] Đinh Thế Huynh reported that the electoral process carried out by the 1st Plenary Session were in accordance with the CPV Charter and the Election Regulations passed by the 12th National Congress, and were in accordance with inner-party democracy.[15] On the same day, the re-elected Nguyễn Phú Trọng delivered a closing speech on behalf of the 12th Central Committee to the 12th National Congress.[16]" - do we need anything more than the first sentence here?
• "Done Seven members served in the 11th Politburo. " - I'd say "had served" reads better
• "one had led a committee of the 13th National Assembly of Vietnam (Trương Thị Mai)" - good that you give the Vietnamese term for 13th National Assembly of Vietnam but this needs to be done consistently eg also for 11th Central Committee and Presidium of the 12th National Congress my mistake, that's someone's name

Part2

• Done "Scholar Alexander Vuving notes that Nguyễn Phú Trọng's election as general secretary "surprised many observers."[18] Rodion Ebbighausen, writing for Deutsche Welle, wrote that Nguyễn Phú Trọng's reelection was a victory by conservative Marxist–Leninist forces over Nguyễn Tấn Dũng's capitalist approach. He also highlighted the personal differences between them: Nguyễn Phú Trọng affirmed collective leadership while Nguyễn Tấn Dũng represented an individualistic ethos. While unsure what consequences this would have for Vietnamese politics, Ebbighausen opined that the new leadership would take a more oppressive stance on foreign media and dissidents.[19] A report from the BBC News shared Ebbighausen's conservative versus reformer analysis and noted that Nguyễn Tấn Dũng was perceived "as modern, and friendly towards the US. He has also gained popularity domestically with strong anti-China rhetoric when it comes to disputed territory in the South China Sea".[20]" - whilst the Vuvig summary is good, I don't think we need direct quotes from DW or BBC, prob better to summarise the arguments
• Done Photo caption: "The 2nd Plenary Session adopted the Politburo's proposal on nominating Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, Trần Đại Quang and Nguyễn Thị Kim Ngân as Prime Minister, President and Chair of the National Assembly, respectively." - it's confusing me to have three people described and two pictured without any pointer as to who is who. Also you can if you want wikilink names in captions (or keep them unlinked, as long as it's standardised across the other pictures - I see at the moment of bit of both)
• Done "Trần Đại Quang steered the proceedings on the opening day. Đinh Thế Huynh started the proceedings in the early morning by reading," 2x proceedings
• "The plenum supported the 12th Politburo's proposal for the 2016–2020 socio-economic development plan and agreed to send it to the 11th Session for approval. In addition, it made some proposals of its own―but those proposals were not made public. The 12th CC informed the Politburo that the mid-term State finance-budget and mid-term public investment plans needed further refinement before being submitted to the 11th Session. Members of the 12th CC emphasised the importance of investing in agriculture, farmers and rural areas; revamping the state administration and procedures; and strengthening the business climate. Other concerns aired included high government overspending; bad public debt; the size of the public debt amid volatilities seen in the global financial market; climate change policies to mitigate against severe saltwater intrusion in the Mekong Delta and drought in the South Central Region and the Central Highlands and environmental pollution; and traffic bottlenecks in cities and large urban localities. Moreover, the committee stated its wish that annual, mid-term and five-year socio-economic development plans must not conflict with the decisions of the 12th National Congress and should be suited to the special conditions of each locality and sector. Another suggestion the plenum made was creating action programmes to implement party-state policies and guidelines. The 2nd Plenum reached consensus on a list of nominees for State agencies to be proposed to the 11th Session, which included picking nominees for the offices of President, Prime Minister and Chair of the National Assembly.[26] " - you seem to be giving a lot of details which could probably be summarised better. this is admittedly difficult since the systemic bias of wikipedia dictates most readers will need a lot of things contextualising, but on the other hand the level of detail is making my eyes glaze over and probably is a factor in this article not picking up more reviews. maybe WP:DETAIL is helpful. This article is 12740 words and WP:CANYOUREADTHIS suggests "At 10,000 words it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style"
  • The question is really how, because I don't feel it is that easy. It's already shortened a bit.
  • As for WP:DETAIL the problem here is that none of the plenary sessions could be anything other than a stub on their own, which makes it a bit more difficult. Alas, also due to the great centralisation of powers in the CPV Central Committee it deals with everything, which makes it also a bit more difficult to summarise.

    replied on this issue below Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not done, but clarified what nomination list actually is and why it is important coming fast on the heels of the above point, "Nguyễn Phú Trọng noted that based on the voting results at the plenum, the Politburo would continue to refine the nomination list before submitting it to the National Assembly.[26] " does not seem worth including, unless I've missed something
• So I've got to the end of the 2nd plenary and since there are 15 total, I think I'll stop here for a break and to discuss with TheUzbek the level of detail. Mujinga (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, thanks for reviewing. I've replied :)

  As for WP:DETAIL, I'm very interested in finding a way that works. This is the first of its kind nominated to FL so I'm hoping this one will function as a model of sorts for these kinds of articles. However, it is not usual for a central committee of a ruling communist party to convene for so many meetings. The Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party convenes for seven in five years. When that is said I think it is difficult to move information from this article to other articles due to the role of the Central Committee in the Vietnamese communist system. TheUzbek (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK so you have obviously put a lot of work into this, so sorry to be negative, I'm going to oppose for now.

  I'm interested, were you using other articles as a guide? I've had a look around and don't see this level on detail in for example 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party and I don't see any FAs in this style. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just means we need to get the style right going forward and that might take some time.

  I'm concerned about level of detail and your replies don't really persuade me that the current level is necessary in the article, which could be reframed into a list of plentary sessions for example. We are at FAC not FLC however. I see in the GOCE copy edit Voorts made some helpful comments about how you are giving a lot of detail without saying what actually happened and I don't think you have taken that fully on board. Yes it's hard to trim, but it still needs doing. It prob would have been a good idea to take this to Wikipedia:Peer review before coming here. You also said to Voorts "I'll begin work on expanding the "Analysis, interpretations and legacy" section" then put that bit into the 1st plenary section and didn't expand it.

  I was at first concentrating on a prose review, and whilst I'd say the prose does need more work to now I'm seeing the issues as more structural, so my oppose is based on criteria 2b and 4.

  I was hoping you would start to chop the article down a bit when I made my previous comments, instead some of your replies such as "none of the plenary sessions could be anything other than a stub on their own" and "Some of them are very important articles, such as the Charter of the Communist Party of Vietnam, which is a must article which English WP is currently missing" suggest to me that perhaps you see the history of the Communist Party of Vietnam as more important than wikipedia style guidelines, when in fact they're both important on wikipedia. There's no issue at all with each plenary being a stub (or making a list of plenaries) and this reformulated article being an overview (although I appreciate this may take some time). I hope these comments make sense and can be taken constructively.

  Also as a side topic, going forwards could you reply below each of my comments and sign (which you have partly done), rather than writing done at the beginning of a comment I made? Thanks, Mujinga (talk) 10:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I hope I can persuade you otherwise.

  1. The 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party article is about a specific event, and not a whole load of meetings. To compare this article to that one is misleading and shows a lack of understanding of the topic at hand. As I said, I could not use any articles as a guide since there is no comparative article on English Wikipedia, which makes it important that you work with me instead of opposing :)
  2. I might have written misleadingly, I have no problems cutting the article, but I would prefer that we go through the whole article together and then cut (it would be easier that way I presume)
  3. "reframed into a list of plentary sessions for example" Again, it seems you misunderstand the topic at hand and it would fail to show the importance of the subject at hand.
  4. "Yes it's hard to trim" - again, I'm for trimming!
  5. "Analysis, interpretations and legacy" the reason I removed it was that I didn't find enough text to make that good, so I instead merged the analysis part into the plenum articles wherever I got relevant commentaries. So I did expand analysis and commentary, but added it to the main article instead of having separate sections.
  6. "none of the plenary sessions could be anything other than a stub on their own" , but this is sadly true. Vietnam is non-transparent about its decision-making process. Again, I feel you show a lack of comprehension of the subject. They would not be anything more than stubs, and that's a fact. There are always exceptions to these rules, such as the 8th Session of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia, an article devoted to a specific plenum which has gotten a whole lot of attention, but none of these have. That's a fact, sadly.
  7. "Charter of the Communist Party of Vietnam, which is a must article which English WP is currently missing" suggests to me that perhaps you see the history of the Communist Party of Vietnam" . I honestly don't understand how you reached that conclusion. Red links might not always be good, but some red links are, I think necessary, due to the article's weight. If Mao Zedong didn't have an article here on WP I would assume the correct step was to have that link because the topic in itself is clearly notable. Other links, of course, are not and can be removed since they are not essential to understanding the topic at hand. TO understand the Vietnamese political system, the Charter is essential.
  8. "There's no issue at all with each plenary being a stub (or making a list of plenaries) and this reformulated article being an overview (although I appreciate this may take some time). I hope these comments make sense and can be taken constructively." The reason is, I think, that the article and Wikipedia's rendering of the subject would be worse for it.
  9. Again, I want to reduce both the article length and improve it, and I've shown willingness to do it so I hope you return back to reviewing it Mujinga!

  TheUzbek (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  1. Last point, I feel that I've shown that I'm positive about splitting up articles when it is both necessary and best for the topic at hand. I've split up the article 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam from one article to three presently: this one, Members of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam and Alternates of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam. The last one, the alternates, nearly failed FL since a reviewer wanted me to merge the article into the "Members" one (and I refused to merge). I'm also planning to make an article on "Apparatus of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam" and philosophying about creating an article entitled "Decisions of the 12th Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam". That means I should not be interpreted as a user who is against splitting articles. In fact, my edit history proves that I'm generally very positive towards such notions if I feel that it would improve Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. I am, however, against splitting up articles when I know the coverage would become worse, and not better. And I hope, Mujinga, that you accept that I know more about this topic than you.

  So let's get back to trimming the article and shorten it instead of this nonsense about splitting it up! TheUzbek (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• NB: I have now cut the article by 3,625 characters, and I will continue to trim the article in accordance with Mujinga!'s suggestions. --TheUzbek (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the detailed response, unfortunately we are still at an impasse because the alleged importance of things does not mean they cannot be a stub on wikipedia and FAC isn't really for trimming article in my opinion, it's more about is this article suitable for the frontpage, yes or no. I'm quite aware 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party is differernt, but I'm trying to discuss with you the model to use - if you've started from scratch in making this page, then my suggestion would be to reframe it. This is also what Voorts was saying, in my opinion. I'm happy to stop here and see what other reviewers say, my advice would still be to withdraw and take this to peer review before heading back here. Mujinga (talk) 13:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  What you are saying does not really make any sense. You are saying a) you should create stubs and b) there might not be enough content to have this article. Make up your mind and keep reviewing. This is nonsense. I can add more information on "regulations on the enforcement of the Party's Charter and the regulations on party inspection, supervision and discipline", and all those other documents... I have to admit I skimmed his comments to fast, and should have more detailed description of them. I will now do that; that will be a quick fix! But that goes against your main point of reducing the size and the other argument of having this article in the first place. TheUzbek (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship

I was reading through the article, when I noticed that numerous sentences cited one source. I decided to do a singular spotcheck, because such paragraphs are prone to copyright issues, especially WP:CLOP. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I found. See below:

Wikipedia article (paragraph breaks for comparison)

Source

"The 12th CC informed the Politburo that the mid-term State finance-budget and mid-term public investment plans needed further refinement before being submitted to the 11th Session. It emphasised the importance of investing in agriculture, farmers and rural areas; revamping the state administration and procedures; and strengthening the business climate. Other concerns aired included high government overspending; bad public debt; the size of the public debt amid volatilities seen in the global financial market; climate change policies to mitigate against severe saltwater intrusion in the Mekong Delta and drought in the South Central Region and the Central Highlands and environmental pollution; and traffic bottlenecks in cities and large urban localities. Moreover, the committee stated its wish that annual, mid-term and five-year socio-economic development plans must not conflict with the decisions of the 12th National Congress and should be suited to the special conditions of each locality and sector. Another suggestion the plenum made was creating action programmes to implement party-state policies and guidelines."

"It pressed forward refining the mid-term State finance-budget plan and the mid-term public investment plan to submit to the 14th NA for consideration. According to Party General Secretary Trong, participants underscored the need to prioritise investment in agriculture, farmers and rural areas; overhaul the public administration sector and administrative procedures; and improve business environment. Other concerns include dealing with high budget overspending, bad and public debts amid the volatilities in the global financial-monetary markets, mitigating the adverse impacts of climate change that has led to severe saltwater intrusion in the Mekong Delta and drought in the south central region and the Central Highlands, and environment pollution and traffic congestion in cities and major urban areas. Building and realising the five-year public investment scheme will present a panorama of public projects and State budget balance between 2016-2020, they said. The Committee requested that annual, mid-term and five-year socio-economic development plans must be in line with the guidelines and viewpoints of the 12th National Party Congress, as well as the conditions of each locality and sector. It also urged developing action programmes for implementing the policies and the guidelines of the Party and the State, as well as making revisions if necessary."

This extent of close paraphrasing is unacceptable. I oppose and advise the nominator to firstly withdraw, and then to recheck the entire article's text-source integrity. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will withdraw and work more closely on it. Fair point! TheUzbek (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

... How do you withdraw? TheUzbek (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: see the above ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Also TheUzbek I would recommend taking this through the GA process first. FAC can be harsh, so it's important to be as prepared as possible. A good reviewer would have caught this at GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks AirshipJungleman29, that's very on the ball of you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Peer Review would also help, and you'd be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

References

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2023 [25].

---

Bruton Smith

Nominator(s): Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 15:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about businessman Bruton Smith, who dabbled in numerous fields but primarily in motorsports. Considered to be one of the most influential and polarizing people in motorsports, he had a long and storied career that lasted from the 1950s until 2022, being the founder of both Speedway Motorsports and Sonic Automotive. The article passed a successful GA nomination in July of this year; I managed to bring it from an issue-riddled page to GA over the span of a few weeks. I’ve been pondering on when to send it to FA; I think the time is now right. This is my first FA nomination, so any and all feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 15:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC

Hi Nascar9919 and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion
• Remember the reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side
• Reviewing also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Finally, good luck with the nomination! FrB.TG (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "Early in his life, Smith showed discontent on living on a farm, stating that while he had the essentials to live, his family had a lack of wealth. According to Smith, his days consisted of working from "sunup to sundown", and he felt that he did not earn enough money for the job he did." The source has '"I was born and raised on a farm," Smith says. "You have food, clothing, and shelter, but you never have any money. And I never did like that. I did not like it. You worked from sunup to sundown, but you did not see the rewards."' This is paraphrased enough to avoid problems with WP:CLOP, but it's a bit stilted as a result. For example, "showed discontent on living on a farm", and "had a lack of wealth" -- "were poor" would be more straightforward. I think it's slightly inaccurate too -- working on a family farm means he almost certainly earned no money personally, so "money for the job he did" isn't right. How about "Growing up on a farm meant Smith's family had a home and enough to eat, but despite working from "sunup to sundown" they had little money. Smith "never did like that", and by the age of nine had decided he would leave the farm.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Smith initially wanted to become a boxer, wanting to become the middleweight champion of the world at the age of 11." The source doesn't say this was his first childhood dream, though it might have been of course. It would be safer to cut "initially". It would be more natural to state his age in the first part of the sentence; I assume you're not doing that to avoid close paraphrasing. How about "When he was 11, Smith began practicing with a home-made punching bag, and dreamed of becoming the middleweight champion of the world."

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• The mention of the trucking company in the source is pretty minor; seems like he wanted to own a train, and a trucking company, but these weren't dreams in the same class as five years hitting a punching bag. I'd downplay these a little if you do want to mention them, perhaps giving a bit more of the background -- e.g. "He recalled having "crazy ideas" as a child: he saw one movie in which a tycoon owned a train, and another in which Jimmy Cagney owned a trucking company, and for a while decided he also wanted to own a train and a trucking company".

• Edited. Let me know if this needs to be tweaked further. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "However, his mother opposed the idea of Smith racing, beginning to pray that Smith stopped racing. Smith, stating that he couldn't "fight [his] mom and God", stopped racing". Needs a copyedit: very repetitive structure.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point I decided to skip down through the article to see if I could find other places where a copyedit was needed. Some more:

• "a direct competitor to the recently founded NASCAR, which was founded the same year". Repetitive.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In the same year, France and Smith discussed merging their sanctioning bodies and came to a tentative agreement on the issue; however, Smith was drafted into the United States Army to fight in the Korean War in January 1951, becoming a paratrooper. When Smith returned to civilian life two years later, he found that mismanagement in his absence had caused the NSCRA to dissolve." The source doesn't cover most of this as far as I can see.

• Added new source. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the 1960 World 600 that was held on June 19": this is cited to a paper that appeared on June 15. It would be best to cite something after the event; weather and other issues can cause cancellations so we can't definitely assert this happened with this source.

• Added new source. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the paragraph starting "By the late 1950s" is cited to a single source. Some issues:
  • "newer, more modern facilities being built, such as Darlington Raceway": the source doesn't say it was new or modern; it says it was a "large paved track". I'm guessing you know from your knowledge of the sport that it was indeed new and modern, but we need more than this as a source.
  • "While Smith initially had the upper hand against Turner, in 1958": I think this is sourced to "The competition seemed one-sided: a revered racer and three track owners versus a 32-year-old dirt-track upstart", but I don't think that works -- it may have seemed one-sided at the start but that doesn't mean Smith had built any advantage in the competition, just that it looked as though he would.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• • "heir to his family's successful timber business": I think this is sourced to "the papers described him as a millionaire lumber man". That doesn't say it was a family business and in any case it would be better to say what the article says, which is that Smith thought that -- he called him because he had heard he was rich.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• • "Knowing Turner did not have the funds to build his own speedway, compounded with the fact that Turner had struggled to sell the 300,000 shares needed to start his project, Smith pledged to sell 100,000 of the shares by himself": sourced to "[Smith knew that Turner] didn't even have enough money to get started. When Turner's group struggled selling the 300,00 shares needed to start its project, Smith offered to sell 100,000 of the shares himself". This is insufficiently paraphrased.

• Edited. Let me know if this needs to be tweaked further. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• 'To further compound problems, reducing the value of Piper Glen would "seriously erode" the net worth of North Carolina Federal.[83] The failure of Piper Glen, along with numerous other problems with real estate ventures and bad loans to apartment developers, caused North Carolina Federal to lose $29.4 million in 15 months.' Why "would" in the first sentence? The first sentence is mostly repeated as part of the second sentence anyway.

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 23:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "relegate the speedway into a testing facility": usage is normally "relegate [something] to", or "downgrade [something] into", not "relegate into".

• Fixed. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "grabbing a fireplace poker and proceeding to destroy a portrait of her according to court records". The source has "grabbed a fireplace poker and destroyed a portrait of her, court records show". This is too closely paraphrased.

• Edited. Let me know if this needs to be tweaked further. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaning oppose. The above points are taken from a fairly random skim through the article; if I can find these issues on a quick look I think the article needs a pass for paraphrasing and a copyedit. I'm not going to suggest withdrawal, since I have not read the article thoroughly, but if the issues really are throughout the article I think it's going to be time-consuming to fix them, and a withdrawal and later resubmission might be the right next step. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hey! Sorry for the late response; I was out at State Championships for my club swim team. Happy that at least someone looked through it after it being so dormant for a while. Thank you for the review; I'm very sorry to hear that the paraphrasing and copyediting standards aren't up to par. If I had a struggle with anything, it's that; but I've been trying to improve it in general. I'll do my best to make the necessary edits and source additions and hopefully strike down the oppose. I've made some of the edits mentioned; hope the paraphrasing issue is better. Will get back to it as I've got to prepare for the next day of State Championships. Feel free to give this a second look to see if my changes have indeed addressed your concerns. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 04:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  No worries about the speed of response; you're faster than some! I'm going to wait and see what other reviewers think and will revisit if they feel the problems are addressed. I think the article might benefit from a third party copyedit, perhaps by WP:GOCE; and you might find it worthwhile to look back through the sourcing and see if there are other cases where a reviewer might feel the text does not accurately reflect the source material. I haven't conducted a full source spotcheck, but as noted by FrB.TG above one needs to be done before the article can be promoted, so you might want to get ahead of any problems that review might find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to show any sign of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards this over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hello, and thanks for the note. I've got a lot in the next coming weeks, with high school finals coming up in probably the most important semester with my high school career, along with other swimming things I need to take care of. With that said, I think it's best to archive this now so I have no time pressure to fix the copyediting issues in the article, resubmitting when time allows me. Will this be all right? I think it'll lead to a stronger article. Cheers, and carpe diem! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 03:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: Gog the Mild (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Good choice. Might I suggest making use of the resources at WP:FAM, WP:PR and/or WP:GOCE before bringing it back? In any case, the usual two-week wait will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2023 [26].

---

Eye (Alexander McQueen collection)

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In September 1999, Alexander McQueen staged Eye in the middle of a hurricane threatening New York Fashion Week. Other designers cancelled, but McQueen forged onward with a controversial collection that crossed Middle Eastern traditions with Western sports and fetishwear. Jeweller and frequent McQueen collaborator Shaun Leane notably chimed in with a yashmak veil forged from chainmail. Reception was mixed: the overly-theatrical show overshadowed the clothing, and the theme predictably drew accusations of misogyny and cultural appropriation. In retrospect, Eye remains one of McQueen's lesser-regarded collections, outdone by much of the rest of his body of work. Nevertheless, I find it of interest, if mostly as a reminder that not all of his experiments succeeded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47

• There are a few spots where four citations are used. It may be best to do citation bundling or another solution to avoid citation overkill.
  • Normally I try to avoid going over 3, but I think the couple of times I've gone with 4 are reasonably justified (mostly where I'm making a broad statement about opinions and a couple times for sentences that compress details from multiple sources). I tried doing a cite bundle, but with the sfns, it creates a third layer that people have to click/hover through if they want to see the full ref, so I'd prefer to avoid those if you don't mind
    • Thank you for the explanation and that is an understandable preference to have. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I actually did wind up doing the cite bundles on a later pass but forgot to amend this comment Facepalm ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• I believe well-known cities such as New York City are not supposed to be linked. I also believe the following links are unnecessary, (film, history, nature, world religions, art).
  • Mmmmm...I'll ditch the others but arguably New York City is contextually relevant and someone might want to click through, so I'm going to keep it
    • From my experience, I believe it is strongly discouraged to link well-known cities with New York City being a common example, but I do not have a strong opinion about it myself so it will not hold up my review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Some items had prints resembling traditional Islamic art.) Did the source provide any examples or go into further detail on how the items resembled traditional Islamic art? It is understandable obviously if further detail is not available, but I did pause here and ask myself this question so I wanted to ask you.
  • Unfortunately it's an offhand comment that doesn't really go into detail - it mentions garments with "Moorish white and blue prints". It's an obvious reference to Islamic geometric patterns / Zellij, but I didn't want to get that specific in the text given the reviewer didn't.
    • Thank you for the response. I got the impression from reading this part that the reviewer did not go into further specifics, but I wanted to clarify that just to be sure. The current wording makes sense then and reflects the source well. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Lisa Armstrong at The Times of London speculated there was also an element of spite towards the British Fashion Council.) Would it be possible to briefly expand on why this would be considered an element of spite?
  • I had a hard time with wording this because she's speculating about his beliefs, and I didn't want to wind up in a "she thinks he thought they thought" chain of silliness. How's it look now?
    • I can understand that concern. The current wording looks solid to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies for the nitpick, but I do not believe the "crunch time" quote is really necessary. It is not really clear who is saying this quote and rather than attribute it, I think this could be more easily paraphrased.
  • Yeah fair, I reworded a bit, I guess it's a common enough term
    • Thank you for revising this part. I have been asked in the past to paraphrase smaller quotes like this one so that is where I was coming from with this comment. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I do not think US$ and £ need be linked multiple times in the article.
  • Me neither, but the conversion templates force it and I've never been able to figure out how to turn it off.
    • Thank you for the explanation. I should have looked at that more carefully before commenting. That is odd, but it is outside of your control. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I have a quick question about this part, (The show was staged at 9:00 p.m.). Would it be necessary to clarify the time zone, which I believe in this case would be EST. I do not believe this was done in the other articles so it is likely fine here (and to be blunt, it was not something I thought about), but I just thought about it now so I wanted to ask you anyway.
  • No idea. I don't think it's necessary? But if someone else weighs in to suggest it is, then I don't mind adding it.
    • It probably is not necessary since the location is already well-established at this point. I would think the time zone would only be necessary for like a television show or something where it could vary depending on region, etc. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• For this sentence, (The show's soundtrack was described by one reviewer as "ominous disco".), why not name the reviewer and publication since it seems to be known since the citation has a name and publication?
  • Unfortunately no one else described the music so I'm stuck with just the one quote, but name/publication didn't really feel like a necessary detail. I do it for reviews and analysis because it gives context to the opinion, but here it doesn't add much
    • I would still more clearly attribute the quote (in this instance being from Alex Kuczynski of The New York Times) as I do not see any reason to be vague about it by not naming the reviewer or publication and instead opting for "one reviewer". I found this part to be unclear, particularly when two citations are used for this sentence so it is even less clear where this quote is coming from. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Ok, done ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Apologies in advance for this nitpick-y question, but is the following sentence entirely necessary: (The show reportedly received a standing ovation.)? If it is not entirely clear if this really happened or not, I am not sure if it really adds anything. Also, is applause a rather normal part of a fashion show? My primary concern though is the "reportedly" part though just to be clear.
  • Weeeeeeell, only one reviewer saw fit to comment on it, so I threw in a "reportedly" just in case. I can take it out if you think it's fine without. Applause happens at some fashion shows (I'm assuming more common now as crowds tend to be more expressive these days), but standing ovations are relatively rare in fashion
    • That's fair. I am not fully convinced myself, but it will not hold my review and it is okay if it is kept. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I have a comment for the following quote: "The bad boy [McQueen] did good." I do not think the additional McQueen is necessary as I believe it is already clear in context, and I think it would be best to stick to preserving the original quote.
  • Sure, fair
    • Thank you for editing this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I have a clarification question about this part, (dismissed Eye as a retread of things McQueen had done before). Did they provide any examples of how this was a retread?
  • Basically all of it, lol, which is why I went with a broad summary. McDowell haaaaaaated Eye. He hated the water gimmick and he hated the acrobats and he summed up the clothes as, essentially, a bunch of ugly junk that McQueen had done before. I could get into more detail in the article if you feel it's warranted
    • That makes sense so a more overview-style sentence makes sense and is warranted here. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• In the "Reception" section, Hilary Alexander's full name is used multiple times throughout, although for other critics, only their last names are used after the first instance.
  • I initially did that because I felt there might be some confusion as her last name is McQueen's first name, but on review it's not really necessary, so, fixed
    • I could see how that would be potentially confusing, but I think in this context, it would be clear to readers. Thank you for editing this part. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• I believe in both instances here, (The Met) and (originally staged in 2011 at The Met), the "The" should not be capitalized.
  • Aah, I always do this wrong, lol
    • I still miss a lot of stuff so that is fair lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• For the "Analysis" section, would it be more beneficial to put the Clarissa M. Esguerra and Michaela Hansen paragraph before the Ana Finel Honigman paragraph? I only ask this because I think it could be better to put the Between comparisons in the same paragraph, and Esguerra and Hansen's discussion on turquerie could more naturally lead into Honigman's part on cultural appropriation. This is just an idea of course.
  • I tried a few versions of this part, but ultimately I settled on separate paragraphs because E&H's analysis is so much more rounded. Honigman doesn't have much more to say than I've summarized, and I think it would read awkwardly if I chopped her sentences into E&H's larger paragraph.
    • Thank you for trying. I was mostly just spitballing any idea, but if it does not work, I understand. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
• This is not required for a FAC or a FA, but I always think archiving web citations is helpful, especially to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
  • Tried it a couple times but kept getting gateway timeouts :( I'll try again later.
    • I understand. The IABot has been acting up for me for a while so I've gone back to doing it manually, but there are still issue with that. As I said above, this is not a requirement for a FAC or a FA so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. Wonderful work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks Aoba! I'm always happy to have your thoughts. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I just have one point remaining. I still believe the "ominous disco" quote should be more clearly attributed in the prose. I always believe that quotes should be clearly attributed when information like the author and publication are known to give readers a more complete picture of where this information is coming from and who said it. Once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Made the ominous disco change. Happy Halloween to you as well! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero

Why is dailyartmagazine a high quality RS? The editorial team looks semi-pro at best to me and "She dreams of becoming a curator but works in the miniature industry." doesn't give me much hope. Not really a sign but only 4k twitter followers is a red flag.

• I chucked it, on review I didn't need it anyway

What are your thoughts on the use of the via field? Part of me wonders if Gale and Newspapers.com should get tagged.

• I'm ambivalent about it, but I will mildly protest that I haven't been asked to use it at most previous FACs, so I don't believe it's standard

The video of the show needs an access date. I'm not sure if the fact should be mentioned if you need a primary source, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

• Normally I wouldn't bother, but I think it's worth it for the transition between the wacky acrobat show and McQueen coming out to drop trou

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Guerillero :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  Passes my source review -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• SchroCat, a gentle prod if you're still interested :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely am. Sorry - got distracted by the background noise! Will do it now. - SchroCat (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice work. The comments are largely around BrEng bits, with a couple of other bits mixed in.

• fetishwear" -> "fetish wear"
  • Is this BrEng? I've always seen it as one word, like "sportswear"
    • Yes - according to the OED. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Seems odd given "sportswear" is done as one word, and "-wear" is a valid suffix. I think in this instance I'm gonna keep it as a single word for consistency.
• "pants" -> trousers. To Brits "pants" are underwear
  • I always forget this
• "taxicab" -> taxi
• fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
  • Same as above
• "Harem pants" -> harem trousers
  • Do you mind terribly if I keep it as-is? "Harem pants" is the generic term, and immediately afterward I describe them as trousers, so it ought to be clear enough
• You refer to "boxing shorts" in sportswear, but link to boxer shorts, a type of underwear. When I think boxer shorts, I think this sort of thing, rather than this sort of thing. Although one developed from the other, they are now quite different.
  • This is extremely annoying because we don't have an actual article on boxer shorts and the boxing article doesn't really get into them. That being said, retargeted to boxing as the least useless option
• "didn't" -> did not
• "prompting a time crunch": I'm not sure what this is saying, and I don't think it's encyclopaedic in tone – may be worth reframing?
  • Really? I thought it was a common phrase, but okay.
• "Rumors" -> Rumours
• "£500,000 (US$800,000) to £1 million (US$1.62 million)": you don't need the links on the other three sets of currencies
  • I've tried that and it continues to produce links - it's producing them in your comment, even. The link=no parameter simply doesn't work on this template, I don't know why and frankly I'm too dumb to fix it.
    • Sometimes these templates are too clever for their good! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Runway show": you've got two headers with the same name, which I think may be an MOS no-no
  • Revised
• "utilised" – "used"?
  • Why?
    • Because 99 times out of a hundred "utilise" is greatly inferior to "use"; the other one time it is just inferior. That and Orwell: never use a longer word where a shorter one will do! - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Ok
• "pantsuit" -> "trouser suit" – and link
• "couldn't" -> "could not" (twice)
  • Above two done
• fetishwear" -> "fetish wear" x 2
  • Same as first time
• "finesse": do we need the scare quotes on this?
  • I'm using the exact word the guy used, hence quote marks
• "harem-style pants" -> "harem-style trousers"
• "niqab" -> Niqāb (or niqaab) – but def linked
  • Done

Interesting work, as always. That's my lot, and I hope it's useful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Schro, let me know how you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi SchroCat, just checking that you don't intend to formally support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support: sorry - this fell off my watchlist for some reason. - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Cheers Schro :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie

Time to give the copy a bath... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• It was inspired by the culture of the Middle East, particularly Islamic clothing, as well as the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove last comma
• Sixty-eight looks were presented in the main show, after which, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor for the show's finale. No comma needed after "which"

Concept

• Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab, and the London Arab community, the collection Remove comma after taxicab
• McQueen stated that he wished to examine the oppression of women in Islamic culture, and their resistance to it. Remove comma
• To this end, the collection crossed traditional Middle Eastern and Islamic garments such as harem pants, baggy trousers fitted to the ankle; the yashmak, a type of veil; and the burqa, which fully covers the body and the face; with elements drawn from Western fashion such as sportswear and fetishwear. I am unsure if the last semicolon coming out of the list should just be a comma.
  • Revised the sentence a bit
    • This looks good.
• body conscious silhouettes hyphenate "body-conscious"
• Another longtime associate, jeweller Shaun Leane, created a yashmak made to look like chainmail, from aluminium plates inset with red Swarovski crystal cabochons. Is the comma after "chainmail" needed?
  • Revised the wording a bit but I think yes.
    • The changed wording justifies the comma.

Runway show

• He viewed this as a step toward developing the brand internationally. He was clear from the outset that he intended to return to England the following season. Two sentences in a row starting with "he".
  • Merged them
• Sponsor American Express, in their third year as McQueen's backer contributed Complete the appositive with a comma after "backer"
• De Beers contributed an unspecified amount of funding, and lent a 1,220-diamond necklace and a 407-diamond pin for the runway show. remove comma, obvious WP:CINS issue.
• The show was staged at 9:00 p.m. in a Pier 94 warehouse on 16 September 1999 maybe The show was staged in a Pier 94 warehouse at 9:00 p.m. on 16 September 1999, to put the time and date together

Reception

• Similarly, Givhan wrote that McQueen had created not fashion, but "a collection of costumes for a fascinating theatrical event" Remove comma after "fashion"
• Menkes gave "high marks for showmanship", but wrote that and Fox was not sure whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not, but noted and Quintanilla felt that most of the clothes were "pure fantasy", but found the coats and dresses to be "standout pieces." and Both Givhan and Suzy Menkes ... appreciated these more commercial pieces, but felt and Scott found that the runway items "defied description, if not reasoning", but noted that McQueen's retail clothing was usually "more realistically wearable". and Jean Fraser of the Edmonton Journal enjoyed the performance, but wrote of the designs: Remove comma, CINS
• Horyn found the clothing less impactful than the runway show, remarking that "the clothes didn't break new ground", but that one had to respect McQueen's vision nonetheless. A bit awkward. A verb after "but" would help here.
  • "respect" is the verb in this context.
    • It still doesn't work the way it's structured. I took out the second comma which does.

Analysis

• Curator Soyoung Lee wrote that the yashmak "signals mystery and forbiddance" by concealing the wearer's body and face, yet possesses a "sensuous fluidity" in its movements. Remove comma, CINS

Legacy

• $1,875 USD maybe US$1,875? This would be consistent with the only other monetary figures in the article.

And it would comply with the MoS. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, but fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• All of these actioned (unless I missed one by mistake), some commentary left. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Everything addressed. Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie: Image review

There are seven images. Two are public domain. Three are CC-BY-SA 4.0 from the Musée des beaux-arts du Québec exhibition. Another image is of a burqa in a French museum. The only non-free image is the yashmak, for which an appropriate NFCC has been provided. The original is no longer in existence, and it is talked about enough including critique to merit the use.

The yashmak image lacks alt text. Alt text is present and adequate for the other images, though maybe a little more detail could help on some of the other look images. All images have suitable captions and placement.

• Added alt for the yashmak and expanded the alt text elsewhere. Thanks for your comments Sammi, sorry about the delay in responding. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hello PMC. Each time I've seen one of these McQueen collections at FAC, it has been promoted before I got there, so with the admission that my only knowledge of the industry is from watching this!, here are my comments, suggestions and questions...

• short description - move to top

lede

• eponymous fashion house - intentional redirect from brand?
  • Somebody moved it at some point and I don't really care enough to move it back one way or another. Does it matter? It gets to the right article.
• made from chainmail. - link chainmail
  • Linked

Concept and creative process

• Inspired by Turkish music McQueen heard in a taxicab and the London Arab community, the collection explored - is this saying he heard the music in cab and in the London Arab community or inspired by two separate things? If separate, suggest reword to 'McQueen heard in a taxicab and by the London Arab community' (or similar)
  • Tweaked
• football jerseys bearing red crescent moons - this juxtaposition could possibly be emphasized by a link ie [[Star and crescent|crescent moons]] but maybe it's obvious enough?
  • Linked
• There were also a number of draped dresses - was also a number of? or is that the Engvar thing I can't get used to?
  • Remove the middle words and try it. "there was dresses" vs "there were dresses" - were is correct.
• provided by milliner and - the milliner
  • nope. I fall on the pro-false title side of this debate
• made to look like chainmail - link chainmail

Runway show

• personnel who didn't attend - tweak contraction
• Rumors from before the show - rumours
• Runway show is used as two diff level headers - is that OK?
  • Fixed
• Pier 94 - could link North River (Hudson River)#Status (that calls it the "UnConvention Center", the second-largest exhibition hall in New York City) - not mentioned in sources?
  • Cheated with a redirect to that section
    • That's not "cheating", it's a great move. JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• weather, more than 1,000 guests attended - invited guests? How do people get 'tickets' to these shows?
  • They're invited, it's not like a concert where the public can buy tickets.

Reception

• couldn't decide whether - tweak contraction
• Menkes gave "high marks - move her name and links up to here
  • Done
• Writing for The Detroit News, Nicola Volta Avery wrote that - swap "wrote" to 'said' or 'opined' or similar as already said "writing"
  • Done
• whether Americans would appreciate the gesture or not - not sure if "or not" is needed when "whether" is already present?
  • Removed
• felt it indicated that he had "undoubtedly - maybe swap "he" to McQueen?
  • I think it's evident from context
• and said he couldn't imagine other - tweak contraction

Analysis

• but exposed the genitals - nipples and buttocks aren't genitals?
  • I was trying not to use her exact wording but fair
• Hilary had similar thoughts, saying - add surname Alexander
  • Fixed
• sexualised niqab designs - link niqab
  • Done
• Curator Soyoung Lee wrote - add link
  • Done

Images

• caption ...The headpiece in the front ensemble is a 2021 creation by Michael Schmidt - link Michael Schmidt (designer)
• alt=A garment made of plates of metal joined together, adorned with small red gemstones. It covers the entire face, torso, and arms, except for the eyes. - reorder to 'covers the entire torso, arms and face, except for the eyes.'
  • Done both

Refs

• 13 Bethune 2015, p. 304–311. - pp
• 41 "Has the bottom fallen out of london fashion week?" - cap L at least?
  • lol oops

Bibliography

• Lee, Soyoung (2018). "The Resplendant Body: Jewelry on the Edge - authorlink and typo Resplendent
  • Fixed

Consistency

• the New York Times v The New York Times
  • Fixed
• boxing shorts v boxer shorts
  • They're different (albeit related) garments so I'm differentiating textually. It would be easier if we had an article on boxing shorts, but we don't - see Schro's comment above about links to it. Boxing shorts are the kind of shiny nylon boxing shorts that boxers wear in the ring - think this type of thing. Boxer shorts are soft, usually cotton, and are meant to be worn as undergarments - think this. The girls in the show had athletic-style boxing shorts, McQueen showed off his undies
    • Oh yeah, I'm very much aware of difference - you could link to Shorts#Styles, which shows pics and explains derivation of underwear from sport boxing shorts (or even change the redirect at boxing shorts to that) ... and/or you could write boxer's shorts. (That might stop gnomes linking to undies.) JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I think it's equally likely that gnomes might change boxer's shorts to boxer shorts, unfortunately. I'll just keep an eye on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Misc

• For the show's finale, a bed of nails rose up from the water on the floor. Strobe lighting played while acrobats dressed in robes resembling burqas descended from the ceiling suspended from wires, - so no-one interpreted this? What does it all mean:) - fly away to freedom from the torturous and black place? Guess we'll never know.
  • Honestly, this is one of McQueen's dumber concepts and I think everyone wrote it off as such. I don't even think he knew what he was trying to say with it. In comparison, better finales like the illusion of Kate Moss drew enough analysis that I got an FA out of it alone.
    • I remember reading that FAC and heading off to learn about Pepper's ghost. Bravo Mr McQueen! JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• Knowing next to nothing about runway shows, are they just one-offs? McQueen didn't then repeat the show back in London?
  • They're generally one-offs; that he reprised Banshee and Dante is genuinely weird. I'm not aware of him doing so for any other show.
• No comment from Wintour?
  • Not that I found in any source, but that doesn't really surprise me

That's all from me. I know so much more now, so thanks! JennyOz (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi JennyOz, responded to. Typographical fixes were mostly covered during SC's review so should be done. Thanks for your comments! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks PMC - all good. I've added a comment above re boxers but not a problem. I can see nothing else to ask questions about so am very happy to s'port. JennyOz (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

    Cheers Jenny! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review (no spotcheck)

Bibliography

• There are no sfns pointing towards Bolton 2018
  • Oops, that was a leftover - removed
• On the Victoria and Albert Museum video, add the media type and put YouTube in the via parameter
  • Via parameter done, but it isn't any of the applicable media types, so that wasn't done
• The Internet Archive link to Thomas 2015 is locked- that is, the borrow is unavailable to most, so you could cut the link or add the lock icon next to it
  • Ditto Wilson 2015
    • I'm gonna keep them in case they become available again, I generally haven't bothered with locks for paywalled/restricted sources as it's not mandatory and would be a huge amount of work for minimal benefit

Refs

• Ref 12 is dead
  • Good thing there's an archive
• Citations that are housed at Newspapers.com often have that site in their via parameters- same for Gale and ProQuest sources, but this is a suggestion, it's not required
  • I don't bother, generally; I got told somewhere along the line not to do this, but
• Ref 57: International Herald Tribune is the wire agency, but NYTimes is the publication- switch
  • I don't think so. IHT was its own newspaper that happened to be owned by NYT; as a resullt its archives are now hosted on NYT. The bottom of the article even says "A version of this article appears in print on   in The International Herald Tribune."
• Ref 59: add YouTube to via
  • Done
• Ref 82: quotes in the citation title should use apostrophes per WP:QINQ
  • I've italicised it instead for consistency since what was in quotes is a major work

Premeditated Chaos, that's all, lovely work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments MyCatIsAChonk. Mostly done except where noted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the quick fixes- pass source review. Also, if you get time, my own candidacy on The Firebird needs a source/image review- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Premeditated Chaos: Also your bibliographic entry for Lee needs a page range since it's a book chapter. Cheers, ——Serial 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) was the fifteenth collection made by British fashion designer Alexander McQueen". Suggest deleting "made".
• "the collection's most well-known design". Suggest "most well-known" → 'best-known'.
  • Above two done
• "Bibliography": you only need to link Metropolitan Museum of Art at first mention.
  • I've been told to link each instance of a publisher, because readers won't necessarily be reading the bibliography from top to bottom.

A little to my surprise, that is a not unreasonable interpretation of MOS:REFLINK. I am not a fan, but that is irrelevant. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Replied, thanks Gog the Mild. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2023 [27].

---

Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a skyscraper in New York City that, until a decade ago, was the tallest in Brooklyn and the only real skyscraper in its neighborhood. The exterior has extensive amounts of sculpture, an enormous clock tower, and a dome (leading some to compare it to a phallus), while the interior has an extremely elaborate banking room. Developed as an office building, the tower later housed dozens of dentists' offices before being converted to residences.

This page became a Good Article a year ago after a Good Article review by Ganesha811, for which I am very grateful. Following a copy edit from voorts, to whom I'm also indebted, I think the page is now up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review PASS (no spot checks)

Working on it now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• The 1977 NYCLPC report link goes to a report about the 83rd Precinct Police Station and Stable from March 8, 1977.
  • Oops, I meant 0971 instead of 0951. Good catch. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• The archive link for "1 Hanson Place, 11217" doesn't work.
  • I replaced this with Template:Cbignore. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Both "mta.info" and "Metropolitan Transportation Authority" Wikilink to the same article. I think you can remove the Wikilink from the web address.
  • I removed mta.info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's it for now. I'll type out more soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• How about Wikilinking The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Brooklyn Times-Union, Emporis, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Newsday, New York Daily News, Brooklyn Citizen, Press & Sun-Bulletin, Francis Morrone, Brownstoner Magazine, Curbed, New York Herald Tribune, The New York Observer, WNYC, GlobeSt.com, The Brooklyn Paper, New York (magazine)#The Cut, The Real Deal (magazine), Brooklyn Reporter, Crain’s New York Business, Real Estate Weekly, Time Out (magazine), and DNAinfo? You could link Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Architectural Digest, Variety (magazine), and Slate (magazine) too, but given how broadly recognized those publications are, that may be WP:OVERLINKing.
  • I have linked all for consistency. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 23: the original Emporis link doesn't work, but the archived one does. Can you get a new link to the Emporis website?
  • Sadly, the entire website no longer exists. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 24: the title of the web page currently includes the name of the website, Skyscraper Center. I think you should separate out that name into a parameter separate from the page name.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Dolkart 2004 should be formatted more like Dolkart 2009 to include the publisher's full name and location, as well as the NYCLPC name. Also, the archived link for Dolkart 2004 doesn't work that well for me, so none of the book's pages are loading. What about you?
  • I formatted the location and full name. I have removed the archived link as it is neither necessary (being that this is a print source) or working. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 48: is there an archive link you can add?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Morrone: source listing is missing publication year and location of publisher. ISBN appears to be incorrect.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• The Friedman book is formatted poorly and missing a lot of information: publisher, publisher location, and ISBN. Are those two numbers on the end supposed to be page numbers?
  • Yes. This was a pre-existing ref that was present before I rewrote the page, but I forgot to format it.
• Hugh Son 2005 original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 84: year should be 1927.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 107: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Moritz 1989: is there an archive link?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 157: original link is broken. Can you find a replacement? The archive link works.
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 158: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 160: same
  • Changed url-status to "dead". Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
• Citation 169: my browser won't let me open the original link for security reasons, but the archive link works fine. How about you?
  • This is a temporary issue with the website, since its HTTPS certificate expired. However, I'm not sure how to format this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Except for the comments above, the citations and sources appear to be formatted properly, the sources seem reliable, and the links go to the right places. Of the academic publications, I see mostly broad surveys of NYC architecture. There aren't any academic sources more focused on this building, are there? As a collection, these sources represent a pretty wide breadth of publications from a wide span of time, so notwithstanding my question about academic sources, the list looks comprehensive. Well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the source review Dugan Murphy. I have addressed all of your bullet points. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find other sources talking about this building specifically (and not, for example, other buildings in the same area). There is a small handbook by the architects, which was published in 1928 but seems to be out of print; I doubt that source has any significant details not mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
  • No problem. I can't find any other issues with the sources. I haven't done any spot checks, but this is a pass. If you are willing to take a look at my current FAC nomination, you'll find it here. It would be a big help if you were willing to look at my sources, prose, or whatever. Thanks in advance if you are able! Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  • P.S. The official website from the External links isn't loading on my browser. Is it on yours? Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    Hmm, that is strange - the site isn't loading for me, either. I can take a look at your FAC in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Images are all under free-use license or creative commons
• Infobox image needs alt and a proper caption
• In fact, all the other images are missing alt.

ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Passed for image review.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by ZKang123

I shall review.

Lead:

• "There is also a lobby in the basement, leading to Atlantic Terminal and the Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station" – "A basement lobby leads to..."
• "The bank occupied the lowest floors when the building opened on April 1, 1929. The remaining stories were rented as offices." – suggest combining with a semicolon
• "By the late 20th century, much of the building contained dentists' offices." – This statement is a little trivia for me to be included in the lead.
• "similarly designated" – "later designated"

More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi ZKang123, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was rather busy with my studies for the past few days so I haven't been able to give this a proper look through. But I won't be opposed if others' consensus finds this article worthy of FA.--ZKang123 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@ZKang123, do you have any additional comments about this article? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Not at all. Like I said, if others find this article worthy of FA, I won't be opposed.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @ZKang123. I have done all of these except for the dentists' offices, which is described in some detail later on in the article. I've also fixed the image issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments Support by David Fuchs

Recusing to do a review.

• Prose:
  • Lead:
    • This may just be me, but measurements start getting in the way of reading text, especially when you have the conversions as well, so I'd try and limit them, especially in the lead. The height is the overarchingly important stat; I'm not so sure the size of the clocks or the size of the banking room are so important they need to be mentioned here.
      • I've trimmed these. I think the height of the banking room is somewhat important, since there are few interior spaces in NYC that are this high (even the New York Public Library Main Branch's reading room is less lofty). Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It seems odd to me we mention the previous banking headquarters specifically in the second paragraph, but then follow back on it in the third when giving the history.
      • Good point. I moved the mention of the 175 Broadway HQ to the third paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I know that you've put out a lot of these articles with a similar structure, but I wonder just from a limiting repeating information sense, if it would make a bit more sense to put the context and history for the building (or at least its construction) up before the long description of the site. We mention the 175 Broadway headquarters a bunch, for instance, before it gets properly introduced in the history.

    Yeah, that might make more sense. Swapping the history and architecture sections might be the best thing to do here; I'll do this shortly. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • My thoughts on the stats talk likewise relate to the article as a whole; sometimes it just feels like we're getting smacked with random factoids and conversions for long passages. Is the height of the center of the clock from street height really so important it needs to be mentioned? We can convey the size and mass of the clock hands without three separate sentences giving specific figures. Where possible some more summarization would I think make it read a bit better, especially when we're giving exact dimensions or exact numbers of things (the number of rectangles in a grid, the number of window bays, etc.) It's appropriate for the LPC designation, I'm not sure it's appropriate for an overview like this.
    • I've tried to condense the description slightly. I do acknowledge that the description may have been overly detailed - Ganesha811 removed much of this excessive detail during his GA review, but maybe some of the extra detail was retained unnecessarily. I've trimmed the exterior section slightly and the interior section more significantly. I don't want to give too little detail (for example, the fact that there are three huge arched windows is mentioned prominently in a few sources), but in hindsight we really did not need three subsections for the banking room section. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "Due to the height of the five-story banking room, as well as empty spaces on the topmost floors, the building has been described as having as few as 34 stories." Honestly this feels like it's not important enough to note, especially if it's apparently not commonly done.

    • I included this sentence because I felt that the reader would benefit from an explanation of the conflicting floor counts. Would you prefer that I remove this completely, or is it fine if I move this to a footnote? Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

      • Per this and the below note, I think that's definitely something that should get mentioned in prose as "generally X stories, some stuff counts differently" and then use any further mentions/the LPC stuff in a footnote the first time it's relevant. I don't think repeating the footnote every time you hit another floor number comes up is necessary (it's mostly just distracting and adds to the refspacing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

        Good point as well. I have removed these extra footnotes. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

    • For the sake of ease of reading, I think you should just pick a story-numbering scheme and stick to it, rather than "at the 30th story (floor 26)" stuff. Especially since we're talking about the exterior, the interior numbering isn't all that important.
      • Done. (There's already a footnote about interior and exterior floor numbering, so I agree—it may just be redundant.) Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "Embedded in the wall are square bas-reliefs, one on the right of a burglar," I assume this is supposed to mean one of the bas reliefs is of a burglar, but the way it's phrased makes it kind of sound like the reliefs are on the right of a burglar.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "On the south side of the ground story, leading from the center of the Hanson Place frontage, is an entrance vestibule.[33] The doors from the south lead from Hanson Place. " This seems redundant?
    • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • "it had 158 depositors and $15,000 in assets" what's the timeframe for this statement?
    • Added - this was from the first annual report. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It's unclear if the architects had to modify the plans after the department rejected them or not, since it only says the completion date was pushed back.
    • It seems that I got the source wrong. The source says merely that a change in plans would've forced the plans to be postponed. The only thing I could find on the possible postponement was this article from February 12, 1927, saying that the bank planned to appeal the bureau's rejection of the plans. `Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There's a lot about the building's dentists.
    • Yeah...apparently they took up the majority of the building in the late 20th century. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The critical commentary on the building feels pretty thin, especially since there's not really a source directly speaking to generally positive critiques of the building. At the least I don't really see where the height record stuff and symbolism should be divorced from what comes before it.
    • I have removed the part about positive critiques. Given I wasn't really able to find too much critical commentary on the building, I have combined the symbolism and critical commentary sections. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

More forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments David Fuchs. I have addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • "Johnson did not initially plan to include affordable housing in the converted building, prompting criticism from community groups" — so what came of this? Did affordable housing get added as implied, or not?
      • I haven't heard anything about affordable housing being built (in fact, the sources I've found indicate that all of the residences there are luxury condos). I've rephrased the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    • The Impact section is a little better, but it still feels a bit like a laundry list of quotes rather than a summary. I will take a look and see if I can find anything else that might go there.

Drive-by comment: to my mind it also falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand that, but on the flip side, MOS:QUOTEPOV says that quotes could be used "to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice", which some of these quotations truly are. I've paraphrased the other unnecessary quotations, but it's quite hard to paraphrase an opinion while staying faithful to what the source actually says. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • "The windows' ornate decorations contrasted with the spare ornamentation of the piers on which the arches rested." Why is this sentence is past tense? Are the arches no longer there? Same for "The metal included brass, bronze, copper, silver, and both cast and wrought steel." (Everything around it is present tense.)
    • Otherwise, prose looks fairly good. I've made some edits and I will probably want to do a final pass later, but it's looking much more readable. Will be looking over other criteria presently.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea why these were in past tense, but I've fixed this now. Thanks for following up David. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose based on source review. While there's no major issues I found on my spot-check, I did appear to find a number of minor issues with figures, timing, etc. that seem to be prevalent throughout and need a fine-tooth comb to check for. Some might just be me nitpicking to a pedantic degree, but I think enough are plain that it needs addressing. I Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 17, 19, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 36, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 56, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 75, 79, 81, 86, 93, 96, 104, 120, 121, 139, 141, 142, 145, 148, 164, 172, 178, 180, and 184.

• • Ref 14: text says "there were eight buildings on the lot", the source itself is a little less definitive and says "about eight".
    • I have not changed the sentence at this time because the suggested wording might run afoul of MOS:UNCERTAINTY. Please see my comment below. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

      Changed to "about eight" (in quotation marks) to avoid any confusion about this. I still don't think it's possible for, say, eight and a half buildings to have been demolished, but we may agree that there is a difference in opinion regarding this point. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

  • Ref 19: text says " The bank had 139,000 depositors and $212 million in assets in 1928". The source says "139K depositors but $210 million in assets.
    • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Refs 29, 30, and 31 are used to source the bank protests. The text says "Though they were joined by six other banks" (aka eight banks in total, including the aforementioned City Savings and Dime Savings), but ref 31 gives a total of ten (City Savings, Dime Savings, "and eight others".)
    • Changed to "several others"—not sure where the six figure came from. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 34: text says "The William Kennedy Construction Company was awarded the general contract for the new building in December 1926, at which point the building was planned to cost $3 million" but the source is from December 1927.
    • Yeah, this was an example of me mixing up my dates by accident. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 36: text says "and a chimney for the church was integrated into the new bank building". The LPC designation says that the tower provides heat to the church in lieu of a chimney, it technically doesn't say there's a chimney expressly for the church.
    • I assumed the text was talking about the bank having a chimney attached, and providing heat through there, but I've fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 39: text says "and the bank announced that it would begin clearing the site" [later that month, I.e. January 1927], but the source says that they would be clearing it next month.
    • The statement is correct because the bank made the announcement in January 1927. Grammatically, January 1927 refers to "announced", not to "clearing". If I had meant to say that "the bank would begin clearing the site the same month", I would have said so, but this is incorrect. Maybe "the bank announced that it would, in the following month, begin clearing the site" would convey what I meant to say. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: mentions the closure in the late 1970s, but doesn't support the observation deck having been open to the public up until that point.
    • The source says the deck "has been closed to the public since the late 1970s", so that part is correct. I've removed the implication that it operated continuously since the building opened, if that was what your concern was. Epicgenius (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 86: source text says "The building's name was not changed,[88][89] and residents unofficially continued to call it the Williamsburgh Tower", but it's talking about its unofficial name up to that point; it can't really be used to prove the future point that residents continued to call it that.
    • The sources from 1990 (after the merger) do mention that the building's official name remained the same, but I've removed the commentary about whether the unofficial name remained after the merger. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 104: Text mentions landmarked banks being converted, but the reference doesn't mention landmark status (and only some of the banks mentioned therein are landmarked.)
    • Removed the comment about the banks being landmarked (even though this is true), but see my comments below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 141: Text says "At the 30th story is an open loggia of arched windows, topped by another horizontal band of terracotta" but the landmark report doesn't mention the loggia.
    • Removed—I have also commented about this below. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Ref 172: Text says "while the Brooklyn Times-Union stated that the building's construction would unite Brooklyn's and Manhattan's skylines" but the Times-Union article says that "our skyline and that of Manhattan were merging" (they have already united), it's that as the skyline migrates north in Manhattan, it's also spreading outward in Brooklyn (such as the Williamsburgh Bank Tower.)
    • I've also commented below with regards to this point. However, now that I think of it, the merger of the skylines isn't what the source is really focused on—rather, it is the effect on property values and the fact that the tower was an "architectural triumph", as the source puts it. Accordingly I will be modifying the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the spot checks. However, with all due respect, I think some of these issues are not as major as they seem to be. Here are a few examples I'd like to quickly address:
  • The issue with reference 14 (that the source says "about eight" while the article says "eight") is a matter of wording - it's not possible for there to be about eight buildings. There's either exactly eight buildings, or there's seven or nine, unless somehow half a building wasn't replaced. I went with "eight" since saying "around eight" would make it sound like we don't know whether it's eight full buildings or not, while "exactly eight" would not be correct. MOS:UNCERTAINTY seems to indicate that numbers "rounded in a normal and expected way" should be rounded in this fashion.
  • Ref 104: technically, all three banks mentioned there are landmarked (the Apple Bank Building and the New York County National Bank Building are city landmarks). Yes, it's also true that the NY Times report doesn't explicitly mention "landmarked" bank buildings, but this is also verifiable using the LPC's website (and something I didn't think I needed to explicitly spell out).
  • Ref 141: The report mentions arched windows. Again, I agree that it doesn't specifically mention a loggia, but it does source the windows and everything else in that paragraph. (I described the windows as a "loggia" because that's how they physically appear, so I guess that might have been skirting the OR line.)
  • Ref 172: The source says that the skylines were merging but that "the skyscraper section is spreading", which indicates to me that the merger isn't complete yet, especially judging by the fact that the skyscraper boom was just hitting Brooklyn. As it turns out, this isn't even the main point of that article. Let me go back and change it.
• I will comb through the article to fix these issues (and more) later. I do feel that some concerns are slightly nitpicky, but I do appreciate the comments nonetheless and will try to eliminate all potential text-source integrity issues. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • On a cursory scan, I identified a few more text–source issues that I've now fixed. I will scan through the remaining issues over the rest of the week. I don't think there should be any major failures of verification, but it's clear that a few sources may have been misinterpreted or misread. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• @David Fuchs, as a quick note, I've just thoroughly examined the History section and removed some items that failed verification. Like I said above, I am willing to scrutinize this entire article with a fine-tooth comb over the rest of the week, and i hope that you will reconsider after I finish analyzing the rest of the page. It would be a shame if the FAC were to be archived because I sloppily misread a few sources; I had a similar problem earlier this year but was able to weed out the minor issues in that article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Such things crop up, especially with very detailed or lengthy articles like this, it's just good to be mindful of it. I've withdrawn my oppose pending another check once you've done one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thank you @David Fuchs. I should be able to suss out any lingering issues during the next week. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

    Still working through this article, but I hope to fix all the remaining issues by Thursday or Friday. I already fixed several other errors.

    I'm unsure about a few sentences there and am thinking of erring on the side of caution. For example, the History section contains the sentence "The bank was originally housed in the basement of a church in Williamsburg, Brooklyn,[5][19] at Bedford Avenue and South 3rd Street". This is sourced to a few refs, none of which specifically pinpoint Bedford and South 3rd as being in Williamsburg. I know it's in Williamsburg, and you probably know that as well, but this might still be on the borderline of SYNTH if none of the sources say it. (I ultimately cut the intersection altogether, but there's a few other sentences like that in the article that I still have to check.) – Epicgenius (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

    Sorry, this is taking longer than I expected. I should be finished in a few more days. Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs, I've finished looking through the article and fixing the rest of the issues that I found. Some of these inaccuracies were my fault, while others were preexisting text that wasn't supported by the source and have now been removed. Given the length of the article, though, I've tried to fix as many of these issues as I could. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll start taking a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:16, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, any thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing another checkthrough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• • Spot-checked statements attributed to refs 1, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 35, 45, 47, 60, 69, 80, 94, 95, 101, 109, 132, 144, 151, 152, 159, 162, and 173. Did not spot further verification issues and checks looked good. Moving to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "From the time of its construction until 2009," Are anything other than the last two words required?
  • I have trimmed this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• The lead says constructed from 1927 to 1929, and the body says the same, but the groundbreaking was in 1928 per infobox? This seems to be the date the cornerstone was laid. I'm not sure a groundbreaking and a cornerstone laying are the same thing.
  • You're right, though I couldn't find a parameter for cornerstone laying. For such a tall building as this, it doesn't make sense to have the cornerstone laid three months before the topping-out. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "making it the fourth-largest in the United States.[5]" Fourth largest bank or savings bank? And by what metric?
  • The source doesn't say directly, but the context is the total amount of deposits held by savings banks. This source does say it directly though. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The approval was contingent on the fact that a temporary branch, which was planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, would shut down when the permanent building was finished." This sentence is rather awkward. Perhaps "The approval was contingent on the closing of a temporary branch that the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues, once the permanent building was finished.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "In January 1927, the Williamsburgh Savings Bank opened a temporary location at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues." Since the plans for said temporary branch have been mentioned, perhaps "the" instead of "a". Do we have any info on its closure?
  • I rephrased it accordingly. I have no idea what happened to the temporary bank. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The banking hall also hosted events such as an American Revolutionary War exhibit by the Long Island Historical Society in 1976.[70]" I would assume this had something to do with the United States Bicentennial?
  • Indeed it did. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "U.S. representative Fred Richmond" I would simply call him a Congressman and cap it and let it go at that.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Basketball player Magic Johnson " I believe Mr. Johnson had retired by then, so a "former" might be good.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The dentists had used large amounts of mercury vapor in their offices, " more likely they used mercury amalgams that generated vapor.
  • Clarified. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "the tallest building in Brooklyn from 1929 until 2009.[139][137][138]" refs out of order? Ditto "and motifs representing Brooklyn and its history.[146][145][163]"
  • It seems WP:CITEORDER says that "references need not be moved solely to maintain the numerical order of footnotes as they appear in the article". This is not a major issue for me, however, so I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• 1916 Zoning Resolution is linked on second use.
  • Fixed. (Until recently, the History and Architecture sections were swapped following David's suggestion above, hence why the link was retained in the Architecture section.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Near the corner is an inscription in all capital letters." Saying what? Maybe in a footnote?
  • I also removed the text of the inscription recently because I thought it might have been tangential to the article. I have re-added it to a footnote. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "with a bronze sign reading "Subway"s.[147]: 7 " It says Subways? Or Subway?
  • Just the singular "Subway". Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The roof contains an abandoned public observation deck at the 30th-story setback." Is this the one mentioned as being on the 26th floor under history? If so, perhaps try for consistency and also phrase as if you've mentioned it before.
  • Indeed it is, and I changed the first mention of "floor 26" to the "30th floor". There is a whole footnote about how the floor numbers inside the building (which I'll call "interior stories") don't match up with the physical stories outside the building (which I'll call "construction stories"), because the banking room is five floors tall. Hence, interior story 2 is actually the sixth construction story from the ground, and so on for all of the upper stories. In this article, I'm using construction stories, rather than interior stories. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The basement lobby leads to the bank's vaults and the subway lobby.[144]" Maybe "led"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The depositors' vault was sealed by 60-short-ton (54-long-ton; 54 t) doors, measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) wide and 5 feet (1.5 m) thick, which were open for inspection during banking hours.[94]" Presumably you had to be a box holder to gain admittance? Thus "open for inspection" sounds a bit odd.
  • I changed this to "open to clients" (I think it should be clear that the clients are that of the bank, since I mention clients in an earlier subsection, but I'm willing to change this if it's unclear). Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Wehwalt. I have now addressed all of the points you've brought up. Epicgenius (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

I'll take a read-through after David's concerns are resolved (feel free to ping me back here). No point in reading through if things are just gonna get mixed up again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891, thanks. I've finished looking through all of the issues that David pointed out, and I've fixed some other issues that I found myself, if you would like to take a look. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

In the thick of finals week, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel after wednesday, at which point I should be able to comment on this. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I will read through by Saturday, hopefully today or tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• "New York's superintendent of banks moved to allow the Williamsburgh to open a Downtown Brooklyn branch" I'm not grasping from the context why a superintendent wouldn't allow them to open a branch
  • Basically, ten banks opposed the Williamsburgh's decision to open a branch in Downtown Brooklyn, but the superintendent allowed it anyway. In theory, the superintendent could have also denied the Williamsburgh's application for a new bank branch because of the other banks' opposition. I've clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• ""The approval was contingent on the closure of a temporary branch, which the bank planned to open at Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues," I think it might be clearer to put the plans to open a temporary branch earlier in this paragraph, rather than interrupting the sentence, especially if the plans were announced at the same time as the headquarters plans
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "saying that they violated the provisions of the" Do we know why?
  • The source said "Article 3 of Sections 8G and 9B of the Zoning Resolution of 1916". The actual zoning resolution document doesn't indicate what 8G is, but 9B has to do with the height of a building at the corner of a wide street and a narrow street. Because 8G is not described in the document, I decided not to describe what it was.
• Did the ensuing Great Depression have no impact on the building?
  • Not that I could find; the building was already almost fully leased by the time the Depression hit. However, the Depression did have an effect on other buildings (or rather, the lack of them), since no other skyscrapers were built in the neighborhood as a result. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "A life insurance sales department opened at both of the Williamsburgh Savings Bank's branches in 1941" Is this relevant to this building?
  • Yes. I meant to say that the department opened within the building's bank branch. (This was probably a bigger deal for the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Building (175 Broadway), which was exclusively used as a bank building, but it probably merits mention here as well, since the bank was previously not allowed to sell life insurance.) Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "An office for discharged service members" a government office or?
  • Basically a rehabilitation center. I've changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The building was also deemed eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places" 'deemed' eligible by who (if it didn't end up getting listed)?
  • Beverly Moss Spatt, the LPC's chairwoman, said the building could be added to the NRHP if the city-landmark designation passed. I don't know why it was not added to the NRHP. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any reason it couldn’t have been added if the city landmark designation did not pass? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Eddie891, no. Buildings in NYC can be added to the NRHP even if they aren't city landmarks (the adjacent Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center station is one example of this). It's just that it's easier for a building to be added to the NRHP if it already has city landmark protection, since the city landmark designation is more strict than the NRHP designation—for example, the windows theoretically could be changed without permission if the building were listed only on the NRHP, but not if it were a city landmark. I do not know why Spatt used this specific wording, though, and the source does not elaborate. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Brooklyn Academy of Music Historic District on September 26, 1978" why was it not initially included?
  • The district was designated on that date. I have reworded the sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "one story for data-processing equipment." data-processing for who?
  • Various companies, though the source does not say who. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The Williamsburgh Savings Bank started replacing windows in 1983 after finding that some were severely deteriorated." Is this really relevant? presumably it was not an uncommon occurrence to replace windows?
  • Typically, no, but this provides context for what happened next. Because the building was a city landmark, the bank needed permission from the LPC to replace the windows, which they did not have. This led to what the NYT described as the largest violation of New York City's landmarks law at the time, a detail that is noteworthy. Presumably other windows were replaced in later years, but these all received LPC permission and so aren't mentioned in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "while the remaining space was 96 percent occupied by 2002" Maybe "in 2002" -- unless there was a point where it was 0 percent occupied?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• "One potential buyer wanted to operate the building as an office structure, but he reneged because of concerns that he would not be able to outbid residential developers" relevance? I'm sure many people would have liked to buy the building but couldn't afford it
  • I have removed this, as it's probably run-of-the-mill for reasons you mentioned. I only included this detail because the residential boom in Downtown Brooklyn was, at the time, unusual for a neighborhood that was mostly composed of office structures. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Through history so far. Nice reading. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Eddie891. I've responded to all of your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• " from thirty miles away" -- conversion figure?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• " that "if it's a minute off, the people telephone immediately"" -- does this imply that they *didn't* rely on it, but instead just used it, considering that they had other clocks and noticed that it was off?
  • The source said that Brooklyn residents depended on this clock. Presumably some people had more accurate clocks, but I think this may be an exaggeration by the building manager. Nonetheless, there were at least some who may have used the clock as their main method of telling time, as evinced by the anecdote of the woman who missed a dentist's appointment because the clock was off. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Bank officials required that the dome be included" In this tower or the 175 broadway one?
  • This one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "these lights faded into each other, " I'm not sure what this means
  • The lights are in several different colors. As one light gradually turned off, another light (in another color) gradually turned on, giving the impression that one color was fading into another. However I don't think this detail is too important, so I've removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• " features Cosmati rectangles in a grid" what are cosmati rectangles?
  • In the style of the Cosmati family of Italy (which is already linked earlier). Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• I'm wondering if some of the smaller phrases are not overcited-- for instance, why do you need three for " It was installed by Ravenna Mosaics" or "The mosaic, created by Angelo Magnanti"?
  • I can address this later. I added multiple citations to some statements to make the info more verifiable, especially when these sources disagreed on other details. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• and the author Jonathan Ames created a "Most Phallic Building" I don't think this is the best choice for linking 'phallic architecture', especially because it gives the impression of being a link to the competition itself
  • I moved the link out of the quote. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• "The tower was intended as the first of a series of skyscrapers near Downtown Brooklyn" intended by who?
  • I probably used a poor choice of words there. There was no master plan to speak of; several developers, not identified in the source, proposed skyscrapers in the vicinity. I've changed this. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

That's pretty much it from me Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Eddie891. I've addressed all of these except the overcite thing, which I'll get to later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to Support overall, I would like to see some of the shorter phrases that don't need multiple citations pared down a bit, but that by itself isn't terrible (I'd rather have over than under verification) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [28].

---

Nyctibatrachus major

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am currently a bit short on FAC-ready bird articles, so we have this nice frog instead. It's not super well-studied, but there is a fair bit more literature it than most frogs, and I'm confident that this is the most comprehensive summary of that literature available. AryKun (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Illustration is missing alt text
  • Added.

• No range map?
  • I'll try to get one, frogs in general don't seem to have editors making range maps for them the ways mammals and birds do.
    • Nikkimaria, added. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Nyctibatrachus_major.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Added. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Jens

• depositing eggs on – I suggest "which are placed on" to make it easier to read (I felt that the current formulation disrupted reading flow)
  • I reworded the sentence by moving some clauses around; see if it's better now.
• fertiliser overuse – Is "overuse" covered by the sources? I think it is not a trivial point, because this would imply that normal fertiliser doses does not harm the frogs. (You could argue of course that fertilisers are almost always overused by modern agriculture, and I would agree, but then the "overuse" is misleading).
  • Krishnamurthy et al. 2006 says "indiscriminate application of nitrogenous fertilisers in agricultural fields, especially in the breeding season, will adversely affect tadpole development and survival and could cause a decline of anuran populations in the Western Ghats", the first part of which I think is equivalent to overuse. I will note that no source says "overuse" specifically though; the two studies mostly just talk about the very high levels of nitrogen-based fertilizers used in the Western Ghats and its possible negative effects.
• from "Wynaad" and "Malabar". – Why are these put in quotes? I am sure you have a reason for that, but it is not apparent to the reader (at least not to me).
  • Archaic terms that people don't use anymore and are somewhat ambiguous; the first at least can reasonable be assumed to mean Wayanad, but the latter is jus nebulous and could more or less refer to the entire southwestern Indian coast.
    • But you linked them to two provinces, which implies they are unambiguous. If there are doubts, I would not link them, and maybe write "from what he referred to as "Wynaad" and "Malabar"." to make clear why these are put in quotes. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Jens Lallensack, done.AryKun (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty – "as" missing
  • Fixed.
• Some studies have found a slightly different relationship, with major being sister to gavi, and acanthodermis being sister to that clade.[9] – really "some studies"? You only cite one.
  • Reworded.
• Within the genus, it is sister (most closely related) to a clade – I think this (and what follows) needs author attribution. Or is it established consensus?
  • Attributed.
• The following cladogram shows relationships within this clade based on a phylogeny by a 2017 study: – Reflecting which of the two phylogenys that were discussed in the previous text?
  • Clarified.
• The species has had its DNA barcoded.[10] – Very short one-sentence paragraph. Can we have a bit more here? What are the implications of this barcoding, what were the results?
  • No implications I can find; the original report basically just says "this can now be used to identify the frog more accurately", which seems a bit obvious to me. I also can't find
• The sides of the stomach are light grey, – but the stomach is an internal organ. You appear to describe skin color?
  • In the sense of "belly"; replaced with that word.
• most of their time in aquatic environments, – maybe "most of their time in the water" but have it more plain, avoiding unneccessary complexity?
  • Aquatic environments include for eg rocky areas in a stream, which is not the same as in water. I don't think aquatic is a particularly complicated word.
• inhabit the same microhabitat as it. – "share the same microhabitat."?
  • Reworded.
• N. major mainly feeds on insect larvae and other frogs – adult frogs, or frog larvae?
  • The report says "subadults", so probably does eat adults; I think this is clear from the way the sentence is currently phrased.
• I agree that we urgently need a range map. It is very important.
  • Added.
• That is all from me; nice little article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Jens Lallensack, replied to all your comments inline. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks, only one reply above, on a point on which I am not yet convinced. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Fritz

• "species of frog in the robust frog family..." maybe "species of robust frog in the family..."
  • I think the current phrasing emphasizes the fact that the family itself is called "robust frogs" better.
• "31.5–52 mm (1.24–2.05 in)" I got called on this too: the inches have more sig figs than the millimeters. Should be "31.5-55 mm (1.2-2.1 in)"
  • It's actually 52.0, changed in the article to reflect that it does have 3 sig figs.
• "It also has a variety of grey or brown markings" I think this could be elaborated upon slightly here in the lede. Are these all over the body? What shape are the markings?
  • They're mostly just random markings; it is a frog, after all, it doesn't have a distinct pattern or anything.
• "Females lay multiple smaller clutches" smaller compared to what?
  • Changed to "small".
• "classified as being vulnerable..." add "to extinction" perhaps? That may be redundant, though
  • I think it's a bit redundant.
• "Threats to the species include habitat loss" repeats the previous sentence. Perhaps could be "Other threats include increased human presence..."
  • Habitat degradation is different from habitat loss; the first implies that while the habitat is still there, it is getting worse in quality, while the second means the habitat has completely disappeared. The fact that both terms link to the same article is somewhat unfortunate in my view.
• "... synonymised with N. major by the herpetologist R. S. Pillai in 1978..." is there a reason given for the synonymization, or for why S.K. Dutta disagreed with it?
  • Added Pillai's reasoning; I can't find a copy of Dutta's book anywhere, but I'll see if I can find it anywhere and try to add something.
• "The species has had its DNA barcoded" personal preference but maybe "The species had its DNA barcoded in _____"
  • Done.
• "The species can be distinguished..." I think the semicolons here should just be commas; they are not separating complete clauses, only items in a list
  • I used the semicolons since each of the items in the list is really long and I think the semicolons makes it easier to read.
• "ovoid" to "oval-shaped" or some other more common verbiage
  • Apparently "ovular" can't be used to refer to shapes, so went with "roughly egg-shaped".
• Perhaps split the habitat and distribution section into two paragraphs, with one for habitat and the other for distribution
  • Having them together is standard usage; the section also isn't particularly long or anything, so I'd prefer to have it together.
• "Insects known to be consumed" is a highly passive construction
  • Reworded.
• "...may be due to the fact that these two species inhabit the same microhabitat as it" I'm not sure what, but something seems off to me with this clause
  • Reworded per Jens' suggestion.
• Commas for 4-digit numbers are inconsistent. In the conversions they are there, but when they are typed out they are missing
• 8 Added commas.
• "sub-lethal concentrations" what concentrations would those be? I guess I'm wondering where the threshold between the frogs being fine and having "adverse effects" is
  • Concentrations up to 5000 μg were used in the study, but this isn't like a bright line, lower concentrations are also fatal, just less so. I have mentioned the LC50, which is a much more measurable and relevant metric.

That's all I have for now, thank you for the article! Fritzmann (message me) 13:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Fritzmann2002, replied to all your comments inline. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support, but would still appreciate the addition of Dutta's reasoning if you are able to find it. Thanks for a great article! Fritzmann (message me) 16:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Regarding the range map; Cephas based it off the IUCN assessment, which is a bit dated; consequently, it includes portions in Maharashtra that were probably reported in error. I've clarified this in the caption, but I'm not comfortable removing them from the range map since there's no recent sources for an accurate map, and SYNTH-ing together recent reports with the old IUCN map seems like OR to me. AryKun (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger

• In 2011, the herpetologist S. D. Biju and colleagues re-examined the specimens from which the species was described, and concluded that several of these actually represented species distinct from N. major; they then designated an adult female collected from "Malabar" as the lectotype to avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty. I recommend moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph so that it is in chronological order.
  • Done.

• Was any etymology/reasoning given for the choice of specific epithet?
  • Probably just cause it's big, but no reason stated as such by Boulenger.

• The lores and area around the tympanum... Please add (area between the eyes and nostrils) after "lores" as a quick explanation.
  • Done.

• No tadpole pictures?
  • None that I could find.

And that's all for now. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

SilverTiger12, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I re-read it again and saw no further issues. Support Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Esculenta

Lead

• what does it mean when it says that the frog family is "robust"?
  • It's the common name that ASW uses.
    • Ok, but what does it mean? Family is speciose? Members are strong and healthy? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I get it now, but using it adjectivally is confusing, like a value judgment is being made. How about ".. a species of frog in the family Nyctibatrachidae, commonly known as "robust frogs"? Esculenta (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
        • Done. AryKun (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I don't really know; like most names of this type, it's a bit contrived and arbitrary.

Hi AryKun, in your suggestion above you have quote marks - "robust frogs". These don't seem to have made it into the current version of the article. Is there any reason? Also, if you are going to state this in the lead, it needs to be as a summary or copy of something in the main article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a common name, I don't think it needs quotation marks. I haven't seen any other articles use them. It's also mentioned in the body as "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae". AryKun (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Quotation marks, thats fine by me; I just wondered why what you had proposed immediately above had not made its way to the article.

To my mind "in the robust frog family Nyctibatrachidae" cannot reasonably be summarised as "a species of frog in the family Nyctibatrachidae, commonly known as robust frogs". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree on the second point (both convey the same information, the common and scientific names of the family), but I've changed the wording in the body to match that in the lead. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, courtesy ping AryKun (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "grayish in color" and then next sentence "dark greyish-brown upperside"; "color" and "colour" both used … please audit article throughout and commit to an English variety
  • Changed to Indian English.

• "When preserved in ethanol, it is mostly greyish-brown to grey, with whitish sides." why is this factoid in the lead? Is the alcohol-pickling colour predicted to be useful or interesting to the average reader?
  • Preserved specimens are quite a common thing to be described in scientific descriptions and are always like the second thing described in amphibian papers.
    • Still don't see how this is relevant for the average reader, but ok. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Sexes can be told apart by the presence of the femoral glands" when I hover over the link for femoral glands, it redirects to femoral pore, and that article says that this organ is present in certain certain lizards and amphisbaenians, but does not mention frogs
  • Yes, that's a problem with the redirect and something I don't want to fix because it's work.
    • Another source I checked says that frogs don't have femoral pores, but have femoral glands, mucous glands and granular glands. I think this needs further investigation. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Femoral gland as a concept seems to be well established (one of the studies cited is literally about that), but I guess the redirect should be deleted until someone writes a separate article since the reptile and amphibian femoral pore/glands seem to be different things.
        • Please delete the redirect and I'll write up a short article on femoral glands in amphibia. Esculenta (talk)

• "at elevations of 0–900 m" why not "up to 900 m"?
  • Changed.

• link clutch
  • Done.

Taxonomy and systematics

• taxonomy is a subset of systematics, so the heading seems redundant
  • Standard heading, doesn't really seem like it's worth changing.
    • Really? It's standard to have a redundant heading? I just checked every frog/amphibian FA and the only one that has this "standard" heading is Mini scule, written by you. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Changed. I have apparently been using the non-standard heading for every article I've ever written; can't remember where I picked it up, but of all the luck.

• Boulenger described some places as "Wynaad" and "Malabar"; what are these places called now (or link to their current names)?
  • See discussion above; Wynaad can reasonably be interpreted to mean Wayanad (although the administrative borders have changed a lot) and Malabar could mean pretty much the entire southeast Indian coast.

• I think for context it would be a good idea if you mentioned that Boulenger also circumscribed the Nyctibatrachus in the same publication he described this species. Was it the only species in the genus at the time? Also, I don't see in the protologue where it says this species was designated as the type, did Boulenger not assign one?
  • Added. Subsequent designation, see the ASW page.

• link pupil, common ancestor
  • Done.

• R. S. Pillai, S. K. Dutta, S. D. Biju – why not give their first names, as with other researchers mentioned?
  • No real reason, I don't really see a reason to make it consistent either.
    • You see no reason to make the article formatting consistent? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I do think we harp on about consistency over every single thing way too much; you can change it if you want, I'm not really tied to it.
        • This is because WP:WIAFA dictates that FAs follow the MoS, and a read of the MoS itself reveals a constant harping on the need for within-article consistency over mostly every little thing. Esculenta (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
          • I hate the MOS, but changed.

• "The species had its DNA barcoded in 2010." please tell the reader why this is important

• I just saw your reply to Jens above. The point of barcoding might be obvious to you without further explanation, but we can't assume our readers will have the same understanding. From reading the paper, I would summarize as follows:

"This technique, which allows conservationists to accurately identify even small tissue samples of the species, provides a precise method for species identification, crucial for conservation efforts. Such identification is essential in the Western Ghats, a biodiversity hotspot where this vulnerable and endemic amphibian resides. The barcoding not only aids in resolving taxonomic uncertainties but also supports the management and preservation of genetic diversity within the species' populations. Additionally, the development of species-specific microsatellite markers offers tools for assessing genetic variation and population dynamics, further informing conservation strategies for this species." or something like that

That's a bit long; shortened and added to the article. AryKun (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Morphology

• Shouldn't start paragraphs or sentences with an abbreviation (several instances)
  • Seems fine to me; I don't like the idea of redundantly writing Nyctibatrachus major again and again when the genus is unambiguous.
    • Well, that goes against pretty much every style guide I've seen, including ones for scientific writing. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Changed to Nyctibatrachus major.

• the protologue mentions that the species has "vomerine teeth in two straight series, oblique in the young, much behind the level of the choanae". why leave this info out?
  • Not important for either the general reader or the specialist; the general reader won't be able to use this, and all the recent papers on Nyctibatrachus frogs use the combination of characters in "The species can...the nostrils" to key the species. I don't like using very old descriptions as determiners for what information to include for this reason; unlike modern descriptions which focus on effectively being able to key the species, old descriptions tend to have a hodgepodge of whatever characters that particular author observed.
    • Sucks to be the reader who wants to know if this frog has teeth. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • We now know that the frog has teeth.
    • Personally, I like to add tidbits mentioned by earlier authors, as they tend to give interesting details left out by later authors who prefer to formulate compact species diagnosis to key out species. BTW, I did see some later descriptions of the frog that did include details of the teeth, and other things that have been left out of this article's short description, so I don't agree with your statement "Not important for either the general reader or the specialist". Esculenta (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC) Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• more info in the protologue but not in the article: males have two vocal sacs (I checked, and male frogs usually have either 1 or 2, so why not include this?)
  • Added.
• the upper eyelids are covered with tubercles
  • See above.
• the throat has longitudinal folds
  • See above.

• article says it's large for its genus; for context, what's the size of the next-largest congener?
  • Idk which species is the next largest or anything, but the Bombay night frog grows to a comparable size. None of the sources have a list of the frogs by size or anything, so just mentioning that its large and the exact length next to it seems fine to me.
    • Seems like an oversight to me that the relatively large size of the frog is proclaimed in the third sentence of the lead, but the article doesn't give any other context later in the article. Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I don't have any sources I can use for this; it's not like any sources have the median size of a Nyctibatrachus frog or anything.
        • Have you not read Biju et al. 2011 (your very first source)? Here's the information: the largest exemplars of the "large" size class in the genus Nyctibatrachus (defined as 41–77 mm) were

Nyctibatrachus karnatakaensis – SVL 63.8 mm

Nyctibatrachus acanthodermis – SVL 62.2 mm

Nyctibatrachus grandis – SVL 62.2 mm

Nyctibatrachus gavi – SVL 49.5 mm

• In the section on "Parental care behaviour", it helpfully says that N. grandis is "up to SVL 77 mm, male", so now we know where the upper boundary of the largest size class comes from. So this should be enough information to be able to mention the next-largest congeners, and a useful place to insert the maximal recorded SVL length (not currently in the article). Esculenta (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Adde context about size of the large group in the genus.

• Actually, in light of information, how is Nyctibatrachus major the largest in the genus? Esculenta (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It isn't, the article just says it's large for its genus.

• link metamorphosis, modulation, kHz
  • Linked.

• do we know how long the tadpoles remain as tadpoles?
  • No sources seem to mention this, which is odd considering that they've experimented on the tadpoles.
    • From the source Krishnamurthy et al. 2006: "In the control tadpoles, the Gosner stage increased steadily over the period of the experiment, and the tadpoles had metamorphosed into froglets by 98 days". Esculenta (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Nice catch, added. Clearly had not read the source thoroughly enough.

• I don't think the link to Spectral band (from "frequency band") is helpful. How about "frequency range" or "range of frequencies"
  • I think "band" is a common enough word when used for frequencies; in India at least, I've seen it used often when talking about spectrum allocation.

• subsection "vocalizations" isn't a part of "Morphology", so maybe the section should be titled "Description" instead?
  • Changed.

Habitat and distribution

• The term "evergreen deciduous forest" might be a bit confusing, as "evergreen" and "deciduous" usually refer to two different types of forests
  • "deciduous forest" is linked, so I think evergreen can reasonably be read as modifying that whole term (deciduous forests that are evergreen).

• link microhabitat earlier (I see it linked later), canopy
  • Done.

Ecology

• "When disturbed or threatened, it rushes…" previous sentences talks about the frog in plural form, so "they" would be better here
  • Done.

• link testes, pigmented
  • These are really common terms and don't really need a link.
    • So why link species and humidity? Esculenta (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I think we tend to link species, removed the link for humidity.

• it says the eggs are pigmented, but does not say what colour they are
  • Source doesn't say.

Conservation

• you can't convert land to agriculture. You can, however, convert land to use for agricultural purposes.
  • A testament to my writing skills this; fixed.

• "to farms which experience high levels" which->that
  • Done.

• link nitrate
  • Done.

• might be more layman-friendly to use the more explanatory term "median lethal dose" rather than LC50 (or use both with the latter term given parentetically)
  • There is the gloss "concentration at which 50% of exposed tadpoles die", so I don't really see a reason to change.

• are the redlinked journal titles (some duplicated links too) in the reference list helpful to the reader, or annoying? (this reader thinks the latter) If the former, why isn't "Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of India" also linked?
  • I think they might be notable enough for one of our journal micro stubs; linked BZSI for consistency.

• Esculenta, see replies above. AryKun (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• "When disturbed or threatened, they rush into the mud of the streambed…" source Pillai 1978 directly contradicts this statement: "Seldom did they try to bury themselves in mud and none tried to leave the water and take shelter in the matty undergrowth that grew next to the water's edge." Esculenta (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm citing Daniels 2005: "It dives in on disturbance kicking and scrambling through the mud and debris at the bottom and remains submerged for a while before surfacing. If it senses danger it immediately resorts to the same behaviour". I'd be inclined to give more weight to Daniels than Pillai, since his books is still the most comprehensive work on Indian amphibians, but I'll add a small bit about Pillai's findings if you want.
    • I don't think it's about giving more weight per se, but both types of behaviours have been observed in nature, so they should both be mentioned. Esculenta (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Mentioned.

• "preferring streams with low air and water temperatures" Krishnaturhty et al. 1992 state that the frog is found in water between 18.0 and 24.5°C, which doesn't seem particularly low (particularly where I'm from). How about just giving this temperature range and let the reader decide if that's low or not?
  • No, the sources do say it's low; it's also a relative thing, 18.0 and 24.5°C is definitely quite cool for the location.
    • the problem is, when a reader like me sees "low water temperatures", I think it's probably less than about 15°C. This potential assumption confusion could be easily resolved in the article by giving the actual temperatures. Esculenta (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Added temperature range, kept "low" since that's how the sources describe it.

• why not mention that the femoral glands seem to vary in size/structure depending on the season, and what implication this has (Krishnamurhty et al. 1992)
  • Added.

• IUCN source mentions that the estimated extent of occurrence is less than 20,000 km2; seems like a useful addition to Habitat and distribution, no?
  • No, it's just the cut-off for being classified as Vulnerable. They don't actually make an estimate for extent of occurrence or actual area inhabited, so it seems a bit misleading to put that in when the actual range could be much different.

• needs a fix: "... may be due to the fact that these all of these species"
  • Fixed.

• I think the article should mention somewhere that the region the frog lives in is a biodiversity hotspot, particularly for amphibians Esculenta (talk) 19:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That doesn't really seem relevant to the species. We'd basically be putting "the WG are a biodiversity hotspot" in the article of every species that mostly occurs there then when that doesn't really have much to do with the species.
    • The status of a region as a biodiversity hotspot is not just a general fact but an important piece of information that can enlighten readers about the ecological significance of the species and the potential conservation challenges it faces. This context could be important for understanding why conserving Nyctibatrachus major, and other endemic species like it, is important, and I don't understand the reluctance to let the readers know this info. You could just mention the detail strategically in the habitat or conservation section, eg. "The species is endemic to the verdant slopes of the Western Ghats in southern India—a region renowned as an amphibian biodiversity hotspot—spanning across Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka." Esculenta (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
      • It is just a general fact, it isn't important to conservation for the species specifically or anything. It isn't a flagship species, so mentioning the hotspot thing is unnecessary and would seem shoehorned in. It'd be like mentioning that Madagascar is a hotspot with high levels of endemism on every article on a species endemic native to Madagascar.

Having read the taxonomic review by Biju et al. 2011 I think there's some more information that should be in this article:

• the fact that "(George Sprague) Myers (1942) attempted to stabilise the nomenclatural status of the genus" by setting this species as type. Myers 1942 is not used in the article, but it is conveniently available here. This source should be included as important in the taxonomic history of this species.
  • Added.

• "Examination of the type series revealed that it contains more than one species" this statement from Biju et al. clearly states what the taxonomic problem was and why a lectotype needed to be chosen avoid subsequent taxonomic uncertainty (i.e, "… nomenclatural application of the genus Nyctibatrachus to a single type species"); the wiki article is unfortunately not as clear.
  • Tried to make clearer.

• I noticed there's no section on "Similar species", but the Biju et al. review of the genus have several instances throughout where they compare the morphology of this species with others in the genus (including in the species description itself). Other GA- and FA-level species articles have similar information, and I don't see why that information isn't included here (especially when it's laid out nicely in the main source). Esculenta (talk)
  • Biju compares the species to seven others in the genus on the characters already mentioned in "The species can...the nostrils". It would be repetitive to keep saying "N. major differs from species A in x, y, z, from species B in w, x, y, from species C in q, w, z" when we can just give all of the characteristics that together diagnose the species as a key. If someone is bothering to check the presence of grooves on the toe discs to tell it apart from one species, I'd think they'd check for all the other characteristics while they're at it to make sure it's major.
    • But the reader doesn't know from this brief diagnosis the identity of other species it differs from. How hard would it be write something more explanatory like this:

Nyctibatrachus major could potentially be mistaken for several related species within its genus, such as N. dattatreyaensis, N. humayuni, N. indraneili, N. jog, N. karnatakaensis, N. petraeus, and N. vrijeuni. However, several distinctive characteristics aid in its identification.

Nyctibatrachus major can be differentiated from N. petraeus by the morphology of its digits. In N. major, the third finger disc lacks a groove and is 1.8 times wider than the finger itself, while in N. petraeus, this disc is markedly wider at 3.3 times the finger's width and both the third finger and fourth toe discs have a dorso-terminal groove. Furthermore, males of N. major have a head that is broader than it is long, contrasting with N. petraeus males, whose heads are as wide as they are long. The proportions of the thigh and shank in N. major are equal, whereas in N. petraeus the thigh tends to be longer than the shank.

When compared to N. vrijeuni, N. major once again shows distinctions in the third finger and fourth toe discs; N. vrijeuni's fourth toe disc has a notched distal cover as opposed to the rounded cover found in N. major. The head dimensions in N. major are also wider than they are long for both sexes, which contrasts with N. vrijeuni, where the head width and length are approximately equal. The limbs of N. major are proportionately equal in length, differing from N. vrijeuni where the thigh is longer than the shank."

Named the species it could be confused with, but don't see how adding species by species comparisons would improve the article. That's two paragraphs on two species; for the 7 species Biju mentions, you'd have to add 7 paragraphs, completely destroying the balance of the article. The article is meant to be an encyclopedia-style summary, adding tons of excessive, redundant information more suited for the journal article would not be appropriate.

• I found out (Biju et al. p.8) that in this genus, "Black or bluish-black liver is externally visible on the ventral side through skin in life", and that this darker colouration is visible in the ventral view image ... might be educational to highlight this. Esculenta (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Added.

• Esculenta, see further replies above. AryKun (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Esculenta, see replies. AryKun (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Esculenta, I think I've addressed all of your comments except two. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the hotspot thing and the species-specific comparisons of morphology. AryKun (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

      Ok, that's fine. I wrote an article for femoral gland, so this article doesn't have to have a confusing redirect. Thanks for all the work you put into it, and dealing with my endless nitpicks/suggestions. I think I've put you through enough reviewer torture, hope you enjoyed it! I support this candidacy for promotion. Esculenta (talk) 07:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

I'm not knowledgeable about the field but I can see no red flags for source reliability.

• Any reason why some of the journal sources have ISSNs and some do not?
  • Laziness, added for all now.

    Is there an ISSN for Bulletin of the Zoological Survey of India (FN 9)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

    • Mike Christie, added. AryKun (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Can we get a publisher location for Meenakshi et al (FN 13)?
  • Added.
• I get a "Privacy error" when I click on the link in FN 9.
  • I'm not sure why, it's working fine for me. It's the ZSI's official government site too, so there shouldn't be any issues with privacy, either.

    It was a certificate error and after allowing the error it worked for me, so not your problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Otherwise I see no formatting or link errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie, see response above. AryKun (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2023 [29].

---

Mount Berlin

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Antarctica, and the only one in Marie Byrd Land with ongoing geothermal activity. In the past, especially before about 10,000 years, a number of volcanic eruptions have taken place there and have dispersed tephra across Antarctica. The volcano partly developed under ice and features ice-volcanic landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 18:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• Link tephra on first mention in body
• Comment: Mount Berlin ... Brandenberger Bluff ... Kraut Rocks ... and they're all named after people? That's some decent geographical humour right there

  Aye, all people based names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Link Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province on first mention in body
• "Volcanic activity appears to take place in three phases, an early mafic phase" - might be worth linking mafic again here as it pulled me up
• "were classified as "possibly or potentially active" by LeMasurier 1990" - in 1990?

  No, it refers to the publication date hence no "in". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Got you - then I'd suggest something like "in the 1990 Antarctic Research Series by LeMasurier et al." since "LeMasurier 1990" jars for me Mujinga (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "that emplaced cinder cones and lava flows,[16] and Plinian eruptions[47] intense explosive eruptions,[48]" - sorry I edited this to remove the "/" but now it needs something else between "eruptions" and "intense"

  Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  works for me! Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• " intense explosive eruptions,[48] which generated eruption columns up to 40 kilometres (25 mi) high. Such intense eruptions would" - 2x intense eruptions
• "The eruption history of Mount Berlin is recorded in outcrops on Mount Berlin" - 2x mount berlin
• "and in marine sediment cores[58] from the Southern Ocean" - perhaps "in the Southern Ocean?" not sure

  Sediment cores are taken from an ocean, so I'd say "from". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sure thank for the explanation Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• " Correlated deposits at Siple Ice Dome indicate that this eruption was intense and deposited tephra over large areas" - link Siple Dome?
• "Steaming ice towers" are these the same as "Fumarolic ice tower", which says "Mount Berlin is another Antarctic volcanic mountain that produced such towers"?

  Aye, but "steaming" is more descriptive and "fumarolic" more accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't clear, I should have put Fumarolic ice tower instead of "Fumarolic ice tower", but it's linked so that's all good Mujinga (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "It has been prospected for the potential to obtain geothermal power.[84]" - interesting, by who?

  Looks like by Philip R. Kyle in the book. I am not sure "prospecting" is the best word, as it implies on-site presence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

'assessed'? 'evaluated'? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

yup these would be better, I was expecting you to say it was prospected by the US or similar Mujinga (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Infobox: "Last eruption 8350 BC" - should that be "Last eruption 8,350±5,300 BC" as in body? Actually in body it doesn't say it was BC?
• Note d needs a full stop? Mujinga (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Done, except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus a few quick replies Mujinga (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Why did I miss this?! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good, support on prose Mujinga (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)". Just a suggestion, but it may help a general reader - who might otherwise be inclined to think "So? My fingernails grow faster than that" - grasp what this means by adding something like 'or approximately 80 km over the past 8,200 years, since the last eruption' or whatever.

  That's unfortunately a bit SYNTH. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Ignimbrites are rare in Marie Byrd Land; the outcrop on the southeastern flank of Mount Berlin is a rare exception." Is it possible to avoid using "rare" twice in one sentence?

  Yes, it's possible, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "by LeMasurier 1990". Is there a missing 'in'?

  No, b/c that's the publication date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "The rift has been ..." "The rift" or 'The Rift'?

  I think in these cases one uses lowercase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Which means that having said "which is variously interpreted as a rift[29] or as a plate boundary" you immediately describe it as a rift in Wikipedia's voice. Perhaps 'This feature ...' or something similarly neutral?

?

Sorry, missed that. At least on Wikipedia Rift is uppercase, and in light of this example I would not categorically assume that putting it in uppercase implies that it must be a rift. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "The rift" is saying that it is a rift, 'The Rift' is merely referring to its common name.

Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Link "trachyte" at first mention in the article.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• " A long term trend in iron and sulfur of the tephras may indicate a long term trend towards". Repeat of "long term trend". I realise that editing it out could be tricky.

  Does "tendency" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Good thinking.

• Just to be clear, there are no known eruptions between 2.7 million 571,000 years ago?

  Aye. There probably was activity, but its output was buried under more recent eruptions or eroded away. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "After 25,500 years ago it shifted to Mount Berlin proper". Would "it" refer to the activity which "also occurred on the flanks of Mount Berlin", ie as well as the activity on Merrem Peak, or to the activity which "then took place at Merrem Peak between 571,000 and 141,000 years ago"? PS Or, I suppose, both.

  Volcanic activity in general, but I already used "activity". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I think 'activity shifted to Mount Berlin proper' works in this case, and it removes the ambiguity.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Despite their size, the eruptions at Mount Berlin did not significantly impact the climate." Is it known, or hypothesized, why?

  Will need to consult the source, but I figure it's because the tephra would tend to be trapped over Antarctica, and the ice already reflects sunlight well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• What is megadust?

  That's explained precisely nowhere, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that a word can be included in an article which even the author can't define. How about 'Distinctive layers in ice cores have ...' or similar?

Did an impromptu translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• "between marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Should stage be plural?

  Plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Tephras in the Vostok ice cores". Could we unpack this a little? Perhaps 'Tephras in the ice cores taken at the Russian Vostok research station in Princess Elizabeth Land' or similar?

  Did something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• What does "with an interval of 15 years" mean?

  It's not entirely clear from the source, so I took this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Chronology": I thought this section was great, but any chance of a map showing at least the places with multiple mentions?

  It can be done, I've put a draft in, but how do I state the sauces for the coordinates? In a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally I never bother, on a "sky is blue" basis, and have never been challenged. I also find it faster and usually faster to generate my own maps. My notes at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps may help if you want to trial this. (Both of the maps there are from FAs.)

I've put in such a map taking inspiration from yours, using Wikipedia's own coordinates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Why is the last paragraph of "Chronology" in prose, rather than two bullet points?

  Because unlike the eruptions above, even the sources are cautious about assigning these to Berlin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• Could you standardise on either BC or BCE?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "8,350±5,300 BC". They are really giving a range of 13,650 - 3,050 BC? (That seems so broad as to be pointless.)

  Yes, they do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "the Marine Isotope Stage 5 interglacial"; "marine isotope stage 6 and 5." Could you standardise the use of initial upper/lower-case letters.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting and well written. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nice, a couple of queries above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the map. Just the rift issue left. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Neat. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• All references are nicely formatted, and of high quality
• Spot checks:

  fn 59, 61, 72, 82 - okay

• Nice article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Esculenta

• "Mount Berlin is a 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) high" This phrasing meeds an adjectival form (parameter adj=on). There are several examples through the article, please audit.

  I think I got all of these, although I am not sure if that's grammatically correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• The phrase "a c. 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi)" uses "c." for circa, which is commonly used in historical contexts. For the average reader (to which this lead should be geared) it's probably better expressed as "approximately" or "about" for clarity.

  Done and also the occurrence in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "mountain with parasitic vents that consists of two coalesced volcanoes; Berlin proper with the" it's grammatically incorrect with a semicolon there (colon would work), but maybe the sentence would benefit from restructuring …
• … "Berlin proper with the 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater and Merrem Peak with a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) wide crater, 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away from Berlin." This sentence might be reformulated for better readability. For instance: "Berlin proper features the 2-kilometre (1.2 mi) wide Berlin Crater, while Merrem Peak, located 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) away, has a 2.5 by 1 kilometre (1.55 mi × 0.62 mi) crater."

  The colon is in now. Going to need a second opinion on splitting, though, as it seems like it would be considerably wordier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It has a volume of 2,000 km3" What does "It" refer to? The last thing discussed is trachyte, the dominant volcanic rock.

  Rearranged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• What's a tephra? Yeah, I see there's a link, but this is the lead and there shouldn't be undefined/low context words in there that the reader has to click away to learn.

  Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The tephra layers were formed by explosive eruptions/Plinian eruptions" this and/or slash to describe the eruption seems awkward; could it not be written more elegantly?

  Tried it, but I can't find a formulation that isn't either SYNTH or cherry-picks sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  How about something like this: "The tephra layers were formed through a combination of effusive and intense explosive or Plinian eruptions, which were particularly active over the last 100,000 years, producing high eruption columns and distributing tephra widely across Antarctica and the southern Pacific Ocean."

  Mmm, the effusive eruptions didn't generate tephra layers. Upon reflection, I went for a different solution, it's somewhat cherry-picky but Plinian eruptions are a type of explosive eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• link volcanic rock, and BCE in the 2nd image caption

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• the lead image has me confused – are we looking at the highest point, or from the highest point?

  Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• lead says that MB is 210 km from the Amundsen sea (what part of the Amundsen Sea, it doesn't say), but this distance is not given in the article text, which says it's 100 kilometres inland from the Hobbs Coast of the Amundsen Sea. Shouldn't be in the lead if it's not in the article, cited.
• it's interesting how 2,000 km3 = 500 cu mi in the lead, but when dealing with a tenth of that number, 200 cubic kilometres = 48 cu mi.

  Wow. No idea how I didn't notice this error before; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• is this article in AE ("hypothesized") or BE ("metres")?

  It's supposed to be the latter, but I am ESL and so don't always notice the spelling differences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• The link to parasitic vent and its redirect to "parasitic cone" bugs me. As I'm sure you well know, the vent is the opening through which volcanic materials are expelled, while the cone is the structure that forms around the vent due to the ejected material. So the interested reader who wants to know more about the cool-sounding "parasitic vent" gets led to the parasitic cone article, where the phrase "parasitic vent" does not occur (yep that article's crap), and leads to newbie reader not knowing if the terms are equivalent (the crap article mentions vents, but what's "parasitic" about them?). You seem to be one of the geology/volcano experts around here – perhaps you could use your powers to fix that problem for your future article links, and future readers? (I know, not strictly FAC-related, but a general suggestion)

  There is apparently space for a dedicated article but I tend to write more on specific volcanoes than such general articles. It seems like maybe swapping the article and the redirect would be warranted, seeing as a parasitic cone is by necessity built on a parasitic vent; what say you Volcanoguy? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable but volcanic vent also redirects to volcano. Volcanoguy 21:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  However, volcano is a very broad-scope article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's just from the lead. I see from a quick read that the entire article could use a thorough copyedit for nits like these, but to prevent this from becoming a lengthy peer review I'll end my commentary here and wish the nominator luck. Issues aren't enough to oppose, but I'm generally underwhelmed by the article quality. Esculenta (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Answered the issues and also attempted to mend some others. Do you think that The volcano is covered by glaciers, and thus only a few rocky outcrops occur on the mountain, although the volcano is considered to be well-exposed compared to other volcanoes in the region can be split in some way? Same question for and generated distinct deposits when eruption characteristics changed. Also I can't tell how to make the "in" go away in "1 metre (3 ft 3 in)" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, sentences can be readily simplified by splitting them, so the newbie reader doesn't have to parse so much info in one gulp. "The volcano is covered by glaciers, resulting in only a few rocky outcrops being visible on the mountain. Despite this, the volcano is considered to be well-exposed in comparison to other volcanoes in the region." and another split: "They were formed by pyroclastic fallout during eruptions, which mantled the topography. As eruption characteristics changed, these processes generated distinct deposits." BTW "mantled" is not a common verb (outside of geological discussions), so it would be good if there's a stop there for the reader to assimilate that. Esculenta (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  And is this what you mean: 1 metre (3 ft)? Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  While I'm here, another pet peeve: "about 1 centimetre per year (0.39 in/year)" there's no reason for there to be two significant figures in the output if the input is "about 1"; the answer implies a false precision. Esculenta (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, that was what I meant. Installed it for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  (Dealt with some potential nits in the description section) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Esculenta, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I really only reviewed the lead in full, so I can't support. I've got a full plate on wiki and IRL, so can't commit to a full review at this time. I'll perhaps revisit for a complete review if I find a chunk of time to dig into the article, but can't guarantee it. Esculenta (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Volcanoguy

I might not be able to review this article due to computer issues but I'm putting this here just in case. Volcanoguy 21:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, this nom has been open a month so quick check if you'd still like to review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre (11,411 ft) high glacier-covered volcano". Should this be "Mount Berlin is a 3,478-metre-high (11,411 ft), glacier-covered volcano"?

  Mm, not sure that we can assume knowledge of what the meters mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously referring to the elevation. Volcanoguy 20:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I prefer the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's problematic how it is but maybe it should be clarified that 3,478 metres (11,411 ft) is the elevation. Height can mean several things. Volcanoguy 06:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Done, but this is a marginal thing IMHO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The volcano began erupting during the Pliocene and was active into the late Pleistocene-Holocene." Why not use "late Quaternary" instead of "late Pleistocene-Holocene"?

  Quaternary is a very broad term that has also been applied to purely Pleistocene volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes but the Holocene and late Pleistocene are late Quaternary. The article already makes it clear that Mount Berlin was active during the late Pleistocene and Holocene. Volcanoguy 21:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying late Quaternary however does not make it clear that activity lasted into the Holocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Is "late Pleistocene-Holocene" supposed to mean Mount Berlin was active at the boundary of these two epochs or that Mount Berlin was active during both late Pleistocene and Holocene? Volcanoguy 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The latter, but both interpretations are factually correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

• "These craters are aligned east-west". Should this be an en dash rather than a hyphen?

  Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:DASH, dashes are used "in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between". Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Nonvolcanic features include incipient cirques on the northern and western side." Non-volcanic?

  Nonvolcanic is slightly more frequently used on Google. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Geology

• "Many of these volcanoes form distinct volcanic chains, such as the Executive Committee Range where volcanic activity has shifted at a rate of about 1 centimetre per year (0.4 in/year)." Is there a specific direction this volcanic activity has been shifting?
• Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years." I would suggest slightly rewording this sentence to "Activity in the Marie Byrd Land Volcanic Province began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary; argon-argon dating has yielded ages as young as 8,200 years."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Four volcanoes in the Marie Byrd Land volcanic province". Missing the capitalization of "volcanic province".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The West Antarctic Rift has been volcanically and tectonically active over the past 30-25 million years." En dash instead of hyphen?

  Not a dash/hyphen expert, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

See above. Volcanoguy 22:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Added an en dash. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Some lava flows feature levee-like forms at their margins." Levee currently links to an article having to do with rivers rather than volcanoes.

  That's because they resemble river levees. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Both welded and unwelded, pyroclastic and tuffaceous breccias are present." I don't think a comma is necessary here.

  Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "A long term trend in iron and sulfur" Long-term?

  A poorly explained change in the frequency of sulfur and iron. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be a hyphen between "long" and "term". Volcanoguy 20:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Eruption history

• "The volcano underwent a surge in activity between 35,000/40,000 – 18,000/20,000 years ago." "And" would probably be better here instead of a hyphen.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It may correspond to a 443,000±52,000 years old lava at Merrem Peak." Awkward wording.

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Tephras in the Vostok Station ice cores of East Antarctica deposited 406,000 years ago may come from Mount Berlin." May have came from Mount Berlin.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Potassium-argon dating there and at Kraut Rocks has produced ages of 630,000±30,000 and 620,000±50,000 years, respectively." I'm not sure if "produced" is the right word here. Maybe yielded?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It may correspond to a 141,400±5,400 deposit at Merrem Peak." This should be reworded somehow to make it clear that "141,400±5,400" is a date.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "A 141,700 years old tephra layer at Vostok has been related to this Mount Moulton tephra." A 141,700-year-old tephra layer.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "A 28,500 year old tephra layer at Mount Erebus and in two ice cores of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." A 28,500-year-old tephra layer.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin and a lava flow appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago." I would suggest rewording this sentence to "A lava flow and tephra layers found both close to and away from Mount Berlin appear to have been produced during an extended eruption about 10,500±2,500 years ago."

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• "A number of tephra layers between 18,100 and 55,400 years old, found in Siple Dome ice cores, resemble these of Mount Berlin". Those instead of these?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Last eruption and present-day activity

• "The date of the last eruption of Mount Berlin is unclear but the Global Volcanism Program gives 10,300±5,300 BP as the date of the last eruption." "Last eruption" and "last known eruption" are not particularly synonymous.

  While I think last known is implicit in the GVP indication, I am not sure it's explicit enough to say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that there could have been more recent eruptions that haven't been identified. Given the fact that Mount Berlin is mostly covered with ice there could very well be younger volcanic rocks that haven't been found or dated. So to say that 10,300 ± 5,300 BP is the date of the last eruption may not be the case. Volcanoguy 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I know that, but I don't know whether GVP knows or has reasons to treat it as the last eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

They don't; the GVP treats it as the "last known eruption" is what I'm trying to get at here. Volcanoguy 21:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

All this time, and I didn't notice that the GVP pages say last "known" eruption; correction now in in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• "These geothermal environments may host geothermal habitats similar to these in Victoria Land and at Deception Island". Similar to "those" in Victoria Land and at Deception Island.

  Forgot to note that this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Volcanoguy 23:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Pending feedback from Volcanoguy on some, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Volcanoguy 23:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "It is a about 20-kilometre-wide (12 mi) mountain": looks like some editing debris?

  Yeah, something happened to the lead. I've cleared it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest removing the self-links to Berlin Crater
• "The edifice emerges 2.1 kilometres (1.3 mi)[11] from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." I don't know what this distance refers to. The associated note says that the ice sheet is piled up against the side of the volcanic, so there appears to be no horizontal distance between them.

  Aye, but there is a vertical distance between the summit of Berlin and the WAIS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  OK, but the text doesn't make it clear that that's the distance being given. I would take "the edifice emerges" to refer to the point where the rock emerges from the ice. Since the note clarifies the relationship between the edifice and the WAIS, I don't think you need this at all, but if you keep it it should be clear what it refers to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Well, to me "emerging X meters" is clearly meant to refer to the emergence i.e the vertical coordinate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think I follow you. The volcano has an elevation of 3.478 km at its peak; the highest point of WAIS on its flank is 1.4 km; so the difference between those two is 2.1km. How about "Mount Berlin's peak is 2.1 km above the highest local elevation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Meh, OK, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "These craters are aligned in east-west direction": suggest either "These craters are aligned east-west", or "These craters are aligned in an east-west direction".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The entire edifice has a length of about 20 kilometres (12 mi)." Given that we said it consists of two edifices, suggest making this "The entire combined edifice".

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Some lava flows feature levees." What does this refer to? The link goes to an an article that does not explain the term's use in this context.

  Expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "a tendency towards more primitive magma compositions": I had a look at the magma article to try to understand this use of "primitive"; as far as I can tell it refers to the composition of the original melt. Is that correct? If so, how can that apply when it appears there is no single magma chamber?

  Footnoted this, it's a technical term to define magma chemistry and is strictly speaking a spectrum rather than a yes-no thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Activity began during the middle Miocene and continued into the later Quaternary, with argon-argon dating yielding ages as young as 8,200 years": It wouldn't hurt to make it clear these dates don't apply specifically to Mount Berlin. Perhaps "Activity in the province" to address the first part, and give the location of the dating in the second half?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not really necessary, but it would be interesting to know if the tephra layers have been found in ice cores in the northern hemisphere.

  Yes, but not from Antarctic volcanoes. Oruanui might have produced a bi-polar tephra layer, though, but it's in New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• It appears the eruptions in the "Chronology" section are more or less chronological; any reason not to switch the first two entries to make them conform?

  Can't think of one, so that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "a 443,000±52,000 lava" seems an abbreviated form of words?

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "7,768 BCE": all your other dates are essentially BP dates; I think it would be better to be consistent. There's another BC date in the final section.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "have a similar composition even if no exact match is found": the phrasing seems odd. I assume this means "have a similar composition though no exact match has been found"; if so I'd use that form of words.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• "It has been evaluated for the potential to obtain geothermal power": any interesting conclusions from the evaluation?

  No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to me like this statement from the same page (p.120) could be summarized as a conclusion: "Being isolated and extensively covered with ice, these volcanoes are unlikely to have any significant economic value as geothermal resources" (rather than leaving the reader hanging). Esculenta (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• That's a pretty good conclusion; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Esculenta that a brief summary statement to the effect that there is little chance of exploiting the volcanoes for geothermal power would be helpful but that's not worth holding up support for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Older nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 6 December 2023 [30].

---

Argosy (magazine)

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most influential magazines in American history. Argosy was the first pulp magazine and spawned hundreds of imitators and an entire industry that lasted almost sixty years. It was the first brick in the publishing empire built by Frank Munsey, an often-reviled publishing mogul of the early 20th century. It outlasted Munsey, who died in 1925, but the magazine eventually succumbed in 1978, though it has been revived several times since then.

The article has one unusual feature. In researching the history of its editors, I found that none of the secondary sources listed them correctly for a short period in 1942. I sent a correction to one of the sources, and they accepted it and have updated the relevant pages, which the article now cites. I don't think this is a COI in any way but thought I should mention it. It's an example of what we often tell new editors -- if you have original information, get it published and then we can include it in a Wikipedia article. This is the first time I've ever actually had to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by TompaDompa

Saw that the peer review closed without any comments. I'll try to find the time to review this, though I make no promises. Leaving this here for now at least. TompaDompa (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi TompaDompa, I think this could do with some TLC if you have the time. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to find the time in the next few days or so. TompaDompa (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

General comments

• The article is rather light on links. It's of course a matter of preference, but I would probably include a fair number of additional links to things like serial (literature) and World War I.

  I've linked those two, and will keep an eye out for more possibilities as I respond to your other points, but if you see others you consider to be omissions please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  WWI and WWII are classic MOS:OVERLINKage; everyone knows what they are, and no one will click on them from this article. Such links add to the WP:SEAOFBLUE, and diminish the value of links relevant to the article. (Not a significant matter relative to FA status, just something to consider.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  We can agree to disagree about that specific example, but it is indeed a balance between including too many links and not including enough. I generally lean in favour of including fairly many. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Similarly, I would likely go for more WP:REDLINKS.

  I've added a couple. I assume you're thinking of some of the early stories, which might have commentary? I think some are likely to be too obscure to have standalone articles so I'm reluctant to start linking the titles, but if you feel confident that some are independently notable then go ahead, or let me know which ones you think deserve the links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• "adventure stories of all genres" seems like a contradiction in terms.

  This was meant to refer to the policy described by Bittner in 1928 of printing action stories in any genre, even romance. Looking at the source again Mott doesn't make this clear for the 1896 magazine, which is what's being described here, so I cut it to just "adventure stories", which Mott does fully support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "adapted the series for television" – I would link this as "adapted the series for television" to have less of an WP:EASTEREGG situation, but that's really a minor quibble.

  Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• See my comments below about the 1979 issues.

  Replied there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Publication history

• I would provide inflation adjustments for the currency amounts to give some additional context.

  I've added a few. Rather that put an adjustment in for every single amount given, which would quickly get obtrusive, I've tried to add them in such a way that amounts quickly following in the same paragraph will be approximately clear from context or very simple ratios such as half. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "a juvenile weekly paper" – I gather that this is "juvenile" in the sense of "aimed at young readers" as opposed to "childish". I suspect many readers will not be familiar with this terminology, so I would either link the term or try to rephrase it.

  I made it "a weekly paper for children". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the first instalment" – that should be "installment" in US English, no? This recurs a few times.

  All fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Munsey had bought a pew in a popular church for $1,000 a year" – I'm guessing this is meant to illustrate reckless spending habits, but what does it mean, precisely? Did he pay the church to reserve a spot for him, or what?

  The source is describing Fogler's visit to see Munsey, which included a Sunday, so they went to church: "To the visitor's [Fogler's] amazement, Munsey held a pew of his own, to which they were ushered with attentive bows. It cost $1,000 a year, Fogler was told, and he ticketed church pew and hotel room together among his memories." Munsey had begun to spend more freely when Argosy's became temporarily very profitable in 1887, and evidently this was part of that. How about "Munsey had a personal pew in a popular church, which had cost him $1,000 a year"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds good to me. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there a good reason to link both Munsey's Weekly and Munsey's Magazine? The former is at time of writing a WP:REDLINK, and considering it was converted into the latter publication after only a couple of years I would expect it to redirect to that article.

  I checked the history to be sure, and they are generally treated as a single lineage, so I've linked the first. I thought about removing the second link but I think the interested reader would be more confused by the lack of a link to the second one, as they might easily not realize that the two are the same unless they follow both links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hm. I'm not sure what the best solution is here. Not something that would be a dealbreaker for FA status, at any rate. TompaDompa (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In the Panic of 1893" – "in" seems an odd choice of word here. Perhaps "during"?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "it was the first magazine to print only fiction" – if this is true with no qualifiers, I should think it warrants mentioning in the WP:LEAD.

  It's not true, and I've cut it from the body. I found this statement in multiple sources, but The Black Cat (and I wrote that article, so I should have remembered this) was also all-fiction and began publication a year earlier. I wouldn't be surprised if someone tries to re-add the statement one day as it's widely repeated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "increased their price to at twenty cents" – "to at"?

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The low price, sustained through most of the 1920s, must have been a strong benefit to circulation" – this phrasing ("must") sounds argumentative, and there is no WP:INTEXT attribution. I don't think this is (as much of) a problem for phrasings using e.g. "possibly", "likely", or "perhaps".

  I went ahead and attributed it inline to Moskowitz which I think solves the problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Surely Sam Moskowitz should be linked?

  Linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Bittner lasted for three years as editor; his successors throughout the 1930s only lasted a year or two each." – Don Moore also lasted three years, did he not?

  Reworded -- I think that wording was left over from before I was able to do more research about the exact transition dates. The subsequent paragraphs (and the tables) give the details so I could just cut this if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• The plagiarism story seems like something there would be a lot more to say about. Is there?

  Bedford-Jones wrote an account of the event here (first page of his article, p. 35) which is quite entertaining and I did think about giving more of the story, perhaps in a footnote. It seemed a bit off-topic and I decided against it, but if you feel it's worth it, I could put a note in giving more details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think a footnote is a good idea. TompaDompa (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the popular Take It or Leave It radio show" – radio shows should be given in italics, right?

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Four more monthly issues appeared from August to November 1979, published by Lifetime Wholesalers, Inc." – I'm confused. Was this a continuation, a revival, or what? This sentence seems a bit tacked on (and maybe out of place?).

  Frustratingly there is almost no information available about these. My guess -- and it's only a guess -- is that a completely separate company acquired the name from Popular and restarted the publication, but quickly failed. I can find no references to it beyond the SFE article, which says almost nothing, and I am fairly sure that the SFE article draws its information from the Galactic Central checklist page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that we simply don't have the sources we would need to say the things we want to say. TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Contents and reception

• "George Griffith [...] published almost none of his work in the US in his lifetime. The only exception was The Lake of Gold" – I think this needs to be rephrased. As the explanatory footnote says, The Lake of Gold was one of two works by Griffith published in the US, though the only one published in a US magazine.

  Reworked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• I would definitely link both Pearson's Magazine and Stories of Other Worlds.

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Edgar Rice Burroughs's Barsoom series had begun in All-Story Weekly, as had his Tarzan novels" – I feel like both Barsoom and Tarzan should be in italics here, as the names of series.

  This didn't sound right to me, so I had a poke around in the MoS, and found MOS:SERIESTITLE, which says it should not be italicized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Seems like an area where not all cases would be entirely clear-cut. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Merritt's "The Ship of Ishtar", which was serialized in 1924" – if it was serialized then it is presumably a novel, and should be given in italics. We also seem to have an article that could be linked here: The Ship of Ishtar.

  Italicized and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Garrett Smith's "You've Killed Privacy!"" – I'm guessing that's Garret Smith?

  Yes -- I checked and the mis-spelling is Moskowitz's. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Johnston McCulley had launched his Zorro series" – if "Zorro" is used as the name of the series (as opposed to the name of the character), it should be in italics.

  See above re MOS:SERIESTITLE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Men's magazine era

• "In 1942, in an attempt to revive the magazine's fortunes, the all-fiction format was abandoned and articles about the war" – I can figure out that this refers to World War II, as can likely most readers, but I think it should be made explicit.

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Argosy's citation from the Post Office listed stories considered to be obscene; the list included The G-String Murders, a serial by Rose Louise Hovick that began in May 1942, and "How Paris Apaches Terrorize Nazis in Girl Orgies" and "Sex Outrages by Jap Soldiers", articles in the July and August 1942 issues." – no feedback here, I just find it amusing that those titles sound like something someone would make up to poke fun at tabloid headlines.

  I agree -- I thought it was worth including by way of illustration. Incidentally, the link for Rose Louise Hovick goes to Gypsy Rose Lee, which many more readers will recognize. The credit in the magazine itself was to Hovick, but do you think it would be worth mentioning her stage name in this article because of the recognition factor? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll defer to your judgment here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping Mike Christie. TompaDompa (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; much appreciated. I've responded to some of the ones I could deal with quickly; will continue this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, all replied to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

TompaDompa, I've dealt with the two additional comments you left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Cautious support. The article looks good, but I am unfortunately not sufficiently confident in my own ability to discern whether an article on this topic is up to WP:Featured article standards or falls short of them to be comfortable endorsing this unequivocally. I have no particular misgivings about the article, I just don't feel qualified enough to assess its quality to such a high standard to give an unreserved appraisal. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Frank_Munsey.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  The LoC link says it's part of the Bains collection, and the rights description link, here, says there are no known copyright restrictions but gives no more details. I had a look around to see if I could find the source but haven't been able to. Is the LoC description not definite enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• The LoC description is fine for the Bains tag, but you've got another tag on there that it doesn't satisfy. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this edit fixes that, if you mean the publication date tag. If the Bains tag is enough there's no need for the other tag anyway, though if I ever do find the publication date I'll make a note of it on the Commons page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

• File:Metal_monster_sharp.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Nikki, I've added a photo of Gypsy Rose Lee, FYI, in case you see any issues with the licensing there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

References

• Reference numbers are from this version.
• Ordinarily I would suggest linking the short cites to the bibliography (e.g., by using {{sfn}} cites). Though it's normally a matter of preference, here, given the prevalence of anonymous sources, I would strongly encourage doing so.

  I understand the benefits of sfn but dislike it as an editor. I may try switching to it as some point but for this article I'd rather see if I can get the cites in order without it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• Why are archived versions of Galactic Central being linked to in the first instance? It looks like the site is still live.

  All the pages from that site that have numerals in the URL are subject to change every quarter as the site is reindexed to take into account new content. The URLs will never go dead, but they'll unpredictably change so that the citation information is no longer on that page. I've handled this by marking them as dead immediately and giving an archive link. I agree it's not a great solution but I don't know of a better way to deal with the issue. I'm open to suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  Makes sense; that's a better solution than letting them get out of date. The only other thing I can think of would be to email the guy behind the website—I can't see why it would be in his interest for links to his website (whether from Wikipedia or anywhere else) to get dated every quarter. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  He does have a method of permalinking, but the last time I tried to use it (a month or two ago) it was broken. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the cites to websites (there are many) appear to incorrectly give the access date as the source date.

  For Galactic Central there are no source dates that I can find -- I think the rule is to give the access date for that parameter in those cases? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  That would just be confusing, because you wouldn't know what the date actually meant. Looking at Help:Citation Style 1 § Dates, the rule is "When a source does not have a publication date, use |date=n.d. or |date=nd". (News to me too—I've just been leaving them blank.) {{cite web}} also gives the intel that "The date of a Web page, PDF, etc. with no visible date can sometimes be established by searching the page source or document code for a created or updated date". The second is certainly not required, but I would do the first, or at least remove the dates. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think this one is still remaining. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, missed this. I'm removing the access dates now. The template documentation for cite web for the source date field says "Full date when the source was published; if unknown, use access-date instead; do not wikilink"; I always interpreted that as meaning "put in the access date", but perhaps it meant "ignore this parameter in favour of the access date". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Usernameunique: I think I've cleaned them all up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• #12, #121, #123 — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• #170 — What is this ("Anonymous (December 1942), p. 20") citing to? There's no anonymous work from December 1942 in the Sources, and the only December 1942 works there are a) have identified authors and b) don't include page 20. (This is another good example of why linked short cites would be better, by the way.)

  Fixed -- three separate errors on my part here: it was by Harriet Bradfield, not anonymous; it was 1943, not 1942; and I had not even added that source to the list of sources. Should be OK now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources

• The one-page sources don't need to be listed here, with short cites above; they can be listed just in the References section. For example, "Stone (2007), pp. 15–16" is a useful short cite, because it specifies which two pages out of a 39-page work are being cited. "Abbot (December 1942), p. 6", by contrast, is not; the entire source is on only page 6.

  I'd like to keep these as they are, if that's OK -- I do it this way because then I don't have to remember to change back and forth between citing in the references and the sources if I add or remove a second citation to a source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest linking the source names (e.g., The New York Times), and the publishers

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Anonymous (May 1953)" — The other Writer's Digest pieces use Roman numerals for the volume number

  I'm happy to convert it if you think consistency is worth it, but they did actually switch to Arabic numerals for volume numbers briefly and this volume is one of those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, that's the way I like to do it too. (The amount of time I've wasted trying to find covers of journals to see how they style the volume number...) It just seemed unlikely because, as you say, it seesaws from Roman to Arabic. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• All the "Tymn, Marshall B.; Ashley, Mike" cites — Suggesting using "name-list-style = amp" parameter

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Ellis, Douglas; Hulse, Ed; Weinberg, Robert" — Ditto

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Hughes, William; Punter, David; Smith, Andrew" — Ditto

  Done. I wasn't aware of this parameter; thanks for pointing it out. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Hulse, Ed (2013)" — ISBN not fully hyphenated

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Munsey, Frank A. (1907)" — It should be out of copyright, can you find a link to the source online?

  Found and linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Osborne, William Hamilton (1921)" — Seeing as you have a link, you don't really need the OCLC. Small matter, though

  You're right; hadn't thought of that. I guess it might be worth keeping them as the link might fail at some point in the future? Also fine with removing them if you think that's best. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

• "Raine, William MacLeod (1921)" — Ditto

  As above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Also made a few minor edits while checking. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- I've responded to a couple of things tonight but may have to wait till tomorrow or Tuesday to finish. Thanks for the helpful copyedits. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I think I've now responded to all points -- sorry about the delay. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Mike Christie, sorry for letting this slip. I saw one lingering retrieval date given as source date (#19), which I trust you'll clean up—you might want to double check, too, just in case there's another one or two. But it looks good overall, and I'm signed off. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I fixed that one and looked through again but couldn't find others. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The Golden Argosy

• "the manager of the Western Union office there": could rephrase slightly as "the manager of the local Western Union office", but your call

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The Argosy

• "Top-Notch Magazine was a holdout at fifteen cents": I'm not sure what this means, and it may be a bit too AmEng for many readers

  Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Dewart, Popular Publications

• "for Munsey.[31][49][50][15]" and "50,000.[31][66][67][68][note 5]": any chance of bundling some of the multiple cites into a less obtrusive form?

  Yes, those are rather ugly. Have bundled all the ones where there are four citations together. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Done to the start of Contents and reception; more to follow. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Not much more to add. Just one comment in the Science fiction and fantasy section:

• "Argosy did print" and "Barsoom series had begun", had appeared': any reason why not "Argosy printed" and "Barsoom series began"?

  I changed the first one. For the second, the series began in All-Story, which is in the past at the point the article is talking about it, so I think the past perfect is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support One final comment (more a point of style than anything else) isn't going to hold up my support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "Munsey kept to the weekly schedule without missing an issue". This seems to be saying the same thing twice.

  The key point is that he didn't miss an issue, but I think "Munsey managed to avoid missing an issue" wouldn't read as naturally. I've made it "Munsey managed to keep to the weekly schedule"; does that convey the point still? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  It does. If you want a little more emphasis, maybe 'Munsey managed to maintain the regular weekly schedule' or similar?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 sample issues". I had to reread that to get the point. Maybe 'Over five months the campaign gave out 11,500,000 free-sample issues' or 'Over five months the campaign gave away 11,500,000 sample issues'?

  I took the second option. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Argosy" section: perhaps a date before the third sentence?

  Done, but I'm not sure that reads more smoothly -- what do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  I am clearly missing something. The first date in that section is still in the third sentence.

  I misunderstood your comment, though in retrospect it's quite clear. For some reason I thought you wanted me to move the date in the third sentence up to the start of the third sentence. I've reverted that change and added the year to the first sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "which was retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine briefly" → 'which was briefly retitled Argosy and Railroad Man's Magazine'?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1925 Munsey died." A little more detail would be nice, if only his age and the cause of death.

  Done. Britt doesn't say he died of appendicitis; it was probably complications of that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "at least four issues between Fall 1977 and Summer 1978". I don't think you need upper-case initial letters when not referring to specific issues.

  Those are the issue dates so I reworded to make that more natural. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The magazine has been revived three times since then." This came as a shock. I had to back track through the previous two paragraphs to realise that you had implied, without expressly stating, that the magazine had ceased publication.

  Reworded the earlier paragraph to make it clearer that it (temporarily) ceased publication.

  Mike, could you quote this for me, my wheels are clearly spinning. I have just reread the three paragraphs in question three times and it still seems to leap from "Argosy's circulation remained over a million until at least 1973" to "The magazine has been revived three times since then" giving me a real 'whaaa ...?' feeling.

  I just realized that "The magazine" is confusing, coming as it does after mentions of the spinoffs, so I've changed that to "Argosy". Perhaps that paragraph should be first in that small section? Here's the sequence of events. Popular ceased to publish the magazine in 1978. Four more issues appeared from Lifetime Wholesalers, dated August through November 1979. I have no information at all about those issues -- presumably Lifetime Wholesalers bought the title from Popular and quickly discovered it was an unprofitable venture. The magazine ceased publication then until the first of the revivals, in 1989. The spinoffs are not issues of Argosy; they're covered here as that's how the secondary sources discuss them. Do the edits I just made help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes indeed. How would you feel about "The last issue was dated November 1979." → 'The last issue was dated November 1979, after which regular publication ceased.'?

  Yes, better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Bittner's comments in 1928 asked for "any good clean story with sound plot, rapid-fire action and strong masculine appeal will be considered" ". The grammar seems out here.

  Fixed by trimming the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review -- all responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I am down to the start of "Other genres" and will try to finish the review later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Argosy briefly lost its permit as a result, but did not miss any issues." This seems to beg a question. Having lost its permit, how was it reinstated before an issue was missed?

  The sources don't say. The main source for this is Barbas, linked in the article; she goes into great detail on the case affecting Esquire, which (she argues) was a free speech landmark. From this page it's apparent Esquire didn't miss an issue either, so presumably either the magazines agreed to clean themselves up until the appeals were over or else the removal of the permits was stayed pending the appeal results, but Barbas gives no details for Argosy and I don't see those details for Esquire either (though I might have missed them). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I might be inclined to add 'the reasons for this are unclear' or similar, but that is very much optional.

I'm always hesitant to add notes like that, since I don't want to imply in Wikipedia's voice that "nobody knows the answer". Perhaps the answer is in some source I haven't seen yet. I would have thought the trade journals of the day would have covered it, but I haven't found anything like that yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's it. A classic. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2023 [31].

---

The Firebird

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Back for another ballet (and popular orchestral work)! A personal favorite and choreographic masterpiece, this work was Stravinsky's breakthrough in the international music scene, setting the stage for Petrushka and The Rite of Spring. This article was promoted to GA in March with a review by Chiswick Chap, rewritten in July per an inquiry by Wretchskull. Just recently it received a PR by Corachow and Schminnte, and now here we are! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda

Sorry, I missed the PR. As usually I'll look at lead last, but know already that the plot is too detailed for my taste, while I miss more about first reception, later performances and recordings.

Infobox

• What I usually do for works with a foreign title which didn't make it to common name is still put it on top of the infobox, with the translation below, - here the French. I wonder if the French name should come before the Russian in the Native names, as it was for a premiere in France.
• Caption: I doubt that the image had an English title. As the image caption is the first thing people will look at, it's perhaps worth saying that it is a sketch for a costume in the premiere, - the person is not mentioned in the lead.

Background

• I like the concise para for Fokine much better that the composer's which I find overly detailed. Is it relevant that his father was a bass, or that he studied law, for examples? - need sleep --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

All addressed, and no worries over the PR, very glad to have you here! Thanks for all thus far! Also, somewhat unrelated- I saw The Company of Heaven in your stories list on your user page and gave it a listen out of curiosity, what a wonderful work! Britten's vocal music is glorious and diverse, and this one was no exception! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - resuming (and if you follow my stories you may have met Firebird "on the side", - a suite was played in the concert of the NWPh right after the Invasion of Ukraine, dedicated to the victims by (then) conductor Jonathon Heyward.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Background

• Thank you for some trimming. We have now R.-K. twice in short succession. I don't think we need to say "major works" when they also carry "first performed" and such.
• I suggest to begin a new para for Diaghilev's background ("D. had founded ...")
• *Koschei, the immortal king, and the captive Princess" reads like three characters.
• watch out for ref order (after "deadline", for example)
• "to the Rimsky-Korsakov household with Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov, the son of Stravinsky's teacher, and to whom Stravinsky dedicated the score" - split?
  • Actually reworded the last clause to merge with the clarification. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• "While the composer worked, Diaghilev arranged ..." - I don't see one working, the other arranging simultaneously, - does it mean it was arranged before the work was finished?
  • Arranging was a bad word choice since it has musical implications- changed to "While the composer worked, Diaghilev organized..." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Development

• "April", - as this is a new section, where readers may arrive per toc, please provide a year (which is also not the year of December.
• I wonder if "rehearsals began" should come before the two dress rehearsals.
• I wonder further if there could be a section with narration of the plot and a list of roles, not in the lead, but before rehearsals.
  • Well
• I see some contradiction between the Firebird first just described as classical, and then as revolutionary.
  • The Firebird as a character was revolutionary to the role of women in dance, but her actual choreo was traditional- clarified. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Premieres

• "Diaghilev's circle of Mir iskusstva collaborators" - that's too mysterious.
  • Not sure how else to clarify this, since that's just what the source says. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• The image is lovely, but not even the headers show that size, - no idea what to do.
  • I'm not sure what you mean, the image looks fine to me and is sized according to the 1.4 parameter. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Can the section please provide the dates, locations and performers of the two premieres?
  • I just noticed that I moved the info about the Russian premiere to "Subsequent" so the heading has been changed to "Premiere", singular. The date location and dancers for the premiere are stated in para 2 of the section. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Subsequent

• I could imagine the pic (1936) a bit further down.
• Company names are in English, which Berlin State Opera would match, but if you prefer German, then Staatsoper Berlin, please.
  • Used English to match other company names MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• "(later renamed Royal Ballet)" interrupts the flow too much.

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• All addressed thus far- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I have a few minutes. Thank you for resolving the above! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Background

• Only after finding the Stravinsky background too long did I see that the equivalent passage of The Rite of Spring is much more elaborate. I like it short, but do as you see fit.

Structure

• I don't see "Synopsis" justified, and Structure would be redundant to the header.
• why Original Episodes Titles? vs. French episodes titles? (same for English)
• if all these are titles, why not italic?

Instrumentation

• on my display, the five completely normal strings occupy space with a lot of white space next to them.

Music

• "call the princesses back into the palace, but when Ivan pursues her" - plural - singular
• "Before Koschei turns Ivan into stone" sounds as if he does.

Suites

• The titles of the first two suites have different capitalisation, - intentionally?

The article leaves me a bit curious about dates, people and styles of further recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Most of this article is modeled after The Rite, but I think you were right on the extensive bio. For synopsis: I'm not sure what you mean, there's no header with '"Synopsis" since that's part of "Music and plot". Also, are you suggesting the table with episode titles be cut?

As for dates and people, I'm not sure what you mean. There are numerous names mentioned since many people were involved, and I tried to keep the ones focused on to a minimum so it wasn't confusing. The main three subjects here are Stravinsky, Diaghilev, and Fokine, as shown in "Background". Lastly, on the topic of recordings: I cannot find any reliable sources about the history of video recordings of The Firebird. I can find a few questionable reviews (like this) but I'm not comfortable citing that, and none of the book sources/journal articles seem to be very up to date with recordings. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping for @Gerda Arendt (also, to clarify, there is one sentence about a film version of the ballet under "Recordings") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Some replies to right above

• The title of the table is "Synopsis and structure ", - I don't think we need any. Sorry that it wasn't clear.
• I don't see any dates and people mentioned for the many recordings. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I have no idea if any stand out. Gramophone usually has good reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Noting that you will probably have to be quite selective, as a Google Search for site:www.gramophone.co.uk "Firebird" + "Stravinsky" gives over 170 results, although there are some false positives. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 15:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

When I let Google do the picking by a more generic question, this one comes first. I agree with you, MyCat, that classical.net is rather useless for the purpose. I'd like musicweb-international.com better. There are also newspapers, such as TNYT. And most recent is fun ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the synopsis and structure table should likely be incorporated into the prose. The plot section should mention the significant scenes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the input, I now see what @Gerda Arendt meant. That being said, I'm not sure that adding more is necessary. The "Recordings" section as it stands discusses the pianola rolls, names the first recordings, and briefly touches on the film version- much like The Rite, which this article is modeled after. Much of the commentary there is Stravinsky commenting on recordings, but I don't find this particularly important to the reader; understanding which recordings came first is important to the history, but knowing Stravinsky's favorite doesn't seem very notable. Also, there are numerous dates and names- the reason there aren't names of conductors is because the sources do not list them. Thanks for the specificity, though, always looking for ways to improve an article's readibility. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Taken so far. As usual, lead last. You said you took The Rite of Spring as a model.

• There, the plot is a half-sentence, - I suggest you move the detailed plot further down in the article, and leave just what's essential.
• There, we have the last sentence about influence and recordings, while the many recordings of the Firebird are not mentioned in the lead, and popularity is only given for the suites.
• There, Firebird is mentioned as preceeding, and similarly, the Firebird lead might look foreward at Sacre. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, thanks again for the comparisons. Cut down plot in the lead, added a bit more about recordings. The mention of how Firebird looks forward to The Rite is in the last sentence of lead para 1. Thank you again! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming the lead, but where did the nice table go?

In the lead, I'd like even less, believing that a list of the characters - as in Appalachian Spring, with a specific note about how unusual the Firebird role was at the time.

In the article, I'd like even more of a plot than we had in the lead before (again as in AS, and compare FAs about operas, such as Falstaff), and the best place for it would be after the table. The table offers the original names, valuable for some readers, and their English counterparts. coming again in the and those not interested can easily skip the section.

Regarding the points below, the technical term word for performing a role in opera and ballet the first time is "create", but some readers misunderstand that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I had suggested cutting the table. I don't have strong feelings about it, however, so @MyCatIsAChonk should feel free to put it back in. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, I've shuffled the lead around, let me know what you think. For the table, thanks for the clarification voorts- I do agree that this table is mildly unnecessary, as I only included it because it was present before the revision. Gerda, regarding the plot, I'm not sure there's much more to add. One difficulty I had in writing the "Music and plot" section was that there is no clear definition of the plot as recorded by Fomine/Stravinsky that I could find. Whereas Falstaff has a thorough plot explanation in many program booklets and websites, I can't find the same for Firebird- most sites give only a sentence or two about the plot, and I was lucky to find the explanations that I found in Philip 2018 and the three sites. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and understand. I miss the table, but so be it if I'm the only one. Support. I suggest you move - in the lead - the sentence about the music before later performances, but won't change my mind overall ;) --(didn't complete signing yesterday but better sign the support) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by SilverTiger

I'm think I've heard music from this and liked it so... here goes nothing?

• What's an impresario?
  • Linked the first instance of the word
• Diaghilev commissioned Stravinsky to orchestrate music by Chopin for the ballet Les Sylphides, and the composer was finished by March 1909. Can you specify the month when Diaghilev commissioned Stravinsky, since you also specify the month it was completed?
  • Can't find anything about the specific months in the two sources cited, Walsh and White. They only state that Diaghilev commisssioned him; no date attached. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• The group drew from several books of Russian fairy tales, notably Alexander Afanasyev's collection and Pyotr Pavlovich Yershov's The Little Humpbacked Horse. Add links- a piped link to Russian Fairy Tales at "collection", and The Little Humpbacked Horse. Yes, the latter redirects to a section but readers are going to be curious and want to be able to click on it.
  • Done. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• What Muscovite anthology?
  • Source doesn't say- I clarified in the prose. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• ...Stravinsky finished the work in nearly six months,.. If six months is a relatively short time to write a ballet in, then say "only" instead of "nearly". If not, then change it to "just under".
  • Used "about" as to not draw unsourced conclusions .MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• ..who originated the titular Firebird role,.. "originated" does not work here. Find another way to say that she was the first to play the role.
  • It is typical when writing about theatre to say that someone "originated" a role; see this article or this book. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• ..while female dancers often danced princesses, swans, and lovers,.. I think you're missing a word in there?
  • I don't believe so- danced can be used as an adjective when discussing performances. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Throughout the score, Stravinsky used a system of leitmotifs (short, recurring musical phrases associated with a particular person, place, or item) placed in the harmony he later dubbed "leit-harmony". - "leitmotif" needs some kind of in-line explanation, same as impresario.
  • Added MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

And that's all from me. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• SilverTiger12, thanks so much for the quick review, I was worrying it might get archived! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's fine; to be honest I'd been considering this one for a while but was trying to wait until Gerda wrapped hers up. SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SilverTiger12, will you be supporting or opposing? No pressure if you don't feel the need to. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from voorts

• "had recently come to love" - change "come to love"; feels a bit informal
• "Benois recalled that Pyotr Petrovich Potyomkin, a poet and ballet enthusiast in Diaghilev's circle, brought forth the subject of the Firebird, citing [or reciting if he actually read it aloud] with the 1844 poem "A Winter's Journey" by Yakov Polonsky, which includes the lines" - "brought forth" when?; in what context; to whom?
  • Date is not said in the source, but clarified otherwise. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Fokine read much Fokine drew on the stark contrast between good and evil in skazki (Russian fairy tales) in developing the ballet's characters. to find suitable tales; in writing the characters, Fokine displayed a stark contrast of good and evil commonly seen in fairy tales.
• "Originally, Tcherepnin was to compose the music, as he had previously worked on Le Pavillon d'Armide with Fokine and Benois, but he withdrew from the project soon after." - is there a specific date for when "originally" and "soon after" were?
  • Sources don't really say when, and I assume this is because this info is found in undated letters/documents. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    • If that's the case, I would change the "soon after" because that's comparative, but there's nothing to compare it too. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• "fearing public disappointment from the public."
• "portraying ideas of expressiveness, naturalism, vitality, and stylistic consistency." I'm not sure how these are "ideas" that have been "portrayed", rather than descriptions of the choreography.
• "was revolutionary to thefor ballet scene"
• "However, Russian audiences had less favorable views towards the work, and the Russian premiere was not well-received by much of the audience" (not well-received seems like an understatement).
• "which Stravinsky took his family to from their home in Ustilug." - which production? do you have a date (or month and year)?
• "Andrey Rimsky-Korsakov quickly traveled to Paris to see the ballet, and he later praised the production in a letter to his mother." - this is in the section about subsequent productions, but seems related to the initial production.
  • The details of all post-premiere performances, including the extended run, are discussed in "Subsequent performances", but the reception to some others are mentioned in the last section for the sake of keeping reception in one place. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm still not quite understanding. When did Rimsky-Korsakov "quickly travel[] to Paris to see the ballet"? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• "it was impossible to mistake the genius of the composer, or of the artist who had designed the setting...'" - remove ellipsis at end of quote.
• "inon the Iberian peninsula"
• I would recommend moving the first paragraph of the "General character" subsection to the bottom of "Music" in its own subsection called "Critical reception". Also, is there any more recent criticism, particularly in scholarly works?
  • You raise a very good point- I moved it to a new subsection called 'Musical legacy'. As for modern critiques, not too sure about that- yes, there's a bit of commentary on the music itself, but not many modern analyses of The Firebirds lasting legacy, which is rather disappointing since it's such a seminal work in Stravinsky's repertoire. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    • You cite several sources regarding the choreography in the final paragraph of the "Development" section. Do those sources also comment on the choreography? Have you located any more contemporary sources that cite those works? If you're not sure about whether there's more modern analyses of the choreography / design / music, then I'd be concerned about whether the article meets FA's comprehensiveness requirement. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

      @Voorts, fixed the other two. For this, I entirely forgot about the choreo, my mind was focused on the musical analysis... I'll try to expand upon this soon, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's all I have for now. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Voorts, thank you very much for the review, was scared this would get archived! If I didn't respond to a bullet point, then it was fixed without question. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  @MyCatIsAChonk. Replied above. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Voorts, I've moved "Musical legacy" to a new section called "Legacy" under "History", and then added some modern analysis of the choreo. Other than that, I don't think there's much else to expand upon- some of the content in para 4 of "Development" could be considered modern analysis, but moving it to "Legacy" would put it out of order and be confusing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Are there no more recent sources that discuss the historical legacy of the production itself, the music, the costuming, or the choreography? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  @MyCatIsAChonk: forgot to ping. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Voorts, added some more, but I think I'm really scraping the bottom of the barrel here; I've combed through JSTOR, Cambridge Core, DeGruyter, and Brill, and I think I've gotten most modern critiques that could be effectively used in this article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just wanted to note that I'm still thinking about this and will wait for the source review to finish before I opine. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Voorts, the SR has passed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Schminnte

I had my say at the peer review, where my prose comments were promptly dealt with. The only outstanding comment I had during the peer review was that I personally would like to see a more technical detailing of the music; in retrospect I think the level of detail is fine. I believe the article meets the FA criteria, so I'm happy to support. Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 23:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks @Schminnte, hope to review A (For 100 Cars) soon! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Source and image review

Image licence, sourcing etc. look fine for me. Placement seems reasonable too. I did not review the song things in the "Music and plot" section.

Source wise, spot-check only upon request. Don't think we need to archive Google Books links. Is the New York Public Library really the author of "Stravinsky and the Dance: A Survey of Ballet Productions"? Except for Presto Classical we seem to be talking high-profile sources every time - famous orchestras, noted authors and reputable university presses. Source formatting is consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, I believe Presto is ok to cite here, as it is cited the same way in another FA, The Rite of Spring. For Stravinsky and the Dance; The author is Selma Jeanne Cohen, but I believe that the NYPL is the publisher- the first pages of the book give little information. Cut archive links for Google Books- if I missed any, let me know. Thank you very much! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Mmm, who authors Presto and what reputation do they have? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Presto is an online retailer for recordings and other music things. If I'm understanding WP:VENDOR correctly, I believe using the page just to see the number of commercially available recordings is appropriate. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

OKish, although I notice that the linked webpage does not directly reference the number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, not sure if it shows up on your device, but I see "Showing 1 - 10 of 181 results" in the top left corner. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

For me it says 197, and does that number mean what we are interpreting it as? Search hits can mean a number of things, not all of them relevant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, ah, now I see what you mean. Cut the source and preceding claim. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 16:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is a pass, source and image wise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not a pass on sources. Too many pages ranges with just p. And individual pages with pp. You need to check dates dashes too: there are a few hyphens rather than dashes used. - SchroCat (talk) 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  @SchroCat, will fix pages- not sure what you mean by the dates, though. All the date ranges I see use endashes, am I missing something? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry (flaming auto correct): you need to check dashes on page ranges, as there are hyphens mixed in there - possibly only one, but there may be others. - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

A few others:

• There is some inconsistent formatting in having some books in with the refs (59 and 74) and the rest in sources
• Ditto with journals - why are some in the refs and some in the sources?
• Griffiths: as he's contributor and editor, you need detail of which essays the cites are from
• Hamilton: space for W.W. on publisher
• White (1957) needs an oclc
• Not part of a source review, but I noticed some LQ issues too ," instead of ",

- SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat, fixed page ranges. The justification for having some sources in the refs rather than the sources is that they were only used once. If I cited a book/article and I cited different pages for different things, it went in sources- If I cited one page from one book/article and that was it for that source, there was no need to use sfns. Griffiths: how would I clarify which one it came from? The various citations through come from many different essays. Fixed Hamilton. Added ISBN to White 1957. What's LQ mean? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• OK for the sources/refs, but FNs 81 (Howerton) 82 (Papanikolaou) and 100 (Macaulay) don't have a page number at all (just the page ranges); these should have a page number(s)
• For Griffiths you can do it the same way you do for Carbonneau. Separate entries for each chapter used. At the moment it just says he's the editor, which looks a little odd
• LQ: See WP:LQ - it's logical quotations, having the quote marks inside the punctuation, rather than outside.

- SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat, fixed Griffiths source and quotations. I see the confusion about those three sources: for those, I found them online databases like Brill or ProQuest, where just the text was present without page numbers, and those databases are linked in the refs. The page ranges are the article's actual location within the printed material, but I didn't get the sources from the book- therefore, page range. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• OK, no problems for the Brill/ProQuest refs
• Just the LQ point to sort out for all those non-sentences with full stops ( a "delicious musician.", "sudden crash.", played on a piano." etc)

- SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@SchroCat, forgot about the periods- fixed. Thanks for the thorough review even outside of sourcing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• OK, Source formatting pass. I haven't done a search for additional sources or any spot checks, just focused on the formatting. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review as this was one of the works that got me hooked on modern classical, thanks to my mother, a big ballet fan. Also I recall with pleasure reviewing Brian Boulton's Rite of Spring article, so high time for the piece that broke Stravinsky onto the world stage...

• Copyedited as I reviewed, so pls let me know any concerns. Outstanding points:
  • Stravinsky finished The Firebird in about six months, and had it fully orchestrated by April 1910; the orchestration was finished mid-May -- what's the distinction between "fully orchestrated" and "the orchestration was finished"?
  • When the company arrived in Paris, the ballet was not finished, causing Fokine to extend rehearsals -- can we be more specific here, e.g. is it the choreography that was incomplete, since I gather the music was all ready and orchestrated?
  • After the premiere and subsequent performances, Stravinsky claimed to have met numerous figures in the Paris art scene, including Marcel Proust, Sarah Bernhardt, Jean Cocteau, Maurice Ravel, André Gide, and Princesse Edmond de Polignac. -- not sure of the significance of this, at least the way it's written, and especially if it's only "a claim"...

That's it for now, hope to get the remainder before long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, thanks for the review! Point one, I've no idea where that confusion came from, all fixed. Point two, the source does not elaborate further, just saying that ballet was unfinished and not saying why. Point three, I believe listing these people is important because it shows his popularity, and they all had some effect on Stravinsky: Princesse Edmond de Polignac commissioned numerous works of his, Gide was the librettist for Persephone, Cocteau was the librettist for Oedipus rex (opera), etc. Thanks for the CE- the entire article reads much better now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, tks re. point one. Re. point two, I can wear that for now at least. Re. point three, I understand, although without the clarification you've just given the significance might be lost on the average reader; ideally that bit might best come straight after Diaghilev's "eve of celebrity" quote, though chronologically it probably wouldn't work. If you keep it, think you at least need to re-phrase slightly and say Stravinsky recalled that after the premiere and subsequent performances he met many figures in the Paris art scene..., assuming that's all cited to his autobiography (you might chuck the relevant citation to the end of that sentence as well). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Resuming...

• Backtracking a bit, re. Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June for the premiere. It was his first visit to the city and the premiere of his first stage work. -- mentioning the premiere twice really did make it appear the premiere was like, now, when in fact it didn't happen till a few weeks later. Can we re-phrase to Stravinsky arrived in Paris around the beginning of June to attend the premiere of his first stage work; it was his first visit to Paris.?
• Rimsky-Korsakov's Sinfonietta on Russian Themes -- can we link, or at least date, this piece?
• Re. the 1919 Suite, The score contained many errors -- I think an example or two might not go astray here...
• The 1961 Columbia recording -- is this one conducted by Stravinsky himself? If so, worth mentioning that.

I think that's it for prose and coverage -- although I found a bit to edit, it generally flows well and doesn't seem to omit much, while also not being overly detailed. After we deal with the above I'll take another look top to bottom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, many thanks again, especially for the ce! Rephrased the sentence about Proust et al.

Point one: used your rephrasing. Point two: added date. Point three: source doesn't clarify, but I expanded the Stravinsky quote a bit. Point four: the source is no longer available on internet archive (lawsuit, probably) and I cannot access the page on Google Books, so I don't know. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks for all those. Re. the last point, I double-checked my copy of Stravinsky conducting Firebird and it is the CBS in 1961; to make things simpler citation-wise, I managed to find the relevant pages in Hamilton on Google Books and have tweaked the text accordingly. That said, I'd be very surprised if the 1961 recording was the first of the complete ballet score: Hamilton seems to be listing only Stravinsky's recordings of his works, so I don't think we can use that as a source to state unequivocally that his was the first complete recording. Unless you want to go scouring sources for someone reliable saying which was the first full score recording -- or even the first 1945 score recording, to be safe -- I'd alter that sentence to Stravinsky recorded the 1945 suite with the Philharmonic Symphony Orchestra of New York in 1946, and the complete ballet with the Columbia Symphony Orchestra in 1961.

Ian Rose, that's much better, thanks for rephrasing and clarifying- all fixed. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The discrepancy between the source and the original text of that sentence re. the 1946 and 1961 recordings rang a small alarm bell and made me want to spotcheck a few things to see that it was an isolated case, with the following result:

• FN18a/b -- okay
• FN61 -- okay
• FN84b -- okay
• FN88b -- issue: source mentions dungarees but I can't see anything about a Chinese Communist connection
• FN91 -- okay
• FN103 -- okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Rose, cut issue with 88b, not sure where that came from- thanks for the spotcheck MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks, happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Corachow

My comments in the PR on the dance side of things were dealt with swiftly, though I'd like the following to be addressed:

• In subsequent performances, considering adding a sentence to say that many more choreographers made their own version, not just the one listed here. Maybe named a few of them as well?
• The only filmed recording mention is the Sadler's Wells / Fonteyn in 1959. I assume it's actually the first filmed performance? Online, I found DVDs of Firebird performed by Royal Ballet, Mariinsky and National Ballet of Canada (I believe the former two are filmed performance and the latter made for the camera). And I also recall watching the Paris Opera Ballet performing the Béjart version on video.

Personally I'd also like more details on the dancing side of things but I think it is acceptable here and I understand the difficulties with accessing sources. I'm also very sorry to have missed the Appalachian Spring review. Corachow (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Corachow, no worries about Spring- you being at the PR for this and that was immensely helpful, and it likely would've failed the comprehensiveness criteria without your comments! Point one: see the last sentence of the section, and most choreographers in Au 1998 are already listed in the section, so relisting them would be redundant. Point two: Gerda had a comment about the film versions too, but the conclusion was that there's little to no reliable coverage of this subject; I could only find sketchy sites like this. Having effective coverage of every film version would be difficult, since I cannot find a source that lists film versions, and even then, reviews of these films are few and far between. If there are any sources you're aware of, that'd be most appreciated, but my own searches have come up inconclusive. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I see. The Oxford Dictionary of Dance (Google Books) listed several more versions, several made after Au 1998 was published, but did not go in detail on each one. Several well-known choreographers there, though their own takes aren't necessary the best known versions of Firebird and/or best known works in their careers. There's also one version by Alexei Ratmansky that was made quite recently. Corachow (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Corachow, thanks for finding that- added some names and companies. I'm not sure how helpful the addition is (see the end of "Subsequent productions") but it ensures coverage of modern choreographies too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Though all these new versions are all with completely new choreography and not Fokine. Please link Tetley and Taras. I also encourage you to add Ratmansky for American Ballet Theatre in 2012 (New York Times review), for a bit more modern coverage, and also because Ratmansky is one of the most important ballet choreographers working today. Corachow (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Corachow added- for the future, don't hesitate to add some things yourself if you deem them necessary, I trust your intuition on what's notable in ballet vs what's not. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a support from me. In the future if I come across a source with information noteworthy I'll add them to the article. Corachow (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [32].

---

Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In 1948, Twentieth Century-Fox released The Iron Curtain, a spy thriller based on the story of Soviet defector Igor Gouzenko. The Soviet Union was, predictably, unhappy with the film, and sought its suppression. In "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" (Tomoff 2011, p. 135), the Soviets sued in the New York Supreme Court (New York's trial court). The suit was based on the film's use of the music of several Soviet composers, including the eponymous plaintiff Dmitry Shostakovich. The filmmakers used the works, which were in the public domain in the United States, without the composers' permission and they credited the composers in the opening credits. In court, the composers argued a novel theory in United States law: that their "moral rights" in authorship had been harmed because Fox had associated their art with a political message with which they disagreed. The court ruled in favor of Fox, holding that although moral rights exist, the court lacked a standard to adjudicate the claim and that the strong public policy favoring free use of the public domain outweighed authors' rights to control use of their works. The case has received limited discussion in the legal scholarship, with some commentators agreeing with the court, and others finding its decision lacking. After doing a bunch of research to bring this up from a strugling stub (thanks to Davidships for bringing this case to WP:LAW's attention) to GA in very quick time, with a thorough review by CurryTime7-24, I feel that this article comprehensively summarizes the history of this case and the academic response. I look forward to your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk

• Why the refs in the lead? I don't see a particular reason for them, since there's no quotes or controversial claims
  • The refs are for the proposition that the case is a landmark court decision, which I think needs to be substantiated. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• The decision has been criticized as a misunderstanding - haven't read down yet, but are these criticism from our modern day? If so, this usage is appropriate, but if they're criticisms of the time then "was criticized" makes more sense
  • It's referring to a couple of legal comments contemporary to the case and recent scholarship. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Upon the film's release, they organized protests - who's they? Many people/things were mentioned in the previous sentence
  • Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• he has described the Soviet's legal strategy - cut has
• Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Legal scholar André Bertrand and attorney Alexander Gigante have also noted - cut have
• Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wl jurisprudence
• Wl to caselaw. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Wl "Reds" to something when it appears in the radio columnist quote
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• However, commenters have divided on - commenters have been divided on
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Likewise, William Strauss has stated - cut has
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Law professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan has stated - ditto
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Ref 33 doesn't point to a source
  • Fixed. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• The last three headings at the end are rather odd to me. Usually, I see "Notes" used to describe footnote comments (e.g. in Debussy), and "References" used to describe the actual citations themselves (which is what you currently have labeled "Notes"). This is not against any policies, but just felt worth noting
  • Changed "Notes" to "References" and "References" to "Sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Voorts, all done, an interesting read and well-written! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

MyCatIsAChonk: All comments addressed. Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments here- thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I will try to take a look at your nom. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
• File:Igor_Gouzenko_1946.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria Could you please clarify what you mean by a US tag? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Images hosted on Commons need to be free/PD in both their country of origin and also in the US. At the moment the image has a tag indicating it is free in Canada, but not one relevant to the US. (If you look at the fine print on that Canada tag there is a link to likely US tags, with explanations on when each is appropriate). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

      @Nikkimaria: Removed the image because it's not clear to me if it is PD in the US (or even in Canada). voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC) Conducting further investigation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

      Further investigation completed and I've nominated the photograph for deletion at the Commons. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

      Forgot to ping you @Nikkimaria. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

      Yep - with that removed this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from mujinga

• A strange case I'd never heard of before, I wonder why the USSR thought it could humiliate a US film corporation in the US courts. I'll make some comments on prose (I Am Not A Lawyer as they say on reddit).
  • I think they thought that they could find a sympathetic judge who would be open-minded about moral rights. Indeed, even Fox's lawyers expressed some concerns that they might lose on the law, and they happened to end up in front of a judge willing to acknowledge that moral rights exist. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  It does seem naive but maybe they thought it had propaganda value as well Mujinga (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• I'd suggest taking out the "main article" link and simply linking The Iron Curtain (film) on first mention in body, or if you really want to keep the main article link it needs to be italicised
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• "rejecting each of the composers' theories" - theories seems odd here and in lead, suggest "arguments" or similar
  • Theory is shorthand for "theory of the case" and is a common term to describe a line of legal argumentation. If you feel strongly about it, I will change it. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Got you - then I'd suggest spelling that out and linking to Case theory (in law) for heathens like me Mujinga (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  Added wikilinks in the lead and in the case history section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

• "the court properly answered "the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context"." - who exactly is being quoted here?
  • The source cited in the footnote. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  Where's the footnote? In any case if you are quoting someone directly I'd say it's best practice at FA level to say who exactly said these words, presumably legal commenters but which ones? Mujinga (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  The footnote is at the end of the sentence. I understand your point, but I'm really only quoting it because it's a succinct phrasing of the legal issue raised in the case, and I think in-text attribution would make it clunky because it would require something like this: However, commenters have been divided on whether the court properly answered what Patrick Zabatta has called "the question of whether a composer's integrity can be impaired by a faithful rendition of his song in an objectionable context". I agree that attribution is important when a POV is being attributed to a person, but this isn't really a POV – it's purely descriptive. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  The issue for me is the use of quotemarks and I don't think it matters if its a POV or not, if it's Zabatta who said that then I think you'd need either to attribute it as you did in the clunky version or rephrase in your own words. Otherwise it's not clear to me whether you are reporting the view of the court or one side or Zabatta. Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Mujinga: Removed the cite entirely and rephrased. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• "allegedly as nominal plaintiffs standing in for the Soviet government" - this is quite a big claim for the lead, suggest saying in whose view
  • Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
• the case is described twice in the lead as a "landmark" but not explicitly so in the body? Mujinga (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Added to legacy section. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

    "the Shostakovich case as a landmark case" now you have 2xcase Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Changed the first "case" to decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Mujinga: Comments addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts nearly there, a few nitpicky responses Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I've responded. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

nice one - just the Zabatta query now Mujinga (talk) 10:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Great, switching to support. Will be cool to have a law-related article on the front page! Mujinga (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

• "before Justice Edward R. Koch of the Supreme Court (the state's trial court)"> It would be cleaer to give the court's full name.
  • I think that would make the sentence a little redundant because it would require adding "New York State" immediately before Supreme Court, and the sentence already states that the court is "in New York County". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As it stands, most readers are liable to assume that you mean the US Supreme Court. Even subsequently reading "in New York County" is not likely to shift this perception in a large proportion of non-US readers. Plus you currently have the flow-breaking parenthetical clause. Maybe 'before Justice Edward R. Koch of the New York Supreme Court in New York County', followed by either a separate sentence or a footnote explaining that in New York State the supreme court is the state's trial court?

How about this: In May 1948, attorney Philip Adler argued the composers' motion before Justice Edward R. Koch in New York County's trial court, the Supreme Court. Edwin P. Kilroe represented Fox.<current cites>

That works for me.

• "Justice Koch also watched The Iron Curtain with counsel present" Koch needs formally introducing.
  • I couldn't find anything written about him. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, you introduce him in the previous sentence. I am not sure how I missed that.

• "enjoin deformation of their works" is a technical phrase. Is it possible to word this so as to be more readily comprehensible?
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• "for which the public expects that their authors will be paid and consent to their use". This is not very clear. Maybe something like 'for which the public expects that their authors have consented to their use, probably in exchange for being paid'?
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• I feel that the block quote in "Decision" does not comply with MOS:QUOTE. (Eg "It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text".)
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• "prohibiting distribution of the film". Adding 'in France' may help a reader.
  • Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
• Was there any attempt to appeal the New York decision?
  • The New York Official Reports do not show a motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It may be worth stating this in the article. Your call.

Done.

A nice article. I do worry that parts are written in specialist legal jargon, rather than the more accessible style appropriate to a general encyclopedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thank you for the feedback. I have one reply above. As for anything you think is too jargony, please let me know and I'm happy to work on it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Phrases which I think are a bit technical for a general audience, and so could do with either explaining in line or rephrasing, include

• bring suit
• At argument

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Clarified and made the above change as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Just wanted to check in and see if there's anything else you'd like me to address. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's good proactivity - chasing reviewers for further comments - but I have none and have already indicated my support for the article being promoted to FA. I look forward to donning my TFA coordinator hat and discussing when it might appear on the main page with you. How would some time in February suit? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If June 7 (the date of the decision) isn't taken, I think that might be fitting. (I kind of wish I had held off for October 1, but I don't think I could've waited a full year.) voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie891

Will have a read through in the moments to come. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Eddie891, I just wanted to see if you'll still be taking a look at the article. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes... Will hopefully get on it tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably not today. If not, I promise promise promise that by the end of Friday will have commented. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Make that saturday.

• "first Cold War production of the United States film industry" What is meant by "first Cold War"? The first production during, or about, the cold war? I think this sentence could be taken either way
  • The source cited, Baldwin, describes it as "Hollywood's first Cold War effort". Other sources seem to describe it as the first true Cold War propaganda film out of Hollywood.
• "from Khachaturian's Gayane" might be worth defining this as a ballet
  • Done.
• "placing one of the composers' records on a phonograph" which composer?
  • Shostakovich's Symphony No. 5. Added that and a cite.
• was the whole soundtrack based on these composer's works?
  • Yes (and I've clarified that).
• "Upon the film's release, pro-Soviet organizations organized protests, accusing the film of being pro-war" how so? On another note, this really relevant to this article?
  • I think it's relevant as background because the scholarship cited in the article describes the lawsuit within that context, as part of a multi-pronged strategy to contest the film.
• " in a letter to the editors of Izvestia, the composers wrote that the filmmakers, whom they called "American reactionaries", had stolen their music" are we sure that the composers themselves actually wrote the letter, as opposed to had their names signed on it?
  • The secondary sources cited describe it as being sent by the composers.
• "Leeds asked Black to send a telegram from the composers formalizing their objections;" I think it's kinda odd phrasing to write about leeds the company talking to Black the person. do you have a name for the person calling the shots from Leeds?
  • I do not.
• "During the month of April, Black and Fox also consulted attorneys; Black's lawyer advised her that Fox could likely use the music, notwithstanding whether they obtained a license, while Fox's counsel determined that although the law supported their position, there was a limited chance that they would not prevail in court." Is there any reason this is better as one whole sentence rather than being broken up? The longer a sentence is the more readers will struggle with comprehension
  • Fixed.
• How did all these organizations know the composers' work would be used in the film before it was released?
  • That's not clear to me from the secondary literature. It seems like Helen Black was the first to find out, and my educated guess would be that she likely had sources in Hollywood and music licensing.
• " Black was unable to obtain a telegram from Soviet officials," this has already been established with " but did not receive a response". Suggest removing.
  • Done
• "Leeds declined to issue the license," Do we know why?
  • That's not clear from the secondary sources, but my educated guess would be that they didn't want to get involved in what could potentially become an international incident. Amending my answer. Per Tomoff 2015 (pp. 26–27), Leeds wanted $10K for a license, Fox countered with $3K, and Fox later reported that it had agreed to $10K, but both Leeds and Black denied that claim. I don' tthink it's worth going into that back and forth in the background section.
• "Fox proceeded with publishing the film" Publishing feels like an odd word to use here
  • Changed to distributing.
• "In May 1948, " before or after the film first premiered?
  • I haven't seen a specific date for the filing of the lawsuit. It was before.
• There are two instances where two paragraphs begin with the same introductory phrase in a row. Can we vary it at all?
  • Yes we can.
• ""a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" what does this mean? What is the significance? I don't think it's great to just drop a quote that is somethat complex with no explanation
  • Clarified.
• "They also did not argue that the filmmakers had improperly modified the compositions." Would it have mattered if they had?
  • Yes, it would have been a different claim.
    • Yes, but there are a lot of things they didn't argue. Why is this particularly relevant? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • It's relevant in distinguishing it from other cases, but perhaps not for a Wikipedia article. Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• why is just distortion in quotes here: "public "distortion" of the composers' belief" but not in other places?
  • Removed the quote.
• Who wrote the Harvard Law Review article? Are they notable/relevant?
  • Harvard Law Review case notes are published anonymously by the editors of the Law Review. Sometimes, the author is later revealed, for example, Obama's case note. @Eddie891: Apologies, I was confused by this inquiry as there is a note cited in the article. The Harvard Law Review article was written by one "Martin A. Roeder". The only thing I've found on him personally is a 1987 letter to the editor that he wrote to the New York Times mentioning his article.
    • I've also found his paid obituary in the New York Times. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "and contended that the composers' moral rights were harmed by the political use of their music" The 1940 harvard Law Review article contended this?
  • Clarified.
• The aftermath section feels unduly short. What was the tone of coverage? When did the French court decision happen? How did fox and the composers respond to the decision?
  • I'll work on adding some more newspaper sources in here.
• "that typifies the rejection of moral rights claims by United States courts." So has this happened a lot subsequently?
  • It's happened in several cases since then; I'm not an expert on it, but the secondary sources cited in the article describe other cases, and the sources cited at the end of that sentence describe it as consistent with further moral rights jurisprudence in the U.S.
• How did you decide what scholarly sources you will describe in what way? You inconsistently include the year of source and the profession of the authors.
  • I included the year when it was around the same time of the decision, because it's relevant how commentators responded to the decision at the time of the decision, as opposed to how later commenters have looked at it with the knowledge of further legal developments. Regarding the issue of profession, some of them are law student notes in law reviews (which I would argue are as reliable as law review articles written by professors because they undergo the same review process), and for some of them, I don't know the profession.
    • So why does Stephenson get a year (1953), but Strauss (1955) does not? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
      • Now it does. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

An interesting article. That's a first round of comments above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891. Replied to the above. I'll see what I can find for the the Aftermath section. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:40, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've clarified widespread press coverage to be that it was widely reported by publications, which aligns more closely with Platte (2022). From my own search, it appears that UPI and the AP both covered the case, and that was widely syndicated in the US. I've also added more information about the French case. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is there any indication of why France was the only other place the Soviet Union sued to halt distribution? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  The case was brought in France based on a proposal of the head of VOKS and the Soviet Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Eddie891: I think I've addressed your second round of comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, Support. It may be beneficial to get someone with specialized legal knowledge to comment, if anyone can be tracked down. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll post on WT:LAW. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  Also, thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  I pinged Elcobbola, who is a specialist in this area. (Because this is the kind of specialist FAC I wouldn't support until a specialist had looked in, and I know Elcobbola well, but don't yet know voorts :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I will pick my nits on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

My nits have been picked satisfactorily. If Elcobbola shows up to give his seal of approval, this will be a rock solid FAC, which I would support, so it may be worth waiting one or two days for him. Nice work !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting looks pretty consistent for me and all the sources I see seem appropriate for the topic and for a FA. I don't think The New York Times should have an ISSN, though. It seems like most inconsistencies in source formatting can be "credited" to the different information available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ISSN removed. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I just wanted to confirm that was your only issue and this otherwise passes. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

With the caveat of a lack of a spot-check, this seems like a pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Kavyansh

• Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. is a landmark 1948 New York Supreme Court decision that is was the — is or was?
• Not really something of concern, but is there a reason we say "Hollywood" in the lead, but "United States film industry" in prose?
• as "a hubristic willingness to engage the West in the West’s own terms" by asserting — MOS:CQ
• in New York County's trial court, the Supreme Court — By no means am I an "expert" on prose, but would an {{emdash}} work better than a comma here? I had to view one of the previous version of the article to understand that "the Supreme Court" is "the state's trial court". Feel free to ignore this point if it is just me.
• The law professor Mira T. Sundara Rajan wrote in 2011 — We have already introduced this person, do we need to repeat their complete name again?

Just a few drive-by comments. Interesting article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fixed everything. No reason for the difference between Hollywood and US film industry, other than to change things up. The trial court / Supreme Court language has been worked on in a couple of reviews here so I'd prefer not to change it again. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Kavyansh.Singh. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. My concerns have been resolved. There we just some drive-by comments, and I don't intend to support or oppose on basis of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Got it. I just wanted to see if you had anything else. Thank you for taking the time to review. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 5 December 2023 [33].

---

Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

This article began in the olden days of WP:WPTC and was one of our earlier FAs. Over the decade plus following its promotion, it suffered from article rot. It also fell far below our present standards for a FA and was demoted accordingly. With Hurricane Katrina being one of the most notable tropical cyclones in modern times, it goes without saying the meteorological aspect of it is of great interest and deserves an article of quality. After much research, I believe I have put together the most comprehensive and hopefully digestible piece on the meteorological aspects of Katrina. This article covers the storm's entire life cycle from its complicated origins across the Atlantic basin, to its record intensity in the Gulf of Mexico and subsequent catastrophic landfall, and its ultimate dissipation thereafter. Being a sub-article of the much broader Category:Hurricane Katrina (which spans 190 articles, inclusive of sub-categories), it goes quite in-depth. While a heavy article, I do hope it's an enjoyable read and one that can be understood by most. Thank you all in advance for your time and input. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado

I will probably not have enough free time for a full review for the next week or two, but I hope these comments will be helpful:

• §Lead: "Subsequent interaction with the trough spurred convective development and Tropical Depression Twelve formed over the Bahamas on August 23." TD12 comes as a bit of a surprise here, perhaps "Subsequent interaction with the trough spurred convective development, resulting in the formation of Tropical Depression Twelve over the Bahamas on August 23." would be clearer?

  Yes, that feels more clear. Changed to suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• §References
  • Please correct "sfn error: no target: CITEREFIrish_et_al.2003". If you are not seeing this, you can follow the instructions in Help:CS1 errors to enable it.

    Corrected that sfn error, the 2003 was supposed to be 2008. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Several of the citations do not have incoming links from references (warnings from the same CS1 errors setup). Perhaps these should be further reading? -- Mirokado (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) (tweaked -- Mirokado (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC))
• §Lead: "Deep convection soon blossomed and following the development of banding features as the system intensified into a tropical storm." This sentence is tangled up: please rephrase to clarify (perhaps remove "and"?) -- Mirokado (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

  The stray "as" seemed to be the problem here, removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• §Origins:
  • "there was uncertainty over the degree of involvement with the remnants of Ten and the eventual formation of Katrina": please rephrase: something like "there was uncertainty over the degree of involvement of the remnants of Ten with the eventual formation of Katrina". -- Mirokado (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

    Tweaked to suggested. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  • "moving slowly-west-northwest": I would have written "moving slowly west-northwest". Google ngram cannot find the fully hyphenated term.

    I think that was just a stray hyphen, removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• §Initial development and Florida landfall:
  • "Meteorologists described Katrina as "still...an impressive cyclone." I suggest moving this sentence to the end of the paragraph, so that "... enabled this to take place" refers more directly back to "its overall appearance improved" as intended. -- Mirokado (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

    Swapped the order. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    And we no longer needed to duplicate a ref callout. Super. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • "SSHS": according to the article (Saffir–Simpson scale), SSHS relates to the original scale and SSHWS refers to the reformed wind-only scale. I presume this article is using SSHS as that was current in 2005 and the new definition only became operational on May 15, 2010. I only noticed this since there is a discrepancy between SSHS here and SSHWS in the infobox. Perhaps we can have a brief note about this here. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

    I see this is covered later in §Storm surge, nevertheless it may be a distraction to readers at the first mention. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

    Added a note explaining the difference at the first usage for the sake of clarity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• §Gulf Coast landfalls: "... at the time. At the time of landfall, ..." We need to avoid this repetition, particularly with no intervening text. I suggest "By landfall, ..." for the second occurrence. -- Mirokado (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Changed to suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• §Storm surge: "The Mars oil platform ... went through the eastern eyewall of Katrina": no, the platform was not moving. Perhaps something like: "The Mars oil platform—designed to withstand winds of 140 mph (230 km/h) and waves up to 70 ft (21 m)—sustained extensive damage as the eastern eyewall of Katrina passed over it." -- Mirokado (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that makes a lot more sense. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• §Tornado outbreak and dissipation:
  • "This led to the separation of the storm's warm core which in turn caused a near-instantaneous transition..." I found it difficult to imagine what was happening: as far as I can tell, the upper-level anticyclone experienced the instantaneous transition and continued onwards towards the east coast and further north: what happened to the warm core? Some rephrasing would help.

    Added some more context to that bit which hopefully clarifies the situation better. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    Much clearer now. Thank you. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  • The four satellite images are helpful. Perhaps we can add a similar sequence for the initial stages? This would help the reader visualise the development.

    I took a look through the satellite imagery for the precursor phase and to the untrained eye it won't really help much imo. It's a lot of scattered clouds that don't resemble much and one of the features (the UTT) is not readily visible for the most part. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for checking. It's of course OK to omit those images if they would not be helpful. -- Mirokado (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• §References: Multiple page ranges need the "pp" parameter rather than "p".

  Corrected these. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This completes my content review (unless I notice anything else later of course.) -- Mirokado (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, Mirokado! I think I got to everything except the CS1 errors which is confusing me. I'm not the most tech savvy so I'm having issues here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's OK. Here are the warnings. They indicate citations which are not referenced by a callout in the article content. The citations could be, for example, previously-referenced citations which are no longer needed, general references supporting lots of the content in the article, or items which would be helpful for further reading. I would have one list for the citations a reader jumps to from the References section and another (or others) for anything else, since both: the status of the citations is clear to the reader; and this makes maintenance and completeness checking easier.

  Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFDidlake_Jr._and_Houze_Jr.2009.

  Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFGreen_et_al.2011.

  Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHowden_et_al.2008.

  Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMcTaggart-Cowan_et_al._(Part_2)2007.

  Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFRogers_et_al.2006.

  You are free to decide how you organise the citations, but it does help if we can tell that there are none which should have been removed. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Mirokado? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild: I've been drained from work but I should be able to get to things tomorrow. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Mirokado: I've expanded upon information from two of these sources and moved the other three to a "further reading" section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, this is what I was hoping you would be able to do. I have moved Didlake & Houze to §Further reading, which I think from the above is what you intended. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have made a few changes while looking at the source:

• moved the Hurricane Katrina navbox to the end of the article: see MOS:LAYOUT and Rationale for placing navboxes at the end of the article.
• removed the blank lines in the citation lists: see MOS:LISTS#Use good markup and MOS:ACCESS#Lists. I also added a space after the leading asterisk to make the start of each citation more visible in the source, in a separate edit so the diffs are clearer. -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

And a couple more comments:

• references: Fierro et al. 2011, McTaggart-Cowan et al., Rappaport et al. 2010: Please remove the thousands-commas from the page numbers for these refs, they are too easily confused with two individual page numbers. There are even some where the comma is followed by a space.
• §See also: There is an edit preview warning: "Commons category does not match the Commons sitelink on Wikidata – please check". -- Mirokado (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • This is because commons:category:Hurricane Katrina is the more general category for Hurricane Katrina. Looking at Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak, a satisfactory solution would be to use {{commons|Hurricane Katrina}} rather than {{commonscat|Hurricane Katrina}}. -- Mirokado (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

    I removed all the confusing commas from the citations and swapped to {{commons|Hurricane Katrina}}. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks, looking good now. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. This article is a fairly intense read, but there are inline explanations, notes and lots of wikilinks to help the general reader. -- Mirokado (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink

Conditional support - I gave the article a thorough review before Cyclonebiskit nominated the article. I agree that this is the most comprehensive and most digestible writeup on the subject matter, which is one of my most important criteria for something being an FA (along with spelling and formatting). The only thing the article needs is to make sure all of the images have working URLs for their links. The Katrina in Florida and the NASA one of the GoM loop current aren't working right now. Also, check the formatting of ref 63. There is a broken bracket. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• I honestly have no clue why those two links broke. Added one for the GoM loop current, it's not the original but it has the picture there via a PD source. NWS MFL ref for the radar imagery is broken, not sure where to find a replacement for that exact image. I don't see the broken bracket on #63? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Contacted a friend at NHC/NWS MFL and they repaired the broken page link. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

• As above, check that source links are functional. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Added alt text. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

CCI check

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones 03#Articles 2261 to 2280 does not indicate this article has cleared CCI; please ping me if I should conduct one on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Cyclonebiskit, any response for Sandy? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild and SandyGeorgia: I believe this decision is up to FAC coordinators. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, has there been a check ? WIAFA 1f says Featured articles must comply with copyright policy, and since the article (well, the entire suite of articles) is subject to a CCI, it would need to be cleared. That means going back to check for any old copying within or unattributed PD, as I did here to clear this one at FAR. It's a lot of work (although I've gotten better/faster at it), so I'd rather not engage it until/unless it looks like the article is in promote territory. Let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Cyclone, this has been open for four weeks and has only limited indications that it is moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is appreciable further movement over the next two or three days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyclone, if it does end up being archived, then I could do the CCI check at my leisure before you re-approach FAC ... be sure to ping me either way. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I expect to support once the remaining two comments above are resolved and would appreciate the opportunity to finish with a definite conclusion. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the update; if things continue to progress well here, and nothing hits me IRL, I should have time on Friday 17 to do the CCI work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I've completed most of the work, and added a {{Copied}} to article talk pages for Copying within Wikipedia that dates to 2005. (It has become faster for me to check these articles as I've become more familiar with where and how to look, and now having a base of knowledge about which editors historically frequently failed to attribute.) Once the dead links mentioned below at #Citation checks are cleared up, I can run a final Earwig, and mark this article cleared at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Final earwig pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation checks

Checking for citation consistency and correctness here. User:Cyclonebiskit, please deal with Sandy's comments first (and as "straight away" as possible) since they involve the CCI check. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• While doing my CCI check, I have to make sure all links are live, or Earwig can't detect copyvio (none found so far), but this source is to a dead link, found in archive.org, which is concerning as it is undergraduate research-- probably not a high-quality source:

  https://web.archive.org/web/20211219212153/https://www.atms.unca.edu/chennon/research/documents/erb_ncur2006_preprint.pdf SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Something wonky: this goes to Hurricane Rita ??

  https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/eye-hurricane-photos-20130809 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is a dead link, update pls so I can run Earwig:

  https://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• ??? http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ffc/pdf/katrina.pdf Not loading for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Law, Kevin (2011). The Impact of Oceanic Heat Content on the Rapid Intensification of Atlantic Hurricanes (Report). Recent Hurricane Research - Climate, Dynamics, and Societal Impacts. Marshall University. pp. 331–354.: please expand this citation to include:
  • the article is available as a free-to-read pdf from S2CID 135431285. Marshall University is I think Law's institution. user:SandyGeorgia: I think this will be another url for Earwig.
  • it is as far as I can tell a chapter in this ebook Recent Hurricane Research... edited by Anthony Lupo (2011), published by IntechOpen, isbn 978-953-51-4907-1, which is only available behind a paywall despite the publisher's name. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Lillibridge et al.: dead link. It looks as if this is a problem on the NOAA site, which shows the article in a search by title, but the search link is itself dead. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• David L. Johnson (June 2006): Another dead link from NOAA. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Other citation problems:

• Bender III et al. 2010: The page range is 1012–1028, see the Bibcode etc. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Chen et al. 2018: The page range is 287–306, see the Bibcode etc.
• Green, Benjamin W.; Zhang, Fuqing; Markowsk, Paul (December 2011): Markowsk --> Markowski. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Jaimes & Shay 2009: The journal is Monthly Weather Review according to Bibcode and Doi.
• Kafatos et al. 2006: Geophysical Research Letters uses a CiteID (in this case L17802) to locate each article, and page numbers such as 1–5 for pages within the article. This is an ID within the journal, so not suitable for the |id= parameter which is for unique identifiers. I think it would be OK to use |page=L17802 for this citation. The 1–5 page numbers for the ref callouts are fine. Same applies to other GRL citations. See "In-source locations" in the cite journal documentation.
• Needham and Keim 2014: The S2CID is 262380488.
• Rappaport et al. 2010: It looks as if we should say "Rappaport, Edward N." for consistency with the other authors who have second initials, see Bibcode.
• The {{sfn}} invocations for Jaimes & Shay 2009, Needham and Keim 2014 are inconsistent. {{sfn|Jaimes|Shay|2009|p=4195}} is the more conventional usage, so I would go for that. Please make all the two-author sfn invocations consistent. -- Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Please update the callouts and citations such as Bender III et al., Didlake Jr. et al., Lee et al. (those are the three I have noticed) to conform with MOS:JR:
  • "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name", without an extra preceding comma, thus for our citations: Didlake, Anthony C. Jr.; ...
  • "When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix ... except where the context requires disambiguation", thus for our callouts: Bender et al. 2010. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Knabb, Richard D. (August 24, 2005): The date in the article is August 23, 2005).
• Hurricane Katrina: A National Still Unprepared: National --> Nation. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Beven, Jack L.; Berg, Robbie; Hagen, Andrew H. (May 17, 2019): the article lists the authors as: "John L. Beven II, Robbie Berg, and Andrew Hagen".
• Williams, Jack (September 7, 2012): this should be marked "registration required". The archive is free to read. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Cyclonebiskit, how are you getting on with these? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: I have a bit going on personally but I should be able to get to it next weekend if that's okay. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @user:Gog the Mild: real life is much more important than Wikipedia, so I suggest we archive this without prejudice to a later submission. Otherwise: expecting prompt responses is currently not fair to the nominator, and any further reviews would not progress as expected. I would then copy this section to the article talk page for any further updates. -- Mirokado (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
  • This section now copied to Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina#Outstanding FAC citation checks. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 12 December 2023 [34].

---

Israeli citizenship law

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that recent events have brought this region of the world top of mind for many of us, I wanted to put this article forward for FAC again. This article is about the history and regulations of Israeli citizenship, unique with its basically immediate grants to Jewish immigrants from any part of the world. I completely rewrote this article two years ago and took it through a GA nomination successfully at that time. This article obviously covers a sensitive topic (even more so at this current time) so if there is anything even remotely close to not being sufficiently neutral, please point that out.

Thank you @Artem.G: for your review on the GAN and @BigDom: for your feedback on the first FAC, would be grateful for any further comments you had this time as well. Horserice (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments from a455bcd9

Hi, a few comments:

• Lede: All male and female Jewish citizens, as well as male citizens of Druze and Circassian descent must perform compulsory military service; other non-Jewish citizens and Haredi Jews are exempt from conscription.: how does this relate to the topic? Especially in the lede? We're not going to mention all obligations of Israeli citizens. (same for the "Rights and obligations of citizens" section?)

• Removed.

• Other states imposed quotas on the number of Jews who could immigrate from the Soviet Union at the request of the Israeli government: which states?

• Specified the US and Germany as destination countries.

• The Supreme Court further elaborated on this in 1970, when it determined that persons who are born to Jewish mothers but do not practice Judaism are considered to be part of the Jewish people as long as they have not converted to another religion. and Both the Chief Rabbinate and Supreme Court consider followers of Messianic Judaism as Christians and specifically bar them from right of return,[44] unless they otherwise have sufficient Jewish descent. seem contradictory to me. Did I misunderstand something?

• These regulations can be a little strange but this is not contradictory. If a Jew or someone descended from a Jew converts to Messianic Judaism, they would be ineligible for the right of return. However, Messianic Jews descended from Jews and who have never been adherents of Judaism themselves would be eligible because they never actively converted away from Judaism.

• Children born overseas are Israeli citizens by descent if either parent is a citizen, limited to the first generation born abroad.: what if kids from the second generation are born in a country without jus soli: they're stateless?

• Added detail on second generation births.

• Do we have data on the number of people who become citizens per year and per route (Law of Return vs Naturalized non-Jews?)

• No, the Israeli government only provides information on the number of immigrants arriving in the country rather than the number of new citizens, so there is no information on the number of naturalised non-Jews.

• Do we have data revocation based on citizenship "fraudulently acquired"?

• This information also doesn't appear to be disclosed anywhere.

• Between 2003 and 2015, there were 8,308 people who renounced their Israeli citizenship.: do we know their reasons?

• Added reasons.

• Male spouses under the age of 35 and female spouses under 25 originating from the Palestinian territories are prohibited from obtaining citizenship and residency.: what does "originating from the Palestinian territories" mean? If a French citizen born in Ramallah marries an Israeli citizen, can they get Israeli citizenship? What if the spouse "originating from the Palestinian territories" converts to Judaism? What if the spouse has Palestinian Authority passport even though they were born outside Palestine and/or have another passport? What about Palestinian spouses who want to immigrate to Israel at the same time as their Jewish spouses?

• Added more specific language describing that the restriction is on anyone ordinarily resident in those areas.

• Are there any comments/criticism/supports from "experts"/civil society/politicians on the above restrictions? How many Israeli-Palestinian couples are impacted by this? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Added the number of affected Palestinian spouses and briefly elaborated on legal challenges to this legislation. Since there is already an existing article on the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law, additional coverage on the views of concerned parties would more appropriately be added there. Horserice (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot for all the edits. It looks good to me, although I don't know enough about the topic to support. (also: super interesting article!) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

  By the way, I found these sources that may be interesting:

  • Just 5 Percent of E. Jerusalem Palestinians Have Received Israeli Citizenship Since 1967
  • REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL (already cited but there are other interesting bits): "there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions. [...] Third, dual citizens must enter Israel with their Israeli passport." "The total number of dual citizens in Israel (with all countries) can be estimated at between 800,000 and 900,000 - about 10% of the country’s population" "For decades, the Druze population of the Golan Heights (about 21,000 persons today) has retained its ties to Syria and its Syrian citizenship. The Golan Druze may apply for Israeli citizenship through naturalisation. Traditionally, very few have done so for fear of being labelled as traitors to Syria. In recent years, however, there is evidence of growing - albeit still small - interest in Israeli citizenship." "East Jerusalem Palestinians may apply to be naturalised as Israeli citizens. Since 1967, however, relatively few of them have done so. This is explained not only by the difficulty of the naturalisation process - which requires knowledge of Hebrew and numerous documents - but mostly by a nationalist-inspired resistance to ‘normalising’ and accepting Israeli control of Jerusalem. [...] Since the mid-2000s, demand for Israeli citizenship has dramatically increased. By 2017, about 20,000 of the 300,000 Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem have become Israeli citizens, and there is a long backlog of citizenship applications (Shaham 2018)." "Since the 1990s, the number of ‘illegal’ workers has steadily increased, as did the number of children who were born and raised in Israel to labour migrant parents (Kemp 2007; Elias and Kemp 2010). These Israeli-raised, Hebrew-speaking children are referred to as ‘sabra-ghost’ children (Willen 2005): sabra [prickly pear] is a slang term that denotes native Israelis, and the ‘ghost’ refers to their non-recognition by the state where they reside. In response to the increase of these children and civic activism against their deportation, the state formulated two ‘one-time’ naturalisation arrangements in 2005 and 2010, which legalised about 1,000 children."
  • Non-Jewish Minorities and Their Access to Israeli Citizenship
  • The New Second Generation: Non-Jewish Olim, Black Jews and Children of Migrant Workers in Israel: about labour migrants and their kids

  a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking over the article. I added a bit more information on East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and the direct effect on residents' citizenship. However, coverage on labor migrants seems best covered in the Palestinian workers in Israel and African immigration to Israel articles. Totally no pressure for you to take a position one way or another, but would be happy for your support if you find yourself doing so later on. Horserice (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. At least a link to these articles about labor migrants could be added, for instance the one focused more on policy: Israeli policy for non-Jewish African refugees.

  I think a mention of honorary citizenship and "commemorative citizenship" for Righteous Among the Nations is also missing: "The Yad Vashem Law authorizes Yad Vashem "to confer honorary citizenship of the State of Israel upon the Righteous Among the Nations, and commemorative citizenship if they have passed away, in recognition of their actions."" source

  Raoul Wallenberg was the first person to receive honorary Israeli citizenship: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/01/17/world/raoul-wallenberg-is-granted-honorary-israeli-citizenship.html

  An example of commemorative citizen is Gino Bartali: https://www.timesofisrael.com/legendary-cyclist-gino-bartali-gets-honorary-citizenship-ahead-of-giro-israel/

  It even seems that Righteous who settle in Israel are granted "real" citizenship: At least 130 Righteous non-Jews have settled in Israel. They were welcomed by Israeli authorities, and were granted citizenship. In the mid-1980s, they became entitled to special pensions. Some of them settled in British Mandatory Palestine before Israel's establishment shortly after World War II, or in the early years of the new state of Israel, while others came later. Those who came earlier often spoke fluent Hebrew and have integrated into Israeli society.[7] Children and grandchildren of Righteous Gentiles are entitled to a temporary residence visa in Israel, but not Israeli citizenship.[8] (Righteous_Among_the_Nations#Righteous_settled_in_Israel)

  The article honorary citizenship also mentions (with dead source): In 2010, legislation was passed by the Knesset to confer honorary Israeli citizenship to all members of the Israeli defense forces and paramilitary organizations that operated in Mandate Palestine who died between 29 November 1947 and 31 December 1948.[4]

  The source I quoted above says First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. (I can't find this information in the Wikipedia article). However, what are these "enemy countries"? For instance Daniel Barenboim was the first person to hold Palestinian and Israeli citizenship simultaneously a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• Will get around to adding in honorary citizenship info but wanted to answer this question first about enemy states first. If you look at the end of the "Relinquishment and deprivation" section in the article, you'll find the relevent info there. Israel recognizes that there should be a Palestinian state established but does not recognize the current governing authority as a legitimate state, and so would not be listed under the current definition of "enemy state" in Israeli law. Horserice (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine or to obtain Palestinian nationality?

  Also: Israeli citizenship may also be revoked from citizens who illegally travel to countries officially declared as enemy states (Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Iran): what does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? And what happens to Syrian Jews, Lebanese Jews, Iraqi Jews, and Persian Jews when they move to Israel and get Israeli citizenship: do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So do Israelis have the right to travel to Palestine?

Normal Israeli citizens cannot enter the Gaza Strip or Area A of the West Bank. Israeli settlements in Area C of the West Bank function as if they were part of Israel proper, even if are supposedly intended to be gradually transfered to Palestinian control under the Oslo II Accords. So the answer depends on the definition of Palestine in the context of the discussion, but I don't believe this content falls in the scope of this article.

What does "illegally" mean here? Can Israelis legally travel to these enemy countries without risking to lose their citizenship? Do they have to renounce their other citizenship? Can they still visit their relatives or friends in their home country?

You would need exceptional authorization from the governments in question (i.e. you're a diplomat). Even if a normal Israeli citizen could get authorization, considering that they were chased out of these countries in the mid-20th century, their presence does not seem welcome. And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities. Horserice (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. You wrote "And no, they wouldn't have to renounce their citizenship because these individuals would have acquired Israeli citizenship by right of return, which does not require renouncing previous nationalities." but the REPORT ON CITIZENSHIP LAW: ISRAEL says: there are several restrictions on dual citizens. First, the law prohibits dual citizenship with enemy countries. Second, dual citizens cannot serve as members of the Knesset or fill sensitive security positions.

I get that acquisition of citizenship by right of return does not require renouncing previous nationalities but how is this applied with the ban on dual citizenship with enemy countries (which I assume only applies to those who emigrated via the Law of Return as others cannot benefit from any kind of dual citizenship anyway).

Another question: does the obligation to renounce any foreign nationalities apply only in the past or also in the future? Can a naturalized Israeli citizen get a foreign citizenship later? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The ban is on newly acquiring citizenship of those countries, as stated in section 11a of the Citizenship Law. This is more intended to prevent Arab Israelis from receiving citizenship from those places. The condition to renounce foreign nationalities to acquire Israeli citizenship is only a requirement at the time of acquisition; naturalized Israelis are free to acquire foreign citizenships if desired. Horserice (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Regarding the infobox:

• Dead link: SH 95 146

• Ugh this is not actually dead, but it seems the Knesset site now requires connecting from an Israeli IP. Unclear if temporary but probably related to the war.

• Title: "Citizenship Law, 5712-1952", even though the article is broader then just this piece of legislation (especially the 1950 Law of Return?)

• Yeah I think it's fine. It's the main piece of legislation concerning this subject. The Law of Return technically contains nothing on citizenship requirements and almost all other laws covered in scope are just amendments to the Citizenship Law.

• "Repeals Palestinian Citizenship Order 1925": is this legally correct? I don't think so as The Order remained in effect until 14 May 1948, when the British withdrew from the Mandate, and Palestinian citizenship came to an end. ("related_legislation =" could be used instead?)

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Article 18a specifically repeals the Palestinian Citizenship Order. Even though the courts ruled that Palestinian citizenship had ceased at the dissolution of the mandate, the law was not explicitly repealed until 1952. Horserice (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

  OK, in this case it needs to be sourced, in the infobox or in the text (I think in the text is better, what you wrote is super clear and could be added: Even though the courts ruled that Palestinian citizenship had ceased at the dissolution of the mandate, the law was not explicitly repealed until 1952.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  This is already written and sourced in the Post-1948 transition section. Horserice (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Oops indeed, thanks! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Process discussion moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I wondered: are there discussions about reforming/changing the law? (for instance people who want to apply the law of return only to the first generation?) Do RS also address how the law would be impacted by a one-state solution or two-state solution? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

• Article looks good to me.

• ☺

• Obligatory typo: "fradulently"

• Fixed.

• Is there a difference between Law of Return and Right of Return?

• The Law of Return is the piece of legislation granting the entitlement for all Jews to enter Israel as olim. This entitlement is described as the "right of return".

• "This law was amended several times" To what end?

• Changed content to describe changes.

• Link sovereignty

• Done.

• Consider hatnoting Recognition of same-sex unions in Israel

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done. Horserice (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Hawkeye7, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

  Support I thought the "Support" above would be sufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• "a specific meaning encompassing the national constituency": I think this means something like "a broader definition of what qualifies a person as an Israeli national"; is that right? I don't think this is very clear as written to those unfamiliar with the topic. If I have that right, the next sentence gives the relevant details so perhaps this whole sentence could be cut to "In the Israeli context, nationality is not linked to a person's origin from a particular territory but is more broadly defined".

• Rephrased.

• "Any person born outside of these conditions who held no other nationality and were": tense mismatch between "any person" and "were".

• Fixed.

• "Despite Britain's sovereignty over Palestinian territory, domestic law treated the mandate as foreign territory." Suggest "British domestic law" to avoid a reader initially assuming this refers to Palestinian domestic law.

• Rephrased.

• Is the 1952 Citizenship Law worth a red link?

• Hmmm I lean towards not doing this since I think that overlap with this article would be quite high.

• The sentence starting "Male spouses under the age of 35 ..." doesn't make it clear if this restriction ceases to apply once the spouse exceeds the given age, or if this is defined as of the age at marriage.

• Added "until the relevant age".

• How did the 2003 prevent cohabitation for those couples? Surely all it could do was make it illegal, or discourage it by applying penalties?

• Added elaboration.

• "which would lapse on the death of their spouses or if they fail to receive": tense/mood mismatch. "or if they were to fail" would work.

• Fixed.

• " The court further ruled that because Israel was in a state of war with the Palestinian National Authority ..., that Israel held a right to": the second "that" is redundant. Cutting it would make the sentence hard to parse so a rephrase is probably in order.

• Rephrased.

• "until the law's expiration in July 2021, before later being reimplemented in March 2022." Suggest "before being reimplemented by a new law in March 2022", to make it clear this was a legislative reimplementation. And "later" is redundant since you give dates.

• Rephrased.

Overall this looks in very good shape and I expect to support once these minor issues are resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Horserice (talk) 08:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Image & source review

Is File:British Colonial passport for Palestine issued by Albert Montefiore Hyamson in 1929.jpg a work by the Israeli or by the UK government? ALT text, placement and licencing are OK. Viz sources, it seems like the article is using distinct types of sources so different source informations are to be expected. Some sources have only a JSTOR and others both DOI and JSTOR. It seems like the sources seem to be appropriate ... but I can't help but notice that the article has very little discussion on commentary on the law. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually unsure how you would classify the image since it would have been a work of the government of the British mandate in Palestine. The Israeli government obviously didn't exist at the time but is a successor state to the mandate.

Regarding the note about commentary, any particular area you think would benefit from more color? Horserice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, critiques or support for the law, change proposals and who makes them, why and who supports or opposes them, etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Israel was formerly administered by the British Empire as part of a League of Nations mandate for Palestine". This is unclear. 1. It does not make sense to say that Israel was part of a mandate. If I understand correctly, it was part of the territory covered by the mandate, which also covered what is now Jordan. 2. Presumably modern Israel is larger than the area which was under the mandate. This is obviously not for the lead, but should be briefly covered in the main text.

• Slightly changed lead and added sentences on the application/exclusion of the mandate on Jordan and French mandate on the Golan Heights.

• "citizenship refers to the set of rights and duties a person has in that nation". This seems to me misleading. You can say that someone holds joint citizenship in Sweden and Peru or that someone has joint Swedish and Peruvian nationality. Dictionaries show the words as near synomyms in their primary meaning but with different secondary meanings. This does not apply of course to their specific Israeli usage.

• Which is why the preceding sentence mentions that this usage varies by country. For example, you could not say that someone holds dual UK/US citizenship as a synonym for dual UK/US nationality since it is possible to hold both UK and US nationality without being citizens of either place.

• 'Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoption' section. This section presumably applies only to non-Jewish citizens. This should be clarified.

• The descent portion applies to Jewish Israeli citizens born overseas. Regulations on adoption would still apply in cases where an adoptee is Jewish because the new parents still have to establish themselves as parents.

• "Male spouses under 35 and female spouses under 25 ordinarily resident in the Judea and Samaria Area or the Gaza Strip (excluding Israeli settlements within those areas)". This is out of date as there have been no settlements in the Gaza Strip since 2005. Also, very few non-Israelis will understand Judea and Samaria Area, so it would be helpful to add "(West Bank)". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Tweaked phrasing. Horserice (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support. I think that the article should state that citizenship and nationality are often used as synonyms, but that is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil

Not sure this is actionable, and while I realise this is an article on legal status, I find it very dry and lacking context. The page lists a lot of judgement, but does examine the reasoning. This is not an oppose, just a question on scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To note have been closely following the FAC (since requested to cmt by the nominator), and have made minor edits, and think it is FAC worthy as is, but just think that more historical and political context would move it from "good" to "really good" status. Sorry for the relatively vague demand! Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ceoil: FYI still doing some reading to try to add more color to the article. It was relatively easier with the Irish nationality law article since a lot of the disputes with Britain specifically dealt with citizenship, but with Israel it’s a bit harder to do so without sounding biased so this will take a bit of time. Horserice (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I did feel lost at times, wondering what drove particular rulings. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above, Support on the FAC criteria. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment by Buidhe

I believe the reference to the Golan Heights is misleading. It is administered by Israel and was purportedly annexed by Israel (the correct term to use in terms of international law—eg see here), but its claim is not considered valid by virtually every other country in the world. It is even less correct to refer to it as part of Israel as referring to Crimea as part of Russia. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Horserice, any response? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Slipped through the cracks, my bad.

@Buidhe: I've added some elaboration on the status of these areas. Horserice (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but it is also the case that Israel's purported annexation of East Jerusalem is not generally recognized by the international community either. (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence mentions both territories. Is that not sufficient? Horserice (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hypericum sechmenii/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 11 December 2023 [35].

---

John B. Creeden

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a Jesuit and university president who played a major role in the creation of the modern Georgetown University. He was responsible for the eventual creation of the School of Foreign Service and he founded Boston College Law School. He also drew up plans for what would be the creation of the Gothic section of Georgetown's campus. Ergo Sum 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Fox,_Donnelly,_Dolan,_Haran,_Creedan_1938.jpg: source link gives the license as CC BY-NC-ND, not BY. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in understanding that that means it cannot be hosted on Commons? Ergo Sum 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
    • If that is the correct license, it would only be usable hosted locally under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I've removed the image because it seems (based on this) that I can't upload a local version of the image on EnWiki because its licensing status prohibits non-commercial and non-derivative use. I will (unfortunately) nominate that image for deletion from Commons. Ergo Sum 17:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: Just wanted to let you know that I nominated this image for deletion from the Commons and several users pointed out to me that it actually is valid under both Italian and US law. Since it has survived deletion, I have returned the image to the article. Ergo Sum 22:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
          • When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure, but according to the Italian copyright template, the copyright of photographs of people expire 20 years after creation, not publication. Ergo Sum 01:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
              • My question is more with regards to US status. The current US tag asserts publication between 1928 and 1963 - can that be demonstrated? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
                • Rather than attempt to paraphrase, I will defer to Richard Arthur Norton's explanation (pinging). Ergo Sum 13:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
                  • Not seeing anything there that supports it having been legally published in this period, though - if it was not that tag would not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
                    • Forgive my ignorance, but if it is validly PD in Italy, which is where the image was created, then why does US copyright matter? Ergo Sum 13:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
                      • Images hosted on Commons have to be free/PD in both the US and country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

                        Ok. Well so as not to hold up this nomination, I've removed the image for now. Ergo Sum 13:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from HAL

Comments soon. ~ HAL333 14:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi HAL333, I was wondering if these were still on their way? Otherwise I shall be giving the "this is in danger of timing out" warning. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Long belated comments:

• he also expanded - the 'also' isn't needed.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 17:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• which later became the Woods College of Advancing Studies - the later isn't needed
  • I do think it contributes something here, as it suggests that it was not known as that until much later. Otherwise, it would seem like it became Woods during his time in charge or soon thereafter. Ergo Sum 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• The caption starting President Calvin Coolidge... doesn't need a full-stop.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 17:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• existing facilities under significant strain - what kind of strain? Clarify.
  • Clarified that it was their capacity. Ergo Sum 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• quadrangle would haven
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Do we know what Creeden died of?
  • I cannot find a source that says his cause of death. Ergo Sum 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks great otherwise and is certainly of featured quality. ~ HAL333 17:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, HAL333. Ergo Sum 17:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 18:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hal333 and Ergo Sum: please remember the tq template can't be used at FAC as it slows down load time and affects archives; right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all users, so I've switched out some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Dugan Murphy

I'll take a look and write some comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• There are 3 spots that refer to Creeden as the dean of Georgetown College. That Wikilink redirects to Georgetown University College of Arts & Sciences, which says that it had that name from 1990 to 2022, long after Creeden passed away, but not the current name either. Seems you should either use the modern name or whatever the name was in Creeden's time.
  • The school was known as Georgetown College for most of its history, from its founding until an known date in the mid-20th century. The school's infobox reflects this. Ergo Sum 14:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Linking President of Venezuela doesn't seem necessary to me. In fact, there seems to be a bit of MOS:OVERLINK in other places too, like philosophy, Catholic theology, Holy orders in the Catholic Church, Priesthood in the Catholic Church, New York City, head teacher, federal government of the United States, graduation, and secondary school.
  • I've trimmed many of the links. Ergo Sum 14:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence that includes "size of the campus, established the university's first" seems to be missing an "and".
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 14:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• "He taught at Georgetown from 1897 to 1902": this being the first reference to Georgetown in the body, this should be written out with the university's full name with a Wikilink.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 14:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Footnote A doesn't say anything that isn't said in the sentence to which it is attached, so it doesn't seem necessary.
  • Consolidated. Ergo Sum 15:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• What's the connection between St. Joseph's Lamp and the Spanish Flu?
  • Added detail about the lamp's history. Ergo Sum 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• Is there anything about Calvin Coolidge's visit to Georgetown that is worth mentioning in the body?
  • I don't believe so. Ergo Sum 15:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Together with these concrete improvements" doesn't seem necessary. And the tone doesn't seem quite right for Wikipedia anyway.
  • Removed. Ergo Sum 15:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Would involve" and "would be" doesn't sound right. Given that we know it didn't happen, I recommend "would have involved" and "would have been" or a different rewording.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 16:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Despite the move away from Georgetown's collegiate campus, Creeden continued" indicates that Creeden moved, rather than the school.
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 15:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence that starts "Following the renaming" is really long, even though it is pretty readable, regardless, and if you really really like it, I won't fight you over it, but I think a modern reader would appreciate breaking it up, if you're willing.
  • I think it makes sense as one sentence, so I broke it up a bit with a semi-colon. Ergo Sum 15:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I think "for the creation of the school" would read better as "for creating the school"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• I don't recognize the title "Fr." Maybe spell it out?
  • In the past, I remember someone at FAC telling me that WP deprecates usage of that title in articles, so I've replaced it with a brief aside. Ergo Sum 15:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• "School of Foreign service": Shouldn't Service be capitalized?
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 15:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• "personality was more suited" is an opinion that I think should be attributed. Perhaps it should be "personality he felt was more suited".
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence mentioned in the above comment is a bit long and would probably be more readable as two sentences.
  • Broke up and reorganized that sentence. Ergo Sum 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• "The highest educational honor bestowed": does this mean that it is the highest honor that a foreign citizen could possibly achieve or that it is the highest honor ever yet-bestowed upon a foreign citizen?
  • Clarified. Ergo Sum 16:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• The sentence that starts " With the support of Dean" is a bit too long and hard to understand, particularly because of the parenthetical interjection. I recommend breaking it up and potentially rewording to remove the parentheses.
  • Broke up and clarified the sentence. Ergo Sum 15:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Creeden then went" seems an inapropriate way to start a new section, especially the last thing said was describing events following 1925 and this sentence mentions events starting 1924. Perhaps it should be "after leaving Georgetown, Creeden went".
  • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 15:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Despite what I said earlier about overlinking, I find myself wondering exactly what a regent is. Perhaps link Regent#Other uses?
  • Yes, the Regent article does not do a great job of describing how it is (mostly historically) used in Catholic higher education. I've linked to that section. Ergo Sum 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Novitiate is WP:DUPLINKed
  • Fixed. Ergo Sum 15:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• Why is the Academic Offices table at the end missing so many predecessors and successors?
  • Unfortunately, it seems the succession of regents has been lost to history (at least as far as publicly accessible records are concerned), probably because it was such a unique and short-lived position in American Jesuit higher education. As for his position as dean, after quite a bit of digging, I was able to find out his predecessor and successor and added some detail and context to the main text. Ergo Sum 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Overall: I didn't review the images, citations, or sources. Though, I did glance at the sources, and they all looked pretty legit. I didn't notice any titles that seemed really Creeden-specific, so I did a really really basic search on Google Books, JSTOR, and my statewide library for titles and couldn't find anything. That is my way of saying that I am willing to believe that the sources listed represent a reasonably wide breadth of available scholarship on the topic. Though I knew absolutely nothing about Creeden or the schools mentioned before reading this article, the article itself doesn't seem to have any glaring holes in covering the man's life, so I think it is pretty comprehensive. Yet, it doesn't go into too much detail anywhere, I think. And the tone throughout is very encyclopedic and clear. Well done.

Fun fact that has no bearing on this nomination: Creeden's predecessor, Patrick Francis Healy, is the brother of James Augustine Healy, who was the bishop where I live for 25 years. I guide walking tours by his old cathedral and tell guests about Bishop Healy. He has an amazing story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Very interesting. And a small world. The Healy family is quite fascinating. Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I support this nomination based on the reasons stated above. If you have the time to do some reviewing of your own, this current FAC nomination of mine is in need of attention. I thank you in advance if you are able to take a look at the article and leave some comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review

Spot-check upon request. Source formatting seems consistent and sources seem reliable, but I notice that a rather large amount of sources is affiliated with Georgetown and the Jesuits - is he primarily discussed by these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ergo Sum, are you planning to respond to Jo-Jo's concern about the sources associated with Georgetown and the Jesuits? FrB.TG (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant to get back to this and it slipped my mind. This was an issue that was broached in my last FAC. It appears that Creeden is discussed in detail primarily by Jesuit-affiliated sources, some directly published by the Jesuits, others published by institutions affiliated with the Jesuits, and others stilled only written by people affiliated with the Jesuits. That is, there are various levels of Jesuit control over the publications. In any event, it does not appear to me that any of the sources used engage in hagiography and generally bear inidicia of reliability. Ergo Sum 04:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, tough to say. If substantial coverage by independent sources was a requirement for FA, I doubt this would pass. As it stands the article does not mention anything that would make me demand independent coverage. I've done some looking around myself and there are a fair few sources discussing political activities of the university and mentioning Creeden; did he play a role in them?

Also, from a close paraphrase perspective, I wonder if "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received Ferdinand Foch, the French marshal and Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armies, and presented him with an honorary Doctor of Civil and Canon Laws degree, as well as a golden sword on behalf of the American Jesuits." is unduly similar to the source's "On November 20, 1921, Creeden received French Marshal Ferdinand Foch at Georgetown and awarded him an honorary degree of Doctor of Canon and Civil Laws. Marshal Foch was also presented a gold sword on behalf of the American Society of Jesus", it's admittedly not the easiest sentence to paraphrase.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, not the easiest to paraphrase. I tweaked the phrasing a bit to make it less close to the source. I will take a look at those sources. Ergo Sum 20:04, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have gone through those sources and everything I have found either is already in the article or is not really worthy of mention in a biographical article about Creeden. Ergo Sum 22:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arab–Khazar wars/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Spencer (snooker player)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1873–74 Scottish Cup/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/In the Aeroplane Over the Sea/archive4 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phoolan Devi/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WWJ-TV/archive1

[[Category:Wikipedia featured content|PAGENAME]]