Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)

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.
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: Purge cache

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating

[edit]
How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc

[edit]
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

Shortcut
  • 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.


Shortcut


Nominations

[edit]

Hurricane Dennis

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Dennis, the first major hurricane to hit the United States during the busy 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (it would be one of four). Dennis used to be a featured article from 2006 to 2010. Over the years, Juliancolton (talk · contribs) created a number of sub-articles for Dennis involving the United States, and the article was close to being a featured topic, only the main article was extremely short (for a retired storm article). So following the merger of the sub-articles, plus additional content and copyediting, I now feel that the article is among the most thorough accounts of the hurricane. Hopefully I can address any of your concerns, should they arise. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Some images are missing alt text

John Wick (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 action film John Wick, or John Vick as some of the Russian gangsters may say. This has had two previous nominations: the first had some good responses and improvements added/suggested by TheJoebro64, Piotrus, Pamzeis, TompaDompa, zmbro, and The Corvette ZR1, although the second sadly failed due to a general lack of responses. Since the first nomination in 2023, new books have been released which has allowed me to significantly beef up the Thematic Analysis section which was a common criticism as I had struggled to identify sources that specifically discussed the first time as they were more focused on evolutions in its sequels, particularly the lore around the High Table and underworld which is only really touched on briefly in John Wick. It is also the tenth anniversary of the film this year, so it would be nice to get it to FA status before the end of the year if possible. Your feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looking over this, the article is strong. My only (minor) highlights for improvement would be having the writing and development sub-sections reversed as I find them slightly confusing. The "Retrospective assessments", while short is ok, though I will leave that up to others to offer their thoughts. Since you struggled on finding some good sources, I took a look around and found a couple with some (minor) info pertaining to this film. You can add or not add them.
Paleface Jack (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Paleface Jack. I did check the references you've provided but they seem to relate more to the stunt company and one of their stuntwoman respectively. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. Was worth a look. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems improved from last year, and it was pretty much good enough back then. Well done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Big Black River Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Raymond, Grand Gulf, and Lake Providence, here comes the next article in my Vicksburg series. Loring's division of Pemberton's Confederate army had been cut off after the disastrous Battle of Champion Hill. Pemberton, not knowing that Loring had found himself unable to rejoin Pemberton, held the crossing of the Big Black River with John Bowen's elite but decimated division and John Vaughn's brigade of inexperienced conscripts of dubious loyalty. Michael Lawler's men used a dried-up river channel to draw closer to the Confederate lines, and when Lawler's men charge, they hit the part of the line held by Vaughn's conscripts. Vaughn's men don't put up much of a fight, Bowen's troops on the flanks are forced to retreat to avoid being cut off from the river crossing, and it takes about three minutes for the entire Confederate line to collapse. Over 1,700 Confederates are captured, and the Confederate lose their artillery because the horse teams needed to move the guns were left on the wrong side of the river. Pemberton falls back into the Vicksburg campaign and surrenders about a month and a half later. Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm, my comments:

That is all from my end. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matarisvan: - Thanks for the review! I have one question above. Hog Farm Talk 18:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by (for now) from UC

A small protest on the use of men as an equivalent for troops, soldiers, forces etc -- we know that at least a small, but very much real, slice of the fighting forces were not covered by that label, before we even start to think about the ones we haven't been able to spot. Per MOS:GNL, gender-neutral language should be used when doing so does not sacrifice precision, and I think there are enough good synonyms here that the guideline should be applied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari FF

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a stunning station wagon built by the prominent Italian automaker Ferrari. This article recently underwent a good article review by Arconning for which I am very grateful. At 1,300 words long it is the second-shortest article I've brought here, after the Lagonda Taraf. Thanks for all reviews received, and they will be responded to in a timely manner. Best, 750h+ 02:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi 750h+, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The first three are own works published under CC BY-SA 3.0, the last one is from Flickr published under CC BY 2.0. All images are relevant to the article and placed in appropriate locations. They all have alt texts and the images in the body of the article have captions. I think the caption of "2013_Ferrari_FF,_Blu_TdF,_rear_left.jpg" should name the model to avoid confusion since we also have images of other models. Otherwise, I didn't spot any issues. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the review Phlsph! 750h+ 09:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luna (Feid and ATL Jacob song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Santi (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Luna" is the most successful song of the emergent Colombian singer-songwriter Feid so far. The song became viral in Latin America via TikTok (yes, it's one of many songs affected by the social media) few weeks after its album release, Ferxxocalipsis. It was also perfomed at the 2024 Copa América opening ceremony, but there was too many technical issues in the signal. There was going to be recorded a remix with the King of Reggaeton, Don Omar, but Feid didn't realize that in the date of the invitation Omar was going through a cancerous illness, so it was not possible to make it. Finally, it is one of the current Latin songs present at the AFP chart in Portugal; it peaked at 35; this also shows its impact through some parts in the world altrough being elevaded by Latinos. After restructuring and more info obtained, I think this would be able to be a FAC now. Santi (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

References would benefit from trans-title parameters. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Done. Thank you so much. Santi (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Stromberger

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Stromberger went to Auschwitz by choice. A nurse from Austria, she heard of the horrors that took place in the camp and took a job as its head nurse so she could see for herself. It was far worse than she had feared. Stromberger did what she could to help those who were held there, risking her life to steal food and medicine for them.

When the underground resistance movement reached out to her, she grew even bolder. Stromberger smuggled information and supplies into the camp, delivered some of the outside world's earliest evidence of the Holocaust, and even acquired weapons to be used in a possible uprising. When the war ended and Stromberger returned home, she was arrested with the other employees of Auschwitz. This prompted outrage in Poland, which led to her release. She returned to testify against Rudolf Höss in 1947 but otherwise lived the remainder of her years quietly in Austria.

Special thanks to Per exemplum for a helpful GA review, BorgQueen for assistance in finding sources, and Toadspike for helping with some of the German-language sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee

Early life

  • "Maria Lapeiner and Franz Seraphin Stromberger" - Do you know her parents' lifespans?
    • Added.
  • "she had eight elder siblings, five of whom survived infancy"- I assume she was the youngest child. If so, I'd suggest making that clearer.
    • Changed to "she was the youngest of nine children, including three who died in infancy."
  • The first education that is mentioned is the teacher training. Is any information available about if or for how long she went to school?
  • "her cousin and her cousin's husband" I'd suggest mentioning their names if available.
    • Added.
  • "Stromberger stayed in Bregenz for a time in the 1920s with her sister, Karoline Gräbnerm" - Is any more information available about this period between 1917 and 1926?
    • The source says that 1921–1926 is unclear, which I've added. I added a few small details for 1920–1921.

Nursing Career

  • "Feeling compelled by her religious beliefs to help," - This is the first time we hear about her political views. Do we know what her attitudes to the Nazis were before this point?
    • We do not. We know that she had little interest in politics after she leaves Auschwitz, but not enough to extrapolate to before.
  • Even if no information about her previous political views is available, I think it would be useful to briefly introduce the political situation. Perhaps mention the German annexation of Austria in 1938, the Invasion of Poland and the start of World War II in 1939.
    • Added a mention of the annexation. It mentions Nazi-occupied Poland shortly after, is it important that the exact time of the invasion is included?
  • "She requested a transfer" - the "she" should have a lower case "s" as it follows an apostrophe
    • Fixed.
  • "at an infectious disease hospital" - Was this a civilian hospital? What was its name?
    • All of the sources call it an infectious disease hospital without more info.
  • "When the men said that there were nurses with the same uniform as her own" - I assume this can't be literally true given the difference of sex. Is it a metaphor for members of the same organisation?
    • Clarified "nurses at Auschwitz".
  • "The administration believed" - Could you clarify what this means (e.g The German authorities in Poland believed...)?
    • Clarified "The nursing administration" with a different source.

Stopping here for now, will do the rest of the article tomorrow--Llewee (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "including its ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people,"- I think this could be worded more bluntly.
    • Not sure what change you're suggesting. I've never heard of a Wikipedia article being written "bluntly".
  • "The affair nearly caused her to leave." - this could be made more clear, why did she consider leaving?
    • The source says the same thing as the article. He threatened to kill her if she stepped out of line, and she considered leaving because of it.
  • "she had authority over the nurses and over the inmates who were forced to work there" - Was she responsible for the inmate staff who were caring for sick inmates or just those that were caring for sick Germans?
    • The article specifies that she works in the SS infirmary.
  • "There were approximately one dozen nurses working in the infirmary." - Are these just the professional nurses excluding the inmates?
    • The source only says "about a dozen nurses". I've added "besides the inmates".
  • "why so many inmates committed suicide" - "committed suicide" is a sensitive term on Wikipedia. I would suggest changing it to one of the terms that are given in MOS:SUICIDE.
    • Switched to "killed themselves", as that's the only one in the list that could apply here. Seems like a more sensationalized way to say it, but if that's what the community wants.
  • "but the SS officer Geiger discovered an inmate with the milk" - I don't think "but" is needed here.
    • Changed to "and when"
  • "and the owner of the milk" - I would suggest making this clearer (e.g "and the inmate found with the milk").
    • Changed.
  • "Stromberger told them that Kaulfuss" I assume them is Wirths? If so, clarify.
    • I tried to clarify the situation a little bit. Both Kaulfuss and Wirths were present. It now reads "Kaulfuss pressed the issue with Wirths, so Stromberger requested that she be present to hear accusations made against her. When this took place, she told Kaulfuss and Wirths that Kaulfuss had once drunkenly torn up a photograph of the SS commander Heinrich Himmler." Is it still unclear?
  • "Pys offered to take abuse from her to avoid suspicion, but she refused." - This sentence seems a bit out of the blue at the end of the paragraph. When did the offer happen?
    • The source doesn't elaborate beyond saying that Pys offered. I debated where to put this sentence, and I'm open to other suggestions.
  • " Pys asked her if she was willing to assist in more dangerous ways" - when did this happen
    • The source doesn't say when specifically she was recruited, and the other sources covering this area don't seem to either. I was able to find one that said she began doing work for them in early 1943, so I've added that to the following section where it details what work she was doing.
  • "within the Auschwitz facility" - "facility" feels like an odd term to use in this context
    • Swapped with "complex", which is what's used in the lead of the Auschwitz article.
  • "She also carried information detailing more sensitive information about the camp" - Could you give any examples?
    • Added that she carried lists of those killed.
  • "a nearby town to hand it off" - It might be a difference in variety of English but I would suggest "over" rather than "off".
    • To me, "hand over" implies some sort of confrontation or obligation while "hand off" implies it was done clandestinely.
  • "Collaborators outside of the camp" - I would suggest not using the term "collaborator". It's a term associated with people who cooperated with the Germans in occupied countries.
    • Switched to "resistance members"
  • "as "Sister" and "S"" - Assuming they would have used Polish, I would suggest writing the original word and a translation
    • The German-language source gives them in German, so I figure enwiki should give them in English.
  • "the weapons ultimately went unused, as the camp was liberated before an uprising could take place."- the article says there was an uprising in 1944.
    • Clarified that this was a smaller operation with just a few inmates.
  • "Jews and Communists who did not celebrate the holiday" - Did the communists not celebrate Christmas? I would assume that most of them had a Christian background.
  • "She gave Pys his choice between the two." - This doesn't seem like an important detail to include.
    • The idea behind including this is that she showed favoritism to Pys, placing his safety above that of anyone else involved in the resistance. Would you suggest rewording it, or should it be omitted entirely?
  • " the nursery in Rajsko on trips to obtain flowers for the infirmary" - clarify plant nursery
    • Done.
  • "When the inmates planned an uprising on 27 October 1944, Stromberger was one of the few non-inmates aware of their intentions." - Is any more information available about this?
    • As specified above, the article overstated the importance of this and I've clarified that it was a smaller situation.
  • "She left Prague on 31 January,[83] arriving home in Bregenz on 3 February.[84]" - Were these places still controlled by Germany at this point?
    • I reworked this section a little bit so it chronologically mentions the French taking Bregenz from the Germans in May.
  • "After Auschwitz"- I feel this section could have a more specific name e.g "arrest and exoneration".
    • Yeah, I had some trouble with the headings in this article. That's a good suggestion!
  • "the chaos in Austria and Poland that came after the war" - Could any additional information added here?
    • The source doesn't elaborate except to say that correspondence was unreliable.

Will leave it here for now--Llewee (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llewee, I've replied to everything so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe

[edit]

I simply cannot support an article on a topic like this that relies almost exclusively on a single source by a non-notable historian. Although I haven't looked extensively into the author or publisher, the number of Holocaust related exaggerations, misconceptions, and outright hoaxes requires a higher standard of sourcing—unless, at a bare minimum, there is evidence that other historians have examined the book and supported its accuracy (in academic journals, not newspaper articles, which lack expertise on the subject matter). (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anactoria

[edit]
Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a figure mentioned in the poetry of Sappho -- though it isn't clear exactly how often, who she was, and even if she existed at all. Anactoria emerges from the fragmentary pages of Sappho with almost no biographical detail, which of course has not prevented scholars, from antiquity to the present, engaging in bold conjecture and outrageous speculation as to who she might have been. She then has an interesting (honest) Nachleben in Roman poetry and in English, where she provided a springboard for Swinburne's "frankly pornographic" "Anactoria", and for Robert Lowell to fill in many of the gaps left by Sappho's account of her. The article underwent a Good Article Review from Simongraham in April, and has recently received extremely helpful pre-FAC comments from Caeciliusinhorto. The inevitable errors and infelicities remain my own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Author died 1918 (per Wikipedia and a few others) or 1903 (per Sotheby's and a few others); first exhibited at the Royal Academy Summer Exhibition (which is free and public) in 1896, per Sotheby's UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support from caeciliusinhorto

Nice to see another Sappho-related article at FAC (I'll finish up Sappho herself one day, I swear)! A few remaining textual comments from me, though you've cleared up my Sappho-related nitpicking already...

  • "Ancient Greek poet" – is "Ancient Greek" a proper noun here or should it be "ancient Greek"?
  • The lead says that Anactoria has been suggested as a pseudonym for Anagora of Miletus; the body says that Page suggested that Anagora was the pseudonym. Which? (Or has it been suggested both ways?)
  • "The digamma (Ϝ) written at the start of Anactoria's name, with a sound value similar to the English w, is unlikely to have been pronounced in Sappho's dialect." The Greek spelling given for Anactoria in the lead is without an initial digamma, and Neri's edition of Sappho 16 doesn't say anything about a digamma; it may be worth noting where the digamma comes from. (I'm not a linguist, but I presume because Anactoria is related to anax? Did Aeolic retain the digamma there after it was dropped from Ionic dialects?)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much more for me to say except to offer my support. I spot-checked a couple of sources I had on hand and everything looked fine; the ancient literature part of this article is certainly pretty comprehensive and while I'm less confident on proclaiming with certainty on the post-classical receptions there's nothing missing that I would expect to see. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you -- for this and your advice beforehand. Looking forward to seeing Sappho (surely an FA-in-waiting if there ever was one) here in due course! UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Not much from me. My few comments are all on the prose rather than the content (adolescent boys in the 1960s were not exposed to Sappho's verse in their Greek lessons).

  • "It has also been speculated…" – I am not one of those absolutists who think using the passive voice is the sin against the Holy Ghost, but the passive leaves us a bit short-changed here, I think. "X, Y and Z speculate …" or some such would have more impact.
  • "written to another of Sappho's female companions" – "companions" seems to me rather a woolly, even evasive, term. Does it mean lover? Good friend? Colleague?
  • "the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda" – it's mentioned in the previous para, where the link and probably the description oughter be.
  • "Glenn Most points out that …" – rather a loaded term, perhaps implying Wikipedia's endorsement rather than a neutral report of his comments.
    • I think we do want to endorse this -- it's self-evidently true from looking at the poem. I'd agree if we were saying e.g. "Glen Most believes [this statement of opinion], but Most hasn't actually come up with this -- he's just read the text. However, I think it would be SYNTHy to just come in and say, in Wikivoice without giving a name, that all the aforementioned scholars are speculating wildly (on which see the article's Talk page). UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Socrates and his male acolytes such as Alcibiades" – Order, order! I think "acolyte" is much too condescending a term for Alcibiades. The OED defines the word in this non-Christian context as "an attendant or assistant in some ceremony, operation, or the like; (also) a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte". A devoted admirer, I grant you (I know, or rather used to know, my Symposium) and I think "admirer" rather than "acolyte" would be the right word here.
    • Hm -- here I dissent slightly: the point is that these weren't just detached admirers, but actually his students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants -- these are the people that the court were talking about when they executed Socrates for "corrupting the youth of Athens". I think "admirer" is a little weak for that, and implies far greater distance than we're talking about with a very close-knit (in various senses) group. Conversely, I think a devoted follower or admirer; a novice or neophyte is right on the money. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think "acolytes" is generally a pejorative word when used in this sense (as opposed to its original meaning of "altar boys", from the Greek ἀκόλουθος). If anyone referred to me as an acolyte of anyone I should feel I had been slighted. If you're talking about "students, followers, entourage and intellectual descendants" why not say so? But I shan't press the point. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I see -- I'm not sure I'd share that pejorative reading; you certainly hear people describe themselves as "acolytes" of distinguished professors, particularly in obituaries of the latter. But I'll keep thinking on it -- there may well be a better phrasing that gets the point across more effectively. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to quibble about. It would be a work of supererogation to praise the pithy and readable prose or the admirably wide-ranging sourcing (no book cited more than three times). We expect no less from this editor. Tim riley talk 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Shall look again tomorrow. I'm not going to oppose or withhold support on any of the above points, but meanwhile I don't rule out a spirited brawl before I sign on the dotted line. Tim riley talk 17:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concluding comments, above, are not of such gravity as to prevent my supporting the elevation of this article to FA. The sources look admirable to my layman's eye, the text is clear and a pleasure to read, and I'm sure you have had no alternative to the ghastly Victorian paintings, which are undeniably relevant. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 09:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Tim -- as ever, wise and thought-provoking. I'll keep thinking on the points you've raised above: hopefully, better solutions will present themselves. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • I wonder why a complete translation of Sappho 31 is provided but no quote of Sappho 16, even though much of the discussion is about the latter, and it was described as "the finest lines in all Sappho's poetry"? Having the original as reference could help with appreciating the article.
    • It's a length issue -- the problem is that she only refers to Anactoria halfway through, but you need the first half to make sense of it, and quoting the whole poem would, I thought, be a bit long. A version is here -- what do you think? I worry that it would make the infobox/illustration outsizedly big. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • As a reader, I personally would much prefer the Sappho 16 quote, which is the one that actually mentions Anactoria. It is slightly longer, but I don't think that is a big problem. Without it, the article feels a bit like the discussion of a painting that you can't see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I agree. There's another issue here, however, which is finding a good PD translation -- Storer didn't do 16. The one I linked isn't PD, so we can't include it here: so far, the only ones I can find are here and here (search "Anactoria" in either case). Honestly, I don't think either of them are great, and if the translation we offer can't do at least most of the job of showing why people like Robinson admire it so much, it's not going to do a whole lot of good. Pinging @Caeciliusinhorto: do you know of a good translation of Sappho 16 that will be usable (ie, published before 1929, probably by an author died before 1954?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "In other classical literature" a subsection of "In Sappho"? It does not seem to fit there; in the section "In Sappho", I would expect content about Sapphos literature only.
    • Another one where I felt between a rock and a hard place: we could change the L2 heading to "In classical literature", but that would seem not to give Sappho her due weight: it would elide that writing about Anactoria in classical literature is, fundamentally, writing about Sappho. On the other hand, those other mentions in classical literature are direct derivatives of Sappho's portrayal, whereas the modern ones have at least a tenuous claim to be adapting (e.g.) Ovid. I had a bit of an idea here -- brought the classical subsection down into an expanded "Reception". How does that look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reference in the tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia known as the Suda to "Anagora" – I found this a bit difficult to read, and it is not entirely clear if "known as the Suda" refers to the encyclopaedia or the reference. Maybe "A reference in the Suda, a tenth-century Byzantine encyclopaedia, to Anagora"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as ever, Jens. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2003–04 Gillingham F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Did you read and enjoy my last FAC nomination, all about when Gillingham F.C. achieved their highest ever finish in English football? Well, read this one and see how the wheels began to fall off almost immediately! This one's got it all - mobs taking to the streets to protest the colour of the players' shirts, the team going through goalkeepers like they were going out of fashion, the manager getting ejected by the referee and (almost certainly just to make a point) immediately entering the game as a player, a goalkeeper suffering a career-ending injury after managing to collide with the other team's goalkeeper, and a streaker! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene

[edit]
  • In the infobox, Agyemang is said to have been the club's sole top goal scorer in the league with 6, but in the players table, Spiller and Shaw are also shown with 6 goals.
  • For consistency, I would put something like (pictured in ...) in the text under all five photos in the article.
  • "after an error by Brown" ==> Jason or Wayne Brown?
  • I made two small corrections in the article.
  • That's it from me. Excellent read! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Busbridge War Memorial

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harry Mitchell (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another Lutyens war memorial. Probably the last of his memorials in England that has enough coverage for an FA, but then I thought that about the Cenotaph and and I've managed to bring two others through FAC since then! This one is in a tiny village in what (at the turn of the 20th century) was a rural part of Surrey, to the south west of London but it tells an interesting story. Lutyens became a nationally renowned architect, responsible for an array of famous buildings, but his career kick-started in Busbridge when he was in his 20s and the village contains several of his works. Indeed, it was here that he first heard the term "cenotaph", a term he indelibly linked with war memorials, so it was only fitting that he should design the village's war memorial.

I created the article way back in 2016 but I've always felt there was more to say. A recent trip to Busbridge inspired me to see if I could "finish" it. I'm indebted to @Carcharoth, KJP1, and SchroCat: for their help and advice, including digging up some difficult-to-find sources. It's not a long article, but I think it tells the story comprehensively. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria thank you! Remiss of me. Now added to the other two images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]
  • "7-metre (23-foot) tall" -> "7-metre-tall (23-foot)"
  • "and was upgrade to" -> "and was upgraded to"
  • I recommend linking Surrey upon first mention in the body. Also, I recommend linking Berkshire and Somerset.
  • "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" The Cenotaph." -> "and possessing "the same over-developed sense of volumetric relations as" the Cenotaph."
  • A non-breaking space should be put between "H. M." as per MOS:INITIALS.
  • "he unveiled several war memorials in the county" -> "he unveiled several other war memorials in the county".
  • "national anthem." Can God Save the King be linked?
  • There are several instances of brackets being used where I think commas would be better. I recommend these changes:
    • "Historic England (the government body responsible for listing) recognised Lutyens's war memorials" -> "Historic England, the government body responsible for listing, recognised Lutyens's war memorials"
    • "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro (the colonel of the local regiment) on 23 July 1922" -> "The cross was unveiled by General Sir Charles Monro, the colonel of the local regiment, on 23 July 1922"
  • The lead says this: " the relationship led to many commissions for Lutyens for country houses in the early days of his career." But in the body, the part mentioning Gertrude Jekyll came after the part about the country houses. Was Lutyen's relationship with Jekyll really the reason why Lutyen had many commissions for country houses?
    It's a little complicated without getting too far off-topic. He already had his own practice and was designing country houses, but his career really took off after Munstead Wood, from which he earnt a string of commissions for Jekyll's friends and extended family. This is the point that he became fashionable, though it's hard to tell whether that would have happened had he not met Jekyll. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, the lead should be changed to be consistent with the body or vice versa. Steelkamp (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 10:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]
  • "and he spent much of his time from 1917 onwards on memorialising its casualties." - not seeing where the source specifically references 1917
  • "The memorial was designated a Grade II listed building on 1 February 1991." - citation placement issue; the following citation is [17] which doesn't mention this, although it is supported by [1] which is cited later in the paragraph

Good work; I expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Excellent article. A few minor quibbles:

  • "His connection to Busbridge" – unexpected choice of preposition: usually, a house is connected to the gas mains, but a person is connected with somewhere or something.
  • "and was upgrade to Grade II*" – upgraded?
  • "led to multiple other commissions" – I don't think you need the "other", which looks a bit odd
  • "The war memorial in Busbridge was one of several by Lutyens …" – and presumably still is.
  • "he executed multiple designs for Jekyll's sister-in-law" – I'm not sure how one designs a sister-in-law. It might be less Frankensteinian if you changed "for" to "commissioned by", "on behalf of", or some such.
  • "a lozenge-shaped tapered shaft" – chancing my arm, and quite prepared to be told I'm talking rubbish, but I thought a lozenge was shaped like the symbol of diamonds in a pack of cards, which the picture of the memorial doesn't resemble.
  • "by The Reverend H. M. Larner" – a lower case t is usual for "the Reverend" in mid-sentence.
  • "all are Grade II listed" – no real danger of your being misunderstood, but it might be as well to add "three memorials", lest someone determined to misunderstand think it was the three people who were listed.

That's all from me. I hope some, at least, of these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carcharoth

[edit]

Only a few comments:

  • I would quibble with "the Cenotaph in London, which he named after a garden seat at Munstead Wood" in the lead. Learning of the term 'cenotaph' and using it elsewhere is not the same as naming something after a garden seat. Would also quibble with the stained glass windows being said to "commemorate the war" (slightly clumsy phrasing - see also next comment).
  • Saying "a pair of stained-glass windows by Archibald Keightley Nicholson" mis-represents what is there. There are six 1919 stained glass windows by Nicholson, forming three pairs. One pair is for "the war" (the one you describe). The second pair is for two Old Shirburnians who fell in the war. The third pair is for Charles Henry Tisdall (another of those who fell).
  • Saying "locations of much fighting during the war" for Amiens Cathedral seems slightly odd. It overlooked the Somme battlefields, and would have been familiar to veterans who passed through or were garrisoned in or near there. Scapa Flow could also be slightly better explained. This is a case maybe of 'explain properly' rather than too briefly?
  • Where can a curious reader go to read the 42 names? (Online, not on the church wall!) The names on the church wall include Francis McLaren who (as you note) is buried in the churchyard with his own memorial. I am unsure if McLaren (who was not a local, but married into the Jekyll family - a point that may be worth mentioning) is in the roll of honour for Busbridge (it looks like he met the inclusion criteria for the local war memorial committee that would have decided such things).
  • Given that the memorial does not list the names, arguably the book of remembrance in the church is 'part' of the memorial, so might there be a case for including File:WWI book of remembrance in Busbridge Church (cropped).jpg? It is not the most visual picture, but would add to the article, IMO (the stained glass windows are shown in the church article, and we really should have a proper listing of Nicholson's windows).
  • Can anything useful be used or cited to (or found elsewhere) from this page where the decision making process is outlined? Warning: the link to the 'names' has been cybersquatted. The names are available here (IWM Memorials Register). Surely there must be more details on the approach made to Lutyens to design the memorial? Are all the sources silent on this?
  • One of the names of those the memorial commemorates is that of the 7th Earl of Shannon, Richard Bernard Boyle. No idea what the connection is with Busbridge. He inherited his father's earldom at the age of nine, and died aged 19 just over ten years later (EDIT: Apparently, at the time of his death his address was a house called 'Trusca' in Ramsden Road near Busbridge, towards Godalming. His younger brother [the next earl, aged 16 or 17] was in India in 'Havelock House' and was named in the probate as adminstrating the estate's affairs).

That last point was a bit tangential, but I mention it in case there is anything useful in a suitable source (it looks to me as if the inclusion criteria were quite broad here, but I doubt anyone has written about that - it is not entirely clear if it was a parish war memorial or a more broadly defined 'local' war memorial for those with connections with the area, or simply relatives in the area). Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumor necrosis factor

[edit]
Nominator(s): AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a chemical messenger that mediates the immune system and is a key factor in several autoinflammatory conditions. This article passed GAR a few days ago, so I am now nominating it for FA status.

AdeptLearner123 (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • All images past the lead should be scaled up
Done, lmk if the images should be scaled up more, and if the references are valid. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino

[edit]

Hi AdeptLearner123, welcome to FAC. I'm glad to see you're interested in continuing to improve this article. I'll work my way through the article and try to summarize feedback below. Right now I think the article needs quite a bit of work to meet the FA criteria, which are a higher bar than the GA criteria. Unfortunately we don't get many molecular biology FACs; in fact I can't recall one in the several years I've had a lazy eye on FAC (though someone cleaned up PfEMP1 for WikiJournal of Medicine in 2017, so perhaps that's a decent model to consider). I'm still going through the article, and of course you're most welcome to ignore me, but my suggestion would be to withdraw the nomination and start a WP:Peer review to try to solicit more feedback on improving the article to the FA standard. At the same time, keeping an eye on – and participating in – the FAC process will help you move through the process yourself. Alright comments below, separated by FA criterion. All are suggestions, rather than demands.

1c. Well researched - Sourced to high-quality, reliable sources

  • History - We try to build our articles from secondary sources (i.e. we are volunteer non-experts summarizing experts who are summarizing the literature). You may be used to writing academic science articles where the goal is slightly different (there your name/institution/reputation establishes you as the expert, and you wield your expertise to summarize a topic). So instead of summarizing key papers and citing those papers, find reviews on the history of TNF and summarize those. That way the established experts are guiding us as to which moments in history are important, rather than the reader trusting that a Wikipedia editor has curated the history appropriately. You might find Help:Wikipedia editing for medical experts a useful skim.
  • History#Isolation - "When TNF was ... weight of 45,000 kDa" I'm not a biochemist, but I think the distinction in the paper is that in the first case they denatured what came off the HPLC column with SDS PAGE (and so you get the monomer). In the second they used non-denaturing conditions (and so you get the trimer). If I had to summarize reverse phase HPLC in a few words (which no one would trust me to do) I'd say "which separates molecules by their hydrophobicity". Your summary "which breaks proteins into constituent molecules" would be my short summary of tandem mass spectrometry.
  • The publisher MDPI has a checkered reputation, and is often (though not always) a place authors will publish if they lack the results, prestige, or mainstream acceptance to publish elsewhere. Since our goal is to summarize the best sources available, we often avoid MDPI journals, or at least carefully consider why each adds irreplaceable and reliable information to the article. You cite three articles in International Journal of Molecule Science.
  • Ditto Frontiers Media journals, though my personal opinion is that folks are less wary of Frontiers journals than MDPI journals.

1a. Well-written, "Prose is engaging..."

  • Lead - I'm not sure if "mediates the immune system" will have much meaning to most readers. Could we clarify to something like "... messenger produced by immune cells that induces inflammation."
  • Lead - "target receptors" not sure target contributes any meaning.
  • Lead - Is there a difference between "immunocytokines" and "cytokines" (which this redirects to)?
  • Lead - "without dependence on the synthesis of other proteins." I'm not sure this distinction needs to be in the lead.
  • Lead - "include... [list]... among others" is redundant.
  • Lead - "TNF plays a role... such as contributing to..." the grammar is a bit weird. "Roles... such as..."? Or if that's the only non-immune role you can just drop the "such as".
  • Lead - "Excessive production of TNF is a key factor in inflammatory disorders..." you already told us this at the end of paragraph 1.
  • Lead - "Due to the important and complex role of TNF in the immune system..." you can probably cut that. We know it from the rest of the section. Reads as editorializing.
  • History#Isolation - "with the protein-rich segments identified by their absorption of 280nm light." this seems an unimportant detail. That's just how protein chromatography works.
  • History#Isolation - I think the experimental detail in this section could be trimmed a bit without losing the thread of the TNF story (e.g. do we care that they used a 42 bp probe?)
  • History#Physiological - "June 1981" it reads odd to mark every discovery with just a year, except for this one which gets a month. Do we care that this discovery was in June?
  • History#Physiological - "The accumulating evidence...cancer treatment" reads as editorializing, and comes as a surprise since it seems poorly related to the rest of the section (which is a walk through history).
  • In general, the history section is a choppy read. "In year X, this happened. In year Y, this happened. Etc." And the steps back in time for each subsection are a bit unnatural. It would be great if the section could run chronologically instead, as is typical for histories. That said, I appreciate that there are several semi-overlapping lines of research; so perhaps a chronological story isn't possible.
  • Gene#Expression - "TNF is denoted as TNFSF2 in the tumor necrosis factor superfamily" what does this have to do with gene expression?
  • Gene#Enhanceosome - "The composition... compatible binding site" This feels like unnecessary detail.
  • Gene#Enhanceosome - "The CRE and ... and transcription machinery." I don't really follow the distinction you're drawing here between core and anchor complexes. Is this a common concept in gene regulation?
  • Gene#Other - "The transcription factor NF-κB ...to the promoter" seems to have more detail than is necessary for the TNF story.
  • Gene#Regulation - "Several studies... Other studies" is WP:WEASEL WORDS, or maybe just scientist speak. You could start every sentence in the article with "Some studies have shown..."
  • Gene#Regulation - "have also been found to regulate" = "also regulate" The latter is shorter and clearer writing.
  • Evolution - maybe this is personal preference, but I think Evolution could be elevated to a full-blown section. The material really relates to TNF as a whole, moreso than the rest of the Gene section.
  • Protein - I think the beginning of this section could be written more clearly. E.g. you tell us it's a type 2 TM protein with no definition. Then a few sentences later you define the orientation. Might be clearer to just give us the orientation and save the jargon. It doesn't need to be readable to a full layperson, but it should still be readable and interesting to a university student studying biology.
  • Protein#Transmembrane form - "N-terminal is... C-terminal is" unless this is a regional thing, the grammar isn't quite right here. You could say "N-terminus is..." or "N-terminal end..."
  • Protein#Soluble form - The prose here is sufficiently boring that I thought "Gee, I bet a crystallographer wrote this" and sure enough the text is lifted in places from the cited paper. The sentences/fragments are similar enough to the copyrighted text that I think it's a problem:
    • "similar to the "jelly-roll" structural motif of viral coat proteins" vs the source "similarity to the "jelly-roll" structural motif characteristic of viral coat proteins"
    • "The upper β-sheet consists of three long β-strands supplemented with a loop of two additional β-strands, while the bottom β-sheet consists of five β-strands of steadily decreasing length. The middle β-strand of the bottom β-sheet contains the last 9 residues of the C-terminal, locking it into position." vs. the source "The upper sheet (sheet 1) is kinked with three long strands supplemented... by a loop of two additional strands. The lower sheet (sheet 2) comprises five strands of steadily decreasing length. The middle strand of this sheet consists of the last 9 C-terminal resides."
  • "the inner surface" I was momentarily confused thinking this meant the core of a monomer, and was surprised. I see now instead "inner surface" means the monomer surface that touches the other two monomers in the trimer. Maybe you could word it more clearly. "Inner surface" sounds almost oxymoronic.

Continuing, just have to step away from the computer for a bit! Stay tuned. Ajpolino (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC) I'm going to stop here for now, and stick to my recommendation above. If you're interested in further improving this article to the FA standard (which I recommend! It's rewarding!) and would like further feedback, please let me know and I'm happy to help. All the best, Ajpolino (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive feedback! I have rewritten the history section using secondary sources, which omit experimental details. I noticed that the referenced article, Plasmodium_falciparum_erythrocyte_membrane_protein_1, cites primary sources and includes experimental details in its Discovery section. As such, I'm confused what is the proper scope of a protein history section. Any guidance around this would be appreciated! AdeptLearner123 (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised the Gene and Protein sections. Let me know how it looks now, and if anything else should be changed. I'm also wondering if the Function section contains too many details about cell signaling that should be moved to the TNFR1/TNFR2 pages. AdeptLearner123 (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austin J. Tobin Plaza

[edit]
Nominator(s): SirMemeGod  15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a plaza that was located at the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, New York City until it's (unfortunate) destruction on September 11, 2001. It had several famous sculptures that were located on it, and became an evacuation route during the deadliest terrorist attack in modern world history. I (with honorary co-nominator Epicgenius, I must admit it wouldn't have passed without his extraordinary help) got the article to GA-status a few days ago, and I'm going to try for FA status. This is my first-ever nomination, so apologies if I mess something up. :) SirMemeGod  15:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: Issues have been addressed. :) SirMemeGod  12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 Wall Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another building on Wall Street in New York City. This time, it's an office skyscraper that was built in 1929–1931 as a bank headquarters before being converted to residential use. The building has some notable architectural features including a curtain-like limestone facade, a polygonal red room with glittering mosaic tiles, and (originally) an executive lounge with a triple-height ceiling. Even the site, at the foot of Wall Street, was once deemed one of the most valuable sites worldwide. The structure may not be the tallest building in the area, or even on the street, but in my view at least, it's one of New York City's lesser-known Art Deco masterpieces.

This page became a Good Article four years ago after a GAN review by SurenGrig07 and Hog Farm, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Change

[edit]
Nominator(s): IagoQnsi (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic basketball game played in 1963, and marked the first time that a major team from Mississippi faced a team with black players. The current article is not terribly different from the version that passed GA in 2020, but after talking with some kind folks at WCNA, I decided to seek my first FA while sitting here in the auditorium awaiting the debrief session. Many thanks to anyone who takes the time to read this and provide feedback. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Link college basketball on first use in body
  • Link Loyola on first use in body
  • "that he couldn't play him" => "that he could not play him"
  • Link Miss State on first use in body
  • "who'd had a first round bye" => "who had received a first round bye"
  • "including State Sen." - write this in full, at least on the first usage
  • "including Gov. Ross R. Barnett." - write in full
  • Nowhere do you mention when this game was given the title "Game of Change" or by whom - is this known?
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review! I went ahead and made all of those style fixes. As for the name origin, I posted on the talk page with some research a while back. It seems to have be coined by the creators of the 2008 documentary Game of Change. I don't have a source that explicitly states that the film invented the name, but I realized that simply describing the film's existence would probably be valuable; perhaps we can trust readers to connect the dots. I expanded the Legacy section to add a bit of info about the film; would you mind taking another look at it? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

A quick question to start: why is a very large part of the article sourced to contemporary newspaper sources, and not to the useful-looking books consigned to the "Further reading" section? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I often tend to favor citing a source that's more accessible to readers, so I make heavy use of Newspapers.com clippings. Michael Lenehan's book Ramblers, Russell Henderson's article in Journal of Southern History, and Alexander Wolff's article "Ghosts of Mississippi" were the main works that I used to figure out the broad strokes of the article, but I often wanted a bit more detail than they provided and thus ended up citing newspapers from the time. –IagoQnsi (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that method is often troublesome—if an author actively chooses what parts of the article "deserve" more detail, you often end up with questions over balance and weighting (aka criterion 1d); not to mention that 1c) places comprehensivity above accessibility).
To take one example: Lenehan's Ramblers pp. 193–196 places a good deal of emphasis on the personal role Babe McCarthy played in getting the Mississippi team to the tournament. Not surprisingly, such behind-the-scenes action would not have appeared at all in the newspapers of the time—and consequently the current article eschews any mention of his role.
I have only checked a couple of pages of Ramblers, but I already see the problems that excessive use of primary sourcing often cause. I would recommend that you withdraw this candidacy, and try to work in as much detail from the academic sources as possible, only relying on newspaper sourcing at the very last need, before renominating. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Generalissima: Thanks for the feedback. I originally built the article based on the academic sources, but then dug in to find newspaper articles for more depth. I did not give more weight to the additional details that I found; the extra sources just gave me more flexibility in terms of phrasing, quotes, etc. I think this was valuable in some places, but I also see that I should have focused more on citing the academic sources.
I've reworked the citations and now just about everything in the background, game summary, and aftermath sections is backed up by Lenehan, Veazey, Henderson, or Wolff. I've also expanded some of the weaker parts of these sections with a lot more detail, including McCarthy's role in pushing for NCAA participation as you mentioned. I have kept several of the contemporary newspaper citations in the article, but the article is not strictly dependent on them. Please let me know what you think; I really appreciate your detailed feedback! Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

Echoing Airship, I think it'd be a good idea to cite the books in addition to the newspapers. Primary sources are fine for support, but they should never be your main building blocks for something that's covered in academic sources. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Isla Bonita

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of American singer Madonna's most iconic and known songs, "La Isla Bonita". Having nominated this article previously, and having read the comments left by other users, I went source by source, making sure everything mentioned is properly cited. Christian (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin F. McAdoo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Franklin McAdoo Jr. was the first Black licensed architect in the state of Washington. He had a long and productive career, featuring work in the Seattle area, Jamaica, and Washington, D.C. He also (unsuccessfully) attempted to run for the Washington state legislature. I had a very fun time writing this article, and hope that people enjoy reading it! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

Already did my GA review with an eye to this being a FAC in future, but will have another read through. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Lead image is missing alt text

Also, not an image comment, but I would suggest a review for MOS issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire

[edit]

Nice work. Usual disclaimer goes here that these comments are suggestions, not demands. A few comments:

  • He became interested in architecture, motivated by his belief in [[Right to housing|housing as a human right]]

Not sure this is the best phrasing. Is this from the Mahmoud article? Because it writes "He was very concerned about human rights…. Not only did he believe in fair housing, he felt that he should participate in fair housing." I'm not sure that's quite the same thing, and the Right To Housing article talks about it as being a 1990s concept that would come later. He's clearly someone who did believe in affordable housing, but I'm not sure if the current phrasing is the best way to express that, unless there's another source tying this connection together more clearly. (EDIT: I see that you added this because PMC recommended it in the GA review. Well, up to you I suppose, I'd say to rephrase and/or not link, but it's fine no matter what your call is.)

  • the heavily Black 37th District

I'm not sure this is quite what the source says? "This district contained the Seattle’s predominantly Black neighborhoods." Despite the typo, I think it's saying that to the extent Seattle had Black people, they lived here, but that doesn't mean it was "heavily Black" overall. Seattle had a bit of a reputation as being lily white outside the International District in the era, to my vague understanding. I think we need a better source if the 37th really was heavily Black.

  • 1954 election

There are various schools of thought on the proper level of concision, but I think the current text is too concise, and will lead to readers having to click wikilinks to acquire enough context to understand what was really going on. As is, the comment on Charles M. Stokes looks like it might just be historical background about black politicians in Washington, and it's not immediately obvious that it's linked to the vacancy. Also, non-American readers may not realize that many state legislature districts elect the top 2 candidates and will be confused for why #3 sued #2. Finally, quoting a lawyer for the losing side tends to be a bit dubious in general - they often state the case as their clients understand it and is a highly partial account. (Not saying it can't also be true, but it's not a very impressive source in general.) In particular, based on what the article says, it sounds like the #3 person had a point - McAdoo's home really wasn't in the 37th district. (Of course, it's possible McAdoo's lawyers also had a point in that the rules might not have been enforced so strictly for a machine-blessed candidate.) I'd suggest something maybe like "Charles M. Stokes was elected to the Washington House of Representatives for the 37th district in 1950 and 1952 for two-year terms, but opted to run for State Senate instead in 1954. McAdoo ran in the Democratic Party primary for the seat that Stokes was vacating. His platform..." (And then have something about the top-2 nature of advancement.) But up to you.

  • He was a licensed architect in five jurisdictions; Alaska, the District of Columbia, Montana, Oregon, and Washington state.

This is quite a minor point. I understand that for less famous figures there's more room for minutiae, but I don't think that most architects / lawyers / etc. have the states they were certified for mentioned, unless it's somehow relevant (e.g. they didn't actually have a certification and were doing under-the-table architecture or the like). Maybe either remove it, or verify the relevance of this list. SnowFire (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, part 2.

  • African-American

Style guides differ here on if a hyphen is merited, and you can't control categories or see also link to other Wikipedia articles, but I'd say to be consistent within this article. You use both the unhyphenated version and the hyphenated version; I'd say to just pick one.

  • he began to receive commissions designing private residences.

Mega-nit: The intent of this is clear, and feel free to keep it as-is if this is how it's expressed in architecture, but maybe "commissions to design private residences"? This could theoretically be misread as the commissions themselves somehow designing private residences.

  • working nights and attending classes during the day but was forced to withdraw from the university for financial reasons

Arguing about commas is often a style issue not worth the time, but I'd say that despite all the earlier commas, to still include one after "day" to hint at the time gap.

  • He chose to enroll in UW

Optional: Is it worth stating that yes, he and his family moved to Seattle? It's just that we said above that he relocated with his family to Portland, and it's not entirely uncommon to leave the family back and commute around on weekends or the like.

  • 887 sq ft (82.4 m2), 620 sq ft (58 m2)

Meganit: Convert has a sigfig param, so I'd recommend {{convert|887|sqft|m2|abbr=on|sigfig=2}}. The extra 0.4 square meters is not really germane or relevant. Similarly, was that exactly 620 square feet, or just 620ish square feet? My guess is the latter, so I'd suggest to sigfig that conversion to just 1 and ~60 m^2.

  • the integration of the design into the surrounding landscape

Is this from the Mumford article? It's not on Wikipedia library, alas. This is more side chatter than a request for change, but this is a little surprising... the "House of Merit" idea & the modular homes in Jamaica seems to suggest more "affordable & efficient" was McAdoo's usual goals, while "integrating into the landscape" suggests more of a bespoke, artisanal, and expensive approach to me (i.e. the Fallingwater's of the world). Did he really do both small homes that also integrated into landscapes and the like? Impressive if so!

  • In the late 1960s, he returned to private practice full-time, where he specialized in civic and educational buildings such as the Southcenter Blood Bank (1970), the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Center (1972), and the Queen Anne Pool (1977).

Side chatter: This is the source's fault not yours, but it's too bad that it's real vague as to what precisely McAdoo did for these buildings and what his role was. Did any of the other sources go into more detail on his 1970s career?

Looks very solid overall, great work!

Tyla (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): dxneo (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about ... the self-titled debut studio by Tyla released in March 2024. It was recorded in multiple countries for over two years. Having preceded by "Water" which won the inaugural Grammy Award for Best African Music Performance, the album debuted at number 24 on the Billboard 200 after selling 24,000 units in its first week, making it the highest-charting album on the Billboard 200 chart by a female African soloist in the chart's history. It was described as a no-skip-album.
I'm aware that this album is nominated for few awards, but I have made it my personal mission to maintain it for as long as I'm still active. dxneo (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roswell incident

[edit]
Nominator(s): Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a conspiracy theory which alleges that the 1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft. With extensive polished sourcing, the article details the actual events of 1947, the later rise of UFO conspiracy theories, the emergence of the Roswell conspiracy theories, their evolution and eventual debunking. Feoffer (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Marcel-roswell-debris_0.jpg: where is that tagging coming from? It's not consistent with what's at the source site. Ditto File:Ramey-dubose-debris.jpg
    • The images were published without copyright notice in July 1947 and never renewed, entering public domain. While previously-unpublished images in the UTA collection would fall under the blanket Creative Commons release, UTA can't actually assert copyright on a faithful 2d replica of a public domain image. Feoffer (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it known that these particular images were published in 1947? I'm not seeing that at the source site either. If that can be shown, I'd suggest ditching the CC licensing on the basis of the images being PD. If it can't, though, the CC license UTA uses is BY-NC, not BY-SA which is what the images are currently tagged. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        UTA's stated license is probably not relevant. I don't see any reason they'd have the rights to the photo, so the license would be for the scanning and uploading. If the photos are in the public domain then the UTA license is not needed, but if the photos are not then the UTA license is not valid. J. Bond Johnson took both photos for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on 8 July 1947. The Telegram and other papers ran the photos on the 9th and 10th. The Telegram didn't have a copyright notice. Rjjiii (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aztec-hoax-pic.png: the uploader is not the copyright holder here
  • File:Screenshot_of_Alien_Prop_from_Roswell,_The_UFO_Cover_Up_(1994).jpeg needs a stronger FUR. Ditto File:Alien_Autopsy_Fact_or_Fiction_1995_screenshot_cropped.png, File:Jose_Chung_alien_autopsy_screenshot.png
  • File:Rosewell_Reports,_Volume_1.ogv: source link appears to go to an unrelated video, please check

Support from HAL

[edit]

Staking out a spot. Comments to come soon. ~ HAL333 17:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance for feedback -- great username and sig. Feoffer (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of the wording of "1947 crash of a United States Army Air Forces balloon near Roswell, New Mexico was actually caused by an extraterrestrial spacecraft". It implies that a UFO caused a balloon to crash.
  • "metallic and rubber debris was" --> "were"
  • "Trust in the US government declined and acceptance of conspiracy theories became widespread" - can you explain why this is the case? Maybe mention the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Watergate — I think a mention of the latter is especially appropriate since you then use "Cosmic Watergate".
  • "On September 20, 1980, the TV series In Search of..." — Can you mention that this episode was hosted by Leonard Nimoy?
  • Stanton Friedman is linked more than once
  • "decomposing from exposure and predators" — I think "scavengers" is more apt than "predators".
  • I would wikilink Oliver Stone
  • "Thomas DuBose... acknowledged the weather balloon cover story" — This sentence is confusing. He acknowledges that the balloon story, or that it was a cover? Or that it was a cover for Mogul? Or a saucer? Please clarify.
  • "a New Mexico congressman" - Could you name him/her?
  • "Santilli would admit years later" --> "Santilli admitted years later" per WP:WOULDCHUCK, and can you give the actual year of the admission?
  • This issue pops up elsewhere:
    • "The Air Force would later describe the" --> "The Air Force later described the
    • "New Mexico emerged that would later form elements"
    • "alien bodies that would later become associated with Roswell"
    • "Independent researchers would find patterns"
    • "Doty would later say"
  • Terminator 2 should be italicized, not put in quotations
  • I would wikilink Kodachrome
  • I would remove the months from "In September 2017," and from "In February 2020,". They're not necessary to the reader's understanding, are not given for most older dates and strike me as recentist.
  • "weather balloon" is linked in the Project Mogul subsection, but not in its first mention much earlier...
  • "Thomas DuBose" also has duplicate links but is still not linked in his first mention
  • "Ufologists had previously considered" — "previously" is redundant since you use the past perfect

Very nice work. Kudos to you for tackling a subject like this. ~ HAL333 14:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great points all! I think we've got 'em all. Feoffer (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. ~ HAL333 05:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, just need to flag that I've coincidentally identified a copyvio concern related to a major contributor to this article. I have not assessed to what extent their contributions persist in the present version, but careful spotchecks will be warranted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria Thanks for looking into it! Glancing through diffs and running "Who Wrote That" (assuming I have the right editor) I see copyedits, references, formatting, and deletions. More scrutiny never hurts though, Rjjiii (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boot Monument

[edit]
Nominator(s): ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a strange monument located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It is shaped like a boot. However, the monument's honoree is never mentioned on the monument because his name was Benedict Arnold, someone who betrayed the Continental army to the British army. I've brought this article from Start-class to GA-class (review), and then had it reviewed for A-class, which it passed. I think that it's now ready for FAC. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Matarisvan

[edit]

I was a reviewer at the ACR and can support the article for promotion to FA class. I also did the source review and spot checks at the ACR which passed, I can do these again if needed. Matarisvan (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and he was court-martialed" => "continued to grow ever more bitter towards the Continental Army when he was passed over for promotion, lost his business, and was court-martialed"
  • Done
  • Link Arnold on first use in body
  • Linked in Background section; not sure if I need to link it elsewhere
  • "American Major General Benedict Arnold had contributed to both Battles of Saratoga" - can we get a bit more context around this? I doubt that almost anyone outside the United States has the faintest idea what/when the Battles of Saratoga were, so you need to explain that this occurred during the American Revolutionary War and potentially even add that this was fought between the Americans and British
  • "a writer of several military histories about the Battle of Saratoga" - singular? It was plural earlier
  • changed to "battles"
  • "the only monument in Saratoga National Park that does not say the name of its honoree" - as a monument can't speak I would suggest that "show the name" would be better
  • Done

1860s replacement of the British copper coinage

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... another aspect of numismatic history. I never had to use the pre-decimal British bronze coins, since my first UK visit wasn't until 1986, and they were gone 15 years by then. They were considered large and inconvenient, but once they were even larger, and made of easily-worn pure copper. This is how that changedWehwalt (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

You had me at "pedantic quibblings" -- will pop in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The copper metal wore or oxidised, or had advertising punched into it: it sounds, particularly in the second clause, as if this was a feature of the coins when made, rather than a defect that emerged over long-term use. I think it would also help to clarify that copper is a soft metal, whereas bronze isn't. We mention durability a bit later, but that's not strictly relevant for punching, and the point would be useful up here.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on, the question of size seems to come up as a major motive, which isn't mentioned in the lead (only weight, which isn't the same thing)
The first paragraph says, "in a variety of sizes".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, but it doesn't say that a major motive of the reform was to make the coins physically smaller (as opposed to simply lighter). However, the first sentence of the body names this as the major problem with the copper coinage. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, made it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage: could we back up a step and explain the who/when/why of the decision to look into decimalisation at all?
Do you mean that the Lsd system was inconvenient or the political motivation that led to the appointment of the Royal Commission?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage come from? Who decided to set it up, when, and why? We've buried the lead at the moment, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as much as you'd think as investigations into decimal currency happened repeatedly in the 19th century. But I've added a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the debate over the inscription get into the lead?
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rarely-seen twopence: MOS:HYPHEN advises rarely seen.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, I get a MOS:SANDWICH between the second and third image, and (slightly) between Victoria and her penny.
I've moved Victoria, which hopefully will take care of that. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix the other issue?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bit radical, but how about putting Boulton's penny where the overstruck one is now, and putting the two "defective" coins together in a double-image template where the worn farthing currently is? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the sets of images shows both sides of a coin. Do you mean a four-image set or something else?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I hadn't appreciated that each was two images - but it looks like the |perrow= parameter of the multiple image template can create a two-by-two grid. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still looking at this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though not all did as many had the soft copper metal heavily worn: I think this needs a look for clarity. Likewise, slightly, Confusion was increased by coins struck to two other standards also remaining in trade. Happy to suggest alternatives if it would help.
I've taken a swing at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: worth footnoting how many coins he's talking about here?
I guess. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bronze was chosen as harder than pure copper: I'm not sure this is quite grammatical: as it was, I think.
Perhaps it's ENGVAR as the phrasing simply sounds economical of words to me.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Downing Street?
I am reluctant because I'm not certain where these fireside chats took place. One might assume 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor's residence, but that's only a guess. And not all 19th century Prime Ministers lived at Number Ten, having more comfortable London residences, some had the Chancellor live at #10. I suppose I could research where Gladstone lived in 1860, but we're getting into original research territory if the idea is to pipe to 10 Downing Street or 11. And I'm not sure how useful a link to the street itself would be. I am inclined to say that most people who get this far in this article are going to understand the significance and why Graham felt complimented and let it go at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a link to Downing Street would be good -- the lead sets out that it's historically been the centre of power for the PM/CX (indeed, that's the vast majority of what the lead is), and has The term "Downing Street" is also used as a metonym for the Prime Minister or the British Government more generally. Agreed that we don't need to get into the weeds of which black door was in front of the fireplace in question. Incidentally, if I read the eponymous article right, it seems like Gladstone used 10, 11 and 12, so it's a moot point anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the only place it would add something is in the sums referred to by Gladstone. the other sums are simply the total value of coins and a present value has little relevance. It's the same number of coins regardless of inflation. I'm also dubious of glibly saying that sums over 160 years are equivalent.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but I think it's also relevant that the £1,367,963 (as you say, 136,796,300 pennies) produced over the first three years was worth somewhere in the region of £17,389,310,308 in today's money -- in other words, a pretty huge sum. Point taken that inflation isn't a perfect guide to value-in-practice: you could also contextualise by saying that this was about one and a half times the government's annual spending. In either case, when we're throwing around large numbers, it's helpful if readers can have something to peg them to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added inflation templates but kept them off the description of the Malta coin exchange since the face value is only what is relevant, not the present value.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it definitely Britanniarum (of the Britains -- as in Great Britain and Brittany?) rather than Britannorum (of the Britons) in the full inscription? If so, why the plural?
It's Britanniarum, more as Great Britain and Ireland and to some extent the colonies. See this coin. They sometimes spelled it out if there was room.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's everything, with some clarification requests/comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That commission had been appointed following the advocacy of the Master of the Mint, the scientist Sir John Herschel, who had served on two previous inquiries into decimal coinage, but who resigned as master in 1856, the year of the commission's appointment, due to ill-health: is the bit about his previous service and his resignation strictly relevant here, rather than in his biography?
This is being added in response to your previous comments, regarding who is the force behind having a decimal currency commission. If we mention Herschel and shortly thereafter mention another person as master of the mint, it's useful to explain why that was.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a vote of £10000: for consistency with other large numbers in this article, use comma separators. See also, later, some £32000.
Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He reminded members that there was a bill pending before parliament to extend those provisions of law that applied to copper coins: can we outline what (at least the most important of) these were? Is this (for example) making them legal tender, protecting from clipping/forgery etc?
The source mentions forging. I looked at the Hansard for that date and that's what he says.
  • Gladstone expressed his satisfaction with pattern coins that Graham had sent him: with the pattern coins?
I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had appeared on the copper coinage since the reign of Charles II.: suggest adding "in the seventeenth century" to save readers a click if they're not up on their English history.
OK.
  • would be to acknowledge that Britain no longer ruled the waves: I think this needs at least a wikilink to Rule Britannia: it will be completely opaque to readers who don't know the song.
Linecar, other than the one phrase, gives no indication that he's referring to the song.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is the most famous phrase from that song, and one only found in the song. It's a bit like someone saying "Let there be light!" or "Blessed are the cheesemakers" -- they don't need to then tell us they're quoting the Bible. Honestly, I'm surprised that "Britannia rules the waves" isn't a redirect to the song anyway. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One small point: to me, you only acknowledge something that is true ("he acknowledged that he had drunk the tea, but denied eating the biscuits"). Since the late C19th was the high point of British imperial power, I don't think we can really assert "Britannia no longer ruled the waves" as a true statement: either she never did, in which case it's untrue by its conceptions, or she still did, in which case it's untrue. Suggest "would imply that Britain..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to "signify".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The stood in the quote should be in an em template, rather than simply italics, for the benefit of screen readers.
OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest clarifying that Osborne House was Victoria and Albert's summer retreat.
I've mentioned it in passing.
  • On 20 February 1860, a question was asked in the House of Commons: any idea who asked it?
It was William Ewart (British politician). I'm not sure it's necessary to mention it, though if you feel it necessary, I'll add a link to the Hansard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I'd prefer the active voice to the passive, and giving information rather than keeping it back: I think adding the name would be an improvement with few costs, but it's hardly make-or-break for the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I've recast it as you suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to the Royal Mint to show Graham two pattern coins for the penny: the second link on this term within this section: is that intentional?
Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One was likely given to the Queen: more august heads than mine would say this is an Americanism, and push for probably. I'll save them the bother.
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon went to Buckingham Palace, where both the Queen and Prince Albert criticised the work. He returned on 30 March; Albert was not there but Victoria had slight criticisms: presumably he returned with another go at the job?
Yes, I think this goes without saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it does: it's a sensible inference, but it's not the only possible reading of what's written. For instance, he could have gone on Monday with a coin, received a lot of criticism, then turned up again on Wednesday for another meeting/a social call, and received more criticism of the same work, or found that Victoria had changed her mind, and now only hated it a little bit. Even then, why make the reader work harder than they need to? The oft-repeated dictum that good writing should be like water in a fishbowl springs to mind. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should have made clear I had already modified the text to meet your objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the numismatic scholar, Howard Linecar, it was felt: the way we handle Linecar makes it seem as if he was there at the time: see particularly later According to some accounts, the example that the Queen approved was stolen when posted to the Royal Mint, though Linecar was sceptical of this story. I was surprised to mouse over and find that the source was from the 1970s rather than the 1870s.
I've cut his opinion.
  • Your train set, but I can't see that that was the best solution here: simply rephrasing for tense would have seemed an "easy" fix. Even something like "Linecar has written that this story is probably false" would have solved the second one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got that, but the passage is vaguer than I'd remember so better I think to leave it out.
  • Wyon had been instructed to have the inscription on the coins, to be found on the obverse, to read,: we need to lose the second to ("he was instructed to have the inscription read..."). Might be worth reworking the sentence so that the main verb doesn't have to wait for the subordinate clause to finish.
Reworked.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of the Britains, defender of the faith": WP:' advises single quotes (or, better, the gloss template) for glosses. Why is Queen capitalised but nothing else, especially "Defender"? Suggest linking Defender of the Faith.
  • Very minor, but the Latin really ought to go into lang templates for the benefit of screen readers and the Wiki software (use |italic=no).
  • the new florin had omitted D.G. (Dei Gratia, by the grace of God) and F.D. (defender of the faith),: we've lost the rather natty small caps here.

On the above three, see if how I have it now is satisfactory.

  • noting that the abbreviation of a plural noun in Latin should have its final consonant doubled: maybe not should in the sense of a moral truth, but perhaps something like "was conventionally indicated by doubling its final letter, if a consonant"? Strictly, by what we've said here, the abbreviation for Bachelor of Arts should be BBA.
I don't personally understand why BRITANNIAR should not be BRITANNIARR by the logic but I looked at the source and it says "required" and apparently Gladstone had been lying in wait on this one for a year so I'm inclined to say that "should" is fair.
Fair enough. Nice catch.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wyon worked on the master coinage dies : suggest a wikilink for "dies": not a common word?
Fine.00Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The result was the "Bun" penny: any reason not to roll this one-line paragraph into the one above?
OK.
  • they had not been made current by proclamation: I think we need a link or explanation on "proclamation" to clarify what this means.
OK.
  • The penny weighed 9.45 g and was 30.81 mm in diameter, with the halfpenny 5.66 g and 25.47 mm and the farthing 2.83 g and 20.16 mm: no conversions for the units? Might be best to put them all into a single footnote.
It's my thought that since we earlier mention the weight of the 1797 penny, it may be useful to mention the bronze pieces in main text.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes -- I meant the imperial conversions (that is, don't put a bracket after every single metric one: just write a footnote like 'that is, [so many] ounces in weight and [so many] inches in diameter...')
UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on this Thursday.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspapers.com gives the title of the Essex paper as The Essex County Standard.
Fixed.
  • would lead to great public convenience.: suggest a rephrase, as "public convenience" is BrE for "toilet".
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint: this seems to contradict the statement, further up, that the Royal Mint had at least some experience with it, having recently struck bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the Province of Canada.. Could perhaps be solved by clarifying the scale of the latter projects.
That is true. On reference to Peck, the issue seems to be that the Royal Mint was called upon with the British coinage to work faster, en masse, as Peck puts it. Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1,720 tonnes: suggest an imperial conversion too.
I need to look at the sources and see what is meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template documentation advises not to state a publisher's location when it's in the name (so CUP books published in Cambridge shouldn't use |location=).
  • An extension was granted to the colonies as no steps had been taken in some of them to call in old coppers. Originally, the date of demonetisation was to be 30 June 1876, but it was extended to 31 December 1877: another short paragraph that seems to naturally belong with the one before it.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the dash in the title of Dyer 1982.
I think I've fixed that but I have trouble distinguishing such things by eye, so if it's the wrong dash, just show me what the proper one is and I'll change it.
There are a few not done, the images and the tonnes and the conversion template, I'll finish on Thursday. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for a first go: back to you.

I've finished the last three and also the Rule Britannia. I think that's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting after some very minor copyedits: very nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments to start:

  • Craig: To make it easier for readers to find the book, I think it's worth spelling out the title: The Mint: A History of the London Mint from A.D. 287 to 1948.
  • Wikilink British Numismatic Journal?
  • Dyer 1982: Capitalize the title per MOS:TITLECAPS and replace the hyphen with an en-dash per MOS:RANGE
  • Dyer 1982: The article appears to begin on page 234, not 232
  • Dyer and Gaspar 1992: I think it is worth using the whole chapter title: "Reform, the New Technology and Tower Hill, 1700–1966".
  • Fremantle 1877: The link goes to a text search for "Malta". This link to the title page seems more appropriate.
  • Same for Fremantle 1878 (a search for "copper"): This link seems better.
  • Same for Fremantle 1879 (another search for "copper"): I recommend this link.

I'll keep working on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all done to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have addressed my above comments. Here are more:

  • Fremantle 1877: The publication year appears to have disappeared.
  • Spink & Son: The library listings I'm seeing for this book list Emma Howard as editor. You have it listed under Spink as the author. Shouldn't the editor's name be included and shouldn't it be listed under that name?
  • Not a source review comment: The Chamber's Journal quote is long enough it should be a blockquote, per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.
  • The Hansard article italicizes the name, but the citation doesn't. Perhaps it should be listed as the title and not the publisher.
  • Little was done in Cape Colony in South Africa or in New Zealand to call in the coppers sounds a little too interpretive to me to be supported by a primary source like Fremantle 1879, per WP:PRIMARY. When I clicked the link to that report and went to page 10, I couldn't find any mention Cape Colony, South Africa, or New Zealand. Is the citation wrong or am I missing something?
Should have read 1878 rather than 1879. It is fixed. Fremantle's reports are considered authoritative in their field, there's a discussion of that in our article on him which I wrote. He would be in a position to know these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that. I see how page 10 of Fremantle 1878 supports the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: The books are all held by academic libraries, with the exception of the Fremantle reports, which as primary sources are being used appropriately per WP:PRIMARY, with the one possible exception raised in my comment above. Some of the articles are from the British Numismatic Journal, which seems reputable. The other articles are from primary periodicals that I think are being used appropriately. For a fairly short article, the list of sources seems to represent a decent breadth of scholarship, supplemented by fair use of primary sources. The citation style looks consistent. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made one comment and done the remainder. Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added Emma Howard as editor but kept Spink & Son as the author of Coins of England. Worldcat lists Spink as publisher only and lists no author, filing instead under Howard's name as editor. Do you think it's more appropriate to keep Spink as author and file it in the list that way? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an series, now annual, that began in 1929 and has had various editors over the years (I have a copy of the 2004 edition, editor Philip Skingley). The only name that appears on the cover is Spink, as it is the only name on the title page. Howard's name appears only once, in a note on page vi. In neither the 2023 edition nor the 2004 is the editor's name on the cover or prominently mentioned. I think it serves the reader best to stick with Spink as author. Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I consider this source review a pass. I invite you to take a look at my current FAC nomination, which still needs reviews. Thanks in advance if you're able to leave since comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Some images are missing alt text
Alt text added and image swapped. Thank you. Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

With regard to Wehwalt's introductory remarks, above – none of which I dispute – nonetheless, the satisfying sound of the clunk of big copper pennies into GPO telephones in phone boxes remains with me sixty years later. (And I still think of 50p as ten bob.) Be that as it may, I read almost to the end of the article before finding anything to quibble about, try as I might (and God knows I did). But in the paragraph beginning "The Royal Mint offered a premium of 2 percent…" I have three minor points. First, in BrE it is usual to render "per cent" as two words; secondly, I don't see why the deputy master of the Mint should be deprived of the capitalisation his senior, the Master, gets; and thirdly "this was done effective 31 July" is not familiar BrE: "this was done with effect from…" would be the normal BrE. Hardly earth-shaking, and I have no hesitation in supporting the elevation of this article, which I read with great enjoyment and from which I learned a lot. First rate, even by Wehwalt's superb standards. Tim riley talk 22:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done, many thanks for the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Support, with a few very minor comments:

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though not all did as many were lightened by having the soft copper metal heavily worn": suggest "though many had become lightened as the soft copper metal was often heavily worn" -- to avoid misparsing this while reading as meaning that there were two types of this coin.
Done but phrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The advertising disfigurements are an interesting note. Any chance of an image of one such?
The coin late in the background section is the best one I have available to me. I have access to the images of Heritage Auctions but they don't seem to have sold a really nice one.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To correlate the metric and Imperial systems, 10 pennies, 12 halfpennies or 15 farthings laid side by side measured 1 foot (0.30 m)." I'm not sure what this sentence is telling me. Is it just a restatement of their lengths, presented in a different way? If so I'm not sure we need it.
The Royal Mint chose diameters so that a certain number of coins side by side equalled one foot. I suppose rulers were less common than today.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as reproduced in the Essex County Standard": does this caveat need to be in the body text? It's noted in the form of the citation.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Thanks for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mujinga

[edit]

Commenting on this version I'm finding some source/text integrity issues:

  • 1 text: On 4 August 1859, Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, obtained a vote of £10,000 (equivalent to £1,265,000 in 2023) to be used to replace the copper coinage.
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263.: it was not until 4 August 1859 that Gladstone, as chancellor of the exchequer, obtained from Parliament a vote of £10,000 for replacing the old copper with new coins in bronze
  • that's too close for me, "obtained" really sticks out
I've had a go at changing that, but the reason I stuck to the text is that "obtained" might be technical parliamentary language.
  • 2 text: Literary Digest hoped for something that would be a credit to the country, and that would show the Queen, by then a grandmother, as "more matronly"; The Mechanics' Magazine similarly wanted the new coins to "tell the truth".[11]
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 263: The Literary Gazette hoped for 'something really creditable to the country' and in particular that the queen, a grandmother in ripe middle age, would be represented with a 'somewhat more matronly aspect'.7 A similar view was expressed in the Mechanics' Magazine, which also wanted the portrait of the queen to 'tell the truth'
  • again too close, also Literary Gazette not Digest and it's a bit unclear how the new coins would tell the truth in the wikiversion
I've played with the language some but again, the possible synonyms are meager. I think it's pretty clear they wanted the new coins to show the Queen as a woman of over forty as she was, rather than the teenager she had been in 1838, Ive touched up the language. Sorry about the Digest/Gazette.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 text blockquote: what a bruised, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence [24 pieces]: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, and that numerous but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • source "Our Copper Coinage". Chamber's Journal. 29 December 1860. p. 6. Retrieved 16 June 2024 – via The Huddersfield Chronicle and West Yorkshire Advertiser and Newspapers.com : what a bruised, BATTERED, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, OR that but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
  • differences capitalised
Fixed, regrettably I had to copy this manually and I obviously made a mistake or two--Wehwalt (talk)
  • 4 text: On 16 July, Gladstone was questioned in the Commons about the delays; he attributed the problems to "a mysterious secret of art"
  • Source: Even so, difficulties continued and in reply to a further question in parliament on 16 July Gladstone rather grandly attributed the delay to 'a mysterious secret of art
  • not particularly bad but "attributed" could be changed
Changed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 text: There was considerable reaction, much of it focused on the use of BRITT. There were rumours that this was an error, and that the coins would soon be called in. BRITT had appeared on the sixpences and shillings of 1817, but BRIT on the current issue of florins
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, pp. 269–270: 269: There were the inevitable rumours, denied in The Times, that the coins were to be recalled, and in particular controversy was provoked by the double T of BRITT. 270: It was a controversy which would have interested Sainthill, who long ago had written inapproval of the use of BRITT on the sixpences and shillings of 1816.
  • 1816 not 1817
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 text: The Mechanics' Magazine felt that Wyon had captured the Queen's features adequately, but there was something inaccurate about the form of her head. It disliked the rendition of Britannia, though stating that Wyon had done the best he could. Other than these criticisms, it felt that the new coins were a complete success
  • source Dyer & Gaspar 1984, p. 270: The Britannia, as expected, was not at all to the Magazine's taste and it could say no more than that the artist had done the best he could with her. 'In all other senses than the artistic', however, 'the new bronze pieces may be regarded as a complete success'.
  • it is backed Dyer & Gaspar 1984 but by p269 and the "complete success" phrase is a direct quotation
I've changed those.

I did in total 9 checks, three were ok and six were not. This is a concerning number of errors and I'm wondering if I'll find more if I continue. Stopping here and I will oppose for now Mujinga (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check every source and get back to you when I have. Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-throated tanager

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the word's most endangered birds, with currently only 20 individuals known. I was able to get permission to use three photographs; previously we didn't had a single one. The article just passed a detailed GA review (thanks to User:Esculenta), and I now believe it is ready. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added.
Added, thanks --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there some sort of link that could be provided for nape? This seems to be referring to a specific part of the bird. I looked at Glossary of bird terms, but there's no entry for nape there.
I just added the respective entry to the glossary, but also explained the term directly in-text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is Mata de Caetas? Is this is a forest, a settlement, etc.?
Mata is Portuguese for forest. I now added a translation, both to the first image caption and to the first mention in the text. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be in good shape from a non-expert perspective; supporting. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that's the last of my concerns sorted. Great article: stylish, clearly well researched and eminently readable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to find much to complain about -- admittedly, I'm not an ornithologist, but this certainly seems like a clear, authoritative and polished article.

Cool, many thanks for the review! I addressed everything as best as I could:
  • The cherry-throated tanager belongs to the tanager family Thraupidae and is thought to be most closely related to the only other member of its genus, the hooded tanager, though this has yet to be confirmed by genetic analysis. : consider breaking this long sentence after Thraupidae.
Done.
  • The cherry-throated tanager is a distinctive bird: what does distinctive mean here? Aren't most birds distinctive (at least to bird lovers) in the sense that they have characteristic features that can be easily recognised?
I added "visually distinctive", if that helps? Most birds are less easy to identify than this one, and some have a totally nondescript plumage and can only be identified based on sound.
  • The undersides are white, contrasting brilliantly with the red patch.: brilliantly reads to me as an aesthetic term rather than a descriptive one: strongly?
Yes, that's better, changed.
  • tarsus (lower "leg"): why the quote marks here?
Because it only looks like the lower leg, but in fact it is part of the foot (the upper thigh in birds is usually not visible, it has a horizontal orientation and is hidden in the plumage below the belly).
  • Would be good to find some other solution than scare quotes: perhaps a footnote if nothing else? Mind you, a lot of sources seem to describe it as part of the leg (the body part of the same name in humans is the ankle, which can be considered part of either). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Went with "the lowest, featherless part of the leg". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We clarify that the Atlantic Forest is in Brazil on first mention in the lead, but not in the body.
The Atlantic Forest is not restricted to Brazil, we only say that the tanager is restricted to the Atlantic Forest of Brazil. Do you think we should add more background on the extent of the forest?
I think that would help, and consider rephrasing the lead to something like "Brazilian areas of the Atlantic Forest": "the Atlantic Forest of Brazil" reads as if the forest itself is of or somehow belongs to Brazil (cf. "the Pacific Ocean of China", "the Alps of France", "the Danube of Hungary" -- none of those sound quite right to me). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added, and wrote "the Atlantic Forest in Brazil" instead of "of Brazil". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, a type of Atlantic Forest: I don't think the second capitals are right here: something can't be a type of a proper noun ("a type of Atlantic Ocean", "a type of Berwick-upon-Tweed"). Perhaps "Dense Ombrophyllous Montane Forest, characterized by tall trees with abundant epiphytes, which is found in [certain areas of?] the Atlantic Forest"?
Right, done.
  • the species' ecology: MOS:' (I think) advises "the ecology of the species" in this scenario.
Fixed, together with another similar case.
  • whereas Nova Friburgo is from a different mountain range: part of?
Of course, yes.
  • It was often observed that one of the flock members sat higher and was noisier than the others, for unclear reasons: why the past tense here? "Has been"?
Changed.
  • Parasites are unknown: does this mean "we never find them with parasites" ("antisocial behaviour is unknown in Singapore") or "we don't know which parasites they have"?
The latter. Hope I made that clearer now.
  • Three additional nests have been found until 2020: had been found by 2020?
Yes, fixed.
  • Brettas' sketch: MOS:' prefers Brettas's sketch.
Changed.
  • a 2005 study deemed this relatively optimistic estimate to be "premature".: MOS:QUOTEPOV would advise dropping the quotes here.
Dropped.
  • The extraction of heart of palm (Euterpe edulis) leads to additional forest degradation. The species is particularly susceptible: as we've just introduced a new species, clarify that we're back to the birds.
Done.
  • Cherry-throated Tanager Conservation Program: no capital on Throated?
MOS:TITLE has this: "Follow the majority usage in independent, reliable sources for any given subject (e.g. The Out-of-Towners but The History of Middle-earth). If neither spelling is clearly dominant in sources, default to lowercase after a hyphen […]." The spelling used in the article is how the project spells it themselves.
A Google search returns three pages of results, but none of the hits has "throated" capitalised. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it was tested if the birds could be supported with extra food: I don't quite understand what we're imagining here. Why wouldn't it be possible to feed the birds?
There are many risks here that could make such an endeavour counter-productive. I reformulated it: and supplemental feeding of mealworms has been tried
  • and in 2021, the team published an action plan for the conservation of the species: I think this would be clearer if we shifted in 2021 to the end and lost the comma.
Done.
  • There are proposals to develop ecotourism around the tanager, which could potentially benefit local communities.: and, based on what we said above, risk wiping it out? The sequencing here might need another look.
I reformulated: "Tourism targeting the species can be problematic if sound recordings are used excessively to attract the birds." This should make clear that ecotourism can work without playback of sound recordings, and is not necessarily problematic for this reason.
  • and to build pride of local communities in their natural heritage: this isn't quite idiomatic: instil pride in local communities about...? But then it reads as slightly woolly to me: I'd be happier if we could demonstrate some concrete outcome in this direction.
I tried "and to foster pride within local communities for their natural heritage", hoping that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you really feel pride for something (unless perhaps we mean feeling pride vicariously when another person has achieved something: 'her mother was proud for her when she passed the exam'), but you do feel pride in it or about it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reverted to "in". Or maybe "and to encourage local communities to take pride in their natural heritage", if that's better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works, but again I have very mild concerns that it's a bit meaningless: it reads like something you'd get in a presentation from the people running such an initiative. What does it look like, concretely? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen of removing the part about the flagship species, as I think that this is crucial information. The sentence in question describes precisely what a flagship species is supposed to do: One species that people can relate to, so that they care about conservation. Without support from the local populace, long-term conservation cannot work, it is an integral part, so I think we have to mention it. What such outreach looks like concretely you can see in their newsletter (e.g., [1]). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you were asking for something concrete, the discovery of populations of a critically endangered catfish is a direct result of the tanager flagship species program, as discussed here [2]. The catfish is briefly mentioned, but I could make a separate sentence out of it, if you think that's necessary to make the point? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no -- I have no problem with the flagship species idea; my issue is the claim that it's "encouraging" local communities to take pride in the natural stuff around them. The doctor can encourage me to exercise more and eat less, but that doesn't necessarily mean I do it, or that the encouragement makes any difference to anything we both care about. If there's a nice link to be drawn that says "people said they were inspired by their pride in the cherry-throated tanager to go and look for other endangered species, and ended up finding an endangered catfish", that would solve the problem nicely. Similarly, if there has been a media campaign costing X thousand dollars to promote the image of the bird, that would also be a good thing to hang the statement on. This is a case where I'm not sure WP:ABOUTSELF sources are great, because we need some external measure of whether the encouragement a) meaningfully exists and b) is actually important enough to make WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely rewritten that part, please see if that's better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I should try doing a source review for a biological article for a change. The sources here look high quality for the subject; almost everything is cited to academic publications, whether that be reports or journals. I checked the two Saíra News ones that gave me pause; its a newsletter of the research institute, which fits for an ABOUTSELF statement on that land acquisition and the very unlikely to be challenged news about the aracaris preying on the nest.

Citations are consistently laid out, and use RPs for multipage articles. There were a couple situations where cited were in the wrong order; I resolved these. Seems good to go for me; Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I made a few minor copyedits; feel free to revert anything you disagree with.

  • "This increased to 20 individuals by the end of 2023, probably thanks to increased conservation efforts at Mata de Caetés, which at that time probably had 15 individuals": I think we need a date instead of "at that time", since otherwise this seems to say that there were both 15 and 20 individuals at the same time. I thought the intended meaning might be 2020, as mentioned in the previous sentence, but that can't be the case as only 10 individuals were known then.
Yes, both refer to 2023: 15 individuals in the Mata de Caetés, and the remaining five in the other reserve, therefore 20 in todal. I hopefully made this clearer now.
  • The first paragraph of the "Population status and threats" section isn't strictly chronological; I think it would read more naturally if it were.
Made it chronological now.
  • "the relatively large Augusto Ruschi Biological Reserve might potentially house yet undetected birds": "might" is redundant with "potentially"; perhaps "has the potential to house"?
I went with "it is possible" to make clear that this is merely speculation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the only issues I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike! All comments addressed so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga

[edit]

Cerro Panizos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second time's hopefully the charm. This volcano is in a remote area of northwestern Argentina and southeastern Bolivia, it bears no traces of recent activity but it is an important member of a regional volcano group. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

I am happy to support with regard to the prose, and the article seems comprehensive. I think the actions suggested in the previous nomination and a recent copyedit have contrinuted much in bringing this contribution to FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also support per my review in the previous FAC. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did what was essentially a pre-FAC review on the article talk page and have nothing to add to those comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up that I will be away for a few days. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 05:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JoJo, Very little from me, just a few of very minor points:

  • "two calderas (a depression...": As 'calderas' is plural, it may be a bit smoother to say '(depressions...'
  • "includes Cerro Panizo:[36] it consists of two parts: a volcanic arc" I'm never a fan of two colons in one sentence – maybe swap the first for a full stop?
  • "northeast~southwest": did you mean to have a tilde there?
  • "antimony, copper, and uranium": you don't use serial commas elsewhere

I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Done. In case you are interested in any pre-nomination review, Socompa is the next article on my FAC block. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

Two are public domain, the other is CC BY-SA 3.0. The image "LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png" has an alt text and a caption, the other two images are part of the map preview of the infobox mountain template. All images are relevant to the article and placed appropriately. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I'm completely ignorant on this subject, but after a careful and enjoyable perusal of the article I'm confident enough to sign up to support. The substantive content is well and widely sourced, and my only quibble on the prose is that we have a rash of "numerous"es: some more precise numbers or at least a few synonyms for "numerous" would be nice. Tim riley talk 22:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymized several. @SchroCat: now I am back and available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang is the only non-Bond novel that Ian Fleming wrote. He did so shortly after suffering a heart attack and while he was supposed to be convalescing. Although he planned to release a story a year, he never saw this first one published, dying two months before it hit the shops. This has been through a re-write recently and all constructive comments from good faith editors are welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Had my say at the peer review, and on rereading for FAC I see nothing to add. Happy to support promotion to FA. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments - they were much appreciated, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Oh, I loved this movie growing up!
  • cliff hanger - just to confirm, no hyphen in the original?
    There isn't, but as we're able to make minor typographical corrections, and as it's hyphenated few words later, I've added one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been any commentary on how subsequent adaptations have abandoned the novel's names and styling for the film's (as in the sequels being Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and not Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang)?
    Nothing at all - they just disappeared without anyone saying anything. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roald Dahl - If I remember my history correctly, he and Ian Fleming had been friends. Is there any discussion of this, and the role of their friendship in his adaptation of the novel? (And, of course, would it be a weight issue if anything were included here?)
    There is passing reference to the fact they knew each other, but nothing about any possible impact it had on Dahl's work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some small edits; please review.

Overall, nothing but nit-picks from me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris, much obliged. - SchroCat (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PMC

[edit]

I'm an uncultured millennial who's never seen the movie or read the book, but put me down for a review nonetheless :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the story was one that he had created for his son, Caspar, as a bedtime story" - could probably simplify to "he had created it as a bedtime story for his son, Caspar" or similar
  • Since you're linking other things in the synopsis, perhaps also touring car and bonnet (car)
  • "that character James Bond" reads a bit awkwardly. "the character" maybe?
  • " six-cylinder aero-engine from Maybach. The engines" singular, then plural
  • "One important aspect of the car was its sound, which was "almost as important as the appearance"," bit redundant, this sentence could be simplified
  • 2nd para of Critical reception overuses "avuncular" a bit, can it be written around?
  • In the same para, sentences 2 and 3 both start with "X praised"
  • "Three sequels to the book have been written by Frank Cottrell-Boyce." Passive voice here
    I think it's okay in this context - the subject is the book, so we focus on that first, rather than the writer. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might reorganize the Adaptations section a bit. Right now, the first half of the para is about adaptations of the original, two contemporary and one 2011. Then the latter half is about the sequels. Then we jump back in time to 1968 to deal with the film, then we close out with the 2002 musical, which precedes the sequels.
    I was going (broadly) for 1. Books; 2. Film; 3. Play, rather than a chronological run-through, with the first para (broadly) about the Fleming story and follow-ons, and the other two paragraphs about the non-Fleming adaptations, but let me rework it a little and see if I can improve it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved to a strictly chronological runthrough now. How does that look? - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me, very little to pick at here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PMC, just a little nudge on this one - although no obligation to add a !vote either way if you don't want to. - SchroCat (talk) 03:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, sorry! For some reason I thought I had replied to this already. Looking good to me, I'm a support. (And I do intend to get to the libels GAN this week). (PS, if you have time, I could use some more eyes at the McQueen Nihilism FAC). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks PMC. Nihilism is on my list, and I should be there in a couple of days at most. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Loved the book as a kid, but haven't thought about it for decades! Just a couple of things:

  • "to necessitate hospitalisation and convalescence, which Fleming undertook at the Dudley Hotel in Hove" it's a bit unclear whether the hotel was the site of hospitalisation and convalescing, or just the latter. Also, "undertook" is a bit clumsy, would personally simplify to "hospitalisation, after which Fleming convalesced at the Dudley..." or similar.
  • That paragraph in particular contains so many "Fleming"s that my brain has done the thing where it starts considering a word as a collection of letters instead of an actual word, but I'm not sure if you can remove any and retain intelligibility. See what you think.
  • Why does the article primarily use Trog and not Fawkes?
I think he's probably better known as Trog (at least in the UK), as that's his common professional name. - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Nice article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks AirshipJungleman29. The first two points sorted (although let me know about the second of them) and the third answered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work which I gladly support. (If you have the time/inclination, any comments on another FAC of mine would be much appreciated.) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for this. I shall certainly pop round Chagatai Khan shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Is "The Man who Supercharged Bond: The Extraordinary Story of Charles Amherst Villiers." cited by anyone? That ISBN also says that it was published in 2010, not 2009. I am pretty sure I have reviewed the other sources here already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's cited by anyone (at least, not on the searches I have done). The book itself says 2009 on the imprint page. - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "whistle-like sweets". What does this mean? A few words of explanation would be helpful.
  • "the author Ian Fleming had published nine books". "The author" is superfluous and he was the author not the publisher.
  • "Legal difficulties before publication lead to a hearing". led rather than lead?
  • Illustrations. More details of the illustrations would be interesting.
    They would, but none of the sources deal with them as art, just the background on Burningham being used, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Publication history - maybe add the number of pages in the three volumes and the single volume.
  • In the lead you say the radio version was on Radio 4 Extra, in the main text Radio 7
  • A first rate article - just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always Dudley; these have all been dealt with (with the one exception) in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Catch Me Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Can't Catch Me Now". Just two months after raking in massive critical acclaim with her second studio album, Guts, Rodrigo contributed this lush folk ballad to The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. The song, which consistently escalates in intensity throughout its duration, drew positive reviews for its sound and Rodrigo's vocal performance. Oscar buzz soon followed but the competition was unfortunately too tough. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.NØ 15:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pending review from NegativeMP1

[edit]

Soon. I hope... λ NegativeMP1 17:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if I'm going to review this article anymore following some real-world developments. I'm also unsure if I am currently in the right place to determine what meets FA criteria or not. If something like a spotcheck or an image review is needed, let me know in a couple weeks and I might volunteer. But I don't think I will be reviewing the article prose. I wish you luck, and I'll try to make up for it at a later date. λ NegativeMP1 17:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pbritti

[edit]

Somehow this song from her discography had escaped my notice until now, so this review gives me an excuse to throw it on. Will complete in the next 24 hours. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Since it has been a week, I thought I'd send a reminder. But please take your time :) NØ 17:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten! Expect comments tomorrow UTC (for real this time!). ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Is the link Music critics in the lead and §Critical reception overlink? Since music criticism generally is not a matter of discussion here, I think it is.
  • "ubiquitousness" is a good word, but I fear it might not be clear in meaning to a general audience. Perhaps replace with "constant presence" or "inescapable presence" depending on context.
  • "For her debut studio album" While I appreciate that Rodrigo's career is still in a comparatively nascent stage, I think that discussion of genres from her debut studio album is off topic and should only be mentioned if a source makes a connection between the "Can't Catch Me Now" and that debut (the current citation is from 2021, so there's an NOR concern, too).
  • "returned as her principal collaborator on the follow-up album" The citations for this date to September 2023 and appear to make no reference to the subject. While this could be BLUESKY, I'm inclined by NOR towards asking for a source that explicitly draws a link between the subject song and Nigro's work on Guts.
  • Mentioning that a producer was a frequent collaborator of an artist is standard practice for Background sections. "Out of the Woods" mentions the producer's prior work with Taylor Swift, for example. An example of a NOR violation would be a statement like "Can't Catch Me Now was conceived during the Guts sessions". Guts and its success were mentioned in several articles announcing the subject song, like this, this, and this, so the article would be incomplete without discussion of Nigro's involvement in it.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable sources determine the details that comprise complete coverage, so I would like an RS cite here that engages with this relationship as a continuity with Guts. Otherwise, it could be considered as unnecessarily emphasizing Nigro's relationship with Rodrigo's work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for having to push back on this, but that is not how NOR is applied to background sections based on my experience at FAC. If you see articles like Laundromat (song), even CD liner notes are referenced to provide information on previous collaborations between writers of a song. We cannot nix a project that the two collaborators released together just two months before this song. That part is staying.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was released to critical acclaim" We probably don't need this regarding Guts for NOR and PUFF reasons, especially without a direct link to "Can't Catch Me Now" in the sources
  • This is not a NOR violation since the album receiving critical acclaim is a widely held opinion by secondary sources and is cited. Not really PUFF either since that guideline refers to exceptional claims in wikivoice, e.g. "Mariah Carey is widely regarded as the best vocalist of all-time". An album with a metascore of 91 and six Grammy nominations being referred to as acclaimed is standard fare imo.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we mentioning this critical acclaim at all, though? It's a sentence that has zero bearing on article's subject and utilizes a reference that makes no mention of "Can't Catch Me Now". It's unnecessary glossing. Nix it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It complements readers' understanding of the critical reception for this song, which is covered later. Comments like it marking "one more step towards Rodrigo's world domination", it representing a change in her sound, or forming an earnest addition to her discography are better understood when not divorced from how her prior output was received.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any non-primary RS information available on the vinyl release? This made me wonder if there's some missing angle to coverage here, but I'm struggling to find any additional content on the 7". Will report back if I have more success with a little more time spent.
  • I'm aware, but I linked to it as a possible aspect of the subject that has gone unrepresented in the current article, particularly when the article lacks reference to any secondary source on the 7". ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subjects that were not reported on by reliable secondary sources should be unrepresented in the article. Usage of unreliable sources as a reference would constitute a violation of the FA criteria.--NØ 20:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and chamber-folk ballad," The comma here seems to serve primarily as an anchor for the citations that follow and not as an appropriate grammatical device.
  • Thank you for attributing quotes and reviews to the writers rather than their publications. It's infuriating to look at some FAs and GAs see stuff like "the New York Times positively reviewed the song"–no they didn't! A specific critic did! Anyhow, thanks for getting that right.

Will return with additional comments shortly, but my spot-checking of sources is also yielding positive results besides the issues mentioned above. Great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pbritti. I look forward to it.--NØ 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards an oppose now, unfortunately. I am especially concerned by the repeated preference to defer to the precedence of individual articles over policy and misunderstanding of my question of whether an element of the subject has been adequately covered. (I am not asking you to cite the article I linked and stated that; I am asking you to tell me if there are RSs that do cover it.) This is exacerbated by the apparent willingness to overlink to comply with a GA request. These are minor requests with a policy basis, so please make them. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is disappointing, since other FAs have been pointed out as examples that your interpretation of policies is not shared by the larger community or the precedent here at FAC. I cannot remove important details from the article due to one user's unpopular interpretation of a guideline. I am not sure how else I am supposed to state this to make it clearer, but no, there aren't any RS that cover the "angle" in the student newspaper you have linked. But thanks for your feedback anyways and happy editing.--NØ 05:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed at NORN. No further concerns. The article is well written and the citations are strong. I would reckon it among the best song articles on the project. Support. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Sky Harbor

[edit]

I was asked to review the article on WP:DISCORD, and at first glance the prose looks good. Maybe a couple of errors here or there but otherwise written well. In honor of Olivia Rodrigo's Guts World Tour and it stopping in the Philippines (and also because she's Filipino American and it's Filipino American History Month), I will endeavor to review this more deeply and will post some thoughts on the article later depending on my real-life workload. --Sky Harbor (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, MaranoFan. Thank you very much for taking the time to write this article, and I'm glad that you had taken the time to write it. For this review, I will focus primarily on prose and writing, deferring to others more versed in the current FA process than me for more technical aspects:
  • In the first sentence of the composition and lyrics section, I would include that Dylan Waterhouse plays the instruments you mention in the next sentence ("..., who also plays..."). In the current arrangement I am left wondering who "he" is.
  • In the music video section, is the "white sleek dress" a specific dress, or is it a white dress that happens to be slimming?
  • I personally write out numbers as words so long as it's ten or below ("Ten days later" instead of "10 days later"), but I get that this is a stylistic choice.
As I mentioned initially, the prose itself is written well so I don't see any major impediments to the article becoming an FA, and I think the suggestions made here would push that case even further. Best of luck. --Sky Harbor (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for reviewing this and the nice words, Sky Harbor. Done on points one and two.--NØ 05:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I appreciate the edits made and I am glad to vote Support for this nomination. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "which intersperses scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes with clips of Rodrigo singing it in a cabin and a grass field" => "which intersperses scenes from The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes with clips of Rodrigo singing the song in a cabin and a grass field"
  • "On November 1, 2023, Rodrigo's hotline" - what's her "hotline"?

Image and source review - pass

[edit]

Image licencing, rationales and placement seem OK to me. The sample needs an ALT text. Sources look pretty mainstream but I wonder why some have archives and others don't. What makes Qobuz a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sample does not contain video so it does not need ALT text. TimedText is already present. All sources should now have archives except the singlechart templates, as there does not currently exist a way of adding archives to them. Qobuz is just a music store and streaming service which is used for credits since Tidal went behind a paywall. The information about credits is provided to them by the record label when songs are published there. In the case of this song, it matches the vinyl booklet (hard to read). Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus?--NØ 10:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to qualify that Pbritti's concerns above are not overridden by my review of the sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations

[edit]

American Writers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

America's #2 novelist travels to London in 1823 to become #1 and reverse British disdain for US literature. Pretending to be English, he hooks up with a Scottish publisher and becomes a regular contributor for a leading Edinburgh magazine – the first American to do so! One of his submissions is the first attempt anywhere at a history of American literature and the first critical survey of the new nation's authors. British readers appreciate it and American readers go nuts in their hatred, the biggest hater being a young newspaper apprentice named William Lloyd Garrison. In the long run, the words bear influence and the critic is to a degree absolved by scholarship. This is my 9th FA nomination (7th on a John Neal (writer) topic). I very much appreciate reviewers taking the time to read the article and leave comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hello Dugan Murphy, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are all in public domain, mainly because the underlying works are not covered by copyright anymore due to their age. All images are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. They all have captions and alt texts. The only minor issue I spotted is that the caption of "John Neal by Sarah Miriam Peale 1823 Portland Museum of Art.jpg" says "1823" but wiki commons page says "circa 1823". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for the image review and for picking up on the Peale painting date issue. I just made the recommended change to that image caption. Does the image review pass? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that takes care of the remaining concern. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG comments

[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • The two lead paragraphs are a bit long, which is not bad in itself. However, for readability, I recommend splitting off the sentence beginning with "The series was well received in the UK and exerted measurable influence over British critics" (currently in paragraph 2) into its own paragraph. This new paragraph seems like it would roughly correspond with the "Contemporary reactions" and "Modern scholarship" sections.
Recommendation accepted. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: The phrasing "later critics decades later" is a bit clunky. I'd reword this, e.g. changing the first "later" to "subsequent"
Great point. I chose "other" instead. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "Moving there from Baltimore, his goals" - This has a dangling modifier. Neal, not his goals, moved to the UK from Baltimore.
I swapped "Moving there from Baltimore" to "Having moved there from Baltimore". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "That edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions." - Pattee's edition?
Clarified. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blackwood engages Neal
  • Para 2: "Neal's resources were running low after living in England with no income for three months." - This also has a dangling modifier (Neal's resources didn't live in England; Neal did).
Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "a period in which such periodicals were more influential than ever before" - Should this be "a period when..."?
Yes, I think so. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The magazine had not, however, published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." - Unless June 1822 was when Blackwood's was first published (which it wasn't), I would rephrase this to "The magazine did not, however, publish a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824." Otherwise, it may sound like it had never published a single piece on an American topic, ever, and that June 1822 was when its first piece ever was published.
Rephrased. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thank you for noticing all these! I have addressed each comment so far. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll have some more comments on Thursday or Friday. Thanks for getting to these so quickly. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot about this. I will leave comments on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Hog Farm's review is complete. Feel free to jump back in when you're ready! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll leave some comments shortly. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steady contributorship:
  • Para 1: I might have been missing something, but why would Blackwood reject Neal's articles after learning who Neal was? Was it because Blackwood didn't want to accept an American's submission?
It was Walker, not Blackwood. The rejection was because Neal was American, so I edited the sentence to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "The first installment of the American Writers series came out in the September 1824 issue" - The phrasing "out in" sounds kind of awkward so I would just use "was published" in place of "came out".
Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymity:
  • Para 2: "under the name X.Y.Z." - Technically this would be an initialism or an acronym.
Changed "name" to "initials". Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paras 2 and 3: "most British readers likely knew they were reading the work of an American" ... "Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American" - In light of the second statement, the first seems repetitive. I think you could rephrase this section to only include the second statement ("Readers on both sides of the Atlantic largely knew they were reading the work of an American").
I didn't follow your suggestion exactly, but I changed the first sentence of the last paragraph in that section to remove the reference to British readers. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Content:
  • Para 1: Do any of the sources explain why there is a discrepancy between the quantities of names? (For instance, were there instances in which several people were covered in the same paragraph?)
None that I can find. My understanding of the discrepancy is explained below in answer to one of Hog Farm's comments, but that's not appropriate to include in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 1: "a proportionality Richards said was "frequently grossly violated"" - Later on in this section, the article mentions that Neal wrote about all of these authors from his own memory. If I'm reading this correctly, was the proportionality of the description of each author based on how much he remembered about them (rather than being based on their importance in the American literary scene)?
I believe Richards in that quote was saying that Cooper (top US novelist at the time) deserved more than half a page if Neal was to give himself 8. None of the sources say that all the authors who got less coverage from Neal got that little because of Neal's poor memory. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3: "He wrote it all in a style unique to himself" - Do the sources describe this style at all?
I changed "style" to "conversational tone" to clarify. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature" - Nothing wrong with this sentence, I just found it funny that he believed himself to be one of the few writers of "truly American literature" and wrote eight pages about himself.
That's John Neal. He was about as shy about praising himself as he was about taking himself down. He did both in American Writers, as the article states. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 4: "Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later" - Was this critique parodied for being inaccurate?
Not at all. The source quotes Neal's critique of Bryant and says: "Lowell later put this into metres in his Fable for Critics." Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Thanks for these comments! They are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them so quickly, and my apologies for being relatively slow with these comments. I'll leave more feedback this weekend. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
United Kingdom:
  • Para 1: "many used quotes to substantiate" - I'd clarify that they used quotes from American Writers.
  • Para 1: "with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention of his novels among British reviewers" - Would the British Critic review (in the previous sentence) be one such example of increased critical attention?
  • In general, I take it that British periodicals reviewed American Writers much more positively than American periodicals?
United States:
  • Para 1: "Neal wrote five novels in Baltimore" - This is referring retrospectively to Neal's authorship of these novels, so I would say "Neal had written five novels in Baltimore...".
  • Para 2: Were there any other notable American authors, besides Fairfield, who reviewed the piece positively?
Portland, Maine:
  • I wonder if this section should be retitled to reflect that it's about Neal's return to Portland, Maine. The way the section is currently titled, it gives the impression that this is solely about commentary from people in Portland, Maine.
Influence on American writers:
  • "By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, it is possible Neal helped authors of the later American Renaissance" - Did any specific person say this? The text that I've underlined gives the impression that there may be disagreement over whether Neal did help authors of the later American Renaissance.
I'll have more by Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll review this once Epicgenius has completed their review. Hog Farm Talk 13:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, feel free to review the article. It might take me a while to get through this page due to real-life work commitments, and I can resume my review once you're done. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here we go. I'm trying to multitask between reviewing this and listening to the KC Royals playoff game, so apologies if some of this doesn't make any sense. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " The first postmortem republication of any of his works was 1937," - the phrasing in the body says that this was the first republishment of a substantial work by Neal; would it be better to weaken the statement in the lead similar to how it is phrased in the body?
Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neal did not publish anything else substantial in Blackwood's until September, however" - how are we defining "substantial" here? Because this would imply what is mostly a gap between February 1825 and September 1825, but we've earlier state that he published an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826
Thank you for bringing this up. The Sears book does say he had an article in every issue between July 1824 and February 1826, but checking that against other sources, it seems that Sears has a typo and meant to say Feb 1825, not 1826. I have changed Feb 1826 to Feb 1825 in the first paragraph of that section and left the last sentence of that section alone. By saying he didn't publish anything substantial between Feb 1825 and Sep 1825, I could also say that the only thing he published in Blackwood's between those two issues is what Richards describes as a "short note" on Maximilian Godefroy. I think it's better as it is rather than adding this detail, but let me know if you think otherwise. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it intentional that the minimum number of authors detail in this work is 120, but the list of author critiqued at the end of the article only contains 119 entries?
The list of authors at the end of the article is based on the table of contents for the 1937 edition, which lists out the authors covered in each installment. Your comment gave me reason to double-check for differences between this part of the article and the TOC. I found 3 authors missing from the Wiki article, so now the Wiki list includes 122. There are two cases in which Neal lists one author name, but Pattee clarifies in each case that the name is a pen name shared by two different authors. This is to say that, if I used the pen names in this list instead of the authors' individual real names, there would be exactly 120. For the scholars who count 135, I think they are counting not only the 122 in this Wiki list, but a few authors mentioned briefly by Neal in the 5 core installments who did not make into the 1937 TOC, as well as the extra authors mentioned in "Late American Books", which is often lumped in with the American Authors series and was included in the 1937 edition. However, those authors are not mentioned in the 1937 TOC, so I decided not to include them in the article's list. Thank you for reading all that and let me know if you have any thoughts on it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the page range in the long citation for Strachan et al? The long citation indicates that you are citing the introduction, which is pp. xxii through xx, but you end up citing p. 257 of that work
Good catch! The roman numeral citations are for the introduction to volume 6; the page 257 citation is to the introduction to the chapter on American Writers. I've added a separate entry in the source list for the item on page 257 and edited the inline citations to fit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work here; I fully expect to support. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for the compliment! I have addressed all your comments. Do you think any of those comments warrant further discussion or do you have other comments? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good to me; supporting Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laquintasaura

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the earliest known members of Ornithischia, one of the three major groups of dinosaurs. It's a very important picture of their evolution and the first time a primitive ornithischian rather than one of the more famous later forms has made it up to FAC—though hopefully not the last. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General thoughts by Generalissima

[edit]
  • I would heavily, heavily recommend using SFNs or some other form of page notation for every book/journal cite. This makes it a lot easier for both readers and reviewers.
    As far as I understand citation style between full and short notation is a matter of preference; I've always found them needlessly obtuse and, on a more objective note, they see next to no use within the Dinosaur WikiProject, especially at the FA level. The current citation approach is consistent with these other articles.
  • A lot of these paragraphs are a bit too large to be easily readable in my eyes; the penultimate paragraph of the Discovery and naming section is the worst offender here.
    Breaking up all of the paragraphs, which are separated based on content, would be very damaging to the flow in my opinion. I have however moved a sentence out of the specific paragraph you highlighted to a smaller paragraph in the section in order to alleviate the worst case.
  • Lede seems a bit short relative to the total length of the body, might be good to beef it up a little.
    I was initially skeptical how much of an introduction could be written about such a simple taxon, but I've expanded it significant and am quite happy with the result.
  • All images are appropriately licensed. This isn't a FA requirement, but I'd recommend adding alt-text.
    Added; I don't have a lot of experience with alt text so I hope I did alright.

That's all at first check. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! With the changes things are looking a bit better. Support on image/prose. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback by Shushugah

[edit]
  • I did not realize how prominent country locations were for Dinosaurs, despite fact that Earth/geopolitics has changed a lot since. For example Lesotho is enclaved within South Africa. But if this is the convention, I accept it.
    I wasn't aware of guidelines surrounding country linking; removed the links.
  • Use straight quotes ie wiki conventions for MOS:APOSTROPHE e.g not ‘’
    I've fixed what I think is the only problem case here, but let me know if I've missed one.
  • a partial left ischium
    Fixed.
  • Place image of skull in Section about features, particularly passage about uniform teeth
    No free images of the skull material are available, but I will see if any of our usual palaeo diagram makers can whip up one of the teeth since they're the distinctive portion.
    Never mind, I mixed up what is represented in File:Lesothosaurus sp skull 3894.jpg
  • In the diagram, why do other names e.g Parapredentata preview to Ornithischia?
    They do not have their own pages and so redirect to their parent clade, which is considered to be similar enough in topic that it would be redundant to give them all pages. Either way it's not particularly the concern of this article how the higher clades are organized on the site.
  • Putting two wide charts in same row is inaccessible on desktop and certainly mobile. Move them to separate and avoid language like "left/right" chart and instead refer to first/second charts.
    It can certainly be made sequential if it's a dealbreaker issue, but it's been used in dinosaur FAs such as Lythronax and Spinophorosaurus before. Desktop setups will vary but the mobile app does not have any issue displaying the two cladograms for me.
    Formally WP:ACCESSIBILITY is not part of FA criteria, but I find it very unreadable on mobile (web view) and think it could be improved with a table title for each.
    How does this version with sequential cladograms look?
  • Section named Palaeoecology does not make it obvious what Palaeoecology even is.
    This is a standard section in many dinosaurs FAs (sometimes substituted for palaeoenvironment), and does not usually include an explicit explanation. But as soon as I track down a citation I can add a link to the paleoecology page if necessary.
    I can open the article on Palaeoecology, if I know to search/click for it. So a short 1-2 line intro helps. Readers might be avid paleo-enthusiasts or completely new to the topic, so should cater to both audiences.
  • I like the layout of Theropoda where it has a Biology section, and within each is organized by section for easier navigation.
    While a dinosaur article would usually include a "palaeobiology" section touching on the various physiological functions of the animal, this research simply doesn't exist in Laquintasaura. The only potential contents would be the couple sentences of histological information currently within the [physical] description section instead.

Sourcing and references

  • Wiki link all journals/websites mentioned in sourcing
    Done.
  • Consistently link to DOI
    As far as I can tell this is already the case.
    You are right. I was checking in edit mode
  • Consistent author names Breeden III, Bejamin T. and Breeden, Benjamin T.
    Fixed.
  • Inline body, is it normal to quote full name of first author and only last name of second author? Example A later 2021 study by Carlos-Manuel Herrera-Castillo, Sánchez-Villagra
    I'd consider that an oversight, I'll change it.
    Oh, I actually see why this was written that was now. Sanchez-Villagra was already introduced with his full name earlier in the section, and so just used his last name afterwards. Herrera-Castillo is first referred to in this sentence and uses a full name.
  • Some incorrect source parameters including incorrect pages e.g pages=e75248, pages=e1791894 and pages=e12619.
    I was under the impression this was how the way to implement those codes for digital publications, but perhaps I am incorrect.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • I'll have a look soon, some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern countries are usually not linked, per WP:What generally should not be linked.
    Fixed.
  • I see some WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[3] Ignore those duplicated from the cladograms, of course.
  • Could pipelink paleoart at restoration, since often that term causes confusion among layreaders.
    Done.
  • Why are Thyreophora and Neornithischia bolded in the cladogram?
    I imported it from the Ornithischia article where they're highlighted as major clades and overlooked removing the bolding. Now fixed.
  • "whose remains are found in the same bonebed as Laquintasaura" Were found? Why present tense?
    Tenses have always been my biggest struggle with writing. Fixed.
  • "showing a distinct triangular shape" Its triangular shape?
    Fixed.
  • "Holotype tooth of Laquintasaura" Link holotype.
    Fixed.
  • "it may have shared omnivorous behaviour" Diet instead of behaviour?
    Fixed.
  • "and a quadrate" Link and spell out quadrate bone, even explain where in the skull it is located in parenthesis.
    How's it look now?
  • You can link anatomical terms to the Dinogloss.
    Did this for description, but overlooked it for discovery. Added now.
  • "an early ornithischian" Link this and other terms at first mention always.
    Added in that case.
  • "Finding no vertebrate fossils" Link vertebrate.
    Added.
  • Unlink Argentina.
    Removed.
  • Link fossil preparation.
    Added.
  • "by a team of French palaeontologists" Who led this expedition?
    Neither the 2021 paper nor the 1992 paper (which I hadn't managed to access until trying again just now) state as much explicitly. The 1992 paper uses the plural first person pronoun "nous", so by context I'd assume Russel, but there's no direct source for this.
  • "Several years later in the late 1990s, he would become aware" Who is "he"? You mention no people in the preceding sentence.
    Sánchez-Villagra; switched in pronoun for his name.
  • "their return to Venezuela as well, when they were deposited in the collections of the Museu de Biología de la Universidad de Zulia (MBLUZ)." "where" make more sense than "when"?
  • Fixed.
  • "conduct additional expeditions to find additional material" The double "additional" is repetitive.
    Removed first one.
  • " they were referred to the genus Lesothosaurus" In what what? As L. sp. or to a specific species?
    cf. Lesothosaurus sp., now clarified in a prose format.
  • "became aware he was no longer permitted to study it there" Do we know why and what happened to the material?
    The 2021 paper simply states that he became aware he could not access them.
  • "obtained a grant from the Jurassic Foundation" Where is this organisation?
    America, apparently. I'm not sure what to source that to, though. It seems like a big organization, but I don't see a ton of dedicated academic sources and none of the Laquintasaura papers specify this.
  • Do we really need to know in what journals studies were published in? Doesn't really seem to add much to the story, and can just be checked in the citations.
    I suppose not, removed.
  • "Tibia and ischium of Tachiraptor, whose remains are found in the same bonebed as Laquintasaura" Do we know when and during which expeditions?
    Not as far as I can tell.
  • Link more bone articles when you list the known elements under discovery. Many of the are also uncommon enough that they could need in-text explanation in parenthesis.
    Added.
  • It would make more chronological sense to list what the type specimen(s) is in the paragraph where you deal with the naming and material than in the subsequent paragraph where it seems unrelated to the surrounding text.
    I've tried an extensive restructuring of the last two paragraphs to be more sensible in this respect while not overburdening the size of either paragraph. Hopefully it's better.
  • "later described with a newly recognized tibia" Newly means little if you don't give a date.
    It's meant to be newly relative to the teeth, but I've reworded the whole sentence to be more clear.
    Actually, it seems I misunderstood and the teeth and tibia are two unrelated discoveries, with the former not referred to Tachiraptor. I've reworded the sentence again to correct this.
  • "Locality of the bonebed" You could add the name of the country or the formation to the caption.
    Added.
  • You start by mentioning a French team, and the go on to mention another team that appears to be local, but without giving their nationality. Could be good to mention for context. And since much of this seems to be "parachute-science", perhaps also for other people mentioned.
    The other scientist from the 1989 reconnaissance is acknowledged as Venezuelan, but the membership or nationality of the expeditions from 1992 to 1994 isn't specified aside from James Clark, who is American (not stated in the paper). Sánchez-Villagra is apparently Argentinian/Venezuelan and resides in Switzerland, but I don't imagine there's an academic source for that. As far as the parachute science goes I did add a note from the 1992 paper that there was intent to return the specimens to Venezuela after study, though this doesn't appear to have actually happened until Sánchez-Villagra intervened.
  • Looks like many generic names need italics in citation titles.
    Fixed, and added missing citation urls while I was at it. Left Tachiraptor un-italicized in the news article source to match the formatting used on the website.
  • "The small size and conservative skeletal anatomy of the species" Since you mainly use the generic name, including in the preceding sentences, it seems off that you say species and not genus.
    Switched to genus name.
  • "with traits with armor and quadrupedality" With traits like?
    Fixed.
  • Link tooth crown?
  • Explain denticles (serrations).
  • Explain where the premaxilla and maxilla are.
  • "Convergently similar anatomy, with a tall tooth construction and striations, does occur convergently in" Is it necessary to say convergently twice in a sentence?
  • Premaxilla is linked at least three times.
  • Explain diastema.
  • Link and explain basal.
  • Link suture.
  • "than the dentition, the postcranium" Perhaps say "postcranial skeleton" for clarity.
  • Explain diagnostic in this context.
  • Explain synapomorphies.
  • You'll probably be asked about this for the image review, so you could add references to the Commons description of the life restoration that supports the anatomy shown. Note I fixed the arm position and made the snout a bit longer on IJReid's request.
The skeletal diagram by Maurissaurio could be referenced (He, Mauricio Garcia, is a published researcher in the area). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could add a reference to the size comparison Commons page for the size shown.
  • Link taxa.
  • The tooth diagram could have a reference for what source it is based on (perhaps IJReid knows).
Just the type tooth in the original description. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link and explain derived.
  • "described in detail in the supplementary material of the 2014 description paper" I think it would be better to explain some of these in the article, the sentence basically says "read the supplements" instead of summarising them.
  • Explain what and where the predentary bone is.
  • "may be intermediate to that of Triassic silesaurs and Jurassic ornithischians" Intermediate between?
  • "Its fourth trochanter is wider and lacking in protrusion than other Jurassic taxa" Protrudes less?
  • "Similarly, the head of the femur has flat shape" A flat shape?
  • The phylogenetic relationships of Laquintasaura remains" Remain (relationships is plural).
  • "It is robustly considered" Widely would be a more straightforward way of saying it.
  • "but its exact position within this clade are unresolved" is unresolved (position is singular).
  • Explain polytomy.
  • "Some later phylogenetic analyses have had to remove the taxon from phylogenetic analyses outright" No need for double phylogenetic analyses, and the term should be linked at first mention.
  • "early member of the group Thyreophora (armored dinosaurs)" Add the explanation of the term at first mention, this is many mentions down.
  • Explain sister taxon.
  • Link and explain bone histology at first mention.
  • "known Saphornithischia" missing as.
  • "and an grade of animals" A grade (starts with a consonant).
  • Remove link to Silesauridae, already linked in preceding section.
  • "by André Fonseca and colleagues" Give year as you do for other studies mentioned.
  • "Clade names have been inserted based on definitions established by a paper by Daniel Madzia and colleagues in 2021 for clarity" This might be problematic, per discussions about whether this constitutes WP:synth. Can we get the cladograms as they are in the respective papers alone?
Fonseca et al. (2024) does have Laquintasaura as a basal thyreophoran with clades labelled if needed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also newer, so could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain grade. Perhaps specify evolutionary grade.
  • "found to belong to subadult individual who had not " individuals?
  • "tightly spaced lines of arrested growth and extensive bone remodelling" These terms need explanation and links if most people are going to understand them.
  • "Laquintasaura hails from the La Quinta Formation in what is now Colombia and Venezuela" Could say of instead of in, to make it clearer Laquintasaura is not known from Colombia.
  • "potentially as little as one hundred and fifty thousand years from the end of the Triassic period" Could specify "the preceding Triassic period".
  • Link equatorial.
  • Jurassic is linked a lot of times.
  • Explain taphonomy.
  • Tachiraptor is linked multiple times.
  • "and maybe have lived together in life" May have lived? Maybe lived? Current wording is odd.
  • "A small animal, it is thought to have been a lightly built" Remove "a" before "lightly built".
  • " One of the first species known to possess the distinctive bird-like hip bone of ornithischians, it would have been a capable bipedal runner." Only stated explicitly in intro, which should not have unique info.
  • "Unlike the leaf shaped teeth" You should use this term in the article body too.
  • "These may have contributed to an omnivorous diet" That's an odd way to put it, reflected an omnivorous diet?
  • "make it a key insight" I'm not sure you can say a dinosaur is an insight, must be another way to put it. It gives insight?
  • "Taxonomic uncertainty has led to conflicting hypotheses that it is either an early diverging ornithischian or part of the subgroup Thyreophora." You should add before this that it is widely considered an ornithicschian at least.
  • "early dinosaurs on the supercontinent of Pangaea" You only mention Pangaea in the intro.
  • "Previous research had cast doubt on whether dinosaurs lived around the equator during their early evolution, and on when ornithischians first spread to the northern Hemisphere" The article body doesn't state there was doubt about the latter point.

Jens

[edit]

I already reviewed this at GAN, but here some more comments, for now just on the lead:

  • The first sentences generally feel too complicated with unnecessary technical terms, while focus on the crucial information is lacking. I suggest to follow the usual formulations we use in other dinosaur FAs, something like "Laquintasaura is a genus of ornithischian dinosaur that lived during the Early Jurassic in what is now Venezuela. The only known species is Laquintasaura venezuelae." This now contains "Early Jurassic", which is a crucial information that should appear at the beginning of the lead. Also, you avoid "Venezuelan dinosaur", which, I think, is not fully accurate (it was discovered in Venezuela). Also, it avoids the unnecessary technical term "type species".
  • The lead also lacks some wikilinks (we usually link terms such as "primitive", "Greek", "trait"; I would also link "palaeontologist" and "prepared" (to fossil preparation), note that this will appear on the main page to attract a wide readership with no background, so it should be as accessible as possible.
  • and being preyed upon by the contemporary Tachiraptor – I am pretty sure this needs a "possibly", since we can't know for sure, can we?
  • Aspects of its femoral anatomy, possessing only some traits of later relatives – "femoral" needs wikilink, but I would even suggest to reformulate as "Its upper thigh bone (femur) has only some of the traits found in later relatives".
  • northern Hemisphere – why capitalise here?
  • numerous expeditions have been conducted – please check if "numerous" is adequate here; I can't find this in the body at first glance, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the one support. LittleLazyLass, I notice you haven't edited since 30 Sep but if you're seeing this, I recommend that you resolve the outstanding comments by reviewers above and ping them when done otherwise it might have to be archived in the next few days if there's no progress. FrB.TG (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll make sure to make more edits today. I've just been busy lately, sorry. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chagatai Khan

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Chagatai, the second son of Genghis Khan and Börte (and the third to be brought to FAC). He lived a fairly good life—probably better than any of his brothers—and was the only one to get a state named after him personally; not even Genghis managed that. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. I hope you enjoy. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

image review

[edit]

Support by CMD

[edit]

Surprisingly short article for the founder of a Khanate! Shows you something about Mongol records I suppose.

  • Very interesting to see the Tsagaadai Khan transliteration in the image. I suggest that this nametag is included in the alt text as well, so screenreaders may share this interest.
    • I had an idea that this should be done, but I wasn't entirely sure.
  • Speaking of that transliteration, it's not in the lead note on transcriptions. A quick google seems to indicate it is not unheard of.
    • It is a Mongolian transliteration which has fallen out of use as worldwide scholars interact more and standardised forms have emerged. I could remove Ca'adai for the same reason.
      • Is there a particular reason not to include old prominent transliterations in the note, appropriately noted as outdated?
        • I have added.
  • The lead somewhat begs the question as to who excluded him from succession. It also implies that there was a sort of formal succession. Is this how the sources word it? Assuming the default is passing along to the eldest male, the body also doesn't explicitly explain why he was in contention, ie. why Jochi wasn't, given his legitimacy was apparently accepted.
    • Succession relied both on the thoughts of the previous ruler and the skills/experiences/popularity of the next. All a ruler's primary sons, and even occasionally his brothers, were eligible. As mentioned later, although Ögedei was Genghis's successor, the support of key figures such as Chagatai were essential in ensuring his accession. I have clarified that Genghis excluded Chagatai from succession in the lead; would more detail in the body be helpful?
      • More succession detail in the body would be helpful. Questions that immediately come to mind are what were societal expectations around succession, what happened to Jochi's position, what happened during the two year(?) transition from Genghis to Ögedei.
        • I have added details on these topics.
  • "first son definitely", should this be "definitively"?
    • I think both work, but changed.
  • Do we know the mothers of Balgashi, Sarban, Yesu-Mongke, and Baidar?
  • Do we know how he built (or commanded to be built) and maintained these roads?
    • No to both, sadly. Blame the records.
  • Is it possible to get more clarity on which parts of the narrative exactly Atwood disputes? The way the Siege of Guranj paragraph is written, I came away with the impression the story of Jochi Chagatai disunity being solved by Ögedei was historical fiction, but the next paragraph implies that it was at least partially true.
    • That is the difficulty—even if Atwood is correct in his theory of revisionism/propaganda, it is entirely possible that divisions between Jochi and Chagatai did delay the capture of the city. I have tried to focus a little; let me know if that works.
  • Given the land ruled is described as reaching a river in Transoxiana, "governors of the sedentary lands in Transoxiana" has an unclear geographic scope.
    • I think "settlements" is more understandable, even if it loses a tiny bit of accuracy.
      • I think the more immediate question is, did Chagatai lack control of just the cities in Transoxiana, or within all his territory? (Was his territory synonymous with the concept of Transoxiana?)
        • Just the cities in Transoxiana, which I think the text implies.
  • It should be made clearer that Khorasan was not a sedentary city.
    • Done.
  • "mother of his heir Güyük", I assume this was Ögedei's heir, but are talking explicitly designated heir, presumptive heir, or eventual heir?
    • The latter two; Ögedei did not have an explicitly designated heir.
      • Could the text say "presumptive heir" then? Perhaps earlier succession info would also help contextualise this. Relatedly, what is the "However," in the next sentence for. The word is a chekhov's gun for Ögedei's succession that is never resolved.
        • Edited appropriately.
  • "Yesülün accused one of his stewards", the subject of "his" is unclear, I thought it was Batu.
  • "Chagatai was succeeded" should probably specify succeeded "in central Asia" or similar, given the text already covers succession as senior Genghisid prince.
  • "Although Chagatai's loyalty to nomadic customs meant that he constructed no more than pools for waterfowl, storehouses, and small villages". Didn't he construct a highway system through western China?
    • Clarified all; for the latter, I presume they were military constructions which served well in the short-term but were not necessary for trade or other non-military movements.

Absolute classic move by Ögedei with that cup. The navbox at the bottom says he was the "Khan of Chagatai Khanate", I suppose that's a tricky anachronism to avoid. CMD (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan (source and prose review)

[edit]

Hi AirshipJungleman29, my comments:

  • Link to Al Altan (Alaltun) as done for the other Genghisid siblings?
  • "by his father, Balgashi, Sarban": suffix "as well as" after "his father", so we know that these are Chagatai's named sons and not those given little regard.
    • Done both.
  • Could we add some details here on the siege of Otrar, say a small paragraph?
  • When did Chagatai and Ögedei join Genghis at Samarkand, and when did the city surrender? Consider adding?
    • I've added some details on the siege of Otrar, but not that of Samarkand, because the latter was extremely short and Chagatai wasn't that involved in it anyway.
  • How did he utilise the Uighur officials in his realm, as we have mentioned here?
    • Administration, as I believe the article outlines.
  • In the biblio, link to Hodong Kim and Peter Jackson?
    • Done.

That's all from. Will try to do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC

[edit]

Will comment within a week or so. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "masterful knowledge of Mongol traditions, his strict fidelity to Mongol custom and law" - saying both traditions and custom feels redundant here; they're a bit the same
    • They're actually not, and refer to technically different things that I written articles on yet. I think I'd like to keep the redundancy for when/if I get around to that.
      • If tradition and custom are such distinct concepts wrt the Mongol empire, I might use the Mongol words instead, because for most English-language readers, tradition and custom are so close to the same thing that it's redundant to say both.
        • Fine, I've simplified.
  • "Because Genghis felt..." the third clause in this sentence gets in the way of the overall flow, I think. Maybe split to two sentences, or trim clause 3 down?
    • I've just removed it, it wasn't that useful and you're right it spoiled the flow.
  • I actually have no commentary until Taliqan and Mutukan's death
  • Dates for Taliqan siege and Mutukan's siege and death (even rough estimates would be useful)
    • I've added "summer 1221" for the fall of Taliqan with a new source; Bamiyan is indistinct enough that we don't know.
  • "on the request of" should be "at the request of"
    • Done.
  • "an important element" I think you could trim to "importantly" but I won't fight about it
    • Yeah, was a bit wordy.
  • I'm curious about the image used here - Marco Polo isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. What's the context for him writing about a baptism that never happened?
    • Christians liked to think that other people were Christians idk?
      • Mm...is there any sourcing that discusses Polo visiting Chagatai, just so that it's mentioned in the text? As a reader when I see that caption I want to know more. If there's not, that's fine, it is what it is.
        • No, not really; as with many peoples, he noted down legends and rumours about their histories and lives, some of which were true but most of which were false. This seems just another one.
  • Ögedei managed to get around this restriction by finding a very large cup. I am howling. I love Ogedi. People have never changed, once, in all of history.
    • It's a great anecdote, isn't it?
  • "complained to the khagan" this title isn't mentioned anywhere else in the text
  • "sought to convince Chagatai" did she succeed? "his approval was critical to her becoming regent" the future tense there makes this read a bit ambiguously, I parse it either as "she would need it to become regent" or "she got it and it was one of the big reasons she became regent"
    • Clarified both.

That's really all I have. Another interesting and tightly-written biography. I look forward to the eventual FT for sons of Genghis Khan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Comments to follow - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He was infamously strict in interpreting the law": As this is an opinion, I think it would probably be best to identify whose it is inline
  • "either killed or enslaved Otrar's entire population": I thought the Christians (and some merchants) were spared?
  • "Such hyperbole is probably far from the truth": again, I think it best for an inline attribution here
  • "whom he relied on": technically "on whom he relied"...

That's my lot. A nice read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SchroCat, I've adjusted all apart from the second point, for which see above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

45th Chess Olympiad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an international team chess tournament in the spirit of the Olympic Games that took place in Budapest, Hungary in September 2024. The featured article on the 44th Chess Olympiad was used as a model.Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Thanks for the review. I've corrected the image formatting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Well, that was quick, it only just ended. I shall review in a few days time, once the frequency of edits has gone down. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting on the lead for now:

  • (Hungarian: 45. sakkolimpia) ==> if I read MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADLANG correctly then this should be removed. I can see that the other Olympiad articles do this as well, but it just clutters the opening sentence with virtually no benefit
  • It was the first Chess Olympiad in Hungary since Budapest hosted the 2nd unofficial Chess Olympiad in 1926. ==> I don't see why this is so important to make it into the lead. MOS:LEADREL
  • A number of national teams ==> why not give the actual number?
  • Additionally, this was also the first Chess Olympiad in which teams of refugees ==> this info seems better placed a bit earlier on, right after the counts of participating nations
  • first Chess Olympiad in which teams of refugees were participating in both sections ==> this is ambiguous: did previously only in one section?
  • India won ==> if you look at for instance FA UEFA Euro 2016 final you see that nation names link to the article about their national team. If an equivalent article for chess exists, you can link there (I couldn't find one for India).
  • I would expect silver and bronze winners in the lead as well
  • I would recommend mentioning in the lead the fact that in the Open, India were the only unbeaten team.
  • Also missing in the lead: 21 out of 22 possible match points was record breaking (it seems it's even missing from the body as well)
  • Also missing in the lead: 11 rounds
  • Also missing in the lead: 4 players per round (chess isn't by definition a team sport, so a bit of help to understand the reader how it works is needed)

More soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: Thanks for your comments. I've taken care of them all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see award-winning journalist Leonard Barden has written a review of this event in his Guardian column. Seems an important source. This is what I take from it:

  • India being 4 points clear in the Open is noteworthy enough to go in the lead
  • India winning four individual golds is noteworthy enough to go in the lead
  • Barden calls it a "seminal moment in chess history"
  • not necessarily in the lead, but it should be mentioned that "For the first time in any Olympiad, no European team reached the podium in either the Open or the Women’s event"
  • consider using somewhere the gist of this "The Norwegian’s ambition of eliminating one of the few gaps in his career record remains unfulfilled"
  • consider using Erigasi reaching 3rd on FIDE ranking as a result of his performance
  • consider using the gist of this "India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, received the two Indian teams at his residence to congratulate them"
  • not necessarily in the lead, but it should be mentioned that "Gukesh’s win against China’s Wei Yi has been awarded the Olympiad Best Game prize"
  • consider using Barden's view of Vishy Anand's role
  • consider using the gist of this "The result was redemption for the 2022 Olympiad at Chennai, when on home ground India faltered in the final rounds and were passed by Uzbekistan"
  • consider using the gist of "Nakamura identified Wesley So as a weak link, but the former Filipino, after a shaky start, scored the win against China which ensured silver medals for the US."

I see the article has dropped from the Main page, so should be more stable now. I shall shortly begin my review of the body. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next batch of comments:

  • The Chess Olympiad is a --> link
  • Chess Olympic Games --> link to 1st unofficial Chess Olympiad
  • The first official edition of the Chess Olympiad --> link to 1st Chess Olympiad
  • From then on it has been held biannually --> that typically means twice a year. I would simply say "once every two years"
  • took place in Emmen --> add the Netherlands
  • simultaneously with an Open tournament --> consider explaining Open
  • The bidding procedure for the Chess Olympiad 2024 and the FIDE Congress in connection with bids for the Women's World Cup 2022 and Chess World Cup 2023 was opened in November 2019 --> not sure I can parse this correctly: is this what is meant: "The bidding process for organising both the 45th Chess Olympiad and the coinciding FIDE Congress was opened in November 2019." I would leave the other events out, as it is not very relevant and could cause confusion about those events having to be included in a bid.
  • 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 pertaining to the organising committee, finances, and --> be consistent in your use of comma before and in lists
  • There was only one bid to host the Chess Olympiad in Budapest --> Budapest submitted the only bid.
  • Hungarian political authorities, chess players as well as prominent members of the Olympic movement and the sports administration have expressed their unconditional support to the event. --> This feels too closely paraphrased from the source: "Political authorities, chess legends, and prominent members of the Hungarian Olympic movement and the sports administration have expressed their unconditional support to the event." And the tense (have expressed) should be turned into simple past tense.
  • and the event originally planned for 2024 in Budapest became the 45th Chess Olympiad --> and the event planned for 2024 in Budapest became the 45th Chess Olympiad instead of the 46th.
  • signed the contract for the event in Budapest --> ambiguous. I assume it is this: signed the contract in Budapest
  • a "green" Olympiad with the possibility of transfers between the venues and the hotels with bicycles and electric vehicles as well as by avoiding paper and plastic --> not sure about that "by" at the end, and adding a bit of punctuation would be helpful
  • The event is supported by the Government of Hungary. --> "The Government of Hungary supported the event." Any info how?
  • Robert Kapas is --> Robert Kapas was
  • Ivan Syrovy is --> van Syrovy was
  • The venue for the event was SYMA Sports and Conference Centre, which served as the central location of the event with functions of playing venue, accreditation center, Expo and fan zone area. --> not a particularly elegant construction. I'm not a much better writer myself, but something along the lines of "The event was held at the SYMA Sports and Conference Centre, which, besides the playing hall, also included an accreditation centre and an exposition and fan zone area.
  • This facility was built --> I would not make this a new paragraph. Just merge with first sentence.
  • VIPs were allowed to carry mobile phones in the specially designated VIP areas where the use of mobile phones in silent mode was permitted. --> bit clumsy phrasing + link VIPs
  • what is missing in this Venue or the Fair Play section is the context: cheating with computers or others. Include link to Cheating in chess
  • captains --> maybe team captains is clearer
  • third players --> what are third players?
  • which might have triggered reactions upon discretion of the FPT --> it's cryptic. But whatever it means, I doubt this level of detail is needed in this article
  • All games were checked using Kenneth W. Regan's software --> for what? + any source reporting any suspicious games at all?
  • Only players competing at the Olympiad --> not the captains?
  • At the beginning, the hosts of the ceremony welcomed attendees --> this level of detail feels unnecessary to me. See what else in this section can be removed. Or maybe I should say, see what can be retained. It is a disproportionally long section.
  • The event was contested by a total of 197 teams --> the lead says this 197 was in the Open event only, not total of Open and Women combined
  • was permitted to field three teams --> in each of the two sections
  • FIDE Women's Chess Commission --> is this a different commission? the first one is FIDE Women's Commission
  • The Commission --> The commission
  • The Commission decided to appoint a care-giver for each child as official members of the national delegations. --> not sure I get this. Did the commission really assign some person to care for a child?
  • this programme --> this pilot project
  • For the first time at the Chess Olympiads, teams of refugees participated in both sections --> same ambiguity we previously had in the lead
  • that would represent the team --> they would represent the refugees, not the team. They are the team.
  • after which an additional 30 minutes were granted and an increment --> better punctuation is needed. Perhaps a semicolon after granted (without the and), if you like semicolons
  • all teams were paired in every round --> how can that work when there is an odd number of teams?
  • Tie-breakers for the table --> no hyphen I believe + link to tiebreaker
  • All dates are CEST (UTC+2:00) --> All times are CEST (UTC+2:00)
  • The Open event[b] was contested --> rather than here in footnote b, would it not be more logical to move the info about all genders allowed in the Open, move it to the gender equality section?
  • World no. 2 --> World number 2
  • Nevertheless, the team, theoretically, was rendered weaker due to the absence of the top-ranked American player and second-highest rated player in the world Hikaru Nakamura --> already mentioned this, so remove
  • playing on top board followed --> playing on top board, followed
  • current world no. one --> current world number one
  • Netherlands --> the Netherlands
  • The Indian team won the gold in the open event with United States and Uzbekistan winning silver and bronze medals respectively. This was the Indian team's first time winning the gold medal at the Olympiad. --> why is this here and not in the Open summary? That way, you have all the pre-amble together and all the results.

More later, once you have caught up with the above. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: I've improved the article in line with your suggestions. I don't think adding Nakamura's comment about So's performance is really necessary. Carlsen's failure to win an individual gold medal seems like navel-gazing, but I still decided to include it in the summary for what it's worth.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with your decisions. All changes look good, except for the bit about Olympiad Best Game prize: The source you have added is just to the game. It needs the Barden source to verify the award. Also, perhaps consider adding that Modi awarded the Indian team players financially, as per Barden's latest column. I'll finish the rest soon. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Barden's source for the game and a sentence on the cash awards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final batch of comments on prose:

  • The challenger in the World Chess Championship 2024, The challenger in the World Chess Championship 2024, Gukesh Dommaraju of India, achieved --> feels repetitive, as just in the previous paragraph he was introduced as such. Just "Gukesh Dommaraju of India achieved" should suffice
  • add a link to Gukesh in the caption
  • individual gold medals were also won --> this needs alittle explanation as normally there is only 1 gold, so maybe add something like "on boards two to four"
  • bronze medal on board one --> I can see board 1 and board one mixed throughout the article
  • US vs. USSR radio chess match 1945 --> the radio chess match between the US and the Soviet Union in 1945
  • Final standings table has Arjun, which should be Erigaisi. And Domínguez should be Domínguez Perez.
  • On Board 1, the same three competitors received the same medals in back-to-back editions of the Olympiad. --> unsourced
  • Georgia, whose team won a silver medal at the previous Olympiad, were the second seeds --> odd way of phrasing .. surely George the team was seeded and not Georgia the country
  • and also includes --> past tense
  • Ukraine as defending champions --> should mention where they were seeded
  • Despite the fact that China --> should mention where they were seeded (I'm guessing 4th, but reader should not have to guess). If it is 4th, they should come before Ukraine
  • as pre-tournament top seeds according to the average rating --> this should be mentioned much earlier
  • in the tenth rounds --> should that not be singular?
  • Individual gold medals were also won --> here as well mention boards
  • the teams with the best combined performance in the Open and Women's tournaments (sum of their positions in both standings). It was won by the first team of India --> we can't have teams plural first and then team singular for the open and women team combined
  • with an immediate effect. --> I have only heard "with immediate effect", but maybe I'm wrong
  • Four candidates entered the election --> this bit seems like too much detail. I would just say who were elected
  • educations --> the source says educators
  • The winners were announced --> I would cut this whole paragraph on the basis of too much detail
  • Raul rose to prominence on the music stage in 2011 when he produced a number of songs and video clips in collaboration with Tamás Horváth, while Rose May debuted as a singer-songwriter in the autumn of 2023 and her first album was released the same year. --> cut, digressing
  • a colourful Rubik's cube --> well, the're colourful by definition
  • soulful lyrics --> just lyrics
  • female empowerment and sorority and produced a music short film --> a comma somewhere would help
  • content chess content creators --> ?
  • can get an autograph --> could get an autograph
  • Official partners for the Olympiad include --> Official partners for the Olympiad included
  • Side events --> having just read about all these side events I was surprised to encounter a section called Side events
  • intended for general public --> intended for the general public
  • best U2000 participants --> what is U2000?
  • he FIDE EDU Preparation of Teachers course --> just checking if this is truly different from the EDU event lised under promotion
  • with the aim --> repetition of same construct in successive sentences
  • in the conference include --> past tense
  • Sanctions against Russia and Belarus --> I don't get why this has to be discussed again, and in such great detail.
  • that their teams have been --> had been
  • for Chess Olympiad --> for the Chess Olympiad
  • a short cut --> a shortcut
  • detected a SIM card --> add name of person
  • nother device was detected in the fourth round --> I would name names in this sentence, otherwise it unnecessarily implicates others
  • of the tenth round in the Open event, --> in the tenth round of the Open event
  • complained about Israel's participation --> this needs more context (i.e. Israel - Palestine actions)

Apologies for taking so long. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]
  • Make sure that all paragraphs (apart from the lead) have inline citations (not the case in "Fair play regulations")
  • The section "Kyrgyz proposal to restore full membership" is outdated (the decision has already been made). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for your comments. I’ve re-arranged the “Fair play regulations” section so that every paragraph is referenced. The decision on the Kyrgyz proposal is mentioned in the “FIDE Congress” section, but it’s good to keep it under “Concerns and controversies” as the proposal was really controversial and raised a lot of concerns that FIDE might lose its affiliation with IOC and that chess federations might lose government funding. I wasn’t sure if the decision should be repeated there. What do you suggest?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Drive-by comment from Spy-cicle This article seems to imply that territories are their own respective countries which is WP:OR. Entrants like Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Jersey, Macau, United States Virgin Islands are not countries. It does in sentences like The ceremony ended with a video tribute to all participating countries, which featured their names and flags shown one after another with songs performed by Kouchak and Vincze in the background. Countries in italics denote those fielding teams in the Open event only. Countries in bold denote those fielding teams in the Women's event only. d it brought together female chess players from 160 countries Among other instances. Could this be fixed? Perhaps with replacing "countries" with "countries and territories" or "team" depending on the sentence.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. It was changed from “countries” to “countries and territories” in The project provided support for preparation of women's teams from nine countries and territories—Liechtenstein, Guernsey, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, the United States Virgin Islands, Saint Lucia, Nauru, and the Cayman Islands—who made their debut in the Women's section. I don’t know if it’s necessary to change it everywhere as “country” is the term used by FIDE (see for instance the country rating list). To avoid ambiguity, we can perhaps use “national team” instead of “country”, which is more aligned with the terminology of the IOC for the Olympic Games (they use “National Olympic Committee”).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "national team" seems like a good inbetween without being too wordy.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017 North American winter storm

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! This article regards a historic winter storm across the Southern United States in December 2017, which produced unusual amounts of snowfall across multiple states across the region. Developing from a cooled atmosphere and the resulting effects from cold temperatures and a cold front over Texas on December 5–7, the low-pressure area associated with the winter storm also caused heavy snowfall across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States, before moving offshore into The Maritimes and eventually over the Atlantic Ocean as a low-pressure system. After traversing the open waters, the low-pressure system also caused high wind gusts and severe weather across Germany and Switzerland. Overall, this winter storm caused eight fatalities, 45 injuries, and $1.06 million in damage. This article is currently a GA and has passed a GAN on March 31 this year. This is also my first FAC nomination, and am looking forward to any comments or suggestions regarding this article! ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

Drive-by comment: can we do no better for a map than File:Vapor imagery December winter storm 2017.png? It is rather low-quality and has a misleading GIF icon in the corner. Given that the data is in the public domain, I'm sure it's possible to find or even create a better visualization. Good luck on your first FAC! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got that image switched out and replaced with File:December 2017 winter storm snowfall map SE US.jpg. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69! ~ Tails Wx 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Picture_of_snow-covered_Jackson,_Mississippi_from_above_December_2017.jpg is tagged as being under licensing review. Ditto File:Pilot_Mountain,_North_Carolina_December_2017_North_American_winter_storm.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I did scale up the map a bit; let me know if any further changes are needed for that image in terms of resizing or scaling (courtesy link to that respective section: #Meteorological synopsis). I did add alt text to the remaining images that didn't have them, and for now, I hid the two images and don't plan on changing that until either the licensing review is done or the files are deleted for whatever reason. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, scaling should be done using |upright= in order to respect user preferences - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done here - I did set it to 1.6, as a side note. ~ Tails Wx 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Hahn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Otto Hahn, the German chemist who was awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the discovery of nuclear fission. Today Hahn is something of a divisive figure. A century ago, there was much less of a distinction between chemistry and physics. Hahn was involved early in the chemistry of radioactive substances. Their presence could be detected from their radioactivity, and their unique half lives. Unfortunately, most of the new elements he discovered turned out to be isotopes, a concept that had not been invented when he began. He also had to deal with a lot of disapproval from more traditional chemists, for whom chemistry involved substances you could see, and smell and taste. Early on he formed a professional relationship with a physicist, Lise Meitner. Among his generation, he was regarded as progressive in his attitudes towards women, even a feminist. But women like Meitner still considered him a male chauvinist pig, and their historians have been much less reticent about publicly calling him one. After World War II, his cause was to resurrect the reputation of German science, which had been tarnished (to say the least) in the Nazi period. In this role, he sought publicity and downplayed uncomfortable truths. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

  • This is just a flyby, but I really think could do with more organization. Currently it had a whole nineteen major top level sections and zero subsections. A quick look at other FA biographies within the Science and Academia subject area doesn't seem to indicate this is a standard I'm not aware of. Some basic level of consolidation with his scientific advances in one section, personal life in another, and the Nobel Prize could probably make a section with his other honours seems doable and would make a big difference. Failing that even rudimentary sorting the events into subsections by time period would be an improvement of being bombarded with everything separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct; there is no standard. There are 33 featured article biographies of physicists and chemists, of which I brought 23 of them to featured. The article is written in chronological order and follows the layout guideline in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. I will consider your proposal. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I'll try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • " "The Open Door Web Site : Chemistry : Visual Chemistry : Protactinium". Archived from the original on 16 December 2022. Retrieved 16 December 2022." - what makes this a high-quality RS? I would expect that it should be not overly difficult to find a better source for something as basic as what this is supporting
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Entdeckung der Kernspaltung 1938, Versuchsaufbau, Deutsches Museum München | Faszination Museum". YouTube. 7 July 2015." - what makes this YouTube video a high-quality reliable source?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Originalgeräte zur Entdeckung der Kernspaltung, "Hahn-Meitner-Straßmann-Tisch"". - citation needs the publisher and any other information added
    Added publisher and access date
  • ""Father of Nuclear Chemistry – Otto Emil Hahn". Kemicalinfo. 20 May 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Brown, Brandon R. (16 May 2015). "Gerard Kuiper's Daring Rescue of Max Planck at the End of World War II". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 27 June 2020." - Scientific American is a decent source, but can we give their blog network the same level of quality?
    Brandon R. Brown is professor of physics and astronomy at the University of San Francisco. He is the author of Planck: Driven by Vision, Broken by War (Oxford, 2015), which won the 2016 Housatonic Award for nonfiction. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "NS Otto Hahn". Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship. Retrieved 28 June 2020." - what makes this a high-quality RS? And "Germany's Nuclear Powered Cargo Ship" is not the publisher in this source
    It was the source used by the article on the ship. Switched to a couple of other sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really on-topic to list all of the physicists that Meitner became friends with in an article on Hahn? That content seems more suited for our article on Meitner
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link phosgene?
    Linked

Will continue this; hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate supporting, but want to give this another read-through first. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I am working on this now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some initial comments:

I'll keep looking and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to a couple items above; otherwise, I consider those initial comments addressed. I'll have more fresh comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see my comments above are all satisfactorily addressed. Here are a few more:

I'll continue looking at the sources and more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilism (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the disastrous loss of the entire Taxi Driver collection to, er, negligence, McQueen was still uncertain about launching his own label. After some dithering, he gathered up every odd and end he'd created since then and put them together in the primal scream that was Nihilism. Not yet capable of the sweeping narratives that would characterise his later career, and on a budget of approximately zero, he went for pure shock tactics. Models smeared in filth and fake blood stalked down the runway, wrapped in cling film, breasts and genitals flashing. The audience was struck dumb and even photographers quit snapping, aghast at the sight. Reviews were mixed, with many accusing McQueen of misogyny while others recognized the burgeoning talent beneath the gore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hi ♠PMC♠, happy to do the image review. The article contains the following images:

The logo is in public domain per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Threshold_of_originality. The other two images are licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0. All images have captions and alt texts. They are relevant to the article and placed at appropriate locations. The description on the wiki commons page of "File:Nihilism from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg" should be updated: it listed 5 items but the image is a cropped version that only shows one item. I'm confused since the wiki commons description says "Savage Beauty exhibition, 2011" but our caption says "2015 staging". The file was uploaded in 2011 so that date is probably correct. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

I looked through the prose and sources during the GAN review. I think a secondary source review is in order for FAC, but I can definitely Support on prose here; this is an extremely solid and thorough article. I noticed a couple cites were out of order, so I went ahead and fixed those. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, suggestions not demands, etc. etc.

  • Only one clothing-related image is annoyingly little. Some of your other McQueen FAs have images illustrating inspirations or resemblances; is that not possible here? Or you could argue for fair use for an image from the show, like the one on Watt 2012 p. 60. Would really help people like myself.
    • Yeah, the lack of images for early McQueen is very frustrating. It's early enough that a lot of it isn't uploaded online, and what is is so rare that people aren't willing to free license it. (Or they've abandoned whatever Flickr account and aren't responding to comments). I think you're right in saying a fair use runway one could be justified, I've added one from Fairer's book.
  • "Quest for Fire (1981), famous 18th century" shouldn't there be a "the" before famous?
    • There should and now there is :)
  • "There was a degree of primitivism" slightly unfocused phrasing, maybe "it featured" or similar?
    • Added
  • When you say "beetle blood", does it literally mean the blood of beetles? How many beetles do you need to squish to get a usable amount of blood? Also, link shellac?
    • Huh! You know, I think that must have been a typo in the original book that I just blindly replicated without really thinking about it. I've removed the whole quote rather than worry about it, and wound up reorganizing the whole section a little because it was getting on my nerves.
  • The fourth paragraph of "Runway show" feels like it belongs in the previous subsection, and indeed duplicates some content from its last paragraph.
    • It is a little repetitive, but the distinction is in the clothing in itself vs in the way the models were presented on the runway. I've made some changes that hopefully make it more distinct:
      • revised the opening to remove the duplicative wording
      • moved the cling film sentence and the androgynous model sentences into this para to beef it up a little
      • reordered the paragraph to flow with the opening sentence, so we move from the wet t-shirt effect (thin fabric) to the revealing silhouettes, which hopefully makes the logic clearer
  • "Many models were wrapped in cling film because McQueen and Niland realised at the last minute that there was no budget to purchase underwear for them." How does cling film ... help?
    • Ahahaha, I wondered about that myself. It's hard to see in the videos of the runway show, and they don't go into more detail in that source, so I'm guessing here, but I think... picture wrapping something a bunch of times, untidily so the plastic crinkles up a bit. It doesn't become completely opaque, but it obscures what's underneath. They weren't hugely worried about being modest.
  • "She wrote: "Themes of anxiety and distress continue to be combined with a latent sexuality in his work."" little confused about the tenses
    • Arnold was writing in 1999 when McQueen was still active, so for her it was the present tense. I've expanded a bit though because I think I wasn't as clear about her point as I could have been
  • "Press coverage continued to be mostly appalled" for how long? did it ever stop?
    • Oop, this was intended as a continuation of the prev sentence about the next few collections. I've combined the sentences; they shared a ref anyway.
      McQueen's relationship with the press was always messy. For his early career, reviews almost always boiled down to something like "he's talented, but he should stop being so fucked-up". That persisted until roughly Joan, where he got into performance art and the press started declaring that he'd ~matured~. The "talented but fucked-up" response was no longer the default, but it resurfaced whenever he got up to Antics™, which was pretty often throughout the rest of his career, up to and including his last collection in life.

Very tight article. Nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am uncertain about this part from the lead, (in March 1993 London). I have not seen the month and year used as a descriptor before, and while I understand it makes the prose more concise, it does strike me as a bit odd. It could just be me though.
    • Not just you at all, it's a typo that snuck through GA. Good catch :)
  • When referencing the locusts in the lead, I think it would be best to clarify that they were dead, just to specify to readers who may be uncertain if they were even real in the first place or somehow were alive.
    • Done
  • I think a cellophane link would be helpful, especially since other materials, such as chiffon, latex, and plastic wrap, are linked.
    • Also done
  • Why is The 120 Days of Sodom described as "famous" while Quest for Fire and National Geographic are not? I would understand the inclusion if there was a focus on how well-known The 120 Days of Sodom is, but that does not appear to be the case so in my opinion, it sticks out as unnecessary and could be removed without losing any meaning.
    • Hmm fair enough, removed
  • In the "Collection" subsection, latex is linked twice.
    • Oop, yes
  • There is a bit of a tense issue in the "Production details" subsection for the parts on Niland. There is an instance of the present tense with "recalls" and it then shifts to the past tense with "described". Most of the prose is in past tense so this could have just been a typo or something missed during writing and revision.
    • I somehow manage to do this at least once per article, thanks for catching it.
  • I am guessing that this information is not available, but do we know why the show started 30 minutes late?
    • It doesn't say in this case

I hope that these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times, but I highly doubt that I will find anything further. Wonderful work as always, and good luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

To follow - SchroCat (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 3 – should be pp, not p
  • FN 54 should be p, not pp

Otherwise, all sources are reliable and appropriate, the formatting consistent and in line with recommended guidelines and practice. I've run some additional searches, and no higher standard of source came out; no additional information or aspects for examination were located. - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Poore

[edit]
Nominator(s): AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Anglo-Irish sportsman and military officer Robert Poore. Hailing from an Ango-Irish family of some standing, he was a prolific first-class cricketer who, interestingly, played Test cricket for South Africa. Mostly associated at first-class level with Hampshire, he was known for his outstanding 1899 season when, between June and August he was the highest first-class run-scorer in England and averaged 116.58. In that time he made 304 against Somerset, which was the highest individual first-class score for Hampshire until it was surpassed by Dick Moore's 316 in 1937. His average in 21 innings across the season was 91.23, which was a record average for an English season, that was not broken until Don Bradman averaged 98.66 in 1930, and not surpassed by an English batsman until Herbert Sutcliffe averaged 96.96 in 1931. He was a multi-talented sportsman, having success in polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and was the best-man-at-arms in several of the British Armed Forces Royal Tournaments. He had a long and distinguished career in the British Army, serving in the Second Boer War and WW1 amongst others, and ending his career as a brigadier-general. The article has been reviewed by WP:CRIC members, who have made suggestions. As a sidenote, I don't think we have any Irish cricketers at FA! AA (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Because it's come up in an article I'm working on at the moment -- the militia wasn't, technically, part of the British Army, but a separate institution (unlike its successors, the TA and the Army Reserve). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Weren't they amalgamated with the British Army sometime around 1906? AA (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes -- reading more carefully, I think you've threaded this needle fine: you have been clear about the distinction between militia and regular service. Might be worth checking whether the militia of the Wiltshire Regiment is accurate, or whether it was a militia battalion under the command of the Wiltshires (but not part of them) -- for example, the Bucks Rifle Volunteers were under the command of the Oxford Light Infantry, but didn't wear the cap badge and were rather protective of their separate identity. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I've made a slight amendment in the article, linking to the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion in both the lede and "Military career" section. AA (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the change has gone slightly the wrong way, unfortunately: if he joined up in 1883, that's before the creation of the TA in 1908, so he would have been part of the Volunteer Force, rather than the British Army, until 1886. That's compatible with the body but not the lead. Being even more picky, in the British military, terms like "3rd (RWM) Battalion" don't make sense without an attached regiment, so you need "of the Wiltshire Regiment". UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Poore began his military service in the Volunteer Force with the 3rd (Royal Wiltshire Militia) Battalion of the Wiltshire Regiment in 1883, before gaining a regular commission in the British Army in 1886." And reads along the same lines in the "Military career" section. Does that make more sense?! AA (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works perfectly. As the Volunteers were (very) part-time, most people who served in them would have either had a day job or been so aristocratic as to not need one: I wonder if we know what else he was doing for those few years? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can find out! Thanks again :) AA (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a further look and it appears to be a rather quiet (or unwritten) period of his life. The family were very wealthy, so I wonder if he had need to work? AA (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, trying to do a proper review: may be a bit fragmentary:

  • A couple of sources are to Who's Who, which has its issues (see WP:WHOSWHO). This one in particular might be a problem: he was a first-rate swordsman, and polo, tennis, racquets, squash, and shot player.
  • On that note: what's a shot player?
  • Use an endash, not an emdash, in date ranges (MOS:RANGE)
  • I find the first paragraph of the lead a little confusing: we get a run of statistics, which are all at different levels (a number of test matches, a run rate in county cricket, a record for a particular county). I wonder if it would be better (and clearer) reworked to focus more on the overall narrative and less on the minutiae, which can be left to the body.
    Reads much better to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he commanded the Jhansi Brigade of the British Indian Army with the rank of brigadier-general: advise a cut here, as this was/is the normal rank to command a brigade.
  • I find the lack of dates in the second lead paragraph to demand rather a lot of the reader's historical knowledge.
  • Juliana Poore née Lowry-Corry: see MOS:NEE
  • Lowry-Corry, (daughter of: rogue comma here.
  • "Junior" is normally capitalised in names, isn't it?
  • Poore joined the Volunteer Force as a lieutenant : is this definitely accurate? Officers normally joined at the rank of second lieutenant (which is one down), sometimes named as ensign.
    • Comment. I did wonder the same myself, but the earliest reference to him is in the London Gazette on 14th August 1883 (here), where he is commissioned as a lieutenant. AA (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm -- yes, that does seem to be what's going on (looking at the note above about the HAC, I wonder whether this was a period where -- for whatever reason -- parts of the army weren't bothering with 2Lts: the rank hadn't been around very long in any guise). Strictly speaking, though, the Gazette doesn't demonstrate that he joined the Volunteers on that date -- he could have been serving before he became a lieutenant. I see the Gent. suffix, which probably indicates that he was a civilian, but we'd need another source to confirm that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rank of second lieutenant (introduced in 1877) was abolished in 1881 and reintroduced in 1887. All new officers in the period (and existing officers of second lieutenant rank) were granted the rank of lieutenant. If you want a citation its covered on page 271 of Roper, Michael (1998). The Records of the War Office and Related Departments, 1660-1964. Public Record Office. ISBN 978-1-873162-45-3. - Dumelow (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • South Africa, where he served in the Second Matabele War in Rhodesia: Rhodesia wasn't in South Africa (with the capitals).
  • before being promoted two years later to brevet major in May 1898.: would cut two years later: we don't need to say it twice.
  • I would explain what a provost marshal is in the text. Was he the provost marshal for all of South Africa?
  • and was mentioned in despatches in March 1900, to which the commander-in-chief, Lord Roberts: not the right preposition. I think it would be wise to take another swing at this section, cutting the long sentence down a few times.
  • He was particularly active on the frontlines in the early years of the conflict: this seems needlessly ambiguous: did he later become particularly active in other parts of the conflict, or particularly lazy on the frontlines?
    • Done. I have removed entirely to eradicate any ambiguity. AA (talk)
  • where he was present at the Battles...: an odd way of saying it: this seems to imply that he didn't do very much?
  • with his diary including contemporary notes on their war crimes case: there are a few of these with phrases throughout. In general, they're best avoided: they usually become either or both of clunky and unclear. Suggest "his diary includes...". Also, hyphenate "war-crimes case" as a compound modifier.
  • He returned home aboard the SS Canada in 1902, but would return there on military service until his final departure in 1905: return where?
  • he was promoted to colonel in June 1915, and commanded the Jhansi Brigade in the British Indian Army for the remainder of the war, for which he was made a temporary brigadier-general: do I read right that he was promoted in June 1915, then immediately reassigned and promoted again?
    Nice one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poore was not initially overly enamoured with cricket, which he had learnt not through classical coaching but the perusal of textbooks, reputedly chiefly from the Badminton Volume of Cricket (1888); it was not until he visited India as a subaltern with the 7th Hussars that he realised his love for cricket: lots of positives phrased as negatives here: I'm not sure the density of them is good either for clarity or for style.
    Yes, it looks good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Styling his game on W. G. Grace,: on that of Grace, surely, unless his game was bearded and medically qualified?
  • "called up" and "called off" are not generally hyphenated (but the noun call-up is).
  • as being "a remarkable feat of physical endurance", on what was "a sweltering July day".: more concise simply as as "a remarkable feat of physical endurance" on "a sweltering July day"?
  • Had Poore met with success in these, he would likely have played Test cricket for England in the latter half of their series against Australia, but no Test cap for England was forthcoming: we've buried the lead here: presumably, he didn't play very well?
    • Comment. He didn't particularly shine in the Gentlemen v Players fixtures, which were often used to choose the Test team for forthcoming matches. AA (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he made two final appearances in first-class cricket for the Europeans cricket team,: I'm not sure we need cricket team here, as they've been introduced further up. We haven't done it for the Parsees, who have a similarly ambiguous name.
  • Up until his final years, he ran a cricket school which encouraged the development of young cricketers: I might be missing something, but what else would we expect a cricket school to do?
  • Cricket was not the only field in which his sporting talents : it's good practice to restate the name in a new paragraph or section.
  • MOS:BIO discourages adding people's dates after their names; if someone's age or date of death is important, state it in prose.
  • Poore's sister Nina Mary Benita Poore (1878–1951), married her brother's brother-in-law: this took me a while. Poore's brother-in-law -- this is the Duke, right?
  • and was also a justice of the peace for the county: JPs don't generally cover a whole county; they sit at particular courts within a county.
  • a memorial was erected to his memory at Salisbury Cathedral.: as with the cricket school: is there any other sort of memorial? Simply "to him", I think.
  • he seems to stand for the Eccentric Ideal: I don't really see, from the article, where this would have come from. What did Cooper see in him that was so eccentric?
  • Why does Stern come before Lonsdale in the bibliography (and Lonsdale come in two different places)?
    The usual mantra around here is "any consistent system is fine", though purely personally, I've never seen a published work order its bibliography by the order of citation in the text. Given that it's a distinct system, I don't think many readers will pick that up, so it will look "wrong" to most of them, and I can't see a utility improvement to compensate. Most style guides go for alphabetical order, sometimes subdividing by source type if it's felt appropriate (for instance, separating out primary sources, like newspapers, from academic sources). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why isn't Warner in the bibliography at all?
  • He was initially privately educated, before attending Cheam School in England: wasn't Cheam a private school? It certainly is today, and from looking at its Wikipedia article, it wasn't exactly an egalitarian place.

Nice work -- as usual, lots of pedantry here and, due to my lack of expertise on the subject, mostly quibbles about style and MoS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about the name "Royal Navy and Military Tournaments" -- is that definitely right? I generally see it referred to simply as the "Royal Tournament", and very occasionally as the "Naval and Military Tournament".
  • From there, he transferred to the 7th Hussars in the same year and would shortly thereafter serve: better to keep the tense straight: shortly after served...
  • army headquarters South Africa: that's a proper noun, so Army Headquarters South Africa (possibly with a comma in the middle) -- unless it's not the official name, in which case we need something like "the British Army's headquarters in South Africa".
    • Comment. His appointment as provost came under the umbrella of the South African Field Force, so I would say that "Army Headquarters South Africa" would be more apt? AA (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that the official name of the place he was serving? If not, how about "the headquarters of the South African Field Force", with some explanation of what the SAFF was?
    UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @UndercoverClassicist: His Gazette citation reads: Captain and Brevet Major R. M. Poore, 7th Hussars, to be Provost-Marshal, South African Field Force. Dated 13th November, 1899. On page 125 of Breaker Morant: The Final Roundup it states he was provost marshal at Army Headquarters Pretoria. I will expand that section to include that detail. On the SAFF, we don't seem to have a Wiki article for it. So I wonder if it is an informal term for the South African Army?
  • war-crimes trial: strictly, MOS:DASH prefers war crimes–trial (note the endash) when the modifying prefix is multiple words.
  • Roberts praising Poore with regard his "care of prisoners": with regard to or just for.
  • the Battles of Paardeberg, Poplar Grove, Driefontein, Vet River, and Zand River: this should be the battles of Paardeberg etc (there's no such thing as the Battles of Paardeberg, so no capital on battles).
  • In February 1901, he was tasked by Kitchener with forming a Boer commando, the Bushveldt Mounted Rifles, which was made up of surrendered Boer combatants, whose task it was to loot cattle from enemy forces: the double relative clause is tricky. Suggest breaking the sentence after Rifles, and saying something like "The commando was made up of surrendered Boer combatants, and tasked with...}}
  • he was a "brilliant" swordsman: tricky one: MOS:QUOTEPOV is an issue here. Advise he was considered a brilliant swordsman ....
  • referencing the unusual manner in which he took up cricket, wrote of Poore: I think this would be clearer if we swap the he and the Poore -- at the moment, it could be Cooper who took up cricket in a strange way.

Image review

@Nikkimaria: I was absolutely confident it was going to be in The Jubilee Book of Cricket (1897) by Ranjitsinhji, but to my surprise it wasn't. The original upload by User:Materialscientist was taken from Getty, and they haven't provided any authorship or publication information. AA (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can a publication old enough to satisfy the terms of the current tagging be found? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of these images suffice? AA (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing publication info on those - is it known? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one has erroneously been listed on ESPNcricinfo as having been published by The Cricketer in 1899, however it wasn't published until 1921. I have located the picture from this volume of Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game, published in 1899. AA (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that would make it PD in the US for sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rarely upload to the Commons (and when I do, it's always my own cricket photos), so I'm a little unsure if I have done this correctly. The original author is Lafayette, who I am fairly certain is the Irish photographer James Lafayette (deceased 1923). AA (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the wording of the copyright template you've used, it indicates that you'll need an additional tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the PD-US tag to it. AA (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi AA, my comments:

That's all from me, I will try to get a source review done soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC - source review: pass

[edit]
  • Full review to follow later, but in the meantime:
  • In the references you should delink the publishers and locations (all of these are superfluous and fairly useless – several of them are OVERLINKING, and they don't aid readers at all
  • Ditto in the Works cited section, I'd advise delinking all the locations and publishers
  • It's best to aim for consistency in how you present sources, so get the ISBNs into the same 13-digit format; (you can use https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter to get the correct version for Thomson)
  • If a book has no ISBN (like Humphris), consider adding the oclc instead, which you can get from https://search.worldcat.org/.
  • Why are you using sfnref for the two entries from The Cricket Statistician when you could cite them directly to the author, Lonsdale? Ditto Warner
    • Comment and done. As they were contributors to a section in the journal/magazine, I was under the impression we link to the work and not the author. If this is not the case, I have now changed it to cite directly to Lonsdale and Warner. AA (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a full prose review in a day or so. - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC prose review
Lead & IB
Military career
India and South Africa
Hampshire
  • "his height and massive frame": this is the first time his physique has been mentioned in the body, so it may be worth putting in some details (what was his height, for example)
    • Comment. It was a little difficult to insert too much detail on his height and physique, however, I have inserted his height into the sentence using template {{convert|6.4|ft|m}}, though not sure if "6 feet and 4 inches" would read better (but the conversion template does not allow for this wording). AA (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a virtual reality game released as part of the Five Nights at Freddy's franchise. Last year after I helped promote the original game to FA status, I've been curious on whether another FA could be made with this franchise. This game probably has the best chance overall. In summary, Help Wanted adapts the first five games in the series in an anthology format, while also including some new minigames. So let's see what we can do here. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Add translated titles for Ref 1, 3, 6, 8, 26
  • Change Ref 22 website to UploadVR
Done second point, @Vacant0, is there a specific policy requiring the translation of the source titles? Just curious, because I'm not sure if that would be required. My previous FACs used a few non-English sources and I wasn't asked to translate the titles. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of one, but I might be wrong. I know that there's a policy about foreign quotations, but not foreign titles. I was told to add translated titles at a GA review some time ago, so I've been doing it since then. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked around at some pertinent policies and guidelines (WP:NOENG, and WP:FOOTQUOTE) and it seems like translating the titles into English is not required, though quotes not in English should be translated to English. I might ask around and see if translating the titles to English is preferable or if they should be kept as-is. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. I do not see it is an issue that should bar the article from becoming FA. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is relatively short so I'll go through and read, and leave any recommendations if I spot any. If the article does not receive a source check, you can ping me and I'll do that too. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Help Wanted is a virtual reality survival horror game" – It's up to you, but I'd change Help Wanted to Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted.
Done
  • Optionally wikilink virtual reality (it's already wikilinked in the lede, so why not do it in the body too?)
Done
  • Add (VR) as the abbreviation of virtual reality in the same first sentence.
Done
  • Jump scare is wikilinked twice. Remove the second wikilink.
Done
  • Possibly explain the warped graphics element.
The reviewer says "distorted visuals" and there isn't much that I could find that went into detail on the graphics.
  • Who published the game?
Scott Cawthon via his company ScottGames. I'll add that to the infobox
  • I'll look at the lede and reception tomorrow.
  • There's not too much information about the sequel, so per WP:VGLAYOUT it can stay where it is right now under the Reception section.
  • Lede: The downloadable content called Curse of Dreadbear.
reworded
  • Reception:
    • I personally feel like the wording could be slightly improved.
A lot of the sources weren't in English and it was hard to summarize their thoughts. This section was the one that I thought might need some extra eyes
I'll have a deeper look in the next few days and leave some comments that could improve the section. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "UploadVR called it a worthy adaptation or the franchise's games" I assume this is a typo.
Done
    • IGN Italy should be italicised.
Done
    • "the power of the jumpscares"?
Should I change it to "effectiveness"?
Yes, that sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Some reviewers called the jumpscares effective, but said that they would become repetitive over time" – remove said
Done
    • Optionally move "The game was nominated for the Coney Island Dreamland Award for Best AR/VR Game at the New York Game Awards in 2020." to the first paragraph.
Done
    • Do we have reception for the sequel?
Metacritic lists only one review for the sequel from UploadVR. Should I include it?
Sure, why not. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a great way to integrate the review to be honest. Is there a way you think I should add it somehow. Say something like "UploadVR called the game ___ and ___?" Just curious, I just want to make sure that I'm doing this right.

Vacant09, a few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go paragraph by paragraph.

  • The first paragraph does not have any issues.
  • Second paragraph:
    • What do you mean by an "accessible" entry?
Easy to get into, especially for people unfamiliar to the franchise
    • "Destructoid felt that it would appease longtime fans and people unfamiliar with the series,[2] and The Games Machine said that it would appeal to players who were not fans of horror media through its simple mechanics" → "Destructoid saw that longtime fans and those unfamiliar with the series would be appeased with the game, while The Games Machine wrote that players previously not fans of the horror genre would be appeased because of its simple mechanics"
Reworded a little to be more in line with the source. Does this work?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "worthy adaptation"?
Decided to add a quote from the article instead. Does this look better?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "IGN Italy said that it was" – change to present tense
Done
  • Third paragraph:
    • "UploadVR said the atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of the jumpscares, writing that the virtual reality made the game feel immersive" → "UploadVR said the game's atmosphere was intriguing and increased the power of jumpscares, and that virtual reality made the game feel immersive"
Reworded. Does this work?
Yes. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • effective, in what sense?
Effective at scaring the player
  • Fourth paragraph:
    • I doubt that "the" is needed before "different minigames".
Reworded
    • "The Games Machine called the levels diverse"?
This was a tricky one, but I reworded it. Does the new version make sense? I think I got it more in line with what the reviewer was saying.
Yes, it sounds better. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing my comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from NegativeMP1

[edit]

I've done work on every other game in the Five Nights at Freddy's series and conducted several source searches for this article before this FAC at the request of the nom (hell, we nearly co-nom'd), while also reading through it countless times. So knowing the subject matter and what all is out there, I firmly believe that this article clearly meets the FA criteria (though I did choose to wait for Vacant to finish his review before I supported), and I hope that this passes. λ NegativeMP1 07:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Hit

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about a 2014 smash hit mobile game, Smash Hit. You shoot balls and break glass and crystals. There's also a virtual reality version of the game. This is my second FAC nomination overall. This article was promoted to GA last month and was then reviewed by three editors in a peer review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+

[edit]

Support I was a reviewer at the PR and can say that I have no comments left. 750h+ 23:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

[edit]

This looks interesting! Putting myself down for a review later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @TechnoSquirrel69:. Do you still plan on reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay; I am indeed! I have started a source review but haven't gotten an opportunity to wrap it up yet. I'm hoping to do that and post my comments later today. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]

Citation numbers from this revision. Let's do this!

  • What make citations 25 and 43 reliable and high-quality? Both seem to be blogs.
    • Ref 25 App Annie (now Data.ai) was a data analytics platform that also covered the statistics of apps in App Store and Play Store. In this case, it is used to reference the position of Smash Hit on the Play Store. The App Store claim is cited by VentureBeat which also cites the data from App Annie. Ref 43 is indeed a developer blog, it was copied from the FA Teardown (video game).
  • What makes citation 8 reliable and high-quality? Their about page from around the time of the article's publication doesn't mention an editorial review process or similar.
    • From what I was able to find, AppleNApps is used by Metacritic to aggregate reviews while the author covered iOS apps and games for about 10 years and now works at Apple.
    I'm not sure if that's a satisfactory explanation to use the source for critical opinions on a video game — Metacritic lists plenty of publications that we would consider unreliable here on Wikipedia, and the author of the publication being hired at Apple years later does not give them preumptive reliability in this topic area. —TS
    Fair enough. I've removed the two AppleNApps refs. This, however, created an issue with "After completion, the player enters the endless mode, a stage which is infinitely repeated until the player is out of balls." We only have several references calling it an endless runner, so I've had to change it to that. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Points for pulling reviews from multiple languages; nice work!
  • There are a handful of citations that need archive links for consistency. I used theLink Dispenser tool to pick them out. (Hi Sohom!)
    • I've used IABot to archive refs but for some reason it refused to archive a couple of them several times. I've added missing archive URLs.
  • "travels forward at a constant speed" fails verification, though Starr does mention that the player moves on a "pre-set path".
    • I've added another ref that should confirm this 100%. I've removed the "constant speed" part though because I've played the game yesterday and the player's speed is not always the same.
  • Citations 5 and 29: Don't use the {{ill}} template in citation templates as it corrupts the metadata they generate.
    • Done.
  • "The game's music initially had 33 tracks" Source verifies the claim but also mentions that the tracks were "stitched together in different combinations", so they weren't really 33 distinct songs. I think this could be rephrased a little to include that detail.
    • Done.
  • Which part of the source supports the claim "He was satisfied with the end result"?
    • I've interpreted the "it works well in practice" part about the shattering algorithm as him being satisfied.
  • Citation 25: The site is down and redirects to something else, switch |status=unfit.
    • Done.
  • Citation 33: Switch |status=dead.
    • Done.
  • I conducted a dozen or so source–text integrity spot-checks, most of which came back clean except for a few which I've mentioned above.
General comments
[edit]
  • The first sentence of § Gameplay appends the background music tidbit somewhat awkwardly. I would split that into another sentence or merge into a later sentence.
    • Done.
  • "... a 3D video game, and has been categorised as an action and puzzle game" reads like you're pulling genre tags from the app store page. The action one seems especially redundant considering that the game is already identified as a rail shooter. Can we convey this style information in a way that's more engaging?
    • I've removed that sentence altogether and added "puzzle game" in the first sentence. I hope it's better now.
  • This is a bit of a nitpick, and rather optional: in the sentence "Michelle Starr of CNET described the glass-shattering effect as impressive, while Pugliese viewed them as detailed and comprehensive." I typically prefer to see the corresponding citation at the end of the clause rather than both being pushed to the end of the sentence. This occurs a few times in the prose. Also, what's a "comprehensive" sound effect?
    • Visual effect, not sound effect! I've replaced the word with one that more closely resembles the one from the original article.

That's a full source review, but I might be back for further review of the prose. Feel free to reply to my comments in line and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @TechnoSquirrel69:! I've addressed your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: I have one reply above; everything else looks good! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium

[edit]

I'm putting myself down to take a look at this later this week. Sohom (talk) 04:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Sohom Datta:. It's been 13 days so are you still interested in reviewing this? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TWOrantula

[edit]

Ooh, shiny! Gonna review this later. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @TrademarkedTWOrantula:. Are you still interested in reviewing this article again? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the wait! I'll plan to review this article's prose sometime this week (if time is on my side). TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 14:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take your time. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • "specific amount of time" - Perhaps change it to "limited"?
  • "in-game purchase, allowing..." -> "in-game purchase that allows..."
  • "created its physics engine, and the acoustics" - Feels as though a verb is needed here, between "engine" and "and"
  • "while Henrik Johansson designed its art and levels" - You could cut "art" because I think it's part of the levels
  • "was also hired" - Recommend cutting "also"
  • "reviewers who" - Comma needed between these words
  • Solid paragraph here!

BP!

[edit]

Hi. I will point this out early so you can work this out immediately before the actual source reviewer comes.

Draken Bowser

[edit]

Looks neat. Just a few ideas below:

  • An earlier tweak removed "3D video game". My understanding is that a rail shooter could also be in 2D. If so, we need to re-add this information, preferably at the beginning of the "Gameplay"-section.
    • Reinstated.
  • The description of bullet-gameplay mechanics is a bit unclear, and these are always hard to write without ambiguity. I'm assuming here that "at once" refers to the maximum number of balls allowed to travel through the air at a time. I think it would make sense to restructure this entire section to begin by stating that the count starts at one ball at a time, and then explain how combo mechanics come into play.
    • I've restructured the sentences according to your recommendation. "By default, the player's rate of fire is one ball and it can be increased to five by smashing a consecutive sequence of crystals. Despite the increase, the player would still only lose one ball from their ammunition from each shot" Does it look better now?
      • I think so, though I don't think "how many balls are in" is necessary. We've already established the concept of "rate of fire". /DB
        • Removed that part (I did not add this).
  • beginning of each game - prefer "level"
    • Why though? The player always starts at the beginning of the game, while the in-game purchase allows the ability to start at the beginning of any level. If this sentence was confusing, I do not think it should be anymore.
      • If that's the case I'd prefer for it to say: "beginning of the first level" /DB
        • Done.
  • Holmquist stated that Smash Hit was the toughest of all games on which he worked with Mediocre. - Do we know how or in what respect? Without that extra info I don't find the sentence very compelling.
    • Removed.
  • considering that the glass shatters at the point where it is hit - I'm a bit confused here. I thought that's where you'd expect glass to break?
    • In the game, yes. He, however, wrote: "This is not true in the real world, where tension builds up in the material, and objects tend to break at their weakest spot". I've added this mention.
  • Since its initial release, the game has received several updates. - This is another sentence where I'd like either a little more info or removal.
    • Removed.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While scouring for Swedish sources I realized we should probably mention when Mediocre was founded. Only, Dagens Nyheter states that the company was founded "in the fall of 2012", but the company blog says "fall of 2010", although the aktiebolag wasn't registered until 2011 (which was also the year Sprinkle released). Not sure what to do about that. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a 2011 PG interview in which Johansson said that Mediocre was founded in fall of 2010. Escapist and Holmquist's blog also say 2010. Based on this, should I include this in the article? Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more: Dagens Nyheter and LiU.se. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't me sliding into these DMs, but is "rate of fire" the correct word here? You shoot five balls at the same time, not individual balls at a faster rate. IceWelder [✉] 20:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I did not know what terminology to use without making it sound worse. I've changed this now but it can be improved if it does not sound good enough. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should simply call it a "limit"? Draken Bowser (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly? The sentences are currently worded as: "By default, the player shoots one ball at a time, but can shoot up to five at once by smashing a consecutive sequence of crystals. Regardless of the amount, the player will only lose ball of ammunition per shot." Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the year of their foundation in the article, considering that multiple sources indicate that it was founded in 2010. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freston (causewayed enclosure)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Neolithic site in England, this one being investigated by a Canadian research team, for some reason; only one excavation so far, so not a lot of findings to report, which is a pity as there's a possible Neolithic longhouse or Anglo-Saxon hall in part of the site, which I'm sure the team are keen to get to. The article has had a very helpful pre-FAC review from UndercoverClassicist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

[edit]

very exciting, always happy to see archaeology at FAC! i can commit to a review for this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 12:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

initial suggestions/comments:

overall the prose and such is great, not many issues at all. i think i'll do a source review for this as well - if i've not done that by sunday, ping me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source review
[edit]

in terms of source quality, no complaints. especially for more rural/"obscure" sites like this, these (archaeological journals, books/chapters from university presses, government trust reports, &c.) are definitely the best kinds of sources one can find. if necessary i have real-life access to most of these, but not immediately on my laptop.

comments:

  • Palmer (1976) is referenced but not listed in the bibliography. as far as i can tell, this is the only citation with this issue

a spot-check is probably unnecessary what with how many FAs you have, but just for good measure:

  • 10 (Curwen 1930) - good
  • 14a (Carter et al. 2021) - good
  • 20 (Martin 2007) - good, quote matches up
  • 32 (Wilson 1975) - good
  • 47 (Schofield et al. 2021) - good
  • 49 (Carter et al. 2021) - good

... sawyer * he/they * talk 23:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- have fixed Palmer. I can send you a copy of Curwen if you need it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry lol i forgot to put the "good" down for Curwen initially. now that we have Palmer 1976, support. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Another archaeology one, I'll be sure to review soon. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for how long it took to get to this; work got busiser than I expected.
Supporting, I read through it and had no concerns from a non-expert perspective. Hog Farm Talk 22:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HF; I appreciate the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

Just some random comments for now.

  • Freston is a causewayed enclosure,[4] a form of earthwork that was built in northwestern Europe, including the southern British Isles, in the early Neolithic period. I'd drop "including the southern British Isles". It's a long complicated sentence, and given that the entire article is about something in the southern British Isles, that goes without saying.]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms does the source actually say they're difficult to explain, or is that you editorializing?
    The sources do make this point. For example, Cunnington says "It is very difficult to see why the frequent openings in the entrenchment should have been left, when apparently they must weaken it so materially, if it was intended for purposes of defence ... [one theory is] that they had some distinct purpose in the scheme of defence; that they were, indeed, a strengthening and not a weakening factor in this seemingly not very strongly-defended place". She goes on to give other possibilities, including the sally port suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also evidence that they played a role in funeral rites, you need to go back to the previous paragraph to be sure what "they" is referring to; probably better to be more specific here.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • material such as food, pottery, and human remains was deliberately deposited I think this is grammatically correct in a strict way, but it reads funny. The subject of "was" is "material", so it's correct to use the singular form of the verb, but at first scan you see "human remains was" which is jarring. Can this be rephrased to avoid that?
    Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were built in a single operation what evidence is there for this? I assume the source says so, but enquiring readers will want more.
    The source doesn't say so -- the statement comes in the concluding summary of an article about causewayed enclosures, and doesn't cite a source or give more explanations. I think the source is strong enough to include this, even without further explanation, though I agree I'd like to be able to say more on the point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since these are found in both continental Europe and the British Isles, the obvious question is how did they get across the water, by whom, and when, and in which direction? I see you touch on this briefly at the ends of the "Background" and "Site" sections, but I think it deserves going into more and earlier in the article.
    I'm not sure I agree -- this is an article about a specific causewayed enclosure, after all, not about the whole class of causewayed enclosures. There's already a fair bit of text in the article that is not specific to this particular site (compare Great Wilbraham (causewayed enclosure) and you'll see what I mean) and I'd rather not go further in that direction if I don't have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The enclosure is 8.55 ha (21.1 acres) in area, "in area" is redundant.
    That was added in the pre-FAC review on the article talk page, so I'd like to leave it there and see if other reviewers have an opinion one way or another. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four sherds of pottery were found link sherds -> Glossary of archaeology#potsherd
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All responded to; thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments...

  • The Discovery, fieldwalking, and watching briefs section starts out a bit oddly with it not being found in 1944. I'd lead with the key idea, i.e. "The site was discovered in 1969", and then fill in the details about it not being found on earlier photos. Any idea why it wasn't seen in the 1944 photos? Were the 1969 images higher quality? It's also not clear what happened between 1966 and 1969; was there was one set of photos in 1966 and another set in 1969, or were the 1966 photos re-examined three years later using better techniques?
    I can do this if you really think it's necessary, but I like the directly chronological approach, rather than having to step back in time in the second sentence to 1944. To answer your question, the source says there was no sign of earthworks or cropmarks. The article says further down that the earthworks were long gone by the 20th century, and cropmarks are often only visible in very dry conditions, so if the 1944 photos were taken when it wasn't very dry the cropmarks would not have been there. The 1966 photos were taken for the Ordnance Survey and not as part of a search for cropmarks, and nobody noticed the evidence on them. At some point, no later than 1995, someone went back and looked for earlier photos and found the 1966 ones, and realized that the site was identifiable if anyone had paid attention. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be outside the scope of WP:FACR, but I wonder if just plain Freston causewayed enclosure would be a better title, per WP:PARENDIS? Looking at Category:Causewayed enclosures I see people have done it both ways, so no strong feeling either way here.
    The sources don't tend to append "causewayed enclosure" to the name, which is why I haven't named the articles I've written that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a group from McMaster University organized ... a pedestrian survey This is in the lead, but I don't see anything in the body that talks about a pedestrian survey. Or is this what you refer to as "fieldwalking"? If so, it would be helpful to non-expert readers (like me!) to either use the same term in both places, or explain the linkage.
    Added "(surveying the site on foot)" after the first use in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freston is about 13 km (8 mi) from the sea; it would have been about 18 km (11 mi) from the sea at the start of the Neolithic. Why did this change by 5km? I'm guessing rising sea levels, but it would be good to explain that.
    The source doesn't say but it's sure to be sea level changes. I can probably find a source that says something about sea levels in the Neolithic, and might be able to use that, but I'm slightly hesitant about possible synth problems. I'll see what I can find and will report back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My first look didn't come up with anything I can cite, but this does imply that sea level is the reason -- the North Sea was low enough for Doggerbank to be above water only 2,000 years before the enclosure at Freston was constructed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC

[edit]

Good to see this here. I will chip in, though it might be wise to wait until we have a few more reviews (as I left comments on a recent draft): let me know if a good moment comes up, otherwise I'll keep my eye on the page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist, I think this would be a good time if you have more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask and you shall receive...
  • near the village of Freston, in Suffolk, England: since we've got the in, we don't want the preceding comma.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • from shortly before 3700 BC until at least 3500 BC: consider from shortly before 3700 until...: the one BC can cover both, especially as there's not yet been an AD 3700.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Freston enclosure was first identified from cropmarks in aerial photographs in 1969: consider first identified in 1969: I think it's neater and more grammatical, and clarifies that the identification was in 1969, not (just) the photographs. Nit-picking, but I don't think we actually say this in the body: we have In 1969 J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years, took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site, but that doesn't actually confirm that anyone noticed that the photographs showed those cropmarks.
    The wording in the source is slightly odd: Dyer says (after mentioning the earlier photographs) "The site is generally accepted as being discovered in 1969 during an aerial reconnaissance flight by St Joseph when the site was first intentionally recorded by photography". I think the most natural way to interpret this is that St Joseph's was looking for sites, saw the cropmarks, and hence took a picture, but the "generally accepted" gives me pause enough to have prevented me making that statement directly in the article. The body does currently say "was not discovered until 1969", which I think does mean it was discovered in 1969, but if you think the source wording is definite enough I could reword. Perhaps "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks, and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time. The site was discovered in 1969 by J. K. St Joseph, who ran the Cambridge University Committee for Aerial Photography (CUCAP) program for many years; he identified it on a reconnaissance flight that year and took aerial photographs that recorded cropmarks in the northern part of the site." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that source definitely puts the identification in 1969, so how about "first identified in 1969, from cropmarks..." UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done in the lead. After thinking about it some more I've made the change I proposed above in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cropmarks show an enclosure with two circuits of ditches, and a palisade that ran between the two ditches: between the two circuits? We imply that there may have been more than one ditch in a circuit (which seems to be true, from the map)
    Done; also in the body. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a link to Survey (archaeology) on "pedestrian survey" and to Geophysical survey (archaeology) on "geophysical survey".
    Both added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other finds included oak charcoal fragments that suggested the palisade had been made of oak: how about oak charcoal fragments, believed to come from the palisade? Seems to be stating the obvious at the moment.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence of attacks at some sites provided support for the idea that the enclosures were fortified settlements.: hm -- there's pretty good evidence of attacks at Omaha beach, but I'm not sure that provides any evidence that it was a settlement. Perhaps a problem for the sources rather than the article, as long as those are unequivocal that fortification implies settlement status.
    The section of Whittle et al. that I am citing is an overview of causewayed enclosures in Britain; this particular paragraph starts by talking about the long history of multiple interpretations for them. After going through some of the assertions about them having been settlements, they say "Fortifications and defence, originally inferred from superficial similarity to Iron Age hillforts, returned to the fore in the 1980s with evidence for hostilities at sites such as Crickley Hill in Gloucestershire and Hambledon Hill in Dorset", and they cite the articles in which those suggestions were made. I've been taking this sequence as arguing that the fortifications were of the settlements just discussed, but perhaps that's reading too much into the sequence of presentation? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit I'm not seeing that from what you've written, but then you're looking at the source and I'm not. Is anything lost from cutting settlements here, and developing the two strands separately? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut it and tweaked a little -- I agree they don't have to be connected. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used for trading cattle or other goods such as pottery: more importantly, its contents, surely? Again, a sources problem rather than an article one, I suspect.
    This is from later in the same summarizing section that I mentioned just above; I'm attempting to summarize a broad-ranging pageful of speculation (though I see that one of the relevant sentences actually starts on the previous page, so I'll amend the citation to say that). Here the relevant bits are "A role in animal herding, prompted by [various evidence] ... The frequency of pottery and lithics from remote sources, sometimes of finer quality and manufacture than local products, suggested that causewayed enclosures were foci for the exchange, consumption and deposition of significant objects ... [After suggesting that a family might have lived in an enclosure] The territory would provide most of the essential resources, such as ... [some] would be obtained by exchange with other groups ..." I picked cattle and pottery as representative examples. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think what you've got is reasonable, though perhaps gives more weight to the pottery than is due: as I read the source quoted, the point is that we can see the pottery and the lithics, and therefore infer that there were also other, similarly-valuable goods being passed around that are no longer archaeologically visible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've cut the examples and left it as just "trading"; I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as they were built in a single operation: consider as the enclosures were built...: it's been a while since we had the antecedent of they.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance", according to English Heritage.: do EH (or Historic England, as they now are) elaborate on why this would be so?
    All Martin says is "Two large pits recorded between the structure and enclosure ditches could be either Saxon Sunken Featured Buildings (SFBs) or relate to the Neolithic ditches (Hegarty and Newsome 2004, 66). Either date for the building would make it of potentially national importance." Carter quotes Martin, saying "In either instance it can be viewed as a structure ‘of potentially national importance’ (Martin 2007, 1), given the rarity of such buildings; it would also represent one of the largest known examples of either category" and goes on to say how few causewayed enclosures have Neolithic longhouses inside their perimeter.
    Can we add some of this -- seems to be that the point is that either building would make it an important site on its own, since both are very rare? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and although the site was partly visible on photographs taken in 1966 this was not noticed at the time.: this is a little clumsy in phrasing, I think. Perhaps Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks; the site is partly visible in a second series of photographs taken in 1966, but was not noticed at the time.?
    Done, but rather than "second", which might imply to the reader that these were also RAF photographs, I've made it clear they were taken by the OS. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the geophysics survey: usually on the geophysical survey, though admittedly most archaeologists would say geophys in person.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ditch probably predated the causewayed enclosure and may have been dug next to a long barrow, a form of Neolithic burial mound: is this the same mystery structure that might be an Early Medieval hall?
    No -- is this not clear? The building is in the northeast corner of the enclosure and this ditch runs from south of the trench, which is itself on the south side of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably an artefact of me reading it in several parts, and slightly losing the track of where I was -- but perhaps there's room to idiot-proof it a bit more? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am struggling a bit to find a way to say this that isn't just "by the way, this thing isn't that other thing I mentioned earlier". I've added more text to the site image caption, mentioning the long barrow as a separate entity from the longhouse. Does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly -- I'm sure most readers will be far more switched-on than me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chapter title of Andersen 2015 is in title case: other book and journal chapter titles seem to be in sentence case. Is there a logic here?
    No, no logic! Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

With the caveats that I am neither an expert in neolithic structures nor a native speaker, I offer the following comments on prose. (My only somewhat relevant claim here is that I have been twice to Bury Ditches.)

That's all. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; all addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • The title looks wrong to me. Freston would normally mean the village rather than the site. Why not Freston causewayed enclosure without the brackets?
    You're the second person to suggest this; I'll move the article, but I'll wait till the FAC is closed to avoid causing a problem with FACbot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A cropmark is an area of a field in which the crops grow differently because of differences in the soil beneath them." This is not quite right as a general definition. Cropmarks often indicate buried walls rather than different soils.
    Added a comment about sunken walls. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long barrow, a form of early Neolithic burial mound". This is the first use of the term early Neolithic. I think you either need to explain it or describe the site as early Neolithic in the first line of the lead, as you do in the first line of the main text.
    I'm not sure I follow you -- the body is more specific than the lead, after all. A lay reader may baulk at "Neolithic"; I don't want to qualify it further in the lead if I can avoid it, since "early Neolithic" won't help those readers, and just "Neolithic" isn't wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one of the largest causewayed enclosures known". In Britain or overall? The McMaster site at [7] describes it as "one of the largest Neolithic monuments in Britain".
    The sources only support Britain so I've changed this in the body and the lead; I suspect it is large compared to most of the ones in Europe too, but I don't have the sources to support that and can't remember where I saw it or thought I saw it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neolithic practices began to reach Britain in about 4050 BC". "Neolithic practices" is vague. As you will know, genetic evidence shows that it was Neolithic farmers who migrated to Britain at this time and replaced Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.
    I could make it something like "Neolithic practices, such as pottery and farming, began to reach ..." but strictly this isn't in the source, which has "Perhaps unsurprisingly, given its proximity to the mainland, the initial colonisation (‘Earliest Neolithic’) appears to have entered southeast England around 4050 cal BC (Fig. 1). Neolithic subsistence and other practices thereafter moved into south central England (‘Early Neolithic’) by the second half of the 38th century cal BC". Of course this is a reference to the Neolithic "package" of various practices that all appeared at the same time, but I would have to add another reference for that, so long as we think it's not SYNTH to do so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seafaring groups that crossed from mainland Europe". I have not come across "seafaring groups" in this context before. Do you mean that they were seafarers rather than farmers who migrated to Britain?
    No, it was just intended to say that they crossed by sea, so had to have some seafaring ability. I made it "the groups that crossed by sea from mainland Europe". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aerial photographs taken by the Royal Air Force in 1944 showed no sign of cropmarks". I thought cropmarks are normally only visible during droughts. Is this correct and could it be why they were not visible then?
    I think cropmarks can occasionally be visible other than in times of drought, but yes, my understanding is that drought is when you get to see them. Dyer doesn't say anything about the 1944 photos other than that the cropmarks are not visible, so I don't think I can say more, but presumably there was not a drought at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saxon sunken-featured buildings". Perhaps Anglo-Saxon is better. Saxon may refer to the Continental people.
    I'd like to stick with "Saxon" as that's how both the sources have it. Looking at Google Scholar it seems "Saxon" is at least as common as "Anglo-Saxon" when discussed these buildings. Perhaps they are also found on the continent so it's a term of art that is not restricted to Britain? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are inconsistent whether to abbreviate and convert terms such as metre, e.g. 70 m (230 ft) but two metres. It is a matter of personal preference (I prefer always spelling out) but I think it is better to be consistent.
    Now consistent; I decided to abbreviate all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the final paragraph beginning "Radiocarbon" belongs in the 'Site' section.
    Moved. I'm not entirely sure about this, since the radiocarbon dates depend on the site finds, but I see why you suggest the move, and on balance I agree. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another first class archaeological article from Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! And thanks for the review; all responded to above with a couple of questions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
I don't have much.
  • "sally ports for defenders to emerge from and attack a besieging force.[note 2]" I feel the from in "emerge from" dangles a bit. Maybe "sally ports that defenders could emerge from and ..."
    I see your point; I made it "that defenders could emerge from to ...", which I hope connects the clauses smoothly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is also evidence that the enclosures played a role in funeral rites: food, pottery, and human remains have all been found deliberately deposited in the ditches.[11] The construction of these sites would have required substantial labour for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches, and would probably have been planned for some time in advance, as they were built in a single operation." The sentences of this paragraph don't feel connected, and the second sentence feels more general than the first. I guess I expect a paragraph to start with the general and work its way to the specific.
    The "also evidence" is meant to be a reference to the "Evidence of attacks" in the previous paragraph; I think this sentence was moved to the next paragraph to avoid a short paragraph of one sentence. I've moved it back and have now joined the remaining sentence with the following paragraph. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either would make Freston a site of "potentially national importance"" Given the string of cites that followed, I think it would be helpful to the reader to say who is asserting this.
    The quote is from Martin (2007), who did the geophysical survey for English Heritage; the quote is then given verbatim in Carter et al. (2022). I decided to use the quote because Carter repeats it, so giving it more support, but although he supports it I think I just have to cite Martin as the source. I've done that -- let me know if that's enough or if you think Carter should be mentioned too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; changes made and a couple of notes above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 4

[edit]
Nominator(s): Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2014 social simulation game The Sims 4. Initially released to mixed reception due to its limited variety of content and gameplay features, the game has since been significantly expanded upon by its developer Maxis, who has continued to support the game via free updates and many many DLC add-ons (thanks EA!). The game differentiates itself from previous entries in the series in several ways, such as: its stronger representations of gender identities and sexual orientations, fully-featured versions of the game on consoles, built-in online features (thankfully optional, unlike Maxis' SimCity, at launch), and being free-to-play from 2022 onwards.

This article achieved GA status in November 2022, after its third nomination (That was my fault, oops! I was a way more inexperienced editor back then.), and I have done a lot of work to the article to make it happen, including basically re-writing the whole thing. It's my first time attempting an FAC, so I am receptive to feedback and changes (including major ones, if necessary), but I do believe that the article has reached a point where it qualifies for FA status. Thank you in advance! Theknine2 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Welcome to FAC! I'll have a look and review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 114: Change title to "The Sims 4 Review", add website: The Escapist
  • Add the website for Ref 117, 122
  • Ref 143: Change VGC to Video Games Chronicle
  • Try to find a replacement for Ref 158 (Dexerto)
@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please mention the EU/AU and UK release dates in the prose.
  • Remove references for release dates in the infobox.
@Vacant0: Done. Theknine2 (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at some parts of the prose this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikilink the first mentions of macOS and Windows in the Gameplay section.
  • "The newborn and infant life stages were introduced to the game in a 2023 update, and replace the baby life stage." → "The baby life stage was replaced by newborn and infant life stages in a 2023 update."
  • "A new feature introduced in The Sims 4, is the ability to resize" – remove the comma
  • "When constructing a building, buildings can have multiple floors" → "Buildings can be constructed with multiple floors."
  • I did not notice any major issues in the rest of the Gameplay section. Everything looked understandable and clear.
  • No issues spotted in Development.
  • "A free playable demo of the Create-a-Sim feature was made available for download on August 12, 2014" – on which platforms?
  • No issues were spotted in Release and marketing.
  • In Missing features controversy, change "AI" to "artificial intelligence". Add the abbreviation AI in parenthesis if it's mentioned further in the article.
  • I'm curious, but was there any reception regarding the soundtrack?

Another thing, @Theknine2:. Considering that this is your first nomination, FACs need to be assessed by several reviewers in order to get promoted. This also includes source and image reviews. It's soon gonna be a month since you've nominated this article for FAC, and so far, I've been the only one who left a review. So as a recommendation, you should follow the advice at §How to get the best from the process or simply ask WP:VG FAC editors to leave a review. Cheers and good luck, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Chollet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I first read about Leroy Chollet in a local newspaper that mentioned him as an African American basketball player who played in the Whites-only inaugural NBA Finals because he did not tell anybody that he was Black. That sounded a bit off, so I googled him but didn't find much. The Wikipedia article was a stub. As I read about the guy, I expanded his article. This is my first nomination, so feel free to offer any guidance on this process. Rjjiii (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Lovely article. I'll take a look. All of the suggestions listed may be rejected with justification. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • and became a teacher and varsity head coach for the school. I'd remove "for the school"; i think the start of the sentence does the job
early life

No problems here. 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

college carreer
  • colleges were segregated, and neither remove the comma
  • rival colleges Louisiana State University (LSU) and Tulane remove the acronym "(LSU)", as it's not used later in the article
professional career
  • ball to the teams' veteran players ==> "ball to the team's veteran players"
later life

Excellent work for a first nomination, short and sweet article, hope we'll be seeing this on the main page as TFA soon! 750h+ 16:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 750h+, I've addressed the comments above in the article,[8] Rjjiii (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 23:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I did the GA review for this and am glad to see it here at FAC. I left some comments on the article talk page in preparation for FAC, and I see those have been dealt with, but rereading the article now I have a couple more comments.

  • I can see why the Loyola national championship is mentioned in the first sentence, but it's awkward because the third sentence has to repeat the information, since we're recounting his timeline and that's early in it. It might be best to cut the first sentence all the way down to "was an American professional basketball player", and let the succeeding sentences tell the story.
  • Suggest adding "He died in 1998" to the end of the lead.
  • In the lead, "When Chollet's African American heritage was revealed" is followed by a note giving the details of his paternal great-grandmother, and that note is used again in the body of the article. I don't see any reason why those details can't be brought into the body, and for the lead I'd suggest something like this: "Chollet had one black great-grandparent, and when this was revealed he was pressured into leaving Loyola. He moved to New York ..."
  • Why is note 3 in a note instead of in the body of the article? It's only marginally relevant to Chollet, but if we're going to include it at all I think it's interesting enough to be promoted to the body of the article.
  • Similarly can we incorporate notes 4 and 5 into the article? These are good quotes; no reason to bury them; and "could not influence the unfolding events" is not as effective as the quotes it summarizes.
  • "Louisiana newspapers did not openly publish their ancestry": what is meant by "openly publish"? I'm sure this isn't in contrast to clandestinely publishing their ancestry, but I don't know what is intended instead.
  • Can we get links for the BAA and NBL, and a link in the body for the Syracuse Nationals (currently only linked in the lead and infobox).
  • "Chollet was the varsity head coach from 1956 to 1960 and retired from teaching in 1985. He was an administrator for community sports programs at the Lakewood Recreation Department from 1960 to 1980": any reason this is out of chronological order? Can we mention his retirement after his work for Lakewood Recreation Department, in other words?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mike Christie, addressed in article,[9] Rjjiii (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support; fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "he became a role player" - what's a "role player"? Is there an appropriate link? I presume it doesn't mean that he played Dungeons & Dragons ;-)
  • "Chollet signed with the Syracuse Nationals" - link the Nats
  • "In the NBA, Chollet was a reserve guard tasked with facilitating" - are there appropriate links to whatever a "reserve guard" is and whatever "facilitating" is?
  • "Chollet was the varsity head coach" - what does this mean? "Varsity" would suggest to me a university, but it was a high school.....?
  • That's all I got on prose -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, ChrisTheDude! Linked the Nats. I've added "role player" to the glossary of basketball terms and added a link to this article's lead. In the body, I've tried to explain his role in the NBA with less jargon. Is that more clear? Regarding "varsity", I've specified that he was a high school varsity coach and added piped links to varsity team. In high school, it contrasts with a JV or freshman coach. Rjjiii (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

Images are well placed. Have the newspapers been checked for a copyright notice? Does the ALT text for the second image have to be this long. Source-wise, is there a reason for the inconsistent application of "via newspapers.com."? What makes Statscrew a reliable source? Newspapers seem to be inconsistently formatted, both between the "References" and "Sources" section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked the newspapers for copyright notices.
  • The alt text is longer for one image because it includes the caption from the newspaper. This makes the text in the image accessible (Example 3). To shorten it, I'd need to crop out the caption.
  • Removed "via newspapers.com".
  • I'm basing the reliability of Stats Crew on WP:USEBYOTHERS. It has been cited by a variety of reliable news sources,[10][11][12] and I don't see any doubting it. The article cites it only for the table of ABL stats, so if it doesn't meet FA standards, I can remove that two-line table.
  • For consistency, I've used similar parameters for all the newspaper sources.[13] The sources cited inline and left out of the "References" section list are all primary sources.
Thanks for checking it out, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Rjjiii (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I am questioning Stats Crew is because I don't see a clear editorial mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gotcha, I've removed the ABL stats cited to Stats Crew. It's just there as an external link now. Rjjiii (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK. Unrelated to sourcing, but ALS should be spelled out IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Done. Rjjiii (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this passes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex

[edit]
Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about volcanism of a volcanic complex in British Columbia, Canada, that has been erupting episodically for at least the last 7.4 million years. I'm renominating it for FA because there was no consensus for promotion in the last FAC, not to mention there were incomplete reviews. As I've explained in the previous FAC, the reason this article cites Souther a lot is because he's the only geologist to have studied the Mount Edziza volcanic complex in detail, not because the article isn't well-researched which is 1c of the featured article criteria. Most volcanoes in Canada are not well-studied due to their remote locations; Canada also doesn't have a lot of volcanologists.

Tagging those who were involved in the previous FAC: Arconning, Gog the Mild, Eewilson, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Volcanoguy 19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Support by JJE

[edit]

It seems like the article topic is comprehensively covered, maybe one could say something about the research history? Already checked sourcing the last time, so nothing from me to add. I presume that File:Big Raven Formation.png and the other maps weren't copied verbatim from the source? I think with ALT text for maps, we usually try to pass on the information in the map in text form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the maps weren't copied verbatim from the source. Not much to say about the research history. Volcanoguy 17:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Since I reviewed the other criteria too, I'll file an official support here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

[edit]

I hope I can find time to review this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: A review shouldn't take very long; the article text has not changed much since your pre-FAC review in April. Volcanoguy 03:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that several months ago I performed a pre-FAC reviews at Talk:Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex#Pre-FAC review. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Nido eruptions deposited 127 cubic kilometres (30 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Nido Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle" but also "The Spectrum eruptions deposited 119 cubic kilometres (29 cubic miles) of volcanic material, making the Spectrum Formation the second most voluminous geological formation of the second magmatic cycle". I don't see how both of these can be true
    Corrected. Volcanoguy 20:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, this possibility cannot be confirmed until additional age-related data are provided for The Neck" - this is to a source over 30 years old. Has any of the more modern literature addressed this possibility?
    Not that I know of. Volcanoes in northern British Columbia (which are probably the most remote in BC) can go decades without much studies. Volcanoguy 21:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, Level Mountain northwest of the MEVC has not received much geological work since Hamilton's studies in the 1980s. Volcanoguy 21:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most studies since Souther (which are relatively small) seem to have focused largely on interactions between ice and lava. Volcanoguy 21:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska" - is this Hidden Falls (Baranof Island, Alaska)?
    Yes, linked. Volcanoguy 20:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice." vs "the only recorded volcano-ice deposits of the Nido Formation occur on Idiji Ridge where molten basalt was quenched against ice and formed tuff breccia in meltwater ponds". Maybe I'm misunderstanding these things, but they don't seem to fit together well
    I've removed the second sentence to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 21:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some quick looking for sources, it seems unavoidable that Souther is used this heavily. Hog Farm Talk 19:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GeoWriter

[edit]

Lead

  • "the latter seven rock types"

Only seven rock types are listed, therefore "latter" should be removed.

Corrected; changed to six. Volcanoguy 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your change - retaining "latter" but changing "seven" to "six" is correct. GeoWriter (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "composite shield volcano consisting of multiple flat-lying lava flows forms the plateau."

How much do you want to keep the word "composite"? I think it is an unnecessary and problematic term here that could confuse readers if e.g. they have been investigating the different types of volcanic landforms. Most sources, including Wikipedia, emphasise that shield volcanoes and composite volcanoes have different features and are not the same type of volcano. Confusingly, "composite volcanoes" are usually assumed to be synonymous with stratovolcanoes; in Wikipedia "composite volcano" redirects to the stratovolcano article. This would probably raise questions in the readers' mind such as "if the Mount Edziza complex includes a composite volcano, how can that volcano be a shield volcano?" and "if the Mt Edziza complex includes a shield volcano, how can that volcano be a composite volcano?" Where will they find the answers to such questions at the moment? Not in this Mount Edziza article. I recommend that it is better to remove the term "composite" from this Mount Edziza article.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 17:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eruption rate and composition

  • "This would make the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene"

"Would" implies either it will happen in the future or it would be true if an (unspecified) condition did not apply. I suggest this should be changed to "This makes the MEVC the most active eruptive centre in Canada throughout the Holocene".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry eruptive period

  • "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not experience long periods of quiescence"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Volcanism during Raspberry time did not have long periods of quiescence"

Done. Volcanoguy 19:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the valleys and lowlands would remain filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which would later be overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Unnecessary use of some type of historical present/future tense. Past tense is much clearer and simpler. I suggest that this should be changed to "but the valleys and lowlands remained filled with thick piles of basaltic lava flows which later were overlain by the much younger Mount Edziza ..."

Done. Volcanoguy 19:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Iskut eruptive period

  • "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nido eruptive period

  • "around the parameter"

Should be changed to "around the perimeter".

Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Peak eruptive period

  • "exposing bedded tuff and debris that ponded inside a former crater lake"

I suggest that "ponded" should be changed to "accumulated" or "piled up", similar to what has been written for the Pillow Ridge debris.

Done. Volcanoguy 18:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A circular volcanic plug called The Neck formed southeast of Ice Peak on the northern side of Sorcery Ridge during this eruptive period. It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption. This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon."

Is 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the age for the older or younger part of The Neck? Is there an age available for the other part? Why is The Neck thought to be two masses of trachyte rather than two sections of a single mass with differential cooling features of a slow-cooling core and faster-cooling margins?

Source doesn't specify and 1.6 ± 0.2 million years is the only age given. Volcanoguy 18:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK about the single age, but as you did not comment on my question about whether or not The Neck is two masses versus one mass (of two differently cooled parts), I checked the relevant section in your cited source for details of The Neck. My understanding of the Neck, from the cited source, is: The Neck comprises two distinct sets of structures: (1) an outer set of concentric rings of fine-grained, foliated trachyte with well-developed centripetal horizontal columnar jointing; (2) an inner set of planar or gently curved tabular bodies of coarse-grained, unfoliated trachyte with less well-developed horizontal columnar jointing. The internal stucture suggests that the The Neck is the end result of some volcanic eruptions. The cited source does not explicitly state what was produced by any single eruption. I found no mention of the outer rings being older and the inner cores being younger, nor any mention that a specific core body is paired with any specific outer ring. My understanding of the cited source is not consistent with your sentence: "It consists of an older outer ring of fine grained trachyte and a younger inner core of coarse grained trachyte, suggesting The Neck was the source of more than one trachyte eruption." Can you clarify or explain your current wording? GeoWriter (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did some rewording. Volcanoguy 17:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised wording is OK. GeoWriter (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Ridge eruptive period

  • "may have been leftover from"

I think "leftover" as a single word is a noun or adjective e.g "to eat the leftovers from a meal" and "to eat the leftover meal". The verb is "to be left over" i.e. two words. I suggest this should be adjusted accordingly for whichever option you intended.

Done. Volcanoguy 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edziza eruptive period

  • "The lava domes were punctuated by vent-clearing explosions"

Do you really mean "punctuated", or do you mean "punctured" (pierced)?

Source uses "punctuated". I've reworded this sentence a bit maybe it makes more sense now? Volcanoguy 18:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your revised wording is fine. GeoWriter (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The trachyte erupted during this period straddles near the pantelleritic trachyte and comenditic trachyte boundary."

I've not seen the phrase "straddles near (the boundary)" in formal English. I've only seen "straddles the boundary"; "near" seems to be unnecessary - a boundary is straddled if something lies on one side and the other. "Near" seems to be already implied and "straddle" would be inappropriate if there was no nearness to the boundary.

Removed "near". Volcanoguy 20:33, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nanook Dome; lava from this dome flowed down the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes."

Can you clarify why you have used the word "and"? Did lava flow from the summit rim into the summit crater only or did lava flow from the summit rim down the exterior flanks of the mountain and also from the summit rim into the summit crater?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 18:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed the wording to "lava from this dome flowed down the exterior flanks of the stratovolcano and into the summit crater to form lava lakes". I think it would be even clearer if you tweaked "and into the summit crater" to "and also into the summit crater". GeoWriter (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively, the former of which may be the product of subglacial volcanism"

"The latter" is way to refer to the second member in a set of two members but you have used it to refer to one member (or perhaps one subset of two members) of a set of four members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome, western flank, northeastern flank) split into two subsets (domes, flanks) each of two members (Triangle Dome, Glacier Dome) and (western flank, northeastern flank). Therefore "the latter" is too ambiguous. This should be clearer/more explicit. Also, "of which" is unnecessary and should be removed.

Revised. Volcanoguy 18:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text is now "Triangle Dome and Glacier Dome formed on the western and northeastern flanks of Mount Edziza, respectively; Triangle Dome may be the product of subglacial volcanism. A trachyte flow from the latter dome travelled around the base of the older Pyramid Dome into the head of Pyramid Creek." Your change that fixed the previous point has caused the ambiguity about "the latter" to spread further along the paragraph. Your second mention of Triangle Dome now makes this the latter dome introducing what I think is an error - it implies that the flow around the base of Pyramid Dome has come from Triangle Dome, which I think is an error. I think the flow actually comes from Glacier Dome, so I suggest that you should change "the latter" to "Glacier Dome". I know it's a lot of mentions of the word "dome" but I think the clarity would be greatly helped in this case. GeoWriter (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fixed. Volcanoguy 15:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Lake eruptive period

  • "Tadekho Hill, a cinder cone 4 kilometres (2.5 miles) to the south, formed on top of a 180-metre-high (590-foot) remnant of Spectrum trachyte. Lava from Tadekho Hill spread onto the surrounding plateau surface to form a small shield volcano.

Can you clarify how lava erupted from a cinder cone can form a shield volcano?

Removed. Volcanoguy 18:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during a massive lava eruption" (at Source Hill)

Can you quantify "massive"?

I don't understand this question. Are you asking what "massive" means in this context or how "massive" the eruption was? Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Massive lava eruption" could mean either (1) a very large eruption or (2) eruption of lava that has a homogeneous texture when solidified. So, which do you mean in this case? (Most readers will assume that "massive" means "very large", hence my previous question - how big is very large?) If you mean "very large", I suggest you could reword to "during a massive eruption of lava" or "during a very large eruption of lava" to avoid any possible confusion. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "during a massive eruption of lava". The source doesn't make it clear how massive the Source Hill eruption was unfortunately. Volcanoguy 16:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Snowshoe Lava Field'

  • "massive lava flows"

Can you quantify "massive"?

No, the source doesn't quantify how "massive" the lava flows are. Volcanoguy 19:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source states "a massive effusion of basaltic lava". Therefore, I suggest that, in this case, "massive lava flows" should be changed to "very large lava flows" to avoid anyone thinking it could have the alternative rock texture meaning. GeoWriter (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 16:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kana Cone and Walkout Creek centres

  • "Several pulses of lava took place"

I suggest that this should be changed to "Several episodes of lava eruption occurred".

Done except I used "effusion" instead of "eruption"; using "eruption" twice in the same sentence doesn't sound right. Volcanoguy 19:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep Track Member

  • "Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Fission track dating has yielded an age of 950 CE ± 6,000 years for the Sheep Track pumice"

The error range is ±6000, which is ±600%. The -6000 part of that is so enormous that it makes the date expressed in this specific format a nonsensical and meaningless date in the distant future. It is not worth quoting from the cited source in this format. The error range apparently spans c. 5000 BCE to 7000 CE, which implies that the rock may not have even formed yet but it will form sometime before 7000 CE. An absurdity. Absolute dating error ranges should be meaningful, not just be numbers in an mathematical equation or in a graph. An alternative way to report the age of this particular rock unit is something along the lines of "probably 6000 to 1000 years Before Present" (source: Wilson, A.M. and Kelman, M.C. (2021) "Assessing the relative threats from Canadian volcanoes", Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790, https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/ (spreadsheet appendix, table A1, row 307, Sheep Track Pumice (Member)) ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/of_8790.pdf ; https://emrlibrary.gov.yk.ca/gsc/open_files/8790/tables_A1-A2_1-4%20FINAL_Jan%204%202021.xlsx).

What if I reworded it to "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted around 950 CE."? Volcanoguy 20:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could put more emphasis on the uncertainty of the dating, with phrasing along the lines of "Fission track dating indicates the Sheep Track pumice was erupted in the last 7000 years, most likely around 950 CE." GeoWriter (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Volcanoguy 19:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples

  • "Obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska is dated to 10,000 years old; this suggests that the MEVC was being exploited as an obsidian source soon after ice sheets of the Last Glacial Period retreated."

Please clarify, because these two sentences seem to be a non sequitur - the conclusion in the second sentence does not seem to logically follow from the evidence in the first sentence.

If "10,000 years old" refers only to the age of the obsidian's eruption (and not when part of the obsidian fragment was exposed to sunglight/air as a result of tooling by people - see: obsidian hydration dating), then I think its age suggests nothing about how soon after its eruption it was exploited.

"10,000 years old" refers to an obsidian hydration date. Volcanoguy 20:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added the hydration dating method to the article's text. Fine. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Note f - "Volcaniclastic rocks are broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Volcaniclastic rocks are not clasts, they are rocks consisting of clasts. I suggest changing to "Volcaniclastic rocks are rocks composed of broken fragments (clasts) of volcanic rock."

Done. Volcanoguy 18:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— GeoWriter (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GeoWriter: I've responded to all of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My responses to unresolved points are at each of the relevant subsections of my previous comments. GeoWriter (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceranthor

[edit]
Lead
  • "The Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada, has a long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years" - Why not keep it simple and rephrase as "Volcanism in the MEVC in BC, Canada spans more than 7 million years?
    There's nothing wrong with the current wording, not to mention your proposed rewording doesn't make it clear what MEVC and BC mean; see WP:ACRONYM. Volcanoguy 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to literally do the acronyms, but rather than full version. And I think the current phrasing is rather tautological, no ("long history of volcanism that spans more than 7 million years")? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed "long" from this sentence if that solves anything. If the sentence were to be reworded to "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex (MEVC) in British Columbia, Canada spans more than 7 million years", "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex" would have bold text since it's the title of the article and then "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" won't be able to be linked per MOS:BOLDLINK since it is the only sentence in the introduction where it's spelled out. I think "Mount Edziza volcanic complex" should be linked in the introduction since this article is covering volcanism of that complex. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I can't start off with the title of the article because according to MOS:BOLDLINK links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead. Volcanoguy 20:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It occurred during five cycles of magmatic activity, each producing less volcanic material than the previous one" - rephrase as "It included five cycles"; occurred is awkward here to my ear
    Magmatic activity isn't limited to volcanism which is only the surface expression of magmatism. Volcanoguy 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but the suggestion was related to the word choice, "occurred." ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "It has taken place during five cycles" if that solves anything. To say the volcanism "included" five cycles of magmatic activity isn't really correct since volcanic activity is only the surface expression of magmatic activity. Volcanoguy 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The approximately 1,000-square-kilometre (400-square-mile) volcanic plateau forming the base of the MEVC owes its origin" - would rephrase as a little informal; maybe better as "originated from the successive eruptions"
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fifth magmatic cycle began at least 20,000 years ago and may be continuing to the present;" - better as "may be ongoing"
    Done. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "This volcanic province is the most volcanically active area in Canada, having experienced at least three eruptions in the last 500 years" - wordy; what about "undergoing at least three eruptions" or just "with at least three eruptions"?
    The only word I swapped was "experienced" with "undergone"; past tense here since the eruptions occurred in the past. Volcanoguy 18:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption rate and composition
  • Looks solid.
Magmatic cycles
  • " Lost Peak consists of volcanic ejecta that was deposited in both subaerial and subaqueous environments; the subaqueous material was deposited in a lake that may have ponded between the erupting volcano and a lobe of glacial ice" - Not familiar with the word ponded
    Changed to "formed". Volcanoguy 19:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This roughly 300-metre (980-foot) in diameter volcanic conduit has a potassium–argon date of 1.6 ± 0.2 million years which may be due to excess argon.[95][99]" - -in-diameter should be hyphenated, but I think this would flow better if reworded to "The volcanic conduit, roughly 300 meters in diameter, has a potassium-argon date...
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the cause of this variation in thickness may have been due to changes in viscosity as volcanic gases escaped the erupting magma.[22]" - Can cut out "the cause of"
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pyroclastic rocks erupted during Kakiddi time are exposed on the eastern flank of Mount Edziza; they are in the form of scoria and blocky explosion breccia.[111]" - for more active voice, how about "taking the form of ..."
    Done. Volcanoguy 18:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Klastline River was forced to establish a new route" - Not sure I like the diction here as it makes it seem like the river has agency. Suggest rephrasing
    Rephrase it to what? Volcanoguy 18:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about "The dam formed a new route for the Klastline River along the northern valley wall where it still flows to this day"? ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Volcanoguy 19:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two sections look fine.

Will likely support once these comments are addressed. Well-written, comprehensive article. ceranthor 00:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Replies? Volcanoguy 19:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied. ceranthor 01:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: Replied to your last two comments. Volcanoguy 19:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thanks for addressing my minor comments. ceranthor 01:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eewilson – source review

[edit]

I have compared the sources to see if there were any changes since the last review, and they were minimal. I did the majority of the source review in July. All of the issues I found were resolved then, so everything from my previous source review still stands. Good job. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Kraken

[edit]
Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Seattle Kraken are a team that competes in the National Hockey League. They are the league's newest team, having been founded in 2018 and playing their first game in 2021. I think this article meets the FA criteria. Also, mind that this is my first FA nomination; I've done some FL nominations before, but nothing like this. Nevertheless, feel free to give a review. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments the statement that ""Kraken" was a name that was already popular with fans prior to its official adoption" is cited to a spammy promotional article on the NHL website. If this is a reliable source, which I doubt, it would be better to say that the name was chosen as it rated best through market testing or similar. Independent sourcing would be much superior. The para starting with "Buoy, since his introduction, has been in a feud with Bissonnette" is also written in-universe, and oddly presents the mascot as being an actual person rather than a PR thing. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I have made the changes. I deleted the part about the Kraken being a popular name before announcement, and I edited the paragraph about Buoy and Bissonnette. XR228 (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
Lead
  • There should not normally be citations in the lead, as everything in the lead should also be in the body and cited there. On that note, most of the stuff in the second paragraph is not mentioned anywhere in the body. Nothing should be only in the lead, so you need to find a way to work that into the body. The lead is also quite short and could summarise more of the article - it doesn't contain anything about team identity, for example.
Establishment (2017–2021)
  • Literally every paragraph starts "On [date]". Find a way to vary the language. The paragraphs are also incredibly short (two are just a single sentence) so they should be merged into a smaller number of longer paragraphs.
  • NHL should be written out in full on the first usage with the abbreviation in brackets (in the body as well as the lead)
  • Seattle should be linked on first usage in the body
  • "from their respective teams (Edmonton, Dallas, and Florida, respectively.)" - that full stop should be outside the brackets
  • "On July 23, The first round" - T on the should not be capitalised mid-sentence
  • More to follow....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I have made the changes for the establishment section. XR228 (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have literally every paragraph in that section starting with "On [date]". There must be a way to vary this a bit.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First seasons (2021–present)
  • "the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg, Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer." => the Kraken signed forwards Alexander Wennberg and Jaden Schwartz, and goaltender Philipp Grubauer.
  • In the first paragraph you have four consecutive sentences all starting "The Kraken". Try and rewrite to avoid this. You could use "the team", "the franchise", etc.....
  • "Jones led the Kraken through an 8-game win streak" => "Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak"
  • "to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champions." - in the lead you used "Stanley Cup champion" (singular). Which is correct in US English?
Arena
  • "Amazon bought the naming rights to Climate Pledge Arena" - they can't have done, as it wasn't called that at the time
  • "Vince Dunn scored the first-ever Kraken goal in the arena's history" => "Vince Dunn scored the first Kraken goal in the arena's history"
  • "The Kraken's first-ever shutout win at home" => "The Kraken's first shutout win at home"
Logos and uniforms

HF

[edit]

Will review. Hog Farm Talk 22:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The only time the Kraken qualified for the Stanley Cup playoffs was in 2023." - I would go with "have qualified"; the past tense is weird for a team that is still active
  • "voted 7–1 to approve a memorandum of understanding between the city of Seattle and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group," is the article text; the source text is " voted 7-1 to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the city and the Los Angeles-based Oak View Group", this is close paraphrasing
  • "he led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals, with 10" in article vs "led first-time draft-eligible NCAA players in goals" in source. Yes, there's limited ways to rephrase this, but it's better to at least make some changes rather than go with the direct source wording in places like this
  • "Beniers scored 24 points in 24 games during the previous season" - this needs some sort of link or explanation to indicate to non-hockey fans what a point is in hockey
  • "Grubauer had been considered one of the top names on the market prior to the beginning of free agency" - considered by whom? Does the source indicate that this is a consensus view, or is attribution to the source of this opinion needed?
  • "in what would be a 4–2 loss to the Pacific Northwest rival Vancouver Canucks" - is it really appropriate to call this a rivalry? The source mainly seems to be talking about how this was expected to become a rivalry in the future. How can a team really have a rivalry early on in its first season?
  • "Philipp Grubauer recorded the franchise's first shutout, making 19 saves in a 3–0 victory against the New York Islanders" - first, when was this, and second, I think there needs to be some sort of link for saves in here for non-hockey fans
  • "in last place of the Pacific Division with a 27–49–6 record and 60 points" - and because "points" here means something different than when discussing the player's 24 points in 24 games earlier, this also needs some sort of explanation
  • "In early January, Jones led the Kraken through an eight-game win streak. While doing, so the franchise became the first team to win all seven games of a seven-game road trip" - the source doesn't seem to be pointing out Jones' leadership or performance in this win streak
  • "and the first wild card spot in the Western Conference" - link for Western Conference and wild card?
  • "On April 30, the Kraken defeated the Colorado Avalanche in the opening round, becoming the first expansion team in NHL history to win their first playoff series against the defending Stanley Cup champion" - so this sounds like they won a single wild card game, while the use of the term "series" leaves open the possibility that this is a multi-game series. Can it be stated directly if this is a single wild card game?
  • "The Kraken finished their season with a 34–35–13 record and 81 points" - where does this standing finish within the conference?
  • "The arena, at Seattle Center, is a $600 million redevelopment of the former KeyArena" - the $600 million is a planned figure, our article at Climate Pledge Arena states that the final cost was $1.15 billion, see also this Seattle Times headline I can't access
  • "The team plays the Nirvana song "Lithium" after every Kraken goal at home" - is this still a thing? The source is from less than two weeks after the team's first season (I know Nirvana had connections to the Seattle area, but that seems like a very odd celebratory song choice)
  • "Bell, Demetrius (July 23, 2020). "Seattle Releases The 'Kraken' Nickname, Logos And Colors Ahead Of 2021–22 NHL Debut". Forbes. Retrieved March 23, 2024." - this is a Forbes contributor piece, which is not a reliable source. See WP:FORBESCON
  • "he uniform was officially unveiled on November 22, 2023, but was leaked four days earlier when players from the National Basketball Association's Utah Jazz walked into their home arena wearing it" - we can't source something happening on November 22 to a source from November 18
  • "the Kraken promoted a "team dog" named Davy Jones. " - why the link to the Pirate of the Caribbean character? The source doesn't mention the Pirates of the Caribbean at all that I can find, and the Davy Jones concept is much older than those movies - see Davy Jones' locker
  • "forward and Everett Silvertips commentator Al Kinisky to replace him" - link Everett Silvertips
  • "For radio, Kraken games are broadcast on KJR-FM 93.3 and KJR 950 AM, the flagship stations of the Kraken Audio Network. During a schedule conflict, some games may be heard on 96.5 KJAQ." - why is this information in the TV section when there is a radio section, where the same stuff is also stated?
  • I think some sort of explanation is needed for the structure of the NHL minor leagues. Otherwise, it is a bit confusing for the reader to read about AHL and ECHL affiliates. I also find it very confusing to read about the team sharing a minor leage affiliate when my main sports fandom is MLB, where such a minor league affiliate sharing would not be possible
  • I don't know that all these non-notable people need listed for the minority ownership. There's often quite a few minority owners for sports teams like that and I don't know that this is due detail (I know as a Kansas City Royals fan that the team has a whole bunch of minority owners)
  • " Morse, Dan (August 16, 2022). "Alison Lukan & Nick Olczyk to join Kraken broadcast team this season". Davy Jones' Locker Room. Archived from the original on February 6, 2023. Retrieved August 27, 2022." - the SBNation team-centric blogs generally have much lower editorial standards than the main site. What makes this blog a high-quality reliable source?

I think that's it for my first round of comments; due to some of the concerns above I don't plan on entering into a support or oppose declaration until after a source review addressing spot-checks and source reliability. Hog Farm Talk 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I have made the changes. Also, this morning, the Kraken announced something called the Kraken Hockey Network, so info about that has been added to the broadcast section. XR228 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at this once it passes its source review. Hog Farm Talk 22:27, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it is likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 KNVB Cup final

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 May 2015, one of the best days of my life. My favourite (local) football club winning something for the first (and thus far, only) time. Travelling down to Rotterdam with several family members, seeing people on viaducts waving and cheering on the passing buses with us fans (even ca. 100 km down the route), and the incredible (but tense) atmosphere in the stadium, is something I won't forget. There's one image in the article, which is not mine, as the few pictures I took were all a bit blurry ;) I've used online and newspaper articles to try and give a comprehensive (and of course unbiased) view. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Image review

Comments

[edit]
  • "Groningen reached the final of the competition once before" => "Groningen had reached the final of the competition once before"
  • "PEC Zwolle began, as a professional side and defending KNVB Cup champions, their campaign" => "As a professional side, defending KNVB Cup champions PEC Zwolle began their campaign"
  • "In the last minutes of the match" - I think "In the closing minutes of the match" works better
  • "VVV equalised, but the goal was disallowed" - if it was disallowed then they didn't equalise. I suggest "VVV appeared to have equalised, but the goal was disallowed"
  • "it was the sixth time it happened since 1956" => "it was only the sixth time it had happened since 1956"
  • "It was the seventh time both sides met" => "It was the seventh time the two sides met"
  • "Groningen also entered the 2014–15 KNVB Cup in the second round" would suffice, I think
  • "found the back of the Vitesse net in the rebound" => "found the back of the Vitesse net on the rebound"
  • "showed his squad video messages of their family members before the match" => "showed his squad video messages from their family members before the match"
  • "Jans was hailed as a "motivator"" => "he was hailed as a "motivator"" (avoids repetition of his name)
  • "Groningen were already 1–0 down after two minutes when Romário scored, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history" - this is slightly confusing as a standalone sentence. I suggest joining it to the previous sentence as "reached the final once before when they lost 4–1 to PSV in 1989;[25] PSV's Romário scored after two minutes, the fastest goal in KNVB Cup final history"
  • "played each other once in the Eredivisie during the season, with Zwolle winning 2–0 at home" - is the league not a double round-robin? Why did they only play each other once?
  • Jans image caption needs a full stop
  • "but played since 2012 for PEC" => "but had played for PEC since 2012"
  • "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that they claimed the club's first major honour" => "Van de Looi was pleased for the fans that the team had claimed the club's first major honour" (avoids the suggestion that it was the fans who had claimed it)
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; let me know if you disagree with any of the changes I made.

  • "stated that Van de Looi mainly formed his plans on the quality of his players": a bit vague; can we be clearer about what Van de Looi meant by this?
  • "RTV Noord stated that Groningen were more nervous than PEC; several minutes later Groningen grew into the game". Suggest "Early in the game the RTV Noord coverage suggested that Groningen seemed more nervous than PEC". I don't think the second half of the sentence is worth keeping; this is a live blog, not a post-match analysis, and "grew into the game" is vague.
  • "Antonia reached Juninho Bacuna, but he misjudged the ball": "reached"? What is this saying?

That's all I have. It's hard to get this sort of article to flow smoothly, with engaging prose, but I think this gets there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you very much, Mike. The copyedit definitely is an improvement, IMO. I also tried to reword/clarify the three sentences mentioned here. I sometimes found it hard to find the right English words for some Dutch text in the references, but I'm glad it gets there:) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good; support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't reached a consensus to promote. I'm adding it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs - I understand this nom still needs a source review and probably another content review, but with 2 supports and 0 opposes, it is closer to a promotion than to being archived, right? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav torpedo boat T6

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T6 was a dinky little steam-driven torpedo boat that started life as an Austro-Hungarian vessel. She saw extensive service in the Adriatic Sea in the latter stages of WWI, performing convoy, escort, patrol and minesweeping tasks, and anti-submarine operations. After WWI she was taken over by the new South Slav state, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – which was renamed Yugoslavia in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, and despite her age the Italians put her to good use on coastal and second-line escort duties in the Adriatic. When the Italians capitulated in September 1943, her crew tried to reach an Allied port, but scuttled her when this proved impossible. This article is part of the 36-article Featured topic, Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, that I am slowing improving to the point where every article and list is Featured (I'm about two-thirds of the way there). Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Yugoslav torpedo boat T3.jpg - a reprint of the source just credits the image to "Photo, Official" - could you please explain where the indication is that this is a British official photo, rather than a Yugoslav one?

The answer to this is with reference to the captions of photographs of RN ships in the same book, which have exactly the same annotation, "Photo, Official", whereas French ships for example, have "French Navy, Official" (see page 139 for an example of the latter). I consider it is entirely reasonable to assume that because it does not say "Yugoslav Navy, Official", but uses the same annotation as RN vessels, that it was taken by a RN source (probably the naval attache, or by a RN ship on a show the flag visit). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the caption doesn't quite work right now - it's technically unsourced since the distinction is never made in this article that T-3 was of the T type instead of the F type. The same source this image is from does include a photo of one of the two-funnel models of these torpedo boats, but it's of much lower quality so I can understand why it is not used. Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is necessary to cite the fact that T3 was a T-group boat as it is very unlikely to be challenged. I could add it and a citation to the caption if you think it is necessary, but it seems like overkill to me. An explanation of the distinction is made per "The F-group had two funnels rather than the single funnel of the T-group" under Description and construction. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Hog Farm. See what you think of my responses above. Thanks so much for having a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - passing on the image review. Hog Farm Talk 13:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

Solid article. Paragraphs and sentences occasionally need splitting, and I have some thoughts on commas. Ping me when all of this is handled. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • she was armed with two 66 mm (2.6 in) guns and four 450 mm (17.7 in) torpedo tubes, and could carry 10–12 naval mines One subject: "she". Remove the comma. WP:CINS
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • Would a paragraph split be useful?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In such circumstances, there would be a need for a torpedo boat that could sail from the Austro-Hungarian Navy (German: kaiserliche und königliche Kriegsmarine, Hungarian: Császári és Királyi Haditengerészet) base at the Bocche di Cattaro (the Bocche or Bay of Kotor) to the strait during the night, locate and attack blockading ships and return to port before morning. Consider converting the translation note to a footnote to improve readability in this complex sentence.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as diesels with the necessary power were not available, and the Austro-Hungarian Navy did not have the practical experience to run turbo-electric boats Remove comma as this is part of one clause.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Description and construction:

  • The 250t-class F-group boats had short raised forecastles and an open bridge, and were fast and agile Remove comma CinS
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd recommend splitting the first paragraph unless it is like this in other articles of the FT.
Good point, it has become larger over time as more material has become available, and is now a bit unwieldy. I have reorganised it a bit, then split it. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the forward gun mounted on the forecastle, and the aft gun on the quarterdeck Remove comma
  • with one pair mounted between the forecastle and bridge, and the other aft of the mainmast Remove comma
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 93 F was laid down on 9 January 1915, launched on 25 November, and commissioned on 4 April 1916 Remove comma after 25 November to be consistent with this article's non-use of serial comma. (There is one serial comma later that is fine because of the complexity of the phrase)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career:

  • The original concept of operation for the 250t-class boats was that they would sail in a flotilla at the rear of a cruising battle formation, and were to intervene Remove comma
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 29 October she underwent Comma after "29 October" for consistency with the other date prepositional clauses in this paragraph
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In June, 93, along with 96, and Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit were try the comma order In June, 93, along with 96 as well as Csikós and her sister ships Wildfang and Velebit, were
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • During 1917, 93 conducted further minesweeping missions, and escorted 36 convoys. Remove comma before "and" (CinS). Think of it this way. Is the part after the conjunction a standalone sentence conceivably? Not "Escorted 36 convoys.".
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of Pag, but had to terminate Remove comma.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 20 August, 93 was transferred to the Bocche, and was part of the 1st Torpedo Flotilla Remove comma (CinS)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96, and the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok try On 29 September, 93 along with 82, 87 and 96 plus the Ersatz Triglav-class destroyers Lika, Dukla and Uzsok,
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the end of the war approached in November and the Austro-Hungarian Empire broke apart, on 1 November 93 was ceded to the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs Restructure so "1 November 93" is not stuck together and could be mistaken for a date. Splitting the description of the SSCS into its own sentence ("This was...") will help.
I think I have addressed this, perhaps not exactly as you envisaged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skradin where the population begged them to leave the harbour to avoid the town being bombed by the Italians. Add comma after Skradin for readability
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor, and the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident, where T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired and she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik. Split this sentence: In response, Kern ordered T6 to escort Perun to the Bay of Kotor; the two vessels arrived there the next day without incident. There, T6's malfunctioning gun was repaired; she was loaded with weapons, supplies and extra men and sent to Šibenik.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Axis puppet fascist state, the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) try the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), an Axis puppet fascist state
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • T6's commander, a Slovene, was not interested in serving in a Croatian navy, and abandoned Remove comma after "navy" CinS
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • join NDH navy missing "the"
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sammi Brie, all done I reckon. See what you think? Thanks for taking a look, apologies for the delay in addressing your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pendright

[edit]

Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, my comments:

  • Why have we not linked to the Skoda 7 cm gun article in the lead when we have linked to it in the infobox?
Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Schwarzlose M.7/12 machine gun carried for anti-aircraft work": prefix "carried" with "was" for grammatical accuracy?
Wow, not sure how that got through previous reviews... Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the WWI subsection, "the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel" is too long, just "Freivogel" may bw enough since he was introduced just two paragraphs ago.
Ah yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Brijuni islands?
It is already piped to the Fasana Channel, but no harm in linking directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Strojne Tovarne (Iskra)?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly did the ship make a good impression in Malta? Was it the sailors' conduct, the ship's power or something else?
  • Link to Zablaće (Šabac) or Zablaće (Čačak), whichever one the source is referring to?
  • "so took the": "so he took the"?
  • "join NDH navy": "join the NDH navy"?
  • In the biblio, link to Norman Friedman and Velimir Terzić?
  • Add 44888337 as the JSTOR ID for Vego 1982?
  • As an aside, would you be ok with adding DOIs for the books? These enable easier access than ISBNs and I faintly recall that there is an MOS on providing as many access options as possible. If you do wish to, then Djukanović 2023 and Ramet 2006 do have DOIs available.

That's all from me, will do a source review soon. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a single support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's most likely going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Wong

[edit]
Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress.

The article has undergone a lot of changes due to the reviewers at the 2nd peer review. It received several reviews from Aoba47, PanagiotisZois, Panini!, and Crisco 1492 (thanks for their help). Because of it, I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria. Thank you! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:37, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panagiotis Zois

[edit]

Given my involvement with heavily rewriting the content of the "Reception" section, could I even take part in this FAC? I feel like a "conflict-of-interest" situation might arise.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I don't think thats a problem in fact some reviewers wants to assist nominators more in a different way so that they can easily resolve any issues. Additionally, you were also not the author. Just in case you don't want to continue the review, you can strike it out. Thanks! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I wanted to ask is about the "Reception" section. The part about the Dragon Lady trope is interesting, but as it stands, only two sources are used. Are there at least one-two more sources discussing this trope that could be added? PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PanagiotisZois. No, I went throughout and couldn't find more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 09:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate, but understandable. All right. I've gone over the whole article again. It look really good. There are a few things I would like see changed, but that's more of personal taste, and not something that is required to make the article better. Taking this into account, I support this article's promotion. Always nice to see articles of female character get more love and attention. PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Will review this again. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 43 missing page(s).
Hi Vacant0. I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot; and as usual almost the entire book pages mentions Ada (same with the usage of that sources from Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see any particular issues with references and their reliability. Valnet sources are used, though TheGamer is now considered reliable.
I only used two TheGamer, but it is marked reliable unlike the content before. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • First ref in the Ref 46 is still confusing me. Do you have an issue number or ISSN of the comic book?
Not at all. I ended up removing the Chinese comic book source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked:

  • In Resident Evil series: Ref 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 25 (only mentions "Also, completion of Separate Ways will further flesh out new information files which get added to "Ada's Report."")
Nice caught! I Ended up removing the claim of ref 25 because I cannot support the claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other appearances: Ref 31, 33, 39, 47
  • Concept and design: Ref 49, 54, 56, 58, 62
  • Voice-over and live-action actresses: Ref 4, 12
  • Reception: Ref 8, 66, 75, 76

I'll take another look at the prose by the end of the week and will then decide my vote. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Take your time 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • Just a quick question - I'll have another read later, as this has changed a lot since the peer review. Does Jennings offer any arguments for why Ada "demonstrate[s] the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze?" The next line, that Jennings criticized the game's whitewashing of her heritage, suggests to me that Jennings was arguing that Ada's representation as both a woman and as a person of Asian descent brought more potential agency to the character. Why, though? Is this worth a footnote, or even just a bit of a more explicit clause explaining her argument?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich I expanded a bit [14], and yeah she mentioned about her representation as a woman. I hope this is fine for you as a non-native English speaker. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)<[reply]
Lede
  • Worth mentioning in the lede that Lily Gao has reprised the role in the most recent release?
I'm not sure if this is needed as this may be potentially being removed by my co-nom, but I added it [15] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances
  • After the restructuring, it's not clear who Alice is on first mention.
Added [16] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the "costume" as an "alternate skin" [17]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concept and design
Hmmm, not sure how since Kadoi said he "randomly thought her name without much thought" in the first Resident Evil. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Separate Ways" is mentioned three times in three sentences. Any chance of reworking this to avoid the repetition?
Honestly, I prefer to repeat than to say DLC imor minigame because it confuses readers. In the original RE4, it is a minigame; but in the remake it is now DLC. Or you got any suggestion? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • For the feminist critiques of the character, I was wondering if there is any consideration of the deuteragonist in Ada's chapter in Resident Evil 6 vis-a-vis Ada herself. She has a name, a face, and a known story, whereas the faceless male-coded deuteragonist in her chapter is there simply to ensure that the game's co-play mechanics are available (he isn't even H.U.N.K.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Woodrich You mean if I can find more reception about her appearance in RE6? Nope. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, based on the peer review and review here. This appears to be a thorough review of the sources available, and it feels accessible to the average reader (though as someone who has played the games since release, and whose first edits were RElated, I might not be the best judge of that) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]

I will do a thorough read-through of the article later in the week. I have a few quick comments for now.

  • I would avoid repeating "video game" in the following sentence as it does make the prose unnecessarily repetitive: (Video game publications have positively responded to Ada as a video game character.)
  • I would move the Resident Evil 4 link up to this part, (a remake of the original game), as that is the first time that the game is mentioned. I would also include the year up there as well.
  • The source links for File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg are both dead (at least for me). Both links go to blank images for me.

Please ping me in a week if I have not posted anything further. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this part, (the character that would later become Ada was initially depicted as Linda), could be condensed to something like (Ada was initially depicted as Linda) to be more concise.
    Thank you for your comments! The reason I phrased this sentence the way that I did is because the final version of Ada that debuted in RE2 is an amalgamation of two prototypical characters that (initially) had no relation whatsoever: John Clemens girlfriend "Ada", who was only mentioned by name in RE1; and the Umbrella researcher Linda. Writer Noboru Sugimura ultimately gave Linda's role as Leon's supporting character to Ada in the final build, so Ada and Linda were never the same characters at all. I therefore feel that it is more appropriate to say that the (prototypical) character that was (eventually) transformed into Ada was initially depicted as Linda. I hope I'm adequately getting my meaning across, and I would be more than happy to discuss this further. :)JokEobard (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (After the prototype was scrapped), I would avoid the word "scrapped" as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
  • I do not think the director link is needed for (director Hideki Kamiya) as it does create an instead of a WP:SEAOFBLUE.
  • This could be a matter of personal preference, but I would revise this sentence, (Ada's appearance was designed by artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama), to a more active tense: (i.e. Artists Isao Ohishi and Ryoji Shimogama designed Ada's appearance.)
  • I would better attribute the quote in this sentence: (Recognizing Ada's minimal role in the main campaign and her being a "very strong character" that "deserves to really stand out" in Resident Evil 4, Capcom developed a short campaign dedicated to her.) The sentence attributes it to Capcom in general, but the source makes it clear that it is from Masachika Kawata.
  • I have two comments on this part, (who helps protagonist Ethan Winters, such as helping him escape one of his trials early in the game). I would avoid repeating helps / helping in the same sentence as it is too repetitive. Also, is there a better and clearer descriptor for Ethan Winters? It would be helpful to give readers a better understanding of who this character is in the game itself.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I hope that this is helpful and let me know if you have any questions. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoba47. It seems like all of them are already resolved by @JokEobard (Thanks to him). Though, I don't know what's the best descriptor for Ethan Winters. Replacing "protagonist" into "civilian" seems kinda odd for you or not? Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I am likely just over-thinking it. "Protagonist" is likely the best word choice as it would clearly let readers know that Ethan is the primary character from that game. I agree that "civilian" would not really work in this instance, and after looking through the article about him, I could not really come up with a better word choice so I believe your current version is the best in regards to this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to use a more specific descriptor for Jenny Platz other than "critic". I would say that even something like "scholar" is more precise, but that is already used for Andrei Nae later in the same paragraph. I just think that the "critic" word choice is a bit too broad for this instance, and it is already used three times in close proximity to one another as well.
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "femme fatale" gets repeated quite a bit at the end of the first paragraph and for the second paragraph as well. I would see if there are ways to avoid such repetition if possible.
  • I think that the prose for the Andrei Nae parts could use some further revision. It has some great information and I find it very interesting, but I think that it could flow better overall. Let me know if further clarification is needed for this. One suggestion is that I do not think this part, (Concerning Ada's portrayal as a femme fatale), is really needed. I do understand how it is being used as a transition and to make things flow better, but it does feel a bit repetitious as the previous sentence already makes it clear that the discussion will be on Ada's role as a femme fatale and the subsequent reviews about it.
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that when discussing the critic's opinions, the past tense should be used. This is pretty consistent throughout the "Reception" section, but I would revise this part, (scholar Andrei Nae notes), to be in the past tense and to double-check this section in case there are other instances of this that I missed.
  • I am not sure if "appeal" is the right word choice for this part, (makes her accentuated sexuality as a femme fatale appeal to Orientalist clichés of East-Asian erotic femininity). Maybe something like "conform to Orientalist clichés" or "continue Orientalist clichés". Neither of my suggestions are particularly good either, but I did keep coming back to this part as I am not sure you can really appeal to cliches. I am also not sure if femininity really needs a link here. I would think one for East Asian would be best. Also should that be hyphenated? It is not done for the Wikipedia article, but I am honestly the worst when it comes to this.
Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that you remove the stereotypical link as most readers would be familiar with this concept and it would avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE as it is next to "Dragon Lady", which is a more beneficial link.
Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would give some sort of descriptor for Stephanie Jennings to provide some background and context for readers.
Added, but not sure if this is the best descriptor for her after checking here [19]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that is better than nothing. It can be difficult to find a good descriptor for this if the person does not have a clear focus in their overall research. It should be fine in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the following sentence: (Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters, she opined, demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit without exploration of the character's racial identity.) The placement of "she opined" in the middle does not seem particularly beneficial for readers. I would also avoid "opined" in general, but that could be a matter of personal preference. I do not have any strong opinions about it, but I believe that I have seen it discussed in other FACs. That being said, I think the sentence structure is more of my issue here.
Already restructured by other editor. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the criticism for Lily Gao's vocal performance be mentioned in the lead as it has a separate paragraph in this section? It is a shame to hear that Gao got this kind of harassment in general.
Added 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would clarify that Gao was the one that received the criticism, not the character itself. It may also be worth briefly noting the review bombing as well to provide that additional context for readers. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope that is helpful. I have really enjoyed reading through this article. Ada has always been a character from RE that stood out to me the most so it was nice to finally learn more about her. I am a huge fan of spies in general. It would have been cool to see a RE game lean more into the spy stuff with Ada as a lead, but I doubt most people would want that lol. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd play the ever-loving... out of an Ada-centric game. On topic, as I had proposed the sentences summarizing Jennings' arguments, I've rephrased the last one to "She suggested that Ada's presence as one of the series' few multiracial characters demonstrates the intersectional potential of the feminine gaze, albeit undermined by the limited exploration of the character's racial identity."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for being sincere. This character as a spy is my favorite thing to the franchise. I'm glad Aoba enjoyed reading it. I am attempting to work on it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I am not the only one who would want an Ada-centric game lol. I just love spies in general, and I cannot really think of anything zombie-related taking that kind of angle. The rephrase looks great to me. Thank you for being patient and understanding with my comments. I have a minor comment on the citations. I have been told in past FACs to be consistent with whether or not citation titles use title case or not. I am mostly raising it to your attention, and it would not affect my review as it is more so focused on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment and yeah thanks to Chris Woodrich for rephrasing it. I already did italized the game or film titles before and I am not sure if there are still other citations that have been overlooked or you mean this type of capitalization [20]? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing how words in the citation titles are capitalized. See MOS:TITLECAPS. I do not believe that it is required, but I will leave that up to the source reviewer. Again, this is just something that I wanted to raise to your attention and it is not a requirement for my review. I will read through the article later in the weekend. I do not imagine that I will find anything major, but I want to make sure to be thorough. Aoba47 (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will attempt to go through all the citation titles on what is needed to change. Thanks a lot for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination. I was debating on asking if the "a mysterious masked figure" description for Ada's planned appearance in Resident Evil Village should be more specific and mention the plague doctor element, but it may be getting too specific for something that was ultimately cut. Otherwise, everything looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review (with two notes about completeness)

[edit]

File:Early concept art of Ada.jpg has the problem that it seems to illustrate a part of the article subject more than the whole, and thus doesn't meet the "significantly" part of WP:NFCC#8. Otherwise the image placement and stuff is fine. Source-wise: Are these Twitter accounts and Terasaki, Kimberly associated with the franchise? #58 and the sources under #70 throw an error message that must be suppressed. The bibliography seems reliable, while the rest of the sourcing is conditional, so to speak, on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One thing that jumps out to me is that we don't have much description of her appearance, even though there are one or two paragraphs discussing the reception of her appearance. Also, the games themselves aren't cited as sources anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jojo. Just a comment about the FU image. I proposed it at the peer review because the 1.5 concept art and the art for the model ultimately used shows some shifts in the character from "Linda" to "Ada". The left image shows the researcher design, including an Umbrella logo on the jacket, while the right image shows her in the design that was ultimately used. A similar comparison FU image is used at Jill Valentine, though in that case the image highlights a particular outfit rather than two iterations of the character.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus The two twitter sources are associated to the franchise like Vicky voiced her in DBD, while the terasaki source supports the claim that Sally Cahill vliced RE2, RE4 and RE Dark Chronicles. I don't understand why the sources at #58 and #70 are error to you since it was sourced fine; I don't know what needs to "suppressed" with that (You need to clarify what it is since other editors didn't spot any error at those sources at all). Also, there's nothing more that can be found to add about her description and most of it are now already at the "appearances section" and there are some games are cited like who designed her appearance. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warning at 58 and 70. My question about the Twitter sources was more what makes them reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" at us from our POV? (I also asked my conom if he saw the "error" or "harv warning", but nope) Also, the Twitter sources came from the voice actors themselves (Other FA also uses that kind of tweet as a source), so I will say that they're fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 07:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it's a function on which userscripts one has. I also note that archiving Google Books links is pointless. Did some spotchecking, nothing jumped out to me but I must stress that I don't have much confidence in my assessments of the reliability of typical video game sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When I use the sources, I did make sure to check it first at WP:VG/RS before using it. I will say all of them are reliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they high-quality, though? That's a bit of a tougher question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Yes. I did not include any inconclusive sources. The 2 sources of TheGamer are the only ones that may be controversial cause its Valnet, but it says "News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable." + that sources were also used in the recent promoted article Raichu. So, it will be fine. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check
[edit]

Reviewing this version: * 4 Do the games and commentary name Taylor as the voice actor?

Yes 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.
ref 10 supports the first sentence, while 42 at the second sentence. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this was removed wholesale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 OK
  • 12 Seems redundant to 11
Removed it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)
Still there, seems like. Also "portrayed Ada in the live-action film" appears twice, perhaps it can be reworded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus reworded, and the current source for ref 12 os different now and the Complex source was already removed. The current source for ref 12 supports the voice being dubbed in Japanese, aswell as the promoting thing from Li. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 I am not sure which part of 17 or 20 supports this.
17 supports everything, while I did replaced the source 20 into Digital trend to support the claim where Wesker sent Ada to steal the virus. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Los Iluminados" doesn't appear anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus ehh, it is mentioned in the ref 17. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet you ctrl + f it, but in their website they double spelled the "L", which it was written as "Los Illuminados". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* 24 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.

I will say this source definitely support the claim and was spotchecked by Vacant before web.archive.org was taken down. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 30 OK
  • 31 Doesn't appear in article.
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32 OK
  • 35 OK
  • 41 That Resident Evil: City of the Dead is a book is somewhat implicit here rather than explicit.
Eh, I just ended up removing the sentencr, but she still appears so her being mentioned appearing at novelization would be fine. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 45 OK
  • 47 The Linda part is supported by 48? Not sure what it supports in the other sentences.
"Ada was initially conceived as an Umbrella researcher named Linda" is supported by ref 48, while ref 47 support the rest 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask for a quote on #48?
Replaced it into Bloody Disgusting as a source just in case you're gonna doubt about it since I cannot access to that book. Bloody Disgusting still confirm that Ada was linda in the early concept, which it says that Linda was renamed as Ada in the final version. Jo-Jo Eumerus 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* 50 Don't have access.

It's in the end of game's credit scene. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 Seems like we can't verify this until the webarchive works again.
It just supports her appearance in the "Separate Ways". Thats it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 56 Don't have access.
Download it at libgen website. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Library Genesis seems questionable, legally speaking. I am a little uncomfortable with sourcing something to pirated text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry for suggesting you about this as a source reviewer. I was able to download/receive books from other users after making request at resource. I've already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid that the emails did not include any content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus its in the second email. I already emailed you again for 3rd time now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* 60 Don't have access.

For you to see at twitter [21] 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why that would be a reliable source, and it only supports part of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 61 OK
  • 72 Don't have access.

* 76 OK Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus made a comment. If you can't access books then you download it from libgen website for free. About books, I was able to borrow/receive them from anotherr user via email after requesting at resource. Can I maybe take a screenshot and email it to you??? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On 10 and 24, can I have a second pair of eyes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus about ref 24, this was the content fron a separate ways Ive taken to that website.

GI: Let’s talk about Separate Ways. Was this your idea? How it all come about?

Kawata: Actually while we were thinking about the game itself we realized that the development time was actually very long and we wanted to add something to the game more than just porting it. We wanted to really add something to the game and one of the things we realized was that Ada shows up in the game later but you don’t know much about her and she’s a very strong character and she deserves to really stand out in the game. So we really wanted to give her that side story in order to let her stand out the way she should have in the game

. I ended up removing the ref 10 and 40 aswell due their source problem I guess, its a Japanese full text and it might be a questionable source while archive org is still down. I've also already emailed it to you the ref 56 and ref 72 book pages. I used Ref 56 so that I can claim her outfit as "red slit dress". 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus can you update? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Panini!

[edit]

I workshopped some of this article with (if your username were to be shortened, would you rather be called just "Boneless" or just "Pizza"?), including a peer review. My main gripe was the reception section, but this recent version is written very wonderfully, with its detailed critical opinions and comparisons to stereotypes and popular genres. I'm not a character guy, but I think you nailed it; really! My other concerns have been picked up prior to FAC. I Support this article. Panini! • 🥪 21:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ada is hired by an unnamed organization to steal the G-virus mutagen developed by the Umbrella Corporation, a pharmaceutical company responsible for a zombie outbreak in the fictional American metropolitan area of Raccoon City. I really like this summary in particular
    Thanks for being sincere(if my username were to be shortened, I think it would be best to be called "Boneless" or just "BP" lol), that summary was made/copyedited by JokEobard wonderfully. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

I had a chance to re-read this article. It was already very close not long ago. It has improved significantly, and I can support the prose as being featured quality. Great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kung Fu Man

[edit]

Tossing my support, but two suggestions with one purpose: I feel the note section is unnecessary:

  • It should be fine to include the nihongo in the lead per other article. While I recognize Jill deviates from that, it's kind of an exception.
  • For the Dead by Daylight reference, there's really no need to make a special note for the Resident Evil crossover, as others such as Knives Out came out years after the game's release also. Simply putting the reference itself in place of the note should suffice.

With these two small changes, the notes section can be removed for easier reading.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tintor2

[edit]

Just like in the previous nomination, I think Boneless Pizza did a good work with Ada but I think he improved on it thanks to the fact the article provides more coverage about her other appearances like the making of the character.Tintor2 (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

[edit]
Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 for the first FAC and even more so for the multiple candidacies of 2024. The prevention of FAC on the last occasions were mainly the book sources not included and too much close phrasing, although I have put in a massive effort to clean these up and also worked on the reception to have concise themes. Clearly having waited over a month after the last candidacy had closed, I had brought this to the maximum potential and would appreciate any users commenting to follow this constructively with whatever suggestions since last few times, it appears the same ones commented with concerns in one candidacy but saved others until the next. West's magnum ops surely deserves FA; we can do this, fans! K. Peake 07:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

[edit]

I'll leave some comments soon. If I don't follow up by Wednesday, please ping me. ~ HAL333 19:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Certain retailers would not carry the original cover" --> "Certain retailers did not carry the original cover"
  • Why wikilink "Burbank, California" but not "New York City"? (Both in the lead and body)
  • "reviewers lauded the maximalism" might be unclear to the average reader. Maybe "maximalist sound" or "maximalist approach"?
  • "the top 10 in numerous other countries" - can you give the actual number?
  • Reword to avoid the passive tense: "It has been ranked in lists"
  • The meaning of the clause "for challenging through contributions and inspiration" doesn't make sense to me...
  • What is "alien electronics"?
  • "West dedicates himself to expressing his emotions" seems a little fluffy
  • "West ventures into the id of his ego" seems like it should be credited to someone.
  • "shrinking world" - shrinking in what way?
  • "African-American" - shouldn't be hyphenated

More comments to come. ~ HAL333 20:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 Thanks for these comments, took me over a week but I checked back happily to find them – I've covered everything now. Please let me know if you want to clarify anything, look forward to seeing your further comments! --K. Peake 18:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2:

  • "once titled Good Ass Job and then as Dark Twisted Fantasy" —> I don't think "as" is needed
  • "A second cover containing painting of a ballerina" is awkward
  • "GOOD Fridays was originally intended" — "originally" isn't needed
  • Sentences like West elaborated how he had been deeply considering the idea of a phoenix for a while, regarding the possibility of it being parallel to his career that he "threw a Molotov cocktail" at, then felt the need "to come back as a better person". make me think that a formal copy edit might be needed...
  • "At one of his screenings for Runaway in Paris, he broke down into tears." --> "At a Runaway screening in Paris, he broke down into tears."
  • "Later after another screening in Los Angeles" —"later isn't needed"
  • Is there a better way to word "West said how his music and art affects people is his inspiration to continue in his career."
  • "it was reported that My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy had been streamed a billion times on Spotify" - Is this an allegation or is it fact? Can we word it as such?
  • "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy later appeared on decade-end best albums lists." — "Later" relative to what? Remove.
  • Touré's views are given undue weight in the "Industry awards" section
  • Can you make "Having been vocal about snubs for major categories of award shows in the past" more concise?
  • I'm not particularly familiar with music media sources, but what makes outlets like HipHopDX or Hung Medien high quality reliable sources? This is an issue in several spots, e.g. the tabloid The Daily Telegraph.

Those are all my comments for now. This might need a second look from me, especially after others have commented. Comprehensiveness and most other aspects look great, but reference quality is a concern and the prose is lacking in many spots and needs to be polished for concision and "punchiness". ~ HAL333 17:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake? FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333 I have covered these comments now, although I would like to respond to what you said about sources. You can find The Daily Telegraph listed at WP:RSP, I had a discussion about HipHopDX on the Kids See Ghosts FAC and one about Hung Medien under the Late Registration FAC – check the source review tabs if you don't see it first time. Regarding what you said about the prose, I have been dedicating myself to cleaning this article up continuously as will be able to be seen if you take a look through my responses to these past four candidacies so to have it up to scratch on the fifth would be very satisfying! --K. Peake 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Going into five weeks and this nom hasn't garnered a support. Unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so it's liable to time out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gould Stephenson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Gould Stephenson might just be the most obscure Librarian of Congress; he was a political appointee with no real experience with libraries, spent most of his time in office serving in the Union Army, and is mostly known for his appointee of the far more important Ainsworth Rand Spofford as assistant librarian during his tenure. Despite all this, he managed to lead an interesting (if poorly-documented at some points) life. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Steelkamp

[edit]

I'll comment later. Steelkamp (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelkamp: I implemented all of these! Ty very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I aim to complete this review by the end of the week. I will have some more comments, which will take some time. Steelkamp (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some instances of "Librarian of Congress" that go against MOS:JOBTITLES.
  • "he attended education at" -> "he was educated at"
  • "He moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election. He pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." -> "Stephenson moved to Terre Haute, Indiana, in the early 1850s, where he became active in the temperance movement and the nascent Republican Party. He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln in the 1859 Senate race in Illinois and the 1860 presidential election, and pursued an appointment of Librarian of Congress immediately following Lincoln's election, possibly due to his brother's work as a librarian in Cincinnati." This avoids there being three sentences in a row that begin with the same word, and makes it so that Stephenson is mentioned by name more than once in the entire paragraph.
    • Good, but now there are a bunch of terms that are no longer linked which probably should be.
  • Cincinatti can be linked.
  • "Lincoln appointed him" -> "Lincoln appointed Stephenson".
  • "He died on November 11, 1883, after several months of illness" -> "He died after several months of illness" as the date is redundant to the first sentence of the lead.
  • "J. G. Stephenson". Use a non-breaking space between the J and G as per MOS:INITIALS.
  • "additionally serving variously as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff." -> "additionally serving as a selectman, county coroner, deputy sheriff, constable, fire warden, and high sheriff."
  • "He was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates" -> "Stephenson was one of Lincoln's earliest advocates"
  • Does Patriarch have to have a capital P?
    • Fixed. - G
  • Chicago can be linked.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "beginning within a few weeks of the election". Is this a few weeks before or after the election?
    • Clarified. - G
  • "In March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane also wrote to Lincoln in support" -> "in March 1861, Senator Henry S. Lane wrote to Lincoln in support".
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Stephenson arrived in Washington". Should this be Washington, D.C.? Also, it can be linked.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Dole, Lincoln's Commissioner of Indian Affairs, described meeting with Lincoln to urge Stephenson's appointment." This sentence should end with a colon instead.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "His longtime ally and associate" -> "Meehan's longtime ally and associate"
    • Fixed. - G
  • "and asked Caleb B. Smith if Stephenson had resigned." Why did Lincoln think that Stephenson had resigned?
    • Unfortunately, the sources don't elaborate on Lincoln's worry. If I had to guess, he had just heard that large numbers of staff had left and wondered if this included Stephenson. - G
  • Is the 19th Indiana Regiment and the 19th Indiana Infantry the same thing?
    • Ooh, yeps. Clarified. - G
  • "Stephenson began to spend extended periods in military service soon after his appointment as Librarian of Congress." Maybe add that this was due to the Civil War.
    • Clarified. - G
  • "He is recorded as a resident of Washington". Is this still Washington, D.C.? It should be clarified.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "where he stated he was discharged without a given cause." -> "where he was discharged without a given cause."
    • Fixed. - G
  • "he entered employment" -> "Stephenson entered employment".
    • Fixed. - G

Those are the only comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joeyquism

[edit]

Committing to a review; should have a few comments by end of today! I'll have a more full-bodied review posted tomorrow after work. joeyquism (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below are a few things I've noted. As with most of my reviews, many comments are nit; feel free to refuse any as you wish.

Lead

  • "he attended education at Dartmouth" - I'll admit, I haven't seen this wording used before; perhaps this could do without "education at"?
  • "nascent" - while I would personally be comfortable using this word in regular conversation, I would opt for "newly-formed" in the lead.
  • "Stephenson begun" - should this be "began"?
  • "He served in various positions as a clerk" - would "law clerk" or "judicial clerk" be accurate here?

Early life and career

  • "He initially pursued further education at Dartmouth Medical School, before transferring" - I don't think there should be a comma between "School" and "before"

Will finish tomorrow. Work demands I be there early tomorrow, so I've gotta clock out earlier than I wanted. I'll strike this out later. joeyquism (talk) 03:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are listed below. I'll admit I'm in a reviewing slump, so forgive me if any of these seem silly.

  • "(becoming a Patriarch of the local Sons of Temperance chapter)" - Any particular reason why this phrase is in parentheses?
    • No clue why, removed this. - G
  • "A February 1860 notice in the Wabash Express attempted to clarify a controversial political statement from him, printing "J. G. Stephenson did not say that all men were created free and equal. He held just what the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence held, namely, 'that all men are created equal.'"" - Is there any more context to this sentence? I understand that the paragraph it belongs to is laying out the beginning of his political career, but I feel like this particular sentence could benefit from a little more outlining - i.e. is there more background to what prompted him to give such a statement?
    • Not really with the source... I realized it's kinda nonsensical; it probably is him trying to couch abolitionist sentiments, but since the author doesnt expand on this point, I'll just remove it. - G

Librarian of Congress

  • "While the number of other candidates for the position is unknown, at least three people wrote to Lincoln asking for Hezekiah Lord Hosmer to be appointed as librarian." - This seems extraneous?
    • Yeah, reduced this. - G
  • "Stephenson himself arrived in Washington..." - Not sure if "himself" is needed, as there's no prior mention of anyone else arriving in Washington
    • Removed. - G
  • "Although publicly apolitical, Meehan himself faced rumors of southern sympathies." - Also not sure of "himself" here; should "southern" be capitalized as well?
  • "Stephenson was infuriated by the presence of the War Department's bakeries in the Capitol basement" - Wikilinking "bakeries" might be overlinking
    • Removed. - G
  • Rest looks great.

Later life and death

  • Just out of curiousity, is there any more background on why there's such a large gap between the suspected years Stephenson joined the Bureau of Pensions? Nothing here I can see in need of fixing otherwise; just wondering about this sentence.
    • No clue! The two sources give conflicting dates and neither seems clearly correct. - g
@Joeyquism: Forgot to say I corrected these! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good on the fixes! Sorry for getting back to you past the time I promised; life's been getting the best of me lately. Will have some more comments down and a finished review tonight. joeyquism (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima: Left just a few more comments above; everything seems to be in great shape otherwise. Just a few minor things that may or may not need addressing and I'll likely come back to support. joeyquism (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by IntentionallyDense

[edit]

I will be doing a source review for this article. I do this in a table format to keep things organized. I will update the table as I go and ping the nominator when done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review
Section Status Sources I couldn't access Comments
Early life and career Done None "On March 1, 1828, John Gould Stephenson was born in Lancaster, New Hampshire, to Reuben and Mary King Stephenson (née Baker), the fourth of eight children."

Not seeing "née Baker" on page 77 of the source but I may be missing something. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Reuben Stephenson was a merchant who operated a general store in Lancaster"

Not seeing the general store part in either sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"where he was described as an "efficient speaker" by Indiana politician William P. Dole"

I do see the quote in both sources but not that it was said by William P. Dole. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its in the footnote (tho I guess I should also list the page the footnotes are on)
Librarian of Congress Done None The first paragraph under "Appointment" is sourced by Carter 1976, pp. 79–80. I don't think anything in this paragraph comes from page 79 so I think you could change this to just p. 80. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - G

Same thing with the first half of the second paragraph in this section. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. - G

"The incumbent librarian, John Silva Meehan, had held the position since 1829." Not seeing the 1829 part in the two pages you listed here. IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later life and death Done None Is there a reason why ref33 does not have a page number? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: I have finished my source review. Overall sourcing is great but I like to nitpick so I've brought up some tiny things that I noticed. Of course, there are things I could have missed, and I'll be honest I was a bit less thorough with the second half of the article because my source checks were coming back clean every time. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I did the source review for this article and didn't find any major issues which led me to support this article for FA status. All text is put into the writer's own words. Sources are properly cited in an organized and consistent way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dugan Murphy

[edit]

I'll read the article and write something here soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why include "practiced physic & surgery for ten years" as a quotation and who said it?
    • I don't know why I included the quote; removed that. - G
  • he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: I recommend rewording to avoid having "became" and "becoming" together like that in the same sentence.
    • Reworded. - G
  • he became involved with the temperance movement, becoming a patriarch: How is "patriarch" being used here?
    • It's a rank within the chapter, but I realized that it doesn't need to be mentioned and is kinda confusing. -G
  • where he was described: Since there are three men mentioned in the sentence, I think it is worth replacing this "he" with "stephenson".
    • Done. - G
  • He actively campaigned: Is "actively" necessary?
    • Guess not. - G
  • that he had spent: Removing "had" would change this from past perfecr tense to simple past tense, which sounds more appropriate to me.
    • fixed. - G
  • political appointment as the librarian of Congress using connections: Seems like there should be a comma after "Congress".
    • Done. - G
  • The Meehan image caption should have an uncapitalized "librarian", I think.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Why are the ellipses in the block quote in brackets?
    • Quoting from the source, as I don't have access to the original document; presumably used to indicate that a section has been skipped. - G
      • According to MOS:ELLIPSIS, putting square brackets around an ellipsis is what you do to distinguish that ellipsis as a stand-in for omitted text versus another ellipsis in the same quote that is is part of the quote. In this quote, both ellipses are used in the standard omitted-text-way, so including the brackets is against the MOS. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Interesting! Removed that then. - G
  • Wikilink Union (American Civil War)?
    • Good idea. - G
  • Meehan calmly accepted his dismissal, and left his duties at the end of May. I don't think that comma is necessary.
    • Fixed. - G
  • deemed as low-quality books: The "as" doesn't seem necessary.
    • Removed. - G
  • defended his actions against the Joint Committee: I think "against" should be "to", if I'm reading this sentence correctly.
    • Fixed. - G
  • I think was "[because] his conviction would make more sense as was because "his conviction
    • Fixed. - G

I'll read more and leave more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more comments, having read through the rest of the article:

  • The first time Spofford is mentioned, he is named without anything saying who he is. The second time he comes up he is introduced to the reader as a journalist. I think it should be the other way around.
    • Spofford is a good source on Meehan here because he was a librarian of congress, but it's important to note that he was a journalist to explain why he was in Washington and met Stephenson; so I gave context to the first instance. - G
  • Who said "intimated an offer"?
    • I don't know why I quoted this, paraphrased. - G
  • Do we know why Stephenson left Washington for 2 months in 1861?
    • To care for soldiers; elaborated. -G
  • Resignation section: I had to read the 2nd and 3rd sentences a few times. I now have the impression that Spofford and Lanman were both vying for Stephenson's position, but I think this could be reworded to make that more clear. At first reading, I was asking, "Spofford was soliciting endorsements for what?".
    • Reworded. - G
  • Charles Lanman, the former librarian: Not a big deal, but "the" doesn't seem necessary here.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Stephenson announced his resignation from his post as Librarian of Congress on December 22, 1864,: I don't think you need to include "from his post as Librarian of Congress". That's already clear.
    • Good point, clarified. - G
  • Can you find any more detail on what war speculations that Stephenson was allegedly up to? If not, is there a general contextual sentence you could add about the kind of war speculation that was common at the time or that people were being accused of at the time?
    • Sadly, there's just no further information in any of the sources, and I feel it'd be getting too far off track to bring in sources about civil war speculation that don't mention him. - G
  • Librarian Keyes Metcalf described him ... describing his appointment: That's one too many described/describing.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Because we're mostly talking about Stephenson's librarian contemporaries, I would like to see Metcalf introduced as "Twentieth-century librarian Keyes Metcalf" or something like that so it is clear we're talking about an expert opinion with historical perspective.
    Dugan Murphy Ope! Forgot about that one. Resolved. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find two instances in which "Library" is capitalized as a standalone word and many more times when it is not capitalized. I think you could go either way, but you need to go either way consistently. I think uncapitalized seems more appropriate to me.
    • Lower-cased it, except in one point where its in a quote.
  • in a 1871 edition of Boyd's Directory, as well as in two: The "as well as" would read better as "and".
    • Done. - G
  • where he was discharged without a given cause: I think "where" should be "when"; and how about "stated cause" instead of "given cause"?
    • Done. - G
  • he approached a physician due to persistent insomnia: "Approached" seems an odd word choice. How about: "he saw a physician for persistent insomnia"?
    • Good idea. - G
  • How did Stephenson serve as a naval surgeon in an army unit?
  • attended college at Dartmouth Medical College and Castleton Medical College: "college at" seems extraneous.
    • Fixed. - G
  • Why not Wikilink Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, and colonel in the lead?
    • Done. - G
  • The sentence in the lead that starts "He campaigned for Abraham Lincoln" is a bit unwieldy. I recommend rewording, possibly splitting.
    • Done. - G
  • Believing that the library: "that" is extraneous.
    • Fixed. - G
  • several months of illness: This statement in the lead is not sufficiently supported by the body. You should reword one or the other, making sure to stay true to what the sources say.
    • Oops, my bad there. - G
  • I don't suppose there are any other images of Stephenson you can add to the article?
    • Sadly not. - G
  • The Library of Congress would occupy: That would read better if you replaced "would occupy" with "occupied".
    • Done. - G
  • Why does the gravestone pic need citations?
    • No clue, removed. - G
  • This article is included in the "American abolitionists" category, but I don't see anything in the article to support that.
    • Removed, no clue how that got there. - G

In summary: This looks like a great article and is generally well-written. The coverage seems reasonably comprehensive, acknowledging where scholarship cannot confirm parts of Stephenson's life, but also not going into too much detail on any one aspect of his life. The language is neutral and the article seems stable. Earwig thinks plagiarism is unlikely. The lead does a good job of summarizing the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Shushugah

[edit]
  • Replace the hyphen in 1800-1864 with en-dash 1800–1864
    • Done. - G
  • was buried is grammatically correct, but implies that his body was relocated elsewhere later on. He is still buried there right?
    • It's describing the physical act of the funeral burying him, not just stating that he's underground. - G
  • Considering the Secretary of War does not exist anymore, it would be interesting to wiki-link it. A way to ensure it isn't continuous sea of blue would be to phrase it as Alexander Ramsey, the Secretary of War
  • Good idea, done. - G
  • influence the Kentucky delegation -> who are they and why is this not elaborated?
    • This isn't elaborated on much in the source, sadly; sorta based off what a couple politicians said in later accounts. It's just the Kentucky delegation to the RNC, but it'd be redundant to state that again. - G
  • This alarmed the... -> clarify that the change of staff, not specifically retention of Meehan's son triggered alarm
    • Done. - G
  • as a flue for the baking operation had been built into the flue of the library's furnace. -> awkwardly phrased, remove redundancy of flue
    • Hard to describe a flue being built into another one without saying it twice, but I tried to make the sentence scan better. - G
  • Rep. should be lengthened to Representative
    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • wiki links representative and senator in congressional representative and senator
    • Done. - G
  • had indicated an intention to resign -> indicated his intention to resign
  • have stayed in Washington, -> Washington D.C.,
    • Fixed both of these. - G

Thank you for a delightful and wonderful historical biography on an obscure librarian of congress! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

[edit]
  • No identifier for Salamanca, 1942?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "He briefly served as an acting naval surgeon to the 19th Indiana Infantry in 1861", Why would he serve as a naval surgeon to an infantry unit
    • I have no clue whatsoever; the source directly quotes him stating that he was a "naval surgeon". - G
  • "he briefly served as acting naval surgeon of the 19th Indiana in 1861." "19th Indiana", could the name of the unit be given in full.
    • Fixed. - G

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse of Peter

[edit]
Nominator(s): SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...)

This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

I don't know that I'll be able to do a full review here, but I do own and have read a copy of Edmon L. Gallagher's and John D. Meade's The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, published by Oxford University Press (I own the 2019 paperback edition).

  • "Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna which perhaps comes from the 3rd or 4th century" - we're presenting these dates as a scholarly consensus (sourced to something from the 1960s?) but I don't know that this is actually the scholarly consensus. Gallagher & Meade refer to these as both fourth-century, and contains the following interesting footnote: These two fragments [Bodleian and Rainer] possibly (definitely, according to Van Minnen 2003: 35) derive from the same manuscript; see Bauckham 1998: 257. The Bauckham citation they are referring to is the Fate of the Dead book cited here and Van Minnen 2003 is "The Greek 'Apocalypse of Peter' which is apparently pp. 15-39 in the Bremmer and Czachesz 2003 source cited in this article.
  • Gallagher and Meade also specificy that the Ethiopic versions are in Ge'ez
  • "The Apocalypse of Peter is listed in the catalog of the 6th-century Codex Claromontanus, which was probably copying a 3rd- or 4th-century source" - this seems to be a bit misleading, per Gallagher & Meade p. 184 There are also some books beyond the traditional New Testament; the list concludes with mention of the Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Revelation of Peter, but the first and last three of these titles are preceded by a horizontal stroke that appears to be an obelus, probably indicating their dubious status
  • I do wonder if the text should contain an explicit reference to the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter being a separate work given the similar names and ages. At least in my opinion, there is a greater degree of potential confusion between these two things than what most subjects handled with a simple hatnote would be
  • Is it worth noting that the Akhmim manuscript also contains the Gospel of Peter and I Enoch?
  • A bit more detail on the reception by Eusebius - Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. eccl. 3.3.2) claims that no ecclesiastical writer ever made use of the Petrine apocrypha, [elsewhere in the work Gallagher & Meade do mention that Eusebius actually attests to usage of the work by Clement] and in his canon list he classifies the Apocalype of Peter as a spurious antilegomenon, but not a heretical work (Hist. eccl. 3.25.4)
  • Lastly (for now) Gallagher & Meade cite Elliott, J.K. 1993 The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation Based on M.R. James by OUP pp. 598-600 as collecting seven patristic citations. This article references all but one set of two citations: Theophilus of Antioch in Ad Autolycum 2.19

I'm not sure how helpful this might be, but that's what I can contribute to this. I've been considering acquiring and reading a copy of Metzger's work on the canon for awhile; I liked his work on the textual history. Hog Farm Talk 01:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy feedback!

  • The Maurer 1965 write-up is a good one IMO, but it's just there as a supporting chorus and more proof of what goes in the shorter write-ups (one problem that happens sometime when compressing 300 page books into Wikipedia articles is that it isn't obvious it is the "most important" stuff; citing some shorter articles helps cut against that). (Side note, on age of references... similarly, all of the citations to M. R. James generally are "extras" that are conveniently available online, except when citing opinions attributed to James, as a little too dated; there's a "real" current-scholarship citation next to all of them. But I figured he was good to throw in thanks to Wikisource scans for easy verifiability on a few, along with general historic flavor.) Van Minnen 2003 is definitely cited in the article (ref 3 in the version of Aug 29), although annoyingly enough I don't own a copy and my interlibrary loan long since expired for easily re-checking it - was a good article though. Yes, I've read the theory that Rainer & Bodleian are from the same manuscript, but my thought at the time was I didn't want to stick in every bit of scholarly speculation. That said, checking... it looks like both Beck 2019 and Dochhorn 2024 buy it, and so does Kraus/Nicklas 2004, the most recent full book-length treatment of just the Greek. So it seems you're right that most recent scholars have switched over - updated the phrasing. (A little annoying since various other sources refer to the Rainer fragment as the "oldest" which wouldn't be quite true if Rainer = Bodleian is accurate, but oh well.)
  • Ethiopic and Ge'ez are the same thing (see Geʽez). For reasons that I do not know, scholarship on the Apocalypse of Peter calls the language of the d'Abaddie / Lake Tana manuscripts "Ethiopic" 99% of the time - perhaps there's some technical distinction that makes Ethiopic correct and Ge'ez incorrect? I figured I should honor that and just use Ethiopic everywhere as well. (And even if they're pure synonyms, it's one less term for a reader to keep track of.)
  • Hmm, what's misleading here? That Gallagher & Meade sentence sounds like what is trying to be communicated. If you meant "in the codex itself" I'd argue that's already implicitly indicated by specifying that it was (only) in the "catalog" (if a copy of ApocPeter was in it, that'd have made the scholarship way easier!). If you meant the "dubious" part, the topic of that paragraph is "indications ApocPeter was used, but disputed", so that's keeping with the general sense of examples the paragraph is trying to provide. Open to suggestions for rephrasing if that isn't being communicated as well as it could be.
    • Side note: Now, there IS something that I'd like to go into more detail if this was really scholarly-paper certified... specifically, that the idea that the Catalog was copying a 3rd- or 4th- century document is circular. That is, we think that's true precisely because we think the Apoc Peter would still have been current at the time (and 2nd century is too early for such a full catalog of the New Testament), but would have been unlikely in the 5th century... basically it's scholarship on ApocPeter informing the dating of the Codex, not the other way around. But I figure that point is too minor for a general audience (and besides, this isn't the "Date of authorship" section so it's not being used as faux-evidence there).
  • On the Gnostic Apocalypse: Hmm. I did include two sentences in Gnostic_Apocalypse_of_Peter#Literary_influences, because this text preceded that one and an obvious question is if the Gnostic Apoc. Peter author read "this" ApocPeter. But since most scholars think "no", it feels a little artificial to include here... "there's another work with the same title written later that has nothing to do with this?" Especially since the Gnostic work appears to have been obscure - until it was dug up, we had no idea it existed. I'd prefer not to add it, but can add a similar statement if really desired - I just have no idea where it won't stand out as irrelevant. ("Later influence"? Except about a work it didn't influence?)
  • On Akhmim & Eusebius: Same answer here for both - I was just trying to keep the length of the article under control, and be a summary and not a total deep dive. The Akhmim manuscript including the Gospel of Peter is mentioned indirectly in "Manuscript History" when it's relevant for how the Akhmim version was probably rewritten, but I don't think including Enoch is that relevant (the Ethiopic manuscripts include a bunch of other stuff not mentioned here too - see [22] & [23]), just it feels off-topic to mention them. Eusebius is simply wrong when he says nobody else quotes Apoc Peter, but beating up on him for overstating the case seems petty. And I figure people interested in Eusebius dividing books into good; disputed; orthodox-but-spurious (our ApocPeter in this category); and heretical can hit the references for more. I can certainly expand it into a full sentence if desired, just that paragraph is already on the long side, and I thought "dubious" gets the gist of Eusebius's opinion across.
  • On Theophilus: Buchholz deep dives all the patristic references and alleged references, and is rather skeptical of this one (and in the realm of side chatter, so am I, this is a total stretch). Both Theophilus's line and Akhmim Gr. 15 talk about a cool place with both light and beautiful plants, but to quote Buchholz p. 49, "The evidence is not convincing because it was normal at that time to describe paradise with much light and beautiful plants." It'd be an indirect reference at best that suggested Theophilus had read ApocPeter and was loosely quoting it. I suppose I can add it, but I'd rather kick it to a note, similar to the Acts of Paul and Thecla possible reference. (But even then, that one is more "interesting" because it's touching on a theological issue. This one is just vaguely similar flowery descriptions that could have easily happened by chance with no particular significance.)
  • diff changes here. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with your replies above except on two points - as to the mention in the Codex Claromontanus, for the other references here the article is indicating generally how the list or church father viewed the work. For instance, in the next sentence it doesn't just say that Stichometry of Nicephorus lists the work, it states the general classification that it gave it. I don't think much is needed to add here, but it's necessary I think to indicate how this was actually viewed, given that the early canon lists covered a fair bit of ground. Likewise, I think "Eusebius considered the work spurious but not heretical" is more informative and useful to the reader than just a simple statement that he found it dubious. I think there's a way to provide clarification in both of those cases without meaningfully adding to the length. Hog Farm Talk 23:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough; expanded the Eusebius bit into two sentences, but I don't think the overall length was blown up. (I'll also try and get ahold of Gallagher & Meade myself and make sure I didn't miss anything in there.) SnowFire (talk) 08:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless I'm missing something, I think everything significant in Gallagher & Meade is currently being included. I still think we need a brief clarification for the Codex Claromontanus listing to indicate how exactly this canon list viewed the apocalypse. I'll try to complete a full review after UC finishes their review below. Hog Farm Talk 19:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added another sentence on Claromontanus. (The ApocPeter-specific sources don't see fit to talk about it - my suspicion is that it's because they're interested in the hypothetical original 4th-century catalog that was being copied that we don't have, which probably had no such mark because why would you even bother including such a work if you already don't fully trust it. But still useful to note that the later scribe marked it up.) It's unfortunate that the sources don't seem to clarify which obelus, presumably because it was obvious to them - I presume the dagger version, but I linked it to the top-level Obelus page since I'm not fully sure. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Do you think you'll be able to perform a fuller review? (No problem if not, just a reminder ping.) SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The author also appears to be familiar with the Gospel of Matthew and no other;" - but yet this is stated to include an account of the ascension, which is not directly found in Matthew. Is the argument here that this reference to the ascension is drawing on independent Christian tradition from outside the Gospels? But how exactly does one confidently demonstrate this and not that the account of the ascension is being taken from another gospel? I'd be interested to see what Bauckham is using to draw this conclusion.
    • It's page 173 of Bauckham, where he's citing himself on 4723-4724 of this article (on Wikipedia library). Checking... "Dependence on Matthew is especially clear in E1-2 (cf. Mt. 24:3-33) and E15—17 (cf. Mt. 17:1—8), with possible further allusions in E3, E5—6, and E14=R" (the R is "Rainer" here, and the E#s are Ethiopic chapter numbers). It does seem to be something of an argument from silence though - that because there aren't direct Lukan literary references, it wasn't used, even if the author knew of some circulating stories that also ended up in Luke. It looks like Bauckham goes into more detail in "The Two Fig Tree Parables in the Apocalypse of Peter" (on Wikipedia library as well)... as mentioned, the author seems to be quoting specifically Matthew's version of the Little Apocalypse. On the Lukan Parable of the barren fig tree, Bauckham says that there are no direct quotes, and further the version quoted seems to have "considerable differences", which suggests knowing of the parable from independent tradition rather than reading Luke. (He doesn't discuss the ascension, but my understanding is that this was thought to be a common piece of Christian tradition in the era, and the literary dependence is clearly Matthew's transfiguration.)
    • I should add that there is at least one scholar who argues against this, but in the reverse direction... Beck brings up Robert C. Helmer arguing that the author wasn't familiar with Matthew, either, and was only working with "Tradition" and lost sources! This was for an unpublished dissertation, though, that is inexplicably listed as "withdrawn" on the website ([24] - maybe only from e-publication?). Considering the high-quality of sources elsewhere, I'm not sure an unpublished view is important enough to discuss. I've repeated Bauckham's Fig Tree journal article as a reference to this line though, since that seems relevant.
  • Is the link to wheel of fire really useful? Besides the fact that that article is currently a mass of OR ranging from Ixion to Frodo, it seems bold to pick a specific link for a topic that the scholars are considering to be unclear
    • The reasoning behind a wheel of fire being involved is unclear, but the punishment being a wheel of fire is clear enough. As is, the link is kinda worthless since the article is worthless, but given that there is an "In mythology" section, it seems potentially relevant? It's not a big deal and I'm happy to remove it, but if hypothetically the wheel of fire article was improved and sourced and continued to have a myth / religion section, I think the wikilink would be fine.
  • "Sinners who perished in the Great Flood are brought back as well: probably a reference to the Nephilim, the children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women described in the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees, and Genesis." - I don't know that there's an easy way to rephrase this, but I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach this. Yes, the Nephilim are described in Genesis, but they are not described as "children of the Watchers (fallen angels) and mortal women" in Genesis; yes this is how some traditions have interpreted "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them" but we can't say that this is what the Genesis narrative explicitly describes
    • Fair enough. I was worried that not including Genesis might imply that this was entirely an Enochian tradition with no basis in the Torah, but I suppose the Genesis connection is already in the footnote. Removed the mention of Genesis here.
  • One last thought I have with this - from what I've read, there seems to be a fair number of scholars who take the stance that apostolic authorship was part of the criteria for determining the canon in the early church. Does any of the scholarship on the apocalypse bear on this idea? Another angle is whether or not the scholarship gives any thought to considerations of if this work was recognized as pseudepigrapha in the early church, or if there was belief that this was an authentic Petrine revelation.
    • Absolutely! The canonicity section was refactored recently to include " A common criticism of those who opposed the canonicity of these works was to accuse them of lacking apostolic authorship" - hopefully that's enough for casual readers, but can add another line to add the reverse that canonical works had apostolic authorship if you think it'd help. As best we can tell, the number one argument used to buttress the authority of a document was to claim apostolic authorship for it, and the number one argument used against the authority of a document that did claim apostolic authorship was that it wasn't really written by apostles. Eusebius calling the Apocalypse spurious-if-orthodox probably indicates he doubts Peter wrote it, yeah. However, while this was the argument used, few surviving ancient authors approached the question like a modern scholar would - i.e. examining grammar, word choice, attestation. Rather, it was the somewhat circular criterion of "if it speaks the Word of God, then an apostle might have written it, and if it spreads heresy, then an apostle couldn't possibly have written it." Or more cynically, if you disagree with the content, then that means Peter didn't write this. So Apostolic authorship is the criteria, but most writers used theological criteria to decide the matter, rather than literary criteria.
    • Ehrman cites Serapion of Antioch saying as much about the Gospel of Peter - Serapion directly argues that because the Gospel of Peter could be read docetically (not even necessarily advocating docetism outright!), obviously the real Peter couldn't have written it. Ehrman's argument in reasoning by analogy is that if "could be read as promoting heresy" = "no aposotolic authorship", and we have condemnations of Rainer Fragment-ish universal salvation, maybe there was some influential Church figure condemning the Apocalypse of Peter as not apostolically authored, a la the Serapion example.
    • Anyway, any ancient authors positively quoting the Apocalypse should be assumed to think Peter really wrote it (or dictated it, or had some Mark-esque secretary record the story, etc.), and anyone speaking poorly of it should be assumed to think it was pseudepigrapha.

SnowFire - I think that's all of my thoughts on this. I guess as full disclosure, I'm approaching this from an evangelical Christian perspective, although I think I've kept my personal religious beliefs out of this. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]
Resolved
  • A small issue throughout -- AD dates are given as e.g. AD 120 (AD before the number), while CE dates are given as e.g. 120 CE. We have quite a lot of 120 AD in the article.
    • I used to enforce this myself, but I gave up that fight since English usage seems to have shifted here. MOS:ERA says "AD appears before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD)," i.e. both are valid. Since most Wikipedia uses seem to place it after, I figured I might as well do so as well.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter is influenced by both Jewish apocalyptic literature and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture: Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture doesn't quite sit right with me as a phrase -- Hellenistic, after all, means "Greek (with some asterisks)", and of course much of what we know as Hellenistic literature, philosophy etc was being done in places like Egypt and Syria by people whose cultural affiliation was complicated. Personally, I'd cut after philosophy, but I can see the argument for the current framing.
    • To be clear, it means "Greek" culturally, not "from the place Greece." But yes, since this is the lead, this is really hinting at what "Hellenistic" is to casual readers, many of whom won't know that already means (mostly) "Greek". I agree with your phrasing if this was deeper in the article, but I figure giving a glossary clue here is important. Casual readers already have to deal with a blizzard of unfamiliar terms.
  • The (pseudepigraphia) is a bit unclear -- how does that word fit into what preceded it, especially given that few readers will know it? I'd try to work it into the the text -- something like The text is pseudepigraphical; it purports to be written by the disciple Peter, but its real author is unknown.
    • I agree few readers will know it; I was trying to make the lede accessible by avoiding scary, unfamiliar Greek words, explaining in simple English, and hiding the technical term in a gloss. That said... done, I'm just worried about keeping accessibility high in the lede, and think it needs to be the friendliest of all the sections.
  • The article makes heavy use of false titles, such as French explorer Antoine d'Abbadie, English scholar M. R. James, and so on. These aren't considered wrong in AmE as they are in BrE, but they do strike a journalistic (rather than academic) tone, particularly when used so frequently. Would advise The French explorer... and so on.
    • Yeah, obviously an American here, and adding "The" reads a touch "fancy" to me ("Look at me, I'm The Wikipedia Editor SnowFire!"). That said, done, changed (most? all?) of these, tell me if I missed any.
  • I would advise swapping around the first two body sections, remembering that the body is meant to be able to stand apart from the lead. We currently start with From the medieval era to 1886, leaving us in the dark about the text's life before the medieval period until quite a lot further down. I might even be tempted to put "Manuscript history" quite a lot later -- down after "Debate over canonicity". Most readers, I imagine, will want to start with what the text is, then what it says, then why it matters, and only then to get into the weeds of manuscripts and philologists -- plus, this arrangement makes things a bit more chronological.
    • On swapping the first two body sections: Done. There is a problem with doing so though, which is that now the "map" which is intended to go with the "Date of Authorship" section won't display next to it on desktop because the giant New Testament Apocrypha sidebar pushes it down. So if others feel strongly, happy to swap them back, but will presume that this is just a price to pay for the moment.
    • On moving manuscript history even further down: In most articles, I would agree (I've hidden the boring "Manuscripts" section at the end of Arabic Apocalypse of Peter#Later_manuscript_history for example). Unfortunately, I believe we're stuck with doing it first for this topic, because Akhmim & Ethiopic & Rainer all differ, and readers will be totally confused if we're saying "Akhmim says X, Ethiopic says Y, Rainer says Z" before what that means is explained.
  • Double quotes on "an eye for an eye" and similar.
    • Done. (This one is a little odd because it's more setting off a phrase than being a true quote, but sure.)
  • from Arabic, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original: we're missing a noun in the first clause here -- something like an Arabic version (or some other noun to avoid repetition).
    • Done.
  • Jesus, Moses, and Elijah: suggest explaining who these other two people were.
    • I've added "the prophets", but I don't really want to add much more detail for something not really that relevant (these were sorta just name-drops that only appear in one version of the text). Explaining messianic expectations around Moses & Elijah would be an entire separate article - I think if readers are interested in more, they can find it in the Transfiguration article wikilink, or the links to them.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter fits snugly into the genre: MOS:IDIOM applies here, I think.
    • Hmm, is this even an idiom? I guess "fit" is metaphorical, but that's not uncommon. Changed regardless, went with "is a predecessor of and has similarities with" instead.
  • We should put a date on Eusebius.
    • Done.
  • The Apocalypse is quoted in Book 2 of the Sibylline Oracles (c. 150): how confident are we (and our sources) on that date? My limited understanding is that the dating of the Sibylline Oracles is extremely tricky.
    • It is tricky, but my understanding is that the dating of just Book 2 is somewhat more secure. It looks like a recent work on this isn't on WP Library (JJ Lightfoot's "The Sibylline Oracles" is 335 dollars on Oxford Academic!), but JJ Collins in 1983 wrote "the Christian redaction should probably be dated no later than A.D. 150." As this is providing a later bound, using the latest reasonable time is valid. For an older source, Alfons Kurfess in NT Apocrypha (the same 1960s book the Christian Maurer writeup on ApocPeter is in) was apparently pretty confident in 150 too. Sources only on ApocPeter just seem to mention 150, footnote it to Kurfess or the like, and move on.
  • "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners.": period outside quotes. Likewise, later, within "an eye for an eye." and a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." (MOS:LQ)
    • Switched. (I was thinking that these aren't, strictly speaking, quotes, and that LQ only applies to [Bob said "Oh no"] type deals, but no big deal either way.)
  • In general, most scholars: this is tautology, unless those scholars frequently change their minds.
    • Cut.
  • Most famously, Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy would become extremely popular and celebrated in the 14th century and beyond: See above re. Most famously.
    • Cut.
  • Mirror Punishment: decapitalise, I think, per MOS:CAPS (Wikipedia generally errs on the side of few capitalisations, relative to other publications)
    • Done.
  • for both divine justice as well as divine mercy: a tautology -- either both .. and or just justice as well as ...
    • I don't follow the concern here with the old phrasing, but your phrasing is fine too, so switched to "and".
  • God's Commandments: decap commandments unless in a phrase like the Ten Commandments.
    • Done.
  • gives evil spirits that inhabited idols and led people astray physical bodies: I found the object here a bit unclear: suggest gives physical bodies to evil spirits that...
    • Switched.
  • "Nephilim" is capitalised.
    • Done.
  • a rare word meaning "care-taking [one]." : see MOS:LQ point above, but also -- which language?
    • Greek. (As for why it was romanized "Temelouchus" in sources on ApocPeter yet our Wikipedia article on the named angel is at "Temeluchus", I don't know. Probably just random chance. Not a fan at how it's probably suggesting a phantom distinction, but that's what the sources seem to use...)
  • involving going up to a high fiery place (perhaps a volcano?): the last bit of this reads as an editorial note, which isn't right for an article -- could do a high fiery place, perhaps a volcano, or even attribute this: a high fiery place, which Smith conjectures to be a volcano.
    • Switched.
  • a popular 4th-century work: if popular here means "widely beloved", it's a tautology -- we've established that in the preceding clause.
    • I don't think we have? We established that ApocPaul became more popular than ApocPeter, but eclipsing #28,742 on the Amazon "religious apocalypses" bestseller list could mean you're #27,458, or it could mean you were #2. ApocPaul was absolutely a top 3 apocalypse for centuries, and indicating that is important IMO (since unlike Dante, most people aren't familiar with ApocPaul now). This is backed by the sources which call out this special prominence: "very popular and widespread" (p. 66 of Buchholz), "the most popular medieval apocryphal Apocalypse" (p. 302 of Bremmer 2009), etc. There are a decent number of other Christian works name-dropped in this article that might have been a Random Book in the library of one monastery that lucked out and happened to be preserved, but Apoc Paul is qualitatively different from them.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter is an early example of the same genre as the famous Divine Comedy of Dante: two things here -- one, we've established earlier that it might be a relatively early katabasis, but there are/were also plenty of earlier examples, usually inset into longer works like the Odyssey and the Aeneid. Secondly, famous is WP:PUFFERY and should be consigned to Limbo, at the very least.
    • Well, many readers probably already know Dante at least, but for those who don't, I think it's relevant to indicate that Dante is a Big Deal. This isn't being included to puff up Dante, but rather just to indicate that the Divine Comedy is a cultural touchstone, a work in the literary canon of vast influence. Open to suggestions here, but this is relevant IMO, and if anything "famous" is an understatement.
    • As far as earlier examples, I would definitely say that Dante is way closer to ApocPeter than he is to Odysseus, most obviously in the vibes of Inferno which aren't really that close to "shades attracted by blood who want to dump some backstory". So don't think it's unreasonable to call it out as a forerunner.
      • I would strongly advocate for cutting famous -- I can't see a reading of the relevant PAGs (WP:V, WP:PUFFERY and WP:WEASELWORDS in particular) that allows it. if you want to demonstrate that Dante is a Big Deal, do so in a way that is verifiable -- "Dante's Inferno, described as "the most important work of Christian poetry ever" by Scholar McScholarson". However, even then I'm not sure it's important to do that here -- readers will, I think, naturally infer from the prominent presence given to the work in the lead that it's particularly important, even if they've never heard of it, and can of course click on the link to find out precisely how important it is. On the other comment -- I don't see that naming it as a forerunner (which is fine) requires the specific phrasing of "an early example" -- why not do precisely what you've suggested and call it an important influence upon/forerunner of the poem? I think my issue is with the word "early", which has slippage between "earlier than Dante" and "early in absolute terms, relative to other examples of the same genre". UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed to "is a forerunner" if you prefer that over "early example" if it's not worth qualifying exactly how early in comparison to what.
        • I guess the dispute here is that I don't see "famous" as puffery, but rather as simply factual in this case. Calling it the "greatest" would be puffery, to me, but "famous" is the equivalent of writing that a blockbuster film sold many tickets at the box office - a measurable and relevant item to discuss, and exactly the kind of thing WP:PUFFERY suggests as a better alternative. For example, Jaws (novel) (a GA) writes "[The film] Jaws is credited as the first summer blockbuster movie and was the highest grossing film in motion picture history up to that time". The fact that the film was a mega-smash is relevant as far as "this novel was the basis of something that's a big deal," and there's no need to qualify this as an opinion because it's measurable. (Presumably you could count quotes, references, book sales, etc. to "prove" that the Divine Comedy was indeed "famous" to a hardcore skeptic). Basically, if it's supported and relevant (i.e. not "an Indie magazine said my garage band was popular"), it's not necessarily puffery to make claims about popularity and influence, especially for works of towering influence. (Side note: not a GA/FA, but our article Divine Comedy writes it is "the pre-eminent work in Italian literature and one of the greatest works of Western literature" as a general consensus opinion in the very first paragraph. That one might be pushing it! But... not wrong, either.)
        • You also write on readers "naturally infer"ing from placement - maybe I'm just swayed from working on some articles on other old works of literature, but many of them also have statements like "X influenced Y" but sotto voce the "Y" is obscure, so a reader assuming that Y was particularly important would be incorrect in so doing. This topic is a rare case where, even if the original work became obscure, its influence resonated indirectly via something raised to the Western canon.
        • I don't think WP:WEASEL is violated here either. All of the sources in the section in the body on the topic support the weak claim that the Divine Comedy was famous. It's WEASEL if you claim people say it but it's never referenced who is saying it, but that's checkable in the sources. You can make very bold claims as long as they're backed - checking other literature FAs, Uncle Tom's Cabin writes it "had a profound effect on attitudes toward African Americans and slavery", not as a quote or attribution to one scholar. Which is true! Similarly, I think it's true and verifiable that The Divine Comedy was famous.
        • Of course, this is an article on an entirely different work, so I don't want to sidetrack with an attributed quote about The Divine Comedy: was it important or not. The word "famous" is there for a reason though: it's explaining why we're bringing this centuries-later connection up at all. We haven't discussed The Divine Comedy at all before here, and we're suddenly bringing it up: why? Because it's famous. I could obviously rephrase a number of ways, but presumably they'd have the same issue if merely acknowledging its influence is inherently puffery. A circular problem here because that influence is exactly what needs to be raised.
        • That was a lot of verbiage on one word. I strongly disagree here per the above valid examples of discussing fame, but I'll remove it anyway, for now. If my above comments convinced UC, or anyone else out there reading this wants to offer a third opinion though, happy to hear it though, whether in favor or against. There has to be some way to differentiate a mega-popular work from an obscure work, and this is a factual enough question that it shouldn't be regarded as mere opinion.... but I've already written way too much on this and don't want to trap people in "DEBATE ME!" loops more than I already have.
  • In Greek (note 1), Πέτρου is a proper noun, so is capitalised. Generally, so too are the first letters of titles, so Ἀποκάλυψει. Are you absolutely certain that Ἀποκάλυψει is intended, however, rather than Ἀποκάλυψις? The latter is the usual form in Ancient Greek; in modern Greek, it's Αποκάλυψη, but that's very much a post-1453 spelling. In the Romanisation, we've given the stress on Petrou, but not on the Apocalypse word.
    • The tricky thing is that Akhmim, which is in Greek, doesn't ever call itself the Apocalypse of Peter, so we're stuck with old Greek quotations. I picked one from Macarius Magnes - p. 30 of Buchholz indeed uses "ει". I double-checked this wasn't a transcription error, and it wasn't - 4,6 of Magnes is in a 2013 edition on De Gruyter on the Wikipedia library (link), and has "1. Περιουσίας δ’ ἕνεκεν λελέχθω κἀκεῖνο τὸ λελεγμένον ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει τοῦ Πέτρου." (I suspect the capitals & accents are from brushing up the raw version - those aren't in Buchholz's which uses lowercase alpha, lowercase pi, etc.) But I'm not a Greek expert so I'm flying blind here. If this was a modified form or just a scribe being bad at spelling, happy to switch to the "usual" version; otherwise switched to the 2013 transcription. (Also threw that into G Translate and grabbed a transliteration there, which threw an accent on the y, added it in - but I will defer to you over trusting the machine if that's incorrect. Or just flat removing all the accent marks.)
    • Ah -- your quotation has it in the dative case -- that writer would have put it as Ἀποκάλυψις if writing it in the context you have. We should do likewise (there's a grammatical explanation here, which I'm happy to go into if you want, but we can think of it as a routine calculation as described by WP:OR) UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Thanks!
  • that the punishment may fit the crime: is may fit the right word here -- should fit, surely? This isn't exactly the lex talionis, which is much more about reciprocation/compensation (that the perpetrator should experience the same suffering that they have inflicted upon others, and no more), but I think the framing here is fine.
    • Switched.
  • parchment leaves claimed to be deposited in the grave of a Christian monk: claimed by whom?
    • A chain of two claims I believe - Maspero claimed that the unnamed Egyptian guy he got it from told him this. It's... possible... but also what Maspero would have wanted to hear. Also some archaeologists of this era just lied all the time to disguise when they stole stuff or dressed up the provenance as more compelling than it really was - "found in a tomb of a monk" sounds more valuable than "bought from a shady guy". The methodology was awful by modern standards - they basically told the local Egyptian population to go grab what they could as document mercenaries, and then lots of it ended up on the antiques market. But I think going into the weeds loses focus here - "claimed" is a hint that we aren't really confident that this story is true, which is enough. See p. 25-27 from Nicklas/Kraus 2004 for more - features words like "Unfortunately" and "everyone keeps citing Bouraint as if it were given facts, but..." and "used with caution" as far as the "tomb of a monk" story. Do you think it's worth adding a Note on this? I'm a little worried about the number of side notes creeping up, but happy to add it the source of the skepticism there.
      • I think we need to be clear about whether Maspero claimed this, or whether (as it sounds) he claimed that someone else claimed it -- personally, I'd include a footnote, but I'm not shy about including silly numbers of efns and quite like a good archaeological story. It does sound like this is a particularly dubious claim, and I think readers should be given a sense of that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added. (And yes, he claimed someone else claimed it, so there's two places where someone could have possibly made stuff up.)
  • In a bulleted list, the MoS (MOS:CITE?) would like each citation no later than the end of the corresponding bullet.
    • This would be crazy overkill, though? I picked three lists of the punishments and they're the same references for each line in the list. I'm happy to ask for clarification on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing sources if desired, but my presumption is that if there's a Wikipedia list but there's a single cite for every entry, it's okay to throw the citations at the end of the list. If nothing else, IAR suggests that 21 copies of the same 3 citations in a row is off, and an IAR case.
      • Personally, I find it weirder to come to the end of a sentence/paragraph and not see a little blue number (if you're using SFN templates, those would all link to a single footnote). I think the MoS is pretty clear here -- it's not a huge matter, as readers can tell where the material comes from with the current framing, but I do think it would be more bomb-proof for WP:TSI (imagine, for example, that a future editor adds another bullet point) if done by the book. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • If another bullet point is added, either it's getting reverted, or we've found another manuscript and need to re-source the whole thing anyway!
        • I went ahead and replicated the citations, but still suspect this is a case of citation overkill. I'll bring it up on the Citing Sources talk page later but not tie it to this particular article and we'll see if anyone bites on an opinion, as this is a general issue not specific to this article that probably just needs a standard.
  • the Apocalypse of Peter was the parent and grandparent of these influential visions of the afterlife: I think this whole sentence can be cut, but if it stays, we need to do away with the metaphor and probably the word influential.
    • See above - I think this is a "summing up" statement on what is the other half of why people still write / care about ApocPeter (half are interested in the theology of salvation, half are interested in depictions of hell that would lead to Dante). This is another case where it might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor used all the time, even in academia - Himmelfarb has got a bunch of fancy graphs & maps of parent works that influenced other daughter works that went on to influence yet other works. I now wonder if changing "important" to "influential" even helped above if you object to influential as well, but this is one of those "writing for a general audience" matters IMO - this is where I'm trying to say "this is the part that mattered!" And per above, "influential" is already a vast understatement on Dante.
      • I do sympathise with "this is how it is done in academia", but Wikipedia isn't an academic chapter -- for one thing, it's written for people with a whole range of linguistic abilities and educational backgrounds, whereas academic works are invariably written for people with an extremely strong command of English and an almost excessive level of erudition. There are quite a few PAGs (e.g. WP:MTAU) to the effect that our articles should not always look like our sources, and I think this is one case where that applies -- an academic journal article has different aims to a Wikipedia article, and we should expect the writing style to diverge accordingly (in this case, because catering for non-experts and second-language speakers is far more important to us than it is to them). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In this I fully agree! I just think that second-language speakers are exactly who I have in mind (similar to the above discussion on who would need to be told that Dante was "popular"), hence the recap sentence at all (for an academic audience, I would consider cutting the sentence entirely, as you suggest, as mildly redundant). I just don't think these general audience folk will be at all confused by "parent" here - to the extent it's a metaphor, it's an obvious, helpful one. That said, I cut it and went with attributed quotes to Fiori / Bremmer instead. (Which make the passage slightly longer, so maybe we're going in the wrong direction here since you suggested an outright cut of the entire sentence, but hopefully won't have the other issues at least.)
        • Anyway, changes so far are here. SnowFire (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of the borderline works that came closest to being included: does borderline add anything here -- surely a work that came close to being included is, by definition, borderline?
    • It could be removed, but I'd argue it reads better with it? i.e. imagine a sentence like "TITLE is an apocalypse, an (insert description of apocalypse here)." You could technically either just say "it's an apocalypse" or "it's (description of what an apocalypse is)" but combining them makes a little definition for a casual reader so they know to connect the two, and can now use one word to think of many. Or it wouldn't be odd to read "[SPORTS TEAM] was on the cusp, the highest-ranked team to still be relegated" even though "on the cusp" could be similarly cut. That said, removed anyway since we don't really discuss other 'borderline' works, but eh, I still think it made it a slightly easier read.
  • More generally, I don't understand the relationship between the bibliography and the references section -- what's the logic as to what makes it into the bibliography, and what is only cited as a reference? Given how long the references section is, the overall effect is confusing -- it is very difficult to get a sense of how this article's sourcing is constructed.
    • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
    • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.

Some impressive scholarship on display here. I think my comments will mostly have to stick with Wikipedia minutiae rather than really getting to grips with the subject matter, but I hope they are useful. If you wouldn't mind, could you answer the points below each one, rather than in a list at the end -- I can see this review getting even longer and more confusing otherwise!

    • Thank you so much for the prompt and detailed review! I wouldn't disclaim your subject matter knowledge too much - you clearly know plenty here, and more than me on the matters of Koine Greek itself. (There are a few points I have some pushback, but don't take my whining too seriously - if you feel strongly on it, I'm happy to adjust anyway. Just figured I'd just raise the "other side" first on the ones I disagree on.) SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • be pierced by sharp fiery stones as would beggars: not sure what as would beggars means in this context -- do beggars get the same punishment, or is this (apparently) what happens to beggars in the real world?
    • What happens to beggars in the real world, yes. i.e. "clothed in filthy rags and having calloused feet from stones cutting through their bad shoes". The burning part maybe not as much, but that's kinda the standard hell addition in ApocPeter. (Although who knows, the ground can get pretty hot in the Middle East...) Fun fact on the side: I forget where exactly, but someone wrote an article with a long analogy about how this was fore-runner of the medieval Danse Macabre, i.e. in the sense that noble & commoner alike do the dance, and maybe the rich people are being forced to dance into the stones? I didn't really buy the connection, but it was cool anyway.
      • I think that could do with a little bit of clarification -- at the moment, what is written isn't quite compatible with that (very good) explanation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've expanded this to make the analogy more clear.
          • I'm afraid I still found it a bit unclear in the lead; I've made a tentative edit there to assist. I now don't see anything about mirroring the existence of beggars in the body? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added a sentence in the "lex talionis" section. I also switched "beggars" to "poor"... I personally think beggars are fine, but the text uses "widows and orphans" which seems to be synecdoche for the poor in general. So beggars might be over-specific.
  • Two other short Greek fragments of the work have been discovered: a 5th-century fragment at the Bodleian library that had been discovered in Egypt in 1895, and the Rainer fragment at the Rainer collection in Vienna: as phrased, this sounds as though the second fragment was discovered in Vienna. Suggest adding "held by..." or similar to the institutions.
    • Rephrased the sentence; take a look.
  • The Rainer fragment was originally dated to the 3rd or 4th century; later analysis: can we put dates on these?
    • For the first, yes, and done. For the second, I'm not so sure there's a clean date when this becomes accepted (there are still recent-ish publications that use the old date), nor do I think it's that relevant - it seems like it started as a hypothesis that got better backing with later close analysis.
      • Right, but are we talking (more or less) about the early medieval period, or more or less about modern academia? I'm not suggesting that we need to pin it down to the 24th of March, 1893, but giving the reader an idea of vaguely what sort of timescale they're imagining would be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Went with "2003" as when Van Minnen published his chapter in "The Apocalypse of Peter," although see disclaimer above. (I'd rather go for either pure hand-waving in this case or one specific event, as I don't think I have a source that says "over the course of the 2000s decade and 2010s...", although that's my personal guess).
  • the Stichometry of Nicephorus: can we explain what this is and why it matters? We sort of introduce it right at the end of the article.
    • I feel that this is off-topic. I agree most readers won't have a clue what this is, but context provides everything that the reader needs to know - there was a source saying the Apoc Peter should have X lines, and the Ethiopic version is pretty close to that, and here's a wikilink to the source if you want to learn what a Stichometry is.
  • Note 2 is long and generally well formed, but I think we should put in the body the fact that Bauckham's views have been challenged.
    • Open to suggestions, but the fact that this is attributed in-line to a specific scholar and uses "argues" (rather than just stating as a fact it's from Palestine) hopefully communicates it's not a scholarly consensus already (along with "Other scholars suggest [something else]"). I feel like that might also make the Egypt theory seem stronger than it really is - Bauckham's views have been challenged because a lot of people buy them, while the Egypt origin view doesn't seem as popular and thus people don't bother to swat it down. (The main competing view, as best I can tell, is flat "we don't know." But I'm not sure we need to write that one out.)
      • I'm not sure I agree -- it sounds like there's a debate with two sides, both of which have equal levels of scholarly acceptance, so WP:DUEWEIGHT says we should present both equally. Putting one in the body text and relegating the other to a footnote places greater weight on the first, which we should not do unless it is clearly the majority position (WP:FRINGE). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • But both are in the body text? Both the possibility of a Egyptian and a Palestinian origin are discussed in the body. Unless you mean the "we don't know" option? That's just some OR from me, nobody publishes a paper arguing "I've unsolved the problem, we have no idea." I've added a brief sentence cited to Bremmer acknowledging that provenance is still a matter of scholarly debate and uncertainty, with Palestine & Egypt the lead two options - does that work? (p. 153 here if curious)
  • File:Near East 0100AD.svg -- political maps like this are a very tricky business. I can't find any sign of the source data for this one, and we definitely need some reliable source to be making claims about territorial boundaries and levels of effective control in this period. A smaller thing, but I'm very unconvinced by some of their Latinisations (like Myos Hormus for Myos Hormos), and they've used a frustrating variety of fonts.
    • I was just doing some basic translation of German from a map and leaving the Latin alone. @Enyavar: who created this series. From looking at the upload, a list of sources are at File:Ancient_Orient_History_Map_basis.de.svg#Beschreibung - anything else to be aware of in using the map?
      • That list seems to be specifically about the Bronze Age -- wherever a page is cited, it's specifically BA material. It does cite books that we would expect to have maps of the Roman period in them, but I don't see a definitive statement that those maps were used in the map we have. Of course, if you can find other sources which verify the information and append them to the Commons page, it doesn't particularly matter whether they were originally consulted, but we do need something for the included claims like, for example, "the Roman Empire had only weak influence over Nabataea in 100 CE". UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked Enyavar directly - stay tuned. As for Nabatea itself, it looks like Rome only took over in 106 CE (Nabataean_Kingdom#Roman_annexation), so to the extent the map is "exactly 100 AD", it seems sorta justified as a heavily Roman-influenced but client-y state.
          • I'm not disputing any of the ideas in the map (except possibly that anyone ever called it Myos Hormus), only that we need to cite those claims, just as we would in text. We couldn't write "Nabataea was a Roman client state in 100 CE" without a citation, and it's the same to do so with an image. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry about that! My own maps I try to carefully document (File:BattleofTordesillas.PNG for an old example), but this one was pre-existing, hence it being tricky for me to do directly. Enyavar replied at Benutzer_Diskussion:Enyavar#Question_on_Ancient_Near_East_maps, and I used that to add this addition to the file description. Is that enough information, do you think?
              • As I read it, it's (slightly harshly put) a vague handwave towards "go check the bibliography in the relevant Wikipedia article?" I don't think that's enough, really: one, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, two, that bibliography isn't necessarily stable, three, "it's somewhere in at least some of this huge list of books" isn't really precise enough. Really, we need something at the level of "For the geographical information, see maps on [these pages] of [these books]; see also a discussion of toponyms in [this gazetteer], and I've followed the view of [this book chapter] on the matter of [whatever]". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) Haven't forgotten about this, just was traveling over the weekend and am back at work now. I put in requests at the library for atlases & maps; we'll see what they turn up. Unfortunately the easy-to-access batch was mostly not showing much detail, or was dated like the 1923 Shepherd map. (Side fun fact: did you know that the 2023 Atlas of the Classical World has a "Rome under Trajan" map advertised in its Table of Contents? It's a map of... the city of Rome, specifically, during the reign of Trajan. Sad trombone noises go here.) SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. Attempting to make an entirely new map at the level of detail of the original map is way, way too much work, so there's no way that's going to finish "in time" here. I've elected to just use a less detailed map instead. I've uploaded File:Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg which has the original sources in the original map, and I've adjusted some of the city names to follow Talbert (2023) and verified a few others with other recent atlases. The Arabia Petraea region also follows the more conservative territory seen in most maps of the Roman Empire after 106 than the old 100 AD map. Hopefully this is considered sufficient enough sourcing. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a Greek katabasis or nekyia: how come only the second gets italicised? I don't think katabasis is quite naturalised in English, at least among those who aren't Greek scholars. Smaller, but is a nekyia the right comparison here -- that usually involves, as Odysseus's does, standing more-or-less in the "real" world, being approached by the dead and asking questions of them?
    • I'm mostly mimicking Ehrman 2022 here. He leaves "katabasis" unitalicized (except on the very first introduction of the Greek term) but italicizes nekuia (with a u) everywhere. Bauckham 1998 does italicize katabasis though, and a quick search through the 2024 "In Context" shows two italicizations by Bremmer. I suppose I can switch it over, it's not a big deal. And I don't think there's a firm distinction, it's borderline, but to the extent that Peter & the disciples are tripping on a spiritual vision but while on Earth, you can argue it's a nekyia if your criteria is "happens on Earth" and if your criteria it that a true katabasis would involve actually VISITING a la Dante / ApocPaul, which is of course impossible in this case as it'd involve time travel.
  • The link to Jewish Christians shouldn't cover "and achieve martyrdom", since being a martyr is, thankfully, not necessarily part of being a Jewish Christian.
    • Done, although now I'm a little worried it looks like the shoots are achieving martyrdom (when in the text, it's definitely the Jewish Christians).
  • One theological issue of note: I would rephrase this sentence -- we generally avoid saying that things are notable, or should be noted -- it's taken as read that everything in a Wikipedia article is notable, and we do well to minimise the volume of our editorial voice.
    • I think this is a good general rule of Wikipedia writing, but similar to the concerns on "popular" above, this one I think needs some sort of callout. This is the theological issue and half the reason people are still writing about the Apoc Peter still today. It consumes a huge amount of what Beck, Ehrman, Bauckham, etc. have to say on the work; Ilaria Ramelli wrote a whole book on early Christian universalism that cites ApocPeter as an example for her thesis. Open to suggestions, but I think the importance of this passage needs to be emphasized in some way that makes it distinct from comparatively piddly stuff also discussed, like the names of angels.
      • OK, so let's say as much -- Beck writes that "the central theological issue of the text" is.... If we can't find anyone actually willing to put it in writing that it's so important, it's WP:SYNTH to infer it simply from the volume of scholarly writing on it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • We can, it's just that qualifying it in-text makes it sound like it's just one scholar's take, and it's broader in this case. It also calls even more attention to the matter up front before even describing it, rather than a brief side comment that's promising "read on and you'll find out why." Hence me preferring to simply state it as a fact - it's proven by all the referenced stuff later on to the pages and pages written on it.
        • I've removed it for now, though - the proper person to cite, if anyone, is Ilaria Ramelli here (for all that others think she overstates her case), and the Brill access for the Wikipedia Library is still down. :( If it comes back up, I'll re-check her $405 book to see if there's a suitably saucy quote to use, in the reference if nothing else.
  • The Greek word "apocalypse": technically speaking, apocalypse is not a Greek word: I would transliterate apokalypsis here (and see note above on Greek words).
    • Done. Good idea, agree we should use the raw Romanized Greek here rather than the Latinized version.
  • the work is pseudepigrapha: pseudepigrapha is plural, so I think you're on safer grammatical grounds to make this an adjective: pseudepigraphical.
    • Done.
  • Christian-Jewish: this should be an endash, but I'm not sure what the join is meant to be here. Are we saying that it belongs to Jewish Christianity -- in which case, Jewish-Christian (with hyphen) would be better?
    • Switched to an ndash. And it wasn't restricted to Jewish Christianity, so that wasn't the intent... it's more like it belongs to Christianity, but had major Jewish influences.
  • Plato's Phaedo is often held as a major example of the forerunning Hellenistic beliefs: this needs a bit more supporting material -- Plato's Phaedo is not Hellenistic.
    • It could be misread, but I feel that anyone capable of that misreading also knows enough to know what is "really" meant, that Plato was still current in the Hellenistic era and there were people called Platonists etc.? I switched it to the simple "Greek" though to avoid confusion.
  • Later scholarship by Martha Himmelfarb and others: as before, can we be more specific as to the date?
    • Himmelfarb's book was published in 1983, but "others" is harder to pin down. I suspect picking a date would be problematic though - it's not like everyone instantly agreed Himmelfarb was right (in fact, just as Dieterich was a maximalist "everything was Greek with minor Jewish flavor" that was probably wrong, Himmelfarb's maximalist "this is all based on lost Jewish stuff" hasn't actually found much support at the other end of the spectrum), and the process was probably somewhat gradual as people filtered in the parts of Himmelfarb's argument that were the best supported in the 1980s & 90s. (And I'm sure there were some scholars in the 1960s arguing for more Jewish influence who are annoyed if Himmelfarb took all the credit.) I think this one is best left for "click the wikilink on Himmelfarb, or hit the references, for more."
  • Some scholars get introductions, others don't -- who was Albrecht Dieterich, for example? There are arguments on either side, but I think it's best to pick a lane -- either introduce everyone, or only those who aren't what you'd expect. This essay puts forward one common and very sensible approach -- essentially, if it's (e.g.) a classicist doing a work of classical scholarship, leave out the introduction as obvious, but do introduce them if they aren't' a conventional subject-matter expert -- for example, if a poet or mystic commented on the text.
    • I've usually used the "no intro" style except for very early in the article. I removed "The scholar" before Bauckham - if I missed any others, happy to remove them. The one intro I believe remains is for M. R. James, and that's because I want to mention he was English (but reading French translations of Ethiopic documents for fun, and connecting them to German translations of Greek he read & translated earlier. Just normal stuff).
  • I struggled to get my head around the layout of the Predecessors section -- the chronology and provenance of texts involved seems very mixed, there's a lot of "probably" and "maybe" going on, and a few very short paragraphs. What's the logic at work here?
    • Unfortunately, there isn't really a "story" to tell here past the Greek vs. Jewish influence debate. It's more like "Scholar A detected a claimed influence here. Scholar B detected a claimed influence over here. Scholar C..." And some of these claimed influences really do need a "probable" disclaimer, because it's not like the passage says "As Ezra said in that one Greek book of his work..." Beck writes "It is important to acknowledge the uncertainty of source critical discussions". I've done my best to have something of a "narrative" here, but also want to avoid SYNTH.
    • On short paragraphs, here and elsewhere: My stance favors the "paragraphs should have a topic" writing style. Sometimes this leads to long paragraphs (as in the Canonicity section), but sometimes it leads to short paragraphs if there's just one person making one claim or the like. I'd rather avoid glomming together unrelated thoughts that suggests the Psalm 24 quote is linked with the postmortem baptism or the like. (And looking back, including Matthew in the "Greek katabasis vs. Jewish apocalypses" section is a little loose as is... Matthew does have an apocalyptic section but I don't go into that here.)
  • the Apocalypse of Peter is distinct among extant literature of the period, and may well have been unique at the time: aren't all works of literature unique in some respect? I'm not a fan of the distinction between "being unique" and "adapting earlier writings" -- leaving aside people like Virgil, Dante and so on, we have things like the Cento Vergilianus de laudibus Christi, which is entirely original and unique despite not containing a single original line. Suggest getting to the meaty material as to what's distinctive about it sooner, and ideally offering more than one example.
    • I think Beck would agree with you! ("It is important to recognise the originality of the Apoc Pet"). The reason he's bringing up this seemingly anodyne point is... well, a lot of earlier scholarly literature is obsessed with proving X copied from Y and Y was stealing from Z and the like. He was agreeing with this sentiment, that let the work stand on its own (and implicitly criticizing all of the previous paragraphs of claimed sources).
    • As far as offering more examples - that's a little fraught. Honestly the example that's there is not great, because Beck himself is very much on the "ApocPeter is 80% mercy and 20% judgment" side of the debate, yet I've included an example on the judgment side (it's not sourced to Beck, but it is placed right after his statement). Beck's example is, of course, the extent of post-mortem salvation, that ApocPeter is a unique early proponent of universal-ish salvation. But that's already covered in detail elsewhere, so bringing it up in "Predecessors" too would feel a little odd.
  • it is not known when the Clementine sections of the Ethiopic manuscripts containing the Apocalypse of Peter were originally written. Daniel Maier proposes an Egyptian origin in the 6th–10th centuries as an estimate, while Richard Bauckham suggests the author was familiar with the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter and proposes an origin in the 8th century or later.: this seems like it belongs in the section on manuscripts -- I don't really see its relevance in a section on the work's influence.
    • I'd say it counts. This isn't about the manuscript so much as the content of "The Second Coming of Christ and the Resurrection of the Dead" and "The Mystery of the Judgment of Sinners" - i.e. when were they written (probably before the manuscript itself) and what were they based on? Since it's right next to the ApocPeter and seems to mention it, it seems clear ApocPeter was a huge influence, in the same way that a 2024 sequel to a Shakespeare play is influenced by, well, the Shakespeare play itself it's adding to. That said, this section was called out as a bit confusing in the GAN review too, so maybe there's clearly an issue. Perhaps it could be demoted to a footnote? That feels a little Western-centric though, these Ethiopic additions were the only attention ApocPeter was getting for centuries, even if the Ethiopian church of the 8th-18th centuries isn't well covered in English.
  • Later apocalyptic works inspired by it include the Apocalypse of Thomas in the 2nd–4th century, and more importantly, the Apocalypse of Paul in the 4th century: more importantly reads as pretty strong editorialising to me.
    • See above comments on the lead. I've changed it to "more influentially" to perhaps make less bold claims about Importance with a capital I, but make no mistake, the Apoc Paul was the important one here. It's really hard to understate how weirdly popular ApocPaul was - while most surviving apocrypha involve scholars poring over just 1 or 2 manuscripts carefully, we've got hundreds of surviving ApocPaul manuscripts in a variety of languages. It'd be like writing "The noodle incident inspired a number of early 20th century authors, including Fergus MacForgotten, Bob Irrelevant, and Agatha Christie." For the reader not familiar, there should be some call out that one member of this list is way, way more important the others.
  • One notable tweak that the Apocalypse of Paul makes; see above re. notable, and MOS:IDIOM -- I would just axe this perambulatory clause.
    • While the origin might be as an origin to real-life things, I think a "tweak" as a term for any "small change" is fine? I checked Merriam-Webster, and it has "a small change or adjustment" and its first example is to tweaking a menu (which clearly is more metaphorical than a radio dial). I removed "notable". Can switch "tweak" to "change" if desired, but since this is on ApocPeter's influence on ApocPaul, I think "tweak" hints that ApocPaul was modifying an already-existing framework better, while a change could simply be a difference.
      • To me, "tweak" reads as more informal than we're going for: I think "change" would work. On the other hand, a more direct sentence structure might be even better -- something like The Apocalypse of Paul diverges from that of Peter in describing personal judgments to bliss or torment as happening immediately after death (the bold bit is I think a necessary change for clarity, in any case). UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • medieval monks that copied and preserved manuscripts in the turbulent centuries following the fall of the Western Roman Empire: I would do without turbulent centuries -- the third, fourth and fifth centuries were hardly serene and peaceful by comparison with the sixth, seventh and eighth.
    • Hmm, from the perspective of my armchair, I'm more convinced by the "the Roman Empire's fall was followed by a substantial crash in living conditions and economic disaster" camp. Not trying to imply that the 4th-5th century Western Roman Empire was particularly peaceful (3rd is too early for ApocPaul) of course, but they probably were substantially better for book preservation? My understanding is that these early centuries post-Fall were indeed very rough for manuscript preservation in the West by non-monks, since there were fewer rich nobles, scribes working for government officials, etc. that might have done it otherwise. And even if we take it as accepted that the 4th & 5th centuries were bad, that just means they were also turbulent. Despite the above, I'm happy to cut it if you feel strongly, just don't see the issue with a little bit of context that seems non-controversially true. (Really the best fix would be if we had a term that meant "late antique and Medieval" and we could just apply that modifier to the monks and then say "ever since it was published", but I can't think of any. And my vague understanding is that knowledge of ApocPaul in its first centuries is real vague anyway.)
      • It's really not non-controversially true, though -- it's not that the Early Medieval period was rosy, it's that the Late Roman period was pretty chaotic too. As I've said a few times, if you have a concrete statement in mind, like the idea that this was a particularly bad time for book preservation, it would be a good idea to say and cite that directly -- what we have at the moment is vague and fluffy, so it gives the reader an impression without actually presenting anything that could be falsified, and therefore without saying anything that could really be verified either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that this statement, strictly speaking, doesn't say anything about the late Roman period at all, just the periods afterward (and thus does not take a stand on exactly how bad the late Roman period was). It doesn't seem that vague and fluffy to me (it is bringing up the role of monks / monasteries in book preservation, yes), but as this is on a side topic anyway, I'm happy to kick it to the Apoc Paul article and let people click the wikilink. Cut to just "medieval monks".
          • Improved, I think. Now we have Despite this, it would go on to be popular and influential for centuries, possibly due to its popularity: firstly, this is a tautology (it was popular because it was popular -- what attracted monks to it in the first place?); secondly, can we adjust the repetition? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rephrased to avoid the close repetition.
            • On why it was popular: I was happy to spend some text on explaining why monks mattered more than you'd expect (book copying / preservation), but going into why exactly the monks liked it is getting off-topic IMO. It's in the Apoc Paul article, but the short version is that it's very flattering to monks and spends time on monk interests - like, if you finish your vow of fasting, you will get a super-awesome apartment in the City of God near the center, but if you screw it up, you will be super-punished and thrown in a hole. Clergy & ascetics are the stars and get different fates than vanilla Christians - either much worse if they screw it up because expectations were higher, or much better if they do it well. But I don't think that's the relevant part for a section on ApocPeter's influence. I've tried to focus on the parts of ApocPaul that were clearly modifying existing Peter frameworks, but this aspect was just kinda new. (See Beck's comment elsewhere on Peter perceiving the righteous as a unified group - it's definitely a difference between Peter & Paul, as Paul thinks there's winners & losers even among the saved.)
            • On if it's a tautology: The current passage is describing who the "base" of support was (e.g. the equivalent of the Rocky Horror Picture Show superfans who kept would could have been an obscure commercial failure of a movie alive). Something like "Roger Ebert's strong advocacy of Hoop Dreams helped win the work wider popularity and acclaim." If you have a better suggestion on how to phrase that kind of message, happy to hear it, but as is I think it gets the point across?

More to follow -- greatly enjoying it so far, having just dipped my toe into apocalyptic literature for another (much less impressive) article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The damned themselves admit from their own lips: from their own lips is tautological here, and a bit flowery for an encyclopaedia. This sentence might also be clearer if in a dialogue with the angel Tatirokos, the keeper of Tartarus were moved to the front.
    • Switched the order. And while flowery (in an evil flower kinda way), it's definitely a powerful rhetorical technique still used today (in the same way that, say, political parties love to quote whenever a rival agrees with them, or just make up a quote on Twitter of the other side confessing to being super evil). See? They admitted it themselves, therefore we're right and it's okay.
  • It is possible that where there is no logical correspondence, the punishment has come from the Orphic tradition and has simply been clumsily attached to a vice by a Jewish redactor.: can we give some examples? I also think we could perhaps have done more to introduce Orphism further up.
    • We could, but the problem is that for every example, there will be someone else arguing that no, this one totally makes sense. Fiensy offers "unchaste maidens are clad in darkness and have their flesh torn and sorcerers are tormented on wheels of fire" but we actually introduce proposed explanations for these later (i.e. bodily correspondence in that the skin/flesh that sinned is torn, and mirror punishment for sorcerers). I've seen elsewhere that the punishment for usurers is weirdly lenient compared to the others (up to the... knees in excrement? That's not fun, but it's not nearly as horrible as some of the other stuff.) and is also rather disconnected, but it'd be weird to offer that as an example when Fiensy doesn't. Maybe I just need a better reference for this than Fiensy - will look for one, stay tuned.
    • As for introducing Orphism, I'm not even sure where to start. I'm not sure there's even a consistent canonical Orphism to go over - it'd be like introducing 1st century Judaism, there are entire books written on it. I think we may be stuck with "click on the wikilink for more".
    • SF from the future: I added in a line in Callon's paragraph clarifying that the sorcerers example is one of the ones Fiensy thought made no sense. Still trying to figure out if there's any way to sneak in a better descriptive bit for Orphism that doesn't side-track, but I feel like I'd need to read a book to turn that into a non-contentious, non-distracting adjective other than the existing "er it was Greek-philosophy influenced tradition."
  • contests classifying the ethics of the Apocalypse as being that of lex talionis: those of, since ethics is plural. A short paragraph: can we close it up with something else?
    • I guess we could combine with the Callon paragraph as an "alternative non-lex-talionis views" but I don't think Ehrman and Callon actually agree. Would rather let them stand on their own, but I'm willing to do the merge if you feel strongly.
  • often more symbolic in nature: more symbolic than what?
    • Than simple eye-for-an-eye. In Callon's example, eye-for-an-eye would be sorcerers suffering whatever harm their spells inflicted on others to themselves, while a poetic justice approach is more like the tool they used to gain power is now used to torture them, isn't that ironic.
  • The text also specifies "ten" girls are punished: better to lose the quotes her per MOS:QUOTEPOV.
    • These aren't scare quotes though; it has the number "ten" in the text, it's an actual quote. I'd read it without the quotes as potentially implying that the actual text lists 10 specific women (a la Dante calling out specific people for punishment) but the Wikipedia article isn't bothering to list them. Normally I would fix this by making the quote longer and thus more obviously a quote, but the problem is the text literally says "10 virgins" or "10 maidens" are having premarital sex which I presume reads fine in Ethiopic, but will read confusingly in English where it'll sound illogical/impossible.
      • Well, yes, but "John states that he ate ten apples" also implies that John said the word "ten". If you want to make clear that it's ten fungible women, "a total of ten" would do well. The quotes don't strike the right tone -- they read as scare quotes, even if they aren't (this is the point of MOS:QUOTEPOV). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just went with dropping the quotes - "a total of" seems to draw even more attention to it and raise questions.
  • {{Green|The Apocalypse of Peter is one of the earliest pieces of Christian literature to feature an anti-abortion message}: another very short paragraph.
    • Attaching this to another "thought" seems unwise; it's not really that connected. I'd rather keep it separate.
  • The "Christology" section is very short indeed. Is that really the sum of all that has been written on the topic? If so, suggest rolling it in with another section. Ditto the "Literary merits" section, which could perhaps be repurposed as a sort of introduction to the "Analysis" section, without the subhead, unless there is more to say. Per MOS:FIGURES, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
    • Switched the sentence order.
    • I think placing the Literary Analysis section up front would give too much prominence to James' poison pen, IMO (The Ehrman reference discusses James opinion here only to criticize it as overly the-right-canon-prevailed triumphalist). I used the pre-section bit as an "intro" in Contents / Influences, but there isn't really much of an overall "Analysis" to be had which is already something of a grab-bag for "other stuff scholars talk about." I don't think these are that linked so would rather just have short, one-paragraph sections.
  • which might have partially explained a lack of elite enthusiasm for canonizing it later: we haven't actually talked about this yet, so it comes across as vague and confusing.
    • A bit, but I don't think this is THAT confusing. We did mention already in the lede that it wasn't in the canon, so it's a minor flash-forward. More generally, I think this section is mostly on the "do scholars think this is actually well-written, coherent, etc." with the canonicity bit more a side comment. I think the article has a strong ending currently with the canonicity debate - moving this afterward would add a side "eh and here's another thought" afterward would dull the impact.
  • One of the theological messages of the Apocalypse of Peter is generally considered clear enough: there are a couple of perambulatory phrases and sentences in the article like this one -- as in previous notes, I would advise simply cutting them and getting to the point of what we want to say. If you mean to indicate that most of the other theological points are unclear, state that explicitly.
    • I think you're reading this a bit more harshly than intended. I do describe a scholarly debate later in this paragraph on the "real" intent of the ApocPeter (both in its author and its early readers), but just wanted to set up that there do exist some baseline grounds scholars do agree on. And there's a subtle difference between "unclear" and "there is a scholarly debate" - the scholars on side A say it's very clear and obvious, just side B is wrong, and vice versa. I think it'd be a little bit editorializing to throw my hands up and declare that the problem is the text is unclear. (But yes, there is internal-to-the-text dissension on many of the messages, but the "monitory" message is clear. I'm citing Beck here because he is very much on the "ApocPeter as a scary morality play is overrated, it's not just about scaring people into compliance with the threat of hellfire" 'side', but even he grants that there's something of that in the story, just not the main thrust to him.)
  • how can God allow persecution of the righteous on Earth and still be both sovereign and just?: similarly, in an encyclopaedia article (rather than an essay or an academic book chapter), we generally avoid direct/rhetorical questions in Wikivoice.
    • It's definitely not a rhetorical question, but a very hard one! Open to suggestions, but I cannot think of any other way to explain theodicy that doesn't introduce theology in Wikivoice, which is presumably worse. The article on the problem of evil even introduces the topic as a "question", and older theodicies were often explanations for major practical questions like "Why did God allow (disaster to happen)? Because...". Presumably atheists & Christians alike can agree that this is an issue that the author was trying to address, but elevating it from a question to a statement seems like it'd inherently annoy one side (e.g. simply stating the problem as a fact would annoy atheists as assuming a God did indeed allow anything, while including qualifiers like "so-called" would annoy theists).
      • We should make it an indirect question: "the problem of how God can allow...", to quieten down the authorial voice and make it clear that it isn't a rhetorical question. I'm sure the theodicy article does it a few times. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rephrased as you suggested - take a look.
  • and contains elements of both messages: similarly, this is simply a rephrasing of what was said before -- best cut.
    • Strong disagree here. Your wording is certainly more concise, but concision isn't everything; this one is intentional, for emphasis and clarity, and does indeed add something IMO. It's not as if there's a mercy-o-meter that there's a single setting for consistent across the work; the extra comment is hinting that while passage A might strongly indicate a preference for justice, passage B might do so for mercy, and passage C for both simultaneously. I think it's better writing to include this, and makes the sentence read much better to my eyes. (Side note: I'm not an expert here, but while on the topic of old religious writings, a theme seen in old Hebrew is repetition-for-emphasis as well - random Psalms will say something like "God is [X] and [CLOSE SYNONYM FOR X]". I don't think it's a mistake, and it can read rather well in English too.) I dunno, this might be a weird one to plant my flag on, but this one I feel significantly stronger about than the others - this passage is my writing style and I'd rather keep it like this unless there's an outright error here. We're allowed a few spare words to dress things up, and this particular issue is one of the top most useful places to spend them IMO. (Apologies in advance if I come across as an eccentric on this!)
  • may not have fit the mood: I think this is a bit too informal, and perhaps on the wrong side of MOS:IDIOM.
    • You say "informal", I say "accessible to a general audience." ;-) But more seriously, I could replace with "intellectual milieu" or "zeitgeist" or the like but those seems both less accessible and less accurate, so I'm not super keen on doing so. Do you have any suggestions? It's tricky because Christianity was hardly a monolith in that era, so it needs to be a word indicating a similarly vague current-of-thought.
  • three tabernacles here on Earth: here is best cut for concision -- those few people who read this article on the International Space Station can complain on the Talk page if needed.
    • In a vacuum, I agree, but there's an issue here. The text actually just says "My Lord, do you wish that I make three tabernacles here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah?" In other words, "here" is the word original to the text, and "on Earth" is an in-sentence gloss. I think we'd need to cut "on Earth" first if we wanted to shorten this, but then Jesus's objections would come across as somewhat nonsensical, hence clarifying Peter's proposed tabernacles were in the mortal realm and Jesus's tabernacle was heavenly.
  • Make sure that Latin titles, such as Hypotyposes, are in lang templates.
    • Done.
  • Quite a few of the citation templates used in footnotes are throwing Harvard errors -- use this script to catch them, then add |ref=none to fix them.
    • (I saw this, but will hold off, since it involves installing scripts. To be edited later.)
    • Well, these were warnings not errors, and they're acceptable warnings in this case IMO. Still, I fixed this in the "Bibliography" section. Elsewhere, I'm more inclined to "blame" the script - User_talk:Trappist_the_monk/HarvErrors#Citation_bundles indicates that this is a known quirk, where the script doesn't get that citation bundles shouldn't have such a warning. I can still change it if truly desired, but per above, it doesn't appear to actually be an error in the citation.

That's my lot on a first pass -- quite a few comments, but please don't take the quantity as a reflection of the quality of the article -- most are very small and will be quickly resolved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the extensive review! Here's a diff of changes so far (no section swap), and the section order swap separate diff. Will investigate the other comments as well. SnowFire (talk) 07:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt replies -- I haven't got to all of them; most are absolutely find and need no reply, and I've put a few responses above where I think one is needed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I haven't forgotten about this - just had an unexpectedly busy Labor Day weekend & travel + not wanting to do some of these fixes before I could hit the books again. Will hopefully respond soon-ish now that I have a tad more free time. SnowFire (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all -- I still have a few of your replies that I need to get my head around. If they're still below the "Resolved" collapse box, I'm meaning to get to them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies! Did another pass - see diff. SnowFire (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks -- I'm working my way through; it's going a bit slowly but hopefully steadily. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small one, but we're inconsistent about whether scholarship should be related in the present or past tense. I was taught to use the present for "live" views and the past when discussing the history of scholarship (with the implication that views related in the past tense were no longer considered mainstream), but as ever with these things any consistent system is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a tense pass. Here's the tentative rules I applied: Dead scholars get past tense. Scholars who argued a position notably but later changed their mind also get past tense (don't think that ever comes up - maybe Bauckham softening some on 2 Peter vs. ApocPeter timing? That's hidden in a reference anyway.). Living scholars get present tense. Scholarly summations - your system sounds good, so went with past tense for when the vibes are this position is dated, but kept present tense if there are notable scholars still propounding the position. Some constructions not directly about scholarly views remained as is (i.e. "the fragment is dated" where it's talking about something else).
    • Anyway, most recent diff. Also feel free to speak up if I said I did something but then didn't do it - that's probably just an error (I seem to find myself responding to these at 3-4 AM while unable to sleep...). SnowFire (talk) 09:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just gone through looking to close this off -- I've made some copyedit suggestions, including one to the "fit the mood" problem above. One remaining issue: I see considering the reservations various church authors had on the Apocalypse of John (the Book of Revelation), it is possible similar considerations were in play. -- do we ever say what those considerations were? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your changes look fine to me.
      On Revelation: Unfortunately, I don't think either set of considerations / objections are known (hence the "it is possible" wording). That said, that line was added very early in my expansion and it looks like I was a little loose on sourcing it at the time. I do think it's true but should probably get a direct attribution to scholar XYZ - I've commented it out for now. If I find a good source to restore it, I'll see what it says and if it includes any hypotheses. (Just it's often speculating at gaps - why did writer XYZ not mention it? and why did writer ABC just call it disputed? Very vague.) . SnowFire (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has nobody taken a stab at it -- or said that it's unknown? I think one or the other would help: as we've phrased it, it sounds like there are known reasons about Revelation, which might apply to ApocPeter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @UndercoverClassicist: I've reorganized the section and placed in a reference to "The Oxford Handbook of Revelation." It's still mildly sketchy since it's tying together a thought spread across two sources, but I think it's fine given that Nicklas does directly raise the matter of the Apocalypse of Peter's status as being comparable to Revelation.
        • Also, on an earlier note, I've snuck in a reference outside the Hatnote to the Gnostic & Arabic Apocalypses of Peter - in the name footnote, of all places. Added in another 2022 source as well (Batovici) - it's nothing new, but useful as another layer of verification. Also, see above, but I've uploaded a new map and verified it against recent Atlases, and have more pictures of scholarly Atlases if really required. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Support: almost all of this article is well outside my area of expertise, but it certainly has the look, feel and flavour of an FA, and I'm satisfied with all the amendments and fixes made during this (lengthy!) review. Credit to SnowFire for their patience and good humour with the process, and I hope they feel it has been of benefit to the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • The citation style of the article is inconsistent. Several sources referred to in the "Reference" section, are not listed in section "Bibliography" (for instance, Metzger). Some references are rather notes (I refer to, for example, references 16 and 43). Do not verify a statement with a note (for instance, this is the case in the two last sentences in section "Date of authorship").
    • I explained my citation style above in discussion with UC, and it's consistent and keeping with WP:CITEVAR. I'll copy-paste what I wrote there:
      • The citation style I use is that sources that are cited a lot over multiple page ranges go in the Bibliography, and everything else is a normal reference. There is a method to the madness here - when seeing the reference previews from hover (desktop) or press (mobile), the strict page ranges are a little less helpful than a full reference. So if everything can fit in a single reference (say JK Elliot's Apocryphal New Testament writeup, or Maurer / Mueller's, or random journal articles), I stick it there. I personally consider it an antipattern that if there's a source only used in one spot, a strict "everything in the bibliography, short references only" style forces a secondary lookup / hover to track it down when it could have just been connected at the start. This also has the benefit of the Bibliography being a genuine "read these 6 books to learn about ApocPeter" bibliography that cuts to the core, most-used sources recommended to read, rather than a grab-bag.
      • Now, there is one quirk with this article, which is that there's two heavily cited monograph collections in the Bibliography (the 2003 Apocalypse of Peter edited by Bremmer, and the 2024 collection edited by Maier et al). For those, I stuck them there anyway due to their importance, but all of the references are separated out as citations to individual chapters, since the chapters have different authors. And those are usual full citations.
    • Metzger is used in more than one spot but it's not mostly on the Apocalypse of Peter, while the sources listed in Bibliography are. I'd rather keep it as is unless you feel this is truly a problem, but I'd be curious why it's a problem - clicking a Metzger page range will show the Metzger book just fine.
    • On long references: 16 isn't really appropriate as a note, IMO. It's a "see these original sources for more" which is exactly what a reference is. I've reserved notes for "prose that a reader might be interested in, but keeping it in the main article would distract the flow on a minor point and it isn't strictly required." A bunch of links to old journal articles is useful IMO, hence including it, but it's clearly a reference. 43 is more borderline, but that is again a reference IMO. I'm trying to avoid the antipattern many articles use of, when there's scholarly dissension, just citing both and letting the reader figure things out by saying up front that you can see different slants at different references. I could see a reverse complaint where if I only had the scholarly references, someone might complain about text-source integrity that actually, this other reference says something slightly different than what the text does. A more fully explained reference fixes the problem IMO. I believe my style is valid per CITEVAR where explaining some references does not automatically qualify something for footnote status. WP:EXPLNOTESECT explicitly says that having a notes section at all is optional, and there are FAs that entirely eschew a notes section and stick everything in references, including detailed note-like references. Given that, I have to assume that there is discretion on the article author to choose what qualifies for a note and what qualifies as a reference.
    • I would not expect explanations in references. I think the present method is not fully in line with WP:CITEHOW
      • A simple "Lastname Year p. 100" is the basic case, sure, but I would say that WP:FOOTQUOTE covers this - "Sometimes, however, it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting." For ref 43, say, I don't think Lapham's view on the transfiguration parallel is so significant that it merits discussion in a full reader-facing footnote, but that including Lapham as a reference unadorned could create a complaint that it's missing subtleties in the position. There's no perfect fix here, but having a somewhat fuller citation is basically harmless and not at all unusual, and makes a lot of sense for articles with strong references yet sometimes contrasting results.
    • The notes in "Date of Authorship" all have detailed references (5 refs in the Bar-Kokhba note, say). I suppose I can replicate all of them again in-prose, but I really don't see the point, and it makes it harder for a well-meaning reader to actually get sent to the note of approachable prose I want them to read, rather than the reference that they probably don't care about. I checked 3 FAs at random, and all 3 of them were using notes-with-references-in-the-note as well, suggesting this isn't an unknown style (and not just "middle of the paragraph" stuff - I'm talking notes at the end of the paragraph, with the ref in the note).
  • Introduce people when they are first mentioned in the text: Richard Bauckham > the theologian/Biblical scholar Richard Bauckham; Gaston Maspéro > the Egyptologist Gaston Maspéro, etc.
    • Unfortunately, if you read Undercover Classicist above, he recommended doing precisely the reverse of this in his review and not introducing anyone unless it's surprising or out-of-field, and so I just went around removing some of these recently. I can't comply with both requests. If someone wants to offer a third opinion, I'll vary it up with whatever the majority says, as I think this is purely a stylistic preference where both ways can work.
There are a few schools of thought on this -- to me, the overarching principle here would be the FAC mantra that "if it's consistent and it works, it's fine". Personally, I used to be in the school of "introduce everyone", but discussions at some FACs here (from memory, this was prominent at Beulé Gate) have pushed me more towards not generally introducing people where that introduction would be "this person is the sort of expert you'd expect to see quoted here). Some of the reasons for this are:
  • False distinctions -- particularly in a field like this one, there aren't bright lines between e.g. "theologian/religious historian/scholar of Judaism", and choosing one epithet over the other can give a misleading impression that two people are coming at this from very different angles, or else misrepresent the field. Even worse, titles like "scholar" or "writer" sometimes disguise the fact that the person isn't really an expert in this topic at all.
  • False precision -- if we implicitly endorse someone as "the historian X...", we give readers the sense that they are all equally qualified and worth listening to, which isn't often the case. The oft-cited user essay on this point uses the example of David Irving, who would need a lot more context than that.
  • Repetition -- readers will generally assume that we don't quote people who aren't worth listening to, so if the introduction does nothing more than say "this person is worth listening to", it's tautological and adds needless words (and so takes away from the article's clarity). This is a similar argument to why we don't write things like "a notable fact is..." or "it is important that...".
With that said, if the person being quoted is not a run-of-the-mill current expert, there are good arguments for introducing them -- particularly if:
  • The article is very interdisciplinary, and people are coming at it from very different perspectives (see Ove Jørgensen, where I had to introduce practically everyone to be clear if they were a classicist, a ballet scholar or a personal acquaintance of the subject).
  • The view is particularly dated, or otherwise considered obsolete.
  • They are being used as something other than an academic expert: this came up a lot in Homeric Hymns, where classicists/philologists/literary scholars were generally not given epithets, but people like Ezra Pound, who passed judgement on the topic from a different perspective, were introduced to make clear that their expertise was different from that of the (many) academics mentioned elsewhere.
That's quite a lot of verbiage to say "it's really a moot point", but I hope it helps. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I still think that introducing the scholars mentioned in the article is the best method: if a scholar is to be named in an article for whatever reason we should not be forced to make a research for them and a scholar's name itself is not informative. Encyclopedic approach itself leads to simplifications: we are summarising the content of lengthy scholarly studies. I would ignore the "oft-cited user essay" for it has only been visited 41 times this year (5 times on the same day indicating that somebody referred to it in a discussion [25]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are not the titles of works/texts italicised?
    • See MOS:NEITHER, where "religious texts" aren't italicized. e.g. Revelation, not Revelation.
  • The first section's title does not reflect the text.
    • I've switched the title to "Authorship and date" if that helps better make clear the scope.
  • The Apocalypse of Peter seems to have been written between 100 AD and 150 AD. 1. Another cited source writes of a different timeframe (Metzger (1987), p. 184). 2. None of the two years mentioned in the sentence are certain. 3. Rephrase to avoid PoV language.
    • For 1, I wasn't citing Metzger there? He's writing a 3-page short summary. I'm trying to use the highest quality sources for the main topic, which means scholars who have dedicated a bit more space to ApocPeter. There is already some dissension here that is already discussed (i.e. Bauckham arguing for a more specific dating); I didn't feel Metzger's narrower range was worth going into because he doesn't explain why at all and he's not an ApocPeter expert. It's just a difference, that happens all the time, it'd blow the article up to 5x the length if every small scholarly difference was discussed. (Metzger is a fantastic source overall on the topic of the formation of the canon, but the scholarly estimates of when precisely ApocPeter was written? Probably not. More sources say 100 as the start date, or even earlier if the 4 Esdras reference is discarded as too weak.)
    • For 2, I absolutely agree, but that's why I wrote "Seems". I guess you're arguing for a "circa"? But having both "seems" and "Circa" would be essentially repeating, and including only "circa" would be too subtle for some casual readers who might not catch the abbreviation.
    • For 3, I don't see anything POV here at all. If this means "seems" again, to be clear, the authors themselves acknowledge a range of possibilities. Text-source integrity requires communicating this uncertainty in text.
  • These Ethiopic versions appear to have been translated from an Arabic version, which itself was translated from the lost Greek original. Who says this and why?
    • First off - I refactored this section during the FAC, and I think the ref to this got shuffled around. I've replaced it; Bauckham p. 162 covers it (as well as p.254, but that's just repeating it). I also threw in a ref to Müller 1991 (Which is a bit more acknowledging of the possibility of it not being accurate.)
    • As for who says it: Everyone, pretty much. Beck writes "if the Ethiopic text of the Apoc Pet was translated from Arabic, as many have suggested" (p. 161 of his thesis) and then cites 7 full sources. While it's not proven (no Arabic manuscript exists; Müller writes "That the Ethiopic translation could be very old, and made directly from the Greek, remains a possibility"), most scholars seem to accept it as the most likely, and it's not controversial to my knowledge. As to why: well most of the scholars don't go into this, just pass by as accepted knowledge. Since I haven't seen any scholars argue against it, I didn't go into detail, but used the weaker verb "Appears" to indicate it wasn't conclusively shown.
    • As for why: This is a frustrating question! Lots of scholars said this as already noted, but the references often go to just other scholars saying it too (and one to a very bum reference... the 2010 paper on Z'RL cites Bratke 1893, who was fruitlessly searching for an Arabic-Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter via mishmash of quotes before d'Abbadie was publicized, i.e. worthless). Well, from SnowFire, Buchholz talks about how essentially many works in Ethiopic came from Arabic translations, so it wouldn't be weird. And the Ezreal thing already mentioned in-article seems like it'd fit with coming from Arabic / Islam. But I'm not seeing a lot here. The best I can say is that C. D. G. Müller was specifically an Ethiopanist and linguist of languages of the region, not a scholar of religion who happened to be interested in an Ethiopic document, and if he thinks that the document was probably a translation from Arabic, I'm fine with deferring to him. (And he's a recent-ish source, writing in the 1980s.)
    • I think the sentence could be rephrased to avoid PoV language: "According to scholarly consensus/Most specialists think that/.... these Ethiopic versions were translated from Arabic rather than from the original Greek text."
        • Done, but I'm not a fan of this as a general principle. Most of the article is an attempt at describing scholarly consensus, and I don't want to imply other sections aren't - that should be the default on Wikipedia when not attributing a fact.
          • As a general principle I am not a fan of this either but if reliable sources verifies the statement we should inform our reader that they are reading a well established theory, not only the assumptions of one single scholar or an editor. Borsoka (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The d'Abbadie manuscript is estimated to have been created ... By whom and why?
  • ...the Lake Tana manuscript is from perhaps the 18th century According to whom?
    • These are both in the reference already given for the sentence. Buchholz cites Carlo Conti Rossini for dating the d'Abbadie manuscript (a 1912 article just ~2 years after Grebaut's publication), and Ernst Hammerschmidt for dating the Lake Tana manuscript (the same 1973 Hammerschmidt paper already mentioned in another reference, actually). I can add these details to the reference if desired but I figured that as an overview article rather than a book, these details are too much in the weeds. In general, the style I've gone for is to only cite people who are arguing for controversial positions, and state uncontroversial stuff as fact with "who said this" in the reference. (The dating of Akhmim was attributed in prose only because there are a wide range of estimates there, so those more specific estimates had to be attributed.)
  • I do not want to read references to have basic info. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. That said, in side chatter, there's already quite a lot of "scholar X said this" in the article (and if you check the page history of the cited scholars, you'll see that I created the Wikipedia articles on them). So it's something I personally am interested in, but my impression is that general readers are only interested if there's actually a nerd fight to be had (e.g. Martha Himmelfarb criticizing the ghost of Albrecht Dietrich), not just simple attributions of who said something noncontroversial first.

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks now without a single support for promotion. I'm afraid it's at the risk of archival if there's no significant progress over the next three days or so. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod

[edit]
  • Pretty clearly there, after a good going over by others. Just a few nitpicks:
  • Is there a convention that we don't italicize the titles of even apocryphal New Testament texts? New Testament apocrypha is a mess in this respect. Things like The Shepherd of Hermas should certainly have italics.
    • I'm mostly going off MOS:NEITHER which seems to recommend no italics as a Wikipedia convention. As for what the sources do, it's a mess - some italicize, some don't. In general, I think the Wikipedia standard is attempting to draw the line at "did people take this seriously as scripture" vs. works that might have had religious opinions, but nobody took as even an attempt to be "apostolic" (e.g. Dialogue with Trypho for a contemporary example). And if that is indeed the line, than ApocPeter and Shephard of Hermas both don't qualify, as they were indeed taken as scripture. (Even stuff like 1 Clement was in old copies of scriptures!) The expansion under "religious texts" says that "relatively obscure" religious texts can be italicized, but then also talks about books published in modern times - e.g. stuff like The Urantia Book. On balance, I think the current guideline suggests no italics, but happy to discuss a sharper standard on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works if desired?
      • I don't really agree with this, though clearly the area is messy. I think the style used at our articles should probably be followed, so The Shepherd of Hermas. Johnbod (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, chose our poison, consistency within this article or consistency with other Wikipedia articles. I'd rather have what's within one article consistent and not italicize, it seems jarring - especially in areas like the lists of works when nobody was sure what later centuries would deem apocryphal and what wasn't yet (e.g. Eusebius does not know that Jude will become canonical but Barnabas won't, so he certainly isn't setting out such a distinction). That said, I have switched it over anyway, but I think it reads weirdly. SnowFire (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Hellenistic philosophy from Greek culture" also sounds very odd to me. There are links for the appropriate "Greek culture", but a reword is also needed, or a cut.
    • On adding a link: Hmm, I'm not so sure! We aren't sure where this was written, so the kind of Greek culture would vary between Egypt, Judea, Christian Rome, etc. I'm open to suggestions - as mentioned to UC above, the idea was to hint to casual readers what "Hellenistic" means (since casuals read the lede but nothing else), but I give up for now and just cut it. Happy to hear any suggestions for alternative ways to sneak in what Hellenistic means.
  • the link from "extant" to Ancient literature seems pretty useless. "Surviving" is often a better word choice than "extant".
    • Removed link (I don't think I was the one who added it). And while I agree in general, I think "surviving" reads a little oddly here - it's used in the next paragraph but with "earliest surviving" which I think provides more context, so I think "extant" hopefully works. (But can still change it if you really feel strongly.)
  • "After inquiring for signs of the Second Coming of Jesus" - is "inquiring" the right word here? Or explain who is inquiring.
    • Expanded to "the disciples." And yeah, they inquire ("And we asked him..."). My only worry is that now we're suddenly introducing the disciples in the lead when they barely matter (they appear as just background flavor as an entourage for Peter), but oh well.
  • "and details both heavenly bliss for the righteous and infernal punishments for the damned" odding phrasing - participles needed and "sets out" or something.
    • Usual "I'm an American" comment goes here, but it sounds fine to me? I ran your comment past a person who once was a professional copyeditor I know and he wasn't sure what the complaint was either. "Details" is an unusual verb but not unheard of.
  • ridiculous imo to object to the Divine Comedy being described as "famous", but whatever.
  • Personally I'd put all or most of notes 2 & 3 into the main text. Maybe n. 4 too
    • Hmm. I'm tempted, but there is a reason I did it this way... for the somewhat-casual reader reading sequentially, the part they're interested in is "Contents". But as mentioned above, the manuscript history is unfortunately necessary to cover first, so that "Ethiopic vs. Akhmim vs. Rainer" debates make sense. As such, I've tried to have those sections be written tightly and concisely so that the general gist is acquired, and why I stuck the deeper scholarly debates in footnotes. It's extra tricky because the scholarly debates on the specifics of authorship require knowing something about the contents, which we haven't read yet if we're a hypothetical reader reading sequentially! If this was a book, it'd be something like "Intro -> Contents -> More about Authorship" but I don't think Wikipedia style is to have an "Authorship, part II" in analysis. As such, moving it into a footnote (I'm using the noisier, longer "Note 1" as well to signify this isn't just a citation) lets the content be in the article in the expected section, but without disrupting the flow. Well, that's my argument at least. Do you think that's good enough reason here, or would you still rather have more info moved out and into prose?
  • link "risen Christ"? Also "Moses and Elijah", "Elysian field" at first mention, "Sibylline Oracles" at 2nd rather than 3rd mention, Clementine literature at 1st, Alexandria,
    • I was trying to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE, but don't feel too strongly about it, so added the Risen Christ & Alexandria link. Moses and Elijah are already linked? Unless you meant them together, but that's just the Transfiguration which is also already linked. Elysian field is linked at first mention in the prose (rather than in the quote, since it's in both the quotes). Sibylline Oracles are linked at first mention in "Authorship and date". They aren't linked in "Prayers for those in hell", but I think you're referring to the link in the quote - but I don't think such links in a quote attribution "count" per usual standards on say image caption links not counting either. Clementine literature is linked at first appearance in "Manuscript history", then linked again in a separate section (in compliance with the updated WP:DUPLINK guidelines) in "Later influence" but again first appearance in that section.
  • "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of apocalyptic literature in genre" reads a bit oddly - "the Apocalypse of Peter is classed as part of the genre of apocalyptic literature" perhaps?
    • Those read identically to me, but I don't feel strongly, so sure, switched.
  • "was on determining its predecessor influences" reads awkwardly imo
    • I'm not a huge fan of the existing phrasing myself, but it's a relevant point - a works "influences" can mean both forward & backward, and I want to specify it was specifically the earlier influences that this scholarship was interested in. But they can't be called "predecessors" directly as that's highly contested and probably not accurate, they're just influences. Open to suggestions, but I think the somewhat awkward "predecessor influences" is at least precise to what is being meant.
  • "possibly a loose callback" - too slangy
    • It's an overloaded word that has other problems, but if you dislike callback, I've switched to "reference" instead. (But I'm somewhat worried about it being misread as the encyclopedia sense rather than the literary/traditional sense.)
  • "with a high Christology" - is this a term often used? Perhaps needs explaining. I doubt the link will help much.
    • This one we're stuck with - it's an academic term, but it's definitely the one used. Both Beck ("The use of such titles in these chapters reveals a high Christology") and Buchholz ("These titles are evidence of a high christology") specifically use the term, so not much to do other than wikilink it for people to look it up. I think the context and the term itself gives a pretty good guess to what it means.
  • "is generally dated to the last quarter of the 2nd century (c. 170–200 AD)" slightly jarring maths failure here. Just use the dates?
    • It's historical guesstimate ranges in this case, was not intended to imply a precise 25-year period nor a precise 30-year period. That said, changed, went with "late 2nd century".
  • You are right not to be pressured to change your citation method.

Btw, if we can get this finished by Thursday it would be good, as then I'm away for 10 days. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "It is the earliest-written extant document depicting a Christian version of heaven and hell in detail." This is clumsy and misleading. I thought at first it meant an original 2C document. Why not " It is the earliest detailed depiction of a Christian version of heaven and hell."
    • Including "extant" is important because at least some scholars think that there indeed might have been preceding versions (Himmelfarb) that have been lost to time.
    • It isn't misleading either, although I will grant that it is a somewhat complex situation (but that's the fault of the situation, not the sentence). All of our most ancient manuscripts of this period long postdate when they were originally written. That said, scholarship is usually more interested in the original date of writing of such works, not the date of the oldest surviving manuscript that happens to include them. Saying "earliest-written extant" is correct because it means that of extant works, it was authored the earliest (regardless of the 5th & 6th century fragments we have from later). Leading with this information is correct and offers due weight to what the sources are most interested in, the date of authorship. I've substituted "document" for "work" if this will make this interpretation less likely, although we have a close repetition of "work" now, so it's not ideal.
    • As for "clumsy", I don't see a significant difference between "depicting" and "depiction". It reads fine to me as is. Switching "in detail" to "detailed" can subtly change the sense, too... "in detail" is a sop that there are some brief depictions of hell elsewhere that are earlier (e.g. in the Revelation of John), but this work goes into detail (i.e. full chapters devoted to it). "Detailed" doesn't portray this as strongly; to me, something can be called "detailed" but only be one or two sentences long, if it's just evocative or the sentences are crowded.
  • "The text is extant in two diverging versions". "diverging" is the wrong word. It means moving apart. Maybe "different"?
    • That's the intended word. If you read further, scholarly speculation is that there was an original ApocPeter (perhaps partially preserved in the Rainer / Bodleian fragments), and it diverged into different "editions" by editor, the Ethiopic version (which made some changes to the hypothesized original) and the Akhmim version (which made a lot of changes to the hypothesized original). So yes, the editions did indeed split and become further apart literarily.
  • "The Apocalypse of Peter is a forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante". This does not seem fully supported in the main text. You say there that the Apocalypse of Peter influenced the Apocalypse of Paul, which influenced the Divine Comedy, but "forerunner of the same genre as the Divine Comedy of Dante" implies a larger set of medieval works.
    • The body writes that ApocPeter is a "Christian katabasis, a genre of explicit depictions of the realms and fates of the dead", which the Divine Comedy is also. When the word "forerunner" is used, it's mostly as a sop that later journeys to the afterlife would make some significant revisions, but they're both still broadly a katabasis. It's including the full range of later katabases in that statement (e.g. ApocPaul), not just the ones of Dante's day. (Although, as a side note, even if a reader somehow did interpret it as about medieval katabases specifically, then it's still accurate - there were indeed medieval examples, albeit more obscure than Dante - the Legend of the Purgatory of St. Patrick for one. I agree the body doesn't go into detail on specifically medieval katabases, but that would seem off-topic.)
  • "After reading the French translations, the English scholar M. R. James realized in 1910 that there was a strong correspondence with the Akhmim Greek Apocalypse of Peter, and that an Ethiopic version of the same work was within this cache." This needs clarification. What does a "strong correspondence" mean in this context? How could it have told him that there was a version of the Apocalypse in the cache?
    • It means that the passages were very similar, so similar as to suggest it was not a quote but a full translation of the same work. You can read James's 1910 article in the reference if you're interested in more - it's public domain / on Wikipedia library ( JSTOR link). He does a side-by-side of the Akhmim Greek with Grebaut's French translation. I don't think any clarification is required - this is just the normal meaning of correspondence, and James uses that word exactly (e.g. "Here begins the equivalent of the description of Hell which we possess in Greek. The opening words are corrupt in the Ethiopic, but the correspondence is unmistakeable.") James had previously argued in journal articles that he thought it was likely there were some fuller copies of the Apocalypse of Peter (which he'd already studied via patristic quotations & Akhmim), and here's a source that matches patristic quotations very well and Akhmim tolerably, so maybe we've found a translated version of the original Greek Apocalypse of Peter.
  • "the Lake Tana manuscript is estimated by Ernst Hammerschmidt to be from perhaps the 18th century". "from perhaps" is clumsy and ambiguous. Does is mean around 18C or maybe 18C but maybe from a very different period?
    • It sounds ambiguous because it is ambiguous. I'm just reflecting the source here. Here's a fuller quote from Buchholz: "The manuscript is not dated, but its style of letter formation is quite different from that in T (the d'Abaddie manuscript). Hammerschmidt ventures to guess the eighteenth century but follows this with a question mark to indicate how uncertain is the date." Hammerschmidt himself isn't certain, so "perhaps" is required to accurately represent his position.
  • More to follow. Done to end of Later influence. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim Plate vii.png - PD
  • Eastern Mediterranean 125 political map eastern med.svg - CC BY SA
  • File:Bodleian fragment Apocalypse of Peter MS. Gr. th. f. 4 (P).jpg - PD
  • File:Eugène Delacroix - The Barque of Dante.jpg - PD
  • File:Ethiopic Prologue Apocalypse of Peter.jpg - PD
  • File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 1 and 4 color.png and File:Rainer fragment Apocalypse Peter 2 and 3 color.png - PD

All images are appropriate and captioned. They have alt-text and are formatted correclty. Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by IntentionallyDense

[edit]

I will be doing the source review for this article. I usually do this by filling out a table as I go. I will ping the nominator when I'm done but anyone is welcome to make comments as I work. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
Section Status Sources I couldn't access Comments
Authorship and date Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manuscript history Done Skipped the ones I couldn't access I spotchecked this section and found no issues. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contents Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Second Coming Done Your eyes will be opened : a study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter I wasn't able to access the one source but otherwise everything was verified. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Punishments and rewards Done I just used the Bauckham 1998 ref and that verified everything Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prayers for those in hell Done Spotchecked with sources I had Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influences, genre, and related works Done none Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Predecessors Not done
Contemporary work Done None Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later influence Not done
The punishments and lex talionis Not done
Christology Done Your Eyes Will Be Opened: A Study of the Greek (Ethiopic) Apocalypse of Peter I was only able to verify about half the sentence because I couldn't access the other source but I'm going to assume in good faith that the other half is verified by the other source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Angels and demons Not done
Literary merits Done "The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter". Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theology Not done
Debate over canonicity Not done
  • I'm going to take a bit of a break with this source review till the IA is back online since quite a few of the sources appear to be accessible through the archive. If this is a problem or if the IA doesn't come back online in a timely manner I can continue to just download pdfs of the books but that is very time-consuming. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla and unions

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about unionization efforts at Tesla in different countries and Tesla's relation to trade unions more broadly. A lot of attention is brought to Elon Musk's commentary, but this Wikipedia article authoritatively brings attention to older campaigns and countries in order to WP:GLOBALIZE coverage. It is a GA and has continued to be expanded since. This is my first WP:FAC so I am appreciative of any assistance/guidance along the way. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Hello Shushugah and welcome to FAC. I'll do the image review. The article contains the following images:

They are own works published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International. They are relevant and placed at appropriate locations. Both images are from Germany. Since Tesla is an American company, it would be good to have America also represented image-wise. The images lack alt-texts, see MOS:ALT. The captions are fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

📸 Done! I agree more photos would be nice. I have contacted United Auto Workers and IndustriALL Global Union to WP:DONATE some photos because there are nice ones that show diversity and breadth of Tesla workers movement. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the alt text. It would be great if it works out with the photos from the unions. If not, alternatives would be to use a picture of a Tesla factory where workers tried to unionize, like Gigafactory New York, or to have a multiple image of the logos of the different unions that made attempts. The article is relatively short so we don't need many images. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 using logos of unions would violate WP:NFCC rationale. I do not think the differing logos add contextual understanding to the differences between the unions, their efforts. The logo usages would need to be minimal, and this article is akin to a list of different union efforts (me thinks). I did also consider whether creating a geographic map with different union logos would be possible, but I believe that would be improper WP:Derivative work. Generally I think the File:IG Metall brochures for Tesla employees.jpg is the best image for the moment, being prominent in both English/German and representing the largest/most active union campaign. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about adding an image of Gigafactory New York (like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_sign_2.jpg) to the subsection "Giga New York"? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added it with captions and accessibility text. I note in Giga New York image caption, this is months before first union effort there. I opted to leave Fremont without a photo as the Tesla Fremont Factory and NUMMMI have numerous photos, and immediately above it I added a dynamic photo from 2023 United Auto Workers strike using File:United Auto Workers Strike 2023.jpg which plays an important role in overall enthusiasm for UAW union revitalization at non-union automobile manufacturers. Images are CC-BY-SA 4.0 and PD respectively. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for including the images, they help add variety. I think it would it be better to move the image of the 2023 strike to the last paragraph of the section "Fremont Factory", where it is discussed. Otherwise, looks fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 ✅ Done! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That solves the remaining problem. I moved the image a little down so that it is closer to the paragraph discussing the strike but feel free to revert if you prefer the original placement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke

[edit]

Lovely article. My initial comments:

  • Do we have any information about China? With 20,000 Tesla workers, it would be interesting to know if they are part of the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.
    Does not seem like it. Formally speaking, every mid-sized company in China should have representation on ACFTU, but in practice this does not always happen The PwC report summarizes inconsistent enforcement. Walmart did not get a union until 2006, despite being in the country since 1990s. I have asked 2 China Labor scholars, who both indicated it is unlike that Tesla has a union at this stage and they're not aware of any such efforts.
Further more, I checked the both the US-based China Labor Watch and the Hong Kong based China Labour Bulletin for any related news about Tesla. There are several articles about employee dissatisfaction at Tesla, but nothing about collective action (strikes -- which are formally illegal anyways in China) or worker representation. I will contact CLB and CLW for any hints to the contrary as well, but as far as I can tell to best of my research, no there is not. I have written Volkswagen_and_unions#China and Apple Inc. and unions#China where there was more to write/say. I am also keeping an eye, if anything changes/appears in terms of sourcing from the Netherlands. This paragraph was rightfully so removed. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know why the New York case was withdrawn?
    No idea. I cannot find any further mention or context. I can remove it if it is WP:UNDUE. The union effort (and its fizzling) are notable, but withdrawn NLRB complaints are quite common. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • This article about the strikes in Sweden talks about Tesla's intimidation tactics. Should that be included?
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • In the description of Sweden, you give the reader some background (such as sympathy strikes being legal in the country). I think the article would benefit with the same amount of background in the US and Germany.
    Excellent suggestion. I have added backgrounds for Germany and USA. I aimed to avoid WP:SYNTH or getting overly WP:Technical. I hope I struck a decent balance. Will re-read it a few times. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    Looks better. I think mentioning the detail of "codified in the Works Constitution Act" is unnecessary. Do we need to use jargon like "protected concerted activity", or can that jargon be hidden in a wikilink? It seems like you forgot to add a source to describe the US situation? The LAT source doesn't go into the details of the general situation with unions in the US. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's now gone too much in the opposite direction (too much background for the US). Can you limit it to one paragraph? The first paragraph seems a bit too detailed in particular. I'm pretty sure the main template (labor unions in the US), should not be in the middle of the section. I think it's best to delete it, but you can also change it into a further at the top of the paragraph. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like, how is it possible that with 400,000 dollars, no union is formed? Do you need a certain percentage of the workers to vote in favour? Are there other barriers?
    I cannot explain (with available sourcing) whether $400,000 is a lot or not (my personal feeling is it not) but I added a contrast to it with the $40 million UAW announced in 2023 for 13 non-union workplaces over 2 years. That won't all go to Tesla, but it's a marked increase and change in UAW organizing philosophy (Shawn Fain makes that very clear). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • What is a Works Council in Germany?
    Explained in the background added for Germany. (Note: while I am a central works council and works council chair myself and also a member of IG Metall, I exclusively rely on what sourcing explain about them, do share if the prose/clarity can be further improved. The distinction between works council/union and works agreement/collective agreement are key imho to understanding Tesla dispute and structural tensions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • Are non-disclosure agreements legal in Germany for work conditions?
    Basically no...but I cannot easily find sourcing for that, and more importantly what legal consequences that has. Depends on very particular/archaic court rulings. What's clear in any case is culture of fear/intimidation, and overall pattern of Tesla willing to bend the law. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • Prose quabbles:
    • In October 2017, Tesla fired Richard Ortiz who was organizing (alongside Moran, one of the union organizers), which the NLRB later ruled to be illegal retaliation. --> do we need the parenthesis here. Not quite clear if both were fired.
    I removed paragraphed quote, Moran was not fired as far as I can tell. His experience was very much part of NLRB's 2021 ruling about unfair labor practices. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • and discussing with workers their opinion on unions --> this text is not quite clear.
    Expanded, basically Captive audience meetings where employer grills workers about their views of unions and discourages unionization. Which previously had legally ambiguous status, but was cemented as illegal by current NLRB general counsel ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • I'm not sure I follow the connection between the two sentences here: " Electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to fewer union members and a higher labor supply."
    Expanded in the background explanation. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • In January 2023, IG Metall called for an investigation after stating that workers had called the organization to report that they were being made to work longer hours, with less time between shifts. --> I think we can be closer to WP:Wikivoice here for conciseness (called for an investigation after workers had called).
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    Done. Thank you for my first FAC prose review! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    • I dislike the new first sentence, with the addition of "(half in the United States)". You're trying too put too much in, making readability worse. Try to be more conservative with parentheses too, they can impede flow. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Femke I've slimmed it down by half. A good background should provide necessary context to understand the Tesla union specific challenges which are different in each country. In the case of US me thinks it is about challenges of unsuccessful unionization, renewed momentum of UAW organising non-union shops in 2023 which is further contextualized in the body. I have slimmed usage of parentheses as well and rewritten them to flow with sentence structure. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting & sourcing squibbles:
    • I've removed some fullstops per MOS:PERIOD.
    • Make sure you use the right parameters in your cite news/web. A newspaper should be in italics. An organisation (like the Finnish Transport Workers' Union or National Labor Relations Board should not be italics. Typically, if the Wikipedia article about something is in italics, that's how it needs to be formatted. You can change the formatting by moving it from work to publisher.
  • The union dues are not exactly 1%, but typically 1%. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you and addressed all of the above squibbles! It appears both website/work= parameters italicize, while publisher= does not. It does not feel very semantic, but I have formatted all of them accordingly. Medium.com, SEC, NLRB and Finnish Transport Workers' Union were the 4 instances where I kept Template:Cite web instead of Template:Cite newsso I formatted them accordingly along with publisher parameter. I also removed language=en-* which is a default. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of consistent source formatting:
    Archives added everywhere including external links, ISSN added for NYTimes, pluralized pages used. I have rephrases sentences where parenthesis was impeding, and kept them where they did not impede. I have expanded a larger section about US background of labor. The sources are high quality, but it's still a challenge to summarize them in a meaningful and succinct manner. Will get some rest myself and re-read them for clarity.

Support. With Mike's comments addressed, I'm happy to support. I would still remove at least one of the Tweets from Musk as it's given undue attention to this framing. Instead, incorporate it into the text? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for more than 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) 11:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Gog the Mild, would a time extension be possible as this is my first FAC and I've only had the chance to receive and respond to generous feedback from Femke in the past 4 days. As you can see above, we have been collaborating extensively since. My hope is that some more editors will opine now that the ice has been broken. Kind regards ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a further review or two are started, then I and my fellow coordinators will certainly consider extending the time scale, we have no wish to close any nomination down prematurely. But do note the "if". Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild this is moving along. There are currently 3 supports and an image pass. One thing I was wondering about is source review. I've seen several source reviews, where people mainly comment on the formatting of source review, rather than in-depth review of text verification/source integrity. In my opinion, Mike Christie generously and thoroughly reviewed the content of the sourcing, and there have been numerous discussions back and forth with all the reviewers either about presence/absence of certain sources. Do I need to explicitly solicit a source review, in addition other reviews? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, could you confirm or otherwise as to whether you consider your review to include a source review and/or a first-timer's source to text spot check and/or a plagiarism check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask about the use of some of the sourcing, but did not do a full review of all the sources as I would for a FAC source review, nor did I look at the formatting of the sources. I did a spotcheck at the GAN, but of course that doesn't count as the spotcheck for a first FAC. I have more confidence about the sources than I would have for an article I hadn't reviewed, but I think it would be best to have someone else do a normal source review and spotcheck. If nobody gets to it by the end of the week I can probably do it -- I'm travelling from Wednesday through Sunday but would probably have time next Monday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

Noting that I was the GA reviewer for this.

  • The first paragraph of the "United States" section is repeated as the second paragraph of the lead. There's occasionally call for repeating sentences from the body exactly in the lead, but a whole paragraph is too much, particularly when only a handful of sentences separate the first occurrence from the second. I would compress and rephrase this (and there's no need for the citations in the lead).
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Union busting is common": I think we should use more neutral language -- "union busting" brings to my mind some of the bloody and brutal violence from the US's history, and our own article on it says it's the term used by the workers, not the corporations. Perhaps "US corporations often oppose unions, sometimes using methods outlawed by the NLRA, but there are no criminal consequences if they are found to have done so." Assuming you can source something like that?
    Done. I switched to civil enforcement (ability to impose fines), since that is what existing and newly added EPI articles emphasis, which is unique compared to other federal agencies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    The text used to say there are no criminal penalties, and now it says there are no civil penalties -- is that correct? And I think "in the US" is necessary after "is common". I know we're in a section about the US but as written the statement seems more general than that. And can we make it "Opposition to unions" rather than "Union oppositions", which could be read as unions opposing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I initially read enforcement to be criminal in other source, since it is true NLRB has no criminal enforcement capability as well. Some federal agencies do, like the Environmental Protection Agency, but to lack even civil enforcement is quite unique. The EPI source laments how NLRB is one of the weakest federal agencies period. Even the adjacent Occupational Safety and Health Administration has ability to impose fines. So emphasizing even the weaker enforcement shows how little enforcement power NLRB has. Out of the scope here, but when a company does not comply with NLRB order, they need to seek enforcement from another court or agency with criminal enforcement capability, e.g US Marshals. See example here. I will change to opposition to unions in the United States. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • Per WP:PULLQUOTE, you should not repeat the tweet from Musk in a quote box.
    I retain the full tweet in a quote box, but removed it from the body and managed to condense as a result, including removing parenthesis. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Tesla appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the original NLRB order, in 2023": I think that last comma needs to go -- if I understand correctly the appeal was in 2021 and the affirmed decision was in 2023.
    Your understanding is correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "UAW president Ray Curry responded that if Tesla was serious about supporting organizing, Tesla would acknowledge it broke the law": can we say what Curry is referring to?
    Added Ortiz and unlawful tweet, which is mentioned earlier so brevity should be ok. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Later, in June 2022": "later" is redundant since the date is given and it's later than the previous date.
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "The new UAW president Shawn Fain attributes": needs "as of" or "in <date>" and past tense.
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "attributes past unionizing failures due to".
    Changed to attributed previous unionizing failures to ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "alleging that Tesla illegally surveilled and fired 6 workers in retaliation": this says the illegal surveillance was only of the six workers they fired; is that the case? And MOS:NUMERAL recommends words rather than numerals for numbers under ten.
    Changed to illegally surveilled workers and fired six in retaliation ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "employees who participated with Workers United": what does "participated" mean here?
    Changed to 18 employees involved with the Workers United campaign ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "and captive audience meetings where the employer discuss with employees their opinions on unions and persuade them against it": the last few words of this are just a definition for readers who don't know the term. I think this might be better as a footnote.
    I simply deleted everything past captive audience meetings. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • In the discussion of Grohmann Engineering, was Herzig saying that the salaries went down by 25‒30% under Tesla's management, or that they were already that low under Grohmann?
    Source does not specify. My personal hunch is a bit of Grohmann being below the pay-bands and also with renewed annual IG Metall bargaining raises (5-10% each year) Tesla Automation would have fell behind regardless. We cannot speculate why, but only present relevant info, that the pay disparity was there, whether as inherited or newly introduced. Would not change anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I had a look at the source; I think it should be clearer to the reader that Herzig's statement is only three months after the acquisition since that makes it unlikely that the whole gap was caused by Tesla falling behind -- there hadn't been time to miss more than at most one collective bargaining raise. Can we add "In April" to that sentence? It would be good to find a way to introduce the "5-10% each year" that you mention. Can you sources that, for this time period? I assume that "matched employee salaries with the regional Metal Industry collective agreements" means that the salary increases were expected to continue year-to-year? If so, that would be a reason to quote the expected increases. And I've just noticed the two mentions of "Metal Industry"; should this be "IG Metall"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can clarify that this is in April and shortly after the acquisition so not an effect of Tesla directly so much. The analysis re IG Metall is way too much synthesis and complex. These sectoral agreements in the Electronics and Metal Industry differ state to state, with various exceptions/expansion/deviation clauses, and the salary increases are assuming a certain pay-bracket that each employee matches in. This is way too much original research to do, without having sufficient analysis of Grohmann employee salaries. My assumption would be they are referring to the Entgeltrahmentarifvertrag (Wage Framework Agreement) that is common in IG Metall. In case you are curious, this salary estimator in English can give you a feel, for select jobs in the tech sector. Re Metal industry, no it refers to the defined sector that both IG Metall and the employer association Gesammtmetal sign collective agreements for, as opposed to say textile workers which IG Metall also represents, or individual company agreements like Volkswagen which are too powerful to be part of the Metal Industry. I can try expand/clarify this, since it is confusing. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I think it's fine as is if you just remove the initial capitals from "Metal and Electronics Industry"; the caps make it look like we're talking about a specific organization. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Employees expressed concern after former CEO Klaus Grohmann was ousted and business contracts with clients were cancelled": why is this relevant to this article? It's not clear what they were expressing concern about. Did these actions imply anti-union attitudes in some way?
    Removed, it's speculative and employee fear/dissatisfaction is common after any restructuring. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "seven non-union employees of Giga Berlin initiated the works council process": does this mean "started organizing a works council for the factory"?
    I welcome feedback on improving vernacular clarity. Here, initiate has special legal meaning and title. It is the precursor to forming an electoral board (works council), which is precursor to running actual election. Similar to Wikipedia elections in some ways. The German phrase is Initiator eines Betriebsrats and I've rephrased it as initiated the legal process to form a works council which is more wordy but maybe more clear.
  • The Giga Berlin material feels a bit out of sequence. We don't find out Tesla is hiring 12,000 new employees until after we've mentioned "the first 1,800 hires". I realize you say "new" Gigafactory, but perhaps we could move the statement about the 12,000 hires to the first paragraph?
    Rephrased chronologically. I am much happier with An employee is eligible to run as a works council candidate if they have at least six-months tenure. Tesla eventually planned to hire 12,000 employees in total. In the first six months, Tesla hired 1,800 employees, mostly middle–management personnel. IG Metall expressed concern about the future works council being dominated by management, because only those with six-months tenure would be eligible to run. Also switch to MOS:NUMERAL ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
    I think that's much improved, but now I'm curious as to why it's relevant that the next works council election might be in two years instead of four -- why does the reader care about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If management dominates the works council because they are the only eligible ones, then the possibility of an election happening sooner is relevant to workers having another chance. Given that the actual works council election did indeed happen 2 years later and is mentioned in lawsuit (for other reasons too of depriving candidates time) it can be removed here to reduce undue emphasis. So will move it to next section (see subsequent discussion). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "employees voted their first works council": should be "elected", surely?
    Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "with fewer rest-time between shifts": "less", not "fewer", or else "fewer breaks"; "fewer" is only used for things that can be enumerated, not for things with different sizes or durations.
    Done and emphasized rephrase with less resting time ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "Strikes are incredibly rare": not encyclopedic tone; suggest just "very rare".
    Done, though I think could have been kept here given it's Sweden. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "At some point, unidentified individuals suspected to be strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute." This is a bit vague -- do we know what actually happened?
    Rephrased to Strikebreakers arrived at Tesla service centers, prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute. Their exact identity is unknown, but reused existing source to confirm strikebreakers and trimmed down language using WEASELWORDS of unknown etc.. The negative impact of strike breakers on strike is the key point. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "and some strikers were contacted by Tesla after Tesla found photos uploaded by the strikers' families, contributing to a climate of fear of reprisal": again, "contacted" is vague -- it could be anything from "We're watching you, strikers" to "Merry Christmas"; I assume it felt like surveillance to the strikers but we should be as specific as we can be.
    Photos was incorrect sourcing. Specifically had chilling effect on non-union members from participating. I can attribute quote as well. According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after company found social media posts by the strikers' families, which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular.
  • "only a third of the 130 Tesla mechanics in Sweden had joined the strike": I assume this refers to the strike mentioned in the previous sentence; if so can we make this "joined this strike" to be clear?
    Moved this higher to the top, and also expand that about half of them were union members. I refrain from calling it a single strike, since none of the sources do, but it's a continuous period and I tie them closer together in paragraph.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you again Mike, and thank you for your in-depth reviews both times round! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Have struck most of the above, and left a couple of replies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to all of them now! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point left. I will read through the article again, probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! Guess I will need to write Metal and Electronics Industry article right? For consistency all wiki links ought to be blue or red (WP:HUMOR). Looking forward to your final review and appreciative of all the time you, Femke and Phlsph7 put in.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:46, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second read-through
[edit]
  • "There were three unsuccessful unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York": I was going to suggest that we give the year range for these three in the lead, but when I look down at the body I only see two that are in the past: the fall 2016 campaign at Fremont, and the 2018 drive at Giga NY. The third seems to be the the early 2023 campaign implying that that's in the past, but the subsection on Giga doesn't give the results. Presumably that's still underway? In which case I don't think it should be past tense; it seems from the body that there are active campaigns at both Fremont and Giga, and only two past campaigns that have concluded (with failure). Or have I missed one?
    😝 I suppose the two phrasings none were succesfull and were unsuccesfull are not equivalent tautologies. I rephrased text with None of the unionization efforts in Fremont Factory and Gigafactory New York were succesfull which can ambiguously incorporate campaigns regardless of whether they fizzled/failed or not.
Extended content

The ambiguity arises from differing understandings of whether there were 2 failed and 2 active campaigns versus 3 failed and 1 active campaigns, with the Workers United and UAW campaigns in 2023 leading to this confusion.

Inside the body I use None of the unionization efforts since 2017 were succesfull. This keeps the language flexible, regardless of both the number of union campaigns and whether they are successful or not. I initially counted the Tesla Autopilot as unsuccessful for the following reasons: They launched in February 2023 and immediately afterwards, a number of workers involved in the campaign were fired. Several months later after little news, the NLRB affirmed that they were not fired unlawfully, meaning none of the workers will be reinstated. It doesn't mean the campaign can never revive. However, requiring an explicit source that says a union campaign is officially over almost never happens. The fact that the 2023 campaign is more recent compared to the 2017 Fremont or 2018 Giga NY still does not mean it is ongoing necessarily. Separately, I note that the website for Tesla Workers United is down, and their social media has not since May 2023, which means there is no easy way for workers to contact Workers United if they want to. Because of the sensitivity of this topic, we will likely not find out for a long time whether it is fizzled out or active underground.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

OK -- I think the language you now have works, given that as you say it probably won't quickly become clear whether the most recent campaign can be said to have failed or ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tesla poses a structural challenge to IG Metall in the automotive sector, because electric vehicle production requires 30 percent fewer workers than traditional combustion-engine vehicles. As a result, the electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to overall shrinking union membership base and lower union density, resulting in reduced bargaining leverage." The source cites electric vehicle production in general, not just by Tesla, as reducing the "labor density", and I don't understand the point it makes. Surely IG Metall's influence depends on percentage of unionization, not the absolute number of members? Wouldn't IG Metall rather have 90% unionization of half-a-million workers generating the same revenue for their employees than 50% of a million workers? Wouldn't they get more leverage in the former case? That's the point of "Every plant that opens that's not unionized hurts [IG Metall's] power." I see the source says "It's especially crucial that IG Metall preserve all the sway it can at a time when carmakers are pivoting to EV production, which, Wheaton said, requires roughly 30% fewer workers than traditional auto manufacturing" so you're certainly following the source, but why does that matter?
    🤓 You are asking tough but good questions here. How to phrase this in a meaningful way in the article remains a challenge it seems. In short address by removing this misleading/reductive line , resulting in reduced bargaining leverage. I do not wish to reduce the challenges to any one factor when it is least seven different factors as shown above. Ultimately reduced membership/lower union density are two most important ones. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
Extended content

I could give you my opinion of your hypothetical question, of which situation is preferable, but I believe the situation is closer to something like Ottomotive and Tesla Germany each hypothetically produce same amount of cars/value capture for sake of simpler comparison. Suppose there is 70% union density among 100,000 workers at Ottomotive at traditional combustion-engine plant versus a lower 20% union density among 70,000 workers at Tesla Germany (with electrification requiring 30% fewer workers). (The union density at each company is unknown, but Tesla is almost certainly lower than say Volkswagen or BMW or Daimler where there are collective agreements, history of union activity etc..) This means 70,000 union members versus 14,000 union members. Suppose each individual worker at Ottomotive makes 100,000€ per year, and at Tesla Germany they make 80,000€ per year (based on sourcing about 20% lower salaries at Tesla) which translates into collective union member's wages of 7€ billion at Ottomotive and at Tesla 1.12€ billion. With union dues being 1% of each, that would be 70€ million and 11.2€ million respectively. No matter how you look at it in terms of absolute members or percentage, this is a major challenge for IG Metall. All of this would also means there is less money for organizing or credibly striking (dependent on size of strike fund and duration of strikes). Some other parameters for analysis would be the value capture created by workers at each of these locations which determines both how valuable or productive each worker is, and also how dangerous a strike would be for the company. In the case of Sweden, while the strike is disruptive, its value capture is relatively small compared to say if Fremont or a China factory struck. On the other hand, the Swedish unions have a massive strike fund that can last several decades given how few workers are involved here, and how rare strikes are in Sweden, so they're able and willing to do it. Clearly Germany is invested in unionizing, and whether this will pay off or not, the economic and ideological challenges are hopefully evident. We cannot provide original analysis here (like I did just now above), but some of these points are hinted or explicitly mentioned in the case of the Nordic countries, in terms of the interdependencies of the global supply chain, and also challenges in sustaining a disruptive strike. In summary there are many variables including:

      1. Absolute membership at IG Metall
      2. Union density of members in relation to non members
      3. Wages of workers (higher wages of union members means more union funds)
      4. Strike capacity (depends on strike fund of union, but also how disruptive a strike is)
      5. Elon's hard-bent ideological opposition is apparent, even if not every single source repeats it explicitly.
      6. Labour market share in a local area
      7. Market share of product both locally and globally
    🤯 And so many other variables.
Thanks for the detailed thoughts; the union dues point is a very good one that I hadn't thought of. I think you're right that removing "resulting in reduced bargaining leverage" is a good idea -- it's still in the article at the moment but it sounds like you intended to remove it? I would also remove "As a result", since it's already clear to the reader that that sentence follows naturally from the previous one. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie replaced with shorter sentence (removing also a second overall) of The electrification of vehicles and a non-unionized Tesla weakens IG Metall's bargaining power in the overall automotive sector in Germany due to shrinking union membership and lower union density. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure to bolster the signed works agreements": is "bolster" the right word here? It means "reinforce", but I think what is meant is that the threats and pressure helped get the signature; once the agreements were signed no bolstering was needed. How about "crediting the threat of strikes and internal pressure as having helped influence Tesla to sign the works agreements"? Although I'm also not clear what "internal pressure" means beyond "threat of strikes"; looking at the source no other pressure seems to be mentioned.
    ✅ Agreed. I rephrased as IG Metall acknowledged that there were "good negotiation results" and credited the threat of strikes with pressuring Tesla to sign the works agreements. which also has same grammar tense throughout ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees surpassed more than two fold since the first works council election": assuming I understand the rule correctly, suggest rephrasing as "The initial headcount of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first election, rather than after the usual four years".
    ✅ Much clearer. I finalized with Giga Berlin's initial workforce of 1,800 employees doubled quickly enough to trigger a rule requiring another works council election two years after the first one, instead of the usual four years.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "234 candidates from nine lists ran": per MOS:NUMNOTES we should avoid starting sentences with a figure.
    ✅ Combined sentences for On March 20, the election concluded with 234 candidates from nine lists.
  • "Michaela Schmitz, the incumbent works council chair": needs an "as of" date. And I take it from this paragraph that Schmitz was the chair from the 2022 election onwards? If so I'd change the description of her from "incumbent" to something like "who had been elected as works council chair in 2022". Then I don't think we need "incumbent" at all because we mention her election on April 4 after that.
    ✅ I changed it to Schmitz, the current works council chair. It is most likely she was the chair from day one of the works council in 2022, but the sources don't verify that. The chair of the works council is customarily one person, but it can rotate either by vote, or when someone steps down, e.g Daniela Cavallo replacing Berthold Huber in middle of a term. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • We have "as of May 2024" for the Swedish strike; is it still ongoing? If the point is that May is when it became the longest in Sweden for 80 years, then I would suggest making it "In May 2024, the ongoing strike became the longest ..."
    ✅ Removed dated claim. Not exactly clear nor important when exactly it became the longest strike within 80 years. I have removed the "as of" claims, and replaced it with a more recent update, including a delegation that visited the strike in September. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • "prompting concerns about their impact on the labor dispute": suggest "prompting concerns among the strikers about their impact on the labor dispute".
    ✅ Done ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • turningpointmag.org has an editorial board, and I don't see any reason to distrust its factual reporting, but I see it's used to support "which had a chilling effect on non-union members in particular". The source has "This created a climate of fear that few non-union members were willing to bear". Turning Point says in its about page that it supports radical change, so it's a leftist source. I don't see how they could know about the climate of fear among non-union members without having spoken to some of them, and I suspect this is speculation on their part, since there's nothing in the article about having spoken to individual workers, union or otherwise. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I could imagine they'd speak with workers, given how historic and rare strikes are in Sweden. But I've rephrased with the following According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, individual strikers were contacted by Tesla after the company found social media posts made by the strikers' families, which also hampered non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)

One point left above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the last point above. That takes care of everything with regard to the content. Looking through again, I see quite a few consecutive paragraphs starting with "In <date> ..." which isn't the most engaging prose style. I think this could be improved. I can take a crack at it, probably later today, if you like? Or if you want to, go ahead before I get there. I'm asking for a bit more variety in presentation of the sequence of events, to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie I will take a crack at it. Something like Modifiers "Later in X" as well as moving dates to end/middle of sentences to help with variation and removing dates when not absolutely essential altogether? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally that sounds right. Sometimes joining short paragraphs can help, since you can then say things like "the following year", or "eighteen months later". I think this is my last complaint and I feel confident of supporting once we've addressed this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Done! I removed two mentions of date, since they were not crucial/could be reasonably re-summarized as "three years later" or in other cases, moved it to the back/middle of paragraph. Curious for your feedback. Also found gnarly American/British inconsistency with successful and succesfull. My current text editor shows both as correct. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've done a copyedit which you're free to revert if you want to; I did put back in one instance of "In <date>" to avoid starting a sentence with a figure. Looks good; thanks for your patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misc. comments

[edit]
No comment besides commending Shushugah for their excellent work in preparing this article for its inevitable FA status! QRep2020 (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

[edit]

Article looks in good overall shape. A few (good faith) suggestions.

This version of the article reviewed, no previous reviews read.

  • Link "high injury rates" to Occupational injury, or perhaps Occupational safety and health.
    Done
  • Likewise Labor dispute.
    Done
  • Labor unions in the United States should probably be linked somewhere, possibly at "not represented by a union".
    Done
  • Unionization.
    Done
  • The sentence "In cases where there is..." could be clearer. I know unfair labor practice is linked, but a quick gloss (e.g., "In cases where there is illegal interference such as ULPs, the National Labor Relations Act—codifying worker rights—is unenforceable in civil law". (The "which" changes the meaning, disadvantageously).
    Replaced with Employer opposition to unions is common in the United States. In cases where there is illegal interference such as unfair labor practices, the National Labor Relations Act, which codifies worker rights—is not enforceable by civil law, such as penalties
  • After Ortiz's firing was legally reversed, did Tesla obey? Did Ortiz or anyone comment on the NLRB decision?
    Existing source mentioned his statement, so included In a published response, Ortiz stated "I look forward to returning to work at Tesla and working with my co-workers to finish the job of forming a union"
    Solid attitude!
  • "coziness with management" sounds a little... informal?
    I wrapped "coziness" in quotes to make it clear it's Fain's words.
  • "In contrast in 2017, UAW spent $422,000" > "In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000".
    Done
  • Suggest the line about UAW winning 30% payrises should come before Fain's attribution remarks, as it keeps it chronologic, moving as it does on to the later organizing drive.
    Done
  • Any ideas why the USW case was withdrawn in NY?
    No idea. I've checked carefully since a reviewer above asked same question
    Of course, no problem.
  • Absorb the run on sentence: "Workers United is affiliated to Service Employees International Union, and had previously led the first successful unionization drive at Starbucks, also in Buffalo..." or something.
    Done. Also removed SEIU mention altogether, not crucial to understanding anything.
  • Since Works Council is alsready a page, is Establishment (works council) a viable relink per WP:REDYES? What is the difference?
    I replaced red link with workplace. Any worker under a specific works council is part of its "works" or Betrieb. It's basically a German bargaining unit. It is usually is a workplace, but can be more complex/custom. It is unnecessarily complex, so no need for red link.
  • "IG Metall pushed... IG Metall acknowledged..." remove duplication, perhaps with "IG Metall pushed for formal ratification, while acknowledging..."
    Done
  • I'd also make the strike threat a new sentence: "It also credited..."
    Done
  • "Nearly half of the employee" > "Nearly half the employees"
    Shouldn't the be removed instead of of? I adjusted elsewhere, Nearly half of the employee voted for the manager
    It's totally up to you. To my ears, they both sound fine, so it could be a Br/Eng thing.
  • Curiosity, but would a Frankfurt (Oder) article say much more than the overarching Federal Labour Court does already?
    I kept the Template:ill but created redirects so that both the German article is clickable, but also an English link (Federal Labour Court) is available. Did same thing for the Berlin-Brandenburg State Labourt court too.
    The redirects are a good idea.
  • What was the net effect of teh March 2024 election? On the one hand, a union seems to have won most seats, but on the other, an anti-unionist (and presumably mangement?) runs the Works Council? Suggest a sentence clarifying the result: at the moment a short sentence identifies IGM as having a majority, but then most of the remaining paragraph is about their opponent.
    We cannot stray into original research. How close are the non-union lists with each other? Unclear. We can only speculate with Schmitz being re-elected, that no other lists considered supporting IG Metall.
    Indeed!
  • Link "banned from the company premises" to Lockout (industry).
    Done
  • When Tesla contacted individual strikers, do we know what they said? Threats or bribes normally!
    Not done. Sources don't say, I checked.
  • Did Tesla successfully recruit their Swedish lobbyist?
    No confirmation found. Can leave it or remove it, if undue.
    It's not doing any harm, and the information might become available in the future.
  • There's an abundance of information in the Sweden section, but dates are sparse, and it covers almost a year. A date per paragraph should suffice to form a narrative.
    Done
  • "as the strike continued more than 10 months": Well, it's now 11 months; suggest rephrasing this so as to avoid haveing to update it every month. Or maybe just removing it.
    It would be accurate regardless because it's about time between strike and past Ford visit, but I removed to avoid ambiguity.

If nothing else, the article succeeds in telling us everything we need to know about Mr Musk's concern for those who make him his profits. It's a good read, and maintains an absolute neutrality—an achievement in this kind of topic! Cheers, SerialNumber54129 15:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Serial Number 54129 for kind words and review! I have addressed the above feedback and also took liberty to add some other grammar rewrites. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Shushugah, your changes are all well-thought out. I'm happy to support this article's promotion: it casts an important light on the underbelly of supposedly modern industrial relations. SerialNumber54129 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way—and not part of the review—you might consider a page move to e.g. Tesla and trades unions, as just 'unions' could refer to other kinds of union. In any case, leave it until after promotion. SerialNumber54129 15:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 labor unions, labour unions, trade unions are all possible expanded variants of unions. I think creating redirects in case people search for it is pragmatic solution, while keeping the article target as succinct as possible. And given all the other similar articles, I'd prefer to keep it consistent if possible and have a wider RfC on that (Microsoft and unions, SAP and unions etc.. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I keep forgetting the AmEng usage; you're absolutely correct, of course, Tesla and labor unions would be best. SerialNumber54129 18:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

The New York Times and The Guardian do not need an ISSN. What makes turningpointmag.org/ a high-quality reliable source? I kinda wonder if there are think tanks or research papers discussing the topic, rather than just news media and NLRB rulings. Spot-check wise, going by this version:

  • 3 2016 in the source, not 2017.
    Jose Moran contacted UAW in fall of 2016, but the effort first went public in early 2017 and is when we can definitively say unionization efforts happened. Better to err on side of conservative interpretation of claim, than potentially introduce a made-up claim. Either way, I don't have a strong opinion.
  • 10 OK
  • 11 OK
  • 14 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    It supports most of the content, but some of it relies on #13 which doesn't seem like a good source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mercury News source was an opinion-editorial was used to state verify claim that NUMMI was a unionized plant. I have removed it and replaced it with an NPR news article instead, which is in any case a stronger source. Elsewhere, the same Mercury source claimed $420,000 was raised, while Fox Business article has more exact figure of $422,000 so it was removed without replacement.
  • 15 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18 OK
  • 24 Not sure what this supports?
    I removed it. It is a redundant (primary) source that supports fact Tesla appealed in 2021 and was used earlier in sentence. The NYT source summarizes the 2021 appeal and upholding in 2023, as well as the written response by Ortiz. I removed the NLRB source and confirm that rest of claims are verified by New York Times source #25.
  • 25 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    OK, except that the source says co-workers not coworkers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch! I have returned it to exact quote, and for consistency, changed other instance of coworker to be co-worker as well.
  • 27 That sum is only for the Tesla campaign and it's the sum UAW claims it spend on the campaign.
    Agreed. I wish there was a more direct Apples to Apples comparison to make. I do think the amounts of money here and broader expansion of UAW organizing are important, and contextualized with other quotes/claims with change UAW leadership. I will rephrase wording to be UAW subsequently launched organizing drives at 13 non-union auto manufacturers, including Tesla, with a combined organizing budget of US$40 million through 2026. In contrast, in 2017 UAW had spent $422,000 on Tesla alone
  • 29 OK
  • 31 Where does it speak about the first Starbucks unionization?
    Common Dreams source says Its initial Starbucks victory was in Buffalo roughly six miles from the Tesla factory (and I have separately confirmed this claim elsewhere, with other sourcing but did not see it as necessary to add here)
  • 33 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    It doesn't say that the firings were of workers in the WU campaign. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right. There's a much weaker claim in both sources. The charges are that they fired people for allegedly being involved in union activity (whatever that means) and more broadly Tesla discouraged unionization. Given that the retaliatory firing charges were not substantiated, I have tweaked accordingly. Also number of firings was expanded to 37.
  • 38 Need a copy of this source.
    I can access it via Archive.is. If that doesn't work for you, I'll email you a PDF copy.
    Where does it speak of shrinking union membership? The text isn't clear if it's talking about an ongoing development or something that Tesla's presence would trigger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source does not directly say shrinking union membership, so I will remove it from this claim. It is implied from shrinking union density and declining workforce in automotive industry, but I don't need to explicitly spell that conclusion. I had a longer discussion with Mike Christie above (see hat-noted discussion if curious) about the different factors. I added additional line about union membership IG Metall membership (2005–2021) has declined by 9%, while the automotive labor market has grown, especially in companies without regional collective agreements supported by this academic source on declining union membership. I have read through some other sources, which are interesting but do not immediately address the points here or [26]. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40 I don't see "good negotiation results" in the source.
    The German phrase in quotes is „das sehr gute Verhandlungsergebnis“ which literally means "good negotiation results". The larger rough English translation of whole sentence is Although a genuine collective agreement remains the goal of IG Metall, the "good negotiation result" of the works council must be acknowledged.
    That phrase actually means "very good negotiation result". Quotes generally are literal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Vielen Dank! I will defer to your native-language expertise. I have modified the quote and surrounding grammar accordingly. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk)
  • 52 OK
  • 53 OK
  • 54 "The company also contacted the strikers when they found strikers’ family members posting about the strike on social media" in the source is a bit too similar to the article.
    Rephrased already (see comment below)
  • 59 OK
  • 60 Need a copy of this source.
  • 65 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) for your source review! I am able to access the New York Times, Business Insider and USA Today sources you requested access directly via Archive.is, but if that does not work for you, I'd be happy to send you a PDF copy of all of the sources you requested and any other.
If and when there are any think tank or other institutional reports on Tesla unionization, I would be happy to attach them in the article. Regarding efforts mentioned in the article, but also possible efforts not mentioned, e.g on China or Netherlands. I have accessed a private, non-published report for example, claiming that Netherlands workers were covered by FNV Metaal (Dutch union) collective agreement, but I haven't found any published (offline nor online) reports confirming this, so it's not mentioned in the article since verification isn't possible. Of course, I may have missed valid sources; I have reached out to a number of academics, as well as union officials in relevant departments for any tips on reports, photos they're willing to donate etc.. and will continue to remain vigilant for future sources. The wide variety of languages these sources might exist in, is one hurdle.
Regarding turningpointmag.org, I do not think it is the highest quality source ever, but it has an editorial board and even if it did not, I would consider Gabriel Kuhn the author, to be a relevant WP:EXPERTSPS who provides unique perspective and specifics on union/non-union member participation within the IF Metall led strikes as a non-member himself. Still, I have weighted his claims in his voice, instead of wiki-voice. I have rephrased bit about families being contacted with According to union leader Gabriel Kuhn, Tesla contacted individual strikers after family members shared news of the strikes on social media, which discouraged non-union participation in the strike. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe I have addressed all the open points. Let me know if you find any more issues. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think #60 is the only thing still pending. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am able to gift NYT links (do not open this unless you are @Jo-Jo Eumerus). I moved #60 NYT source to the sentence ahead, and switched the API source with existing Reuter source that actually verifies claim about electrician and other port workers. The edit change is visible here. Thank you for your time reviewing! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it, but it seems to say that the union only stopped unloading - and only when it's them who unloaded? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've added a couple of RS that both support the claim of "loading and unloading"; format them as necessary. I don't understand what and only when it's them who unloaded? actually means, so am unable to help with that. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the question correctly, it’s whether a complete stoppage of unloading happened or whether there are non-union/non-striking workers who still continue? In the case of Tesla workers, this statistic is importantly but for secondary strikes it becomes borderline trivia either way. The wider impact has not been successful, in part because trains/truck deliveries of Tesla vehicles. In some cases (my hunch) it’s more about symbolic solidarity. The distinction between loading/unloading is not clear to me. The port strikes are directed at Tesla vehicles headed to the Swedish market. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source only mentioned unloading, that doesn't imply that loading was affected too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: (@FAC coordinators: ) What? There are three sources, two of which explicitly reference loading as well as unloading. (Footnotes numbered 60 & 61 in this version.) SerialNumber54129 11:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
60 doesn't mention loading and 61 is paywalled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: 60: Dockworkers are refusing to load or unload Teslas at this port and all others across the country; 61: For six weeks, dockworkers at Swedish ports have refused to load or unload the electric cars made by billionaire Elon Musk. Also see WP:OFFLINE and WP:PAYWALL. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OFFLINE and PAYWALL are policies about non-online or you-have-to-pay-for-it sources being acceptable, they don't mandate that a spot-check should pass sources that the reviewer cannot see for themselves. In these cases, I ask for a quote, screenshot or emailed copy. But OK then, not sure why I didn't see it before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Well, one's policy; is policy primate, I ask? I hope quotes suffice, because the articles are on the Wayback Machine, and IA has gopt itself completely caned over the last couple of weeks with DDOS attacks. They're still not back online from the latest. They reckon it's down to Brazillian script kiddies, but my money's on some COINTELPRO-style operation by the black bag departments of Hachette and Penguin. SerialNumber54129 15:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second largest Nazi mass killing, also one of the least known. I'm not a fan of the title, but I think the article is now ready for FAC after going through GAN and GOCE, for which I thank Catlemur and Miniapolis (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Joeyquism

[edit]

There was a good point brought up on this article's talk page about its title. What I'm primarily concerned about is WP:NPOV with regards to the word "atrocities" - while anyone with a working conscience would, of course, label these acts as atrocities, I'm not sure if this is neutral phrasing. There's mention of using the term "war crimes" instead; perhaps this would be a better descriptor? If that term is incorrect due to sources saying otherwise/definitions imposed by authoritative bodies or simply just not to your taste (it would make the title longer and introduce another instance of the word "war"), let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe: I might add that I should be able to commit to a full review soon, and I will likely start after my move in a couple of days (though moving efforts will ultimately take precedence). If I don't get anything down here within the next one-and-a-half to two weeks, you are welcome to ping me liberally. joeyquism (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. My main objection to the title is that the article's scope is more broad—it covers the totality of experiences of prisoners of war, which were not necessarily atrocities or war crimes. In a lot of cases, the sources don't specify whether something is a war crime, although they are clear that many violations of the Geneva conventions occurred. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reasoning seems fair enough. I will not press on the title any further. joeyquism (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I will try to come back for a "proper" review, but two small points for now:

  • As we only have the one map in the article, I worry that it gives the impression of representing the total scale of German advances into the USSR, when of course it shows only quite a small fraction of it. Two options, I think -- either add another one later on, to show advances up to Moscow/Stalingrad, or replace it with one that shows the whole campaign, perhaps phased by year.
  • If we're going to use a German noun, like Blitzkrieg, as a native word in italics, we need to capitalise it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map was chosen to show the quick advances at the beginning of the camp which enabled the Germans to capture so many prisoners. I'm not attached to that map in particular, but I didn't see any others that made the speed of the advance as clear. I wonder if any confusion could be alleviated by explicitly pointing it out in the caption. Fixed the capitalization issue. (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm imagining one with nice labelled lines, or coloured waves, showing the frontline at the end of each year, but I'm not sure if Commons has one of those. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this map exists but I thought it was harder for readers to take in than the one I used. (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, pros and cons to each. Two maps might be the way to go? I might have a look on Commons and see if I can suggest anything sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captured Red Army soldiers (in infobox): is this quite complete -- wouldn't some prisoners have come from e.g. NKVD formations or the naval infantry? Suggest "Captured Soviet troops".
    • Ok
  • The Nazi leadership believed that war with its ideological enemy was inevitable: consider expanding this a little -- I know it's a long story, but it's somewhat germane to the point why the Nazis thought of the USSR as such an inevitable and hated enemy.
    • Clarified the reasons the source gives for this belief
  • preventative killings: sounds a little euphemistic: is this the term used in the literature?
    • Yes, well, the source says "preemptive killings"
  • War aims included securing natural resources, including agricultural land to feed Germany, metals and mineral oil for German industry: cadence is better if you either lose the first comma or add one before the final and: at the moment, it's a little loose as to how each part flows together.
    • I shortened the sentence by removing the last clause
  • The vast majority of German military manpower and materiel was devoted to the invasion, which was carried out as a war of extermination with complete disregard for the laws and customs of war.: changing tone a little, can I just put on record my approval of this kind of phrasing -- it would be easy to shy away from being so straightforward about it out of mistaken NPOV concerns, but you do an excellent job of being absolutely explicit about what we are talking about while keeping everything well within what can be supported from the evidence.
  • Informed by Nazi racial theory and Germany's experience during World War I,: I understand the first bit, but what does Germany's experience in WWI have to do with the idea that Muslims are "better" than Ukrainians?
    • This factor was separate from Nazi racial theory (according to the source), which doesn't elaborate much but cites another highly reliable source that I can't check. During WWI the Germans recruited some nationalities into the war effort, but faced problems with "unreliability". (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • by killing communist functionaries and Soviet Jews, it was expected that resistance would quickly collapse: the passive voice is tricky here ("by whom?"): suggest "they expected".
    • Done
  • Soviet prisoners of war were held under tighter control, and had a higher death rate: as this is a comparative statement, I would make it an explicit comparison: "than those of other nations"; "than those of western European ethnicity"? I'd be interested to know what the Nazis made of e.g. African and Asian troops fighting for the western Allies.
    • Compared to those mentioned in the last couple of sentences : Soviet urbanites and ghettoised Jews. Made it more clear
  • generally adhered to it with prisoners of other nationalities: perhaps not totally to the point here, but did this apply to e.g. black American soldiers, those believed to be gay, or Jews?
  • there were no legal gray areas: consider ambiguities per MOS:CLICHE?
    • done
  • Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few high-ranking officials: can we say what his position was?
    • As the article says he supported treating all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention, is there a way to make this more clear?
      • Sorry, I meant “position” as in his rank, job etc — we’ve said he was important, but can we be more specific? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • he was in the Abwehr (t · c) buidhe 20:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Just looking at his Wikipedia page -- was he really all that high ranking? His job seems to have been fairly ordinary: when I hear "high-ranking", I think senior government ministers, generals, heads of agencies and so on: was he anything close to that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Pohl says that "hardly anyone" (presumably on the German side) supported treating POWs according to the Geneva Convention. Revised (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • As we've presented it, we've claimed to know that almost all people in Germany supported war crimes against Soviets. That's a big claim -- is that something Pohl a) alleges and b) could reasonably be able to prove? Otherwise, something like "Nazi officials", "figures within the regime", or similar might help. I don't think the point is wrong at all, but that makes it all the more important to be ironclad on the details. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            @Buidhe: I think this is the last unresolved issue here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Sorry I missed this. The reason I wrote it the way I did originally was that I thought he was referring to officials with some influence on the actual policy, but technically there isn't explicit support for this in the text. After looking at the context I think it's clear that he is referring to views within the Wehrmacht, but it's unclear exactly which group of Wehrmacht personnel he is referring to. "The murder of Soviet prisoners of war was undoubtedly controversial within the Wehrmacht... Hardly anyone, however, advocated treatment of Soviet prisoners of war that was fully in line with international law; one of the few who did so was Helmut James Graf von Moltke." (t · c) buidhe 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            Current phrasing is good, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rapid encirclement actions that the German commanders expected in the blitzkrieg: you will know more about this than me, but I gather that military historians are increasingly sceptical of the idea that Blitzkrieg was a coherent doctrine, rather than a post-facto myth that conveniently explained the rather inadequate Allied response to the invasion of France.
    • I don't have any knowledge of this, actually, so I rewrote not to use the word blitzkrieg.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark Edele gets the microphone for practically all of the section on why Soviet soldiers surrendered. Does this represent WP:DUEWEIGHT -- are there other voices of equal/greater weight that could/should be brought in here?
    • None of the other books really address this topic.
  • The Waffen part of Waffen-SS needs to be italicised (really, the whole thing should be in a lang template, but I'm not sure how well that plays with links plus regular italicisation).
  • Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the Wehrmacht: we've usually avoided gratuitously Germanising perfectly normal terms, which I think is the right way to go (I think this reddit thread puts the case quite well), but this seems to be an exception: why not "German Army" (or "German armed forces" vel sim), as we have used elsewhere? If we are desperate to use a German word, we should italicise and use lang templates.
    • I've taken out all mentions of Wehrmacht in the article
  • The number of Soviet soldiers captured fell dramatically after the Battle of Moscow in late 1941: is it worth being explicit that this was because the Germans started losing at this point?
    • Pohl doesn't make this connection, I searched through the relevant chapter in Hartmann and he doesn't either. I will check if it's in the Quinkert book.
  • Why does Dulag get an explanation but stalag not? The latter also needs a capital letter.
    • Rewrote
  • , when the Commissar Order was rescinded: I would rework this section a little, to initially explain what the Commissar Order was, then what happened under it, then what happened after it was rescinded. At the moment, we rely on the reader knowing or being able to infer what the order demanded.
    • Done
  • Contradictory orders were issued for the execution of female combatants in the Soviet army, who defied German gender expectations, but the orders were not always followed: can we be a little clearer as to what some of these orders were -- presumably, as with the commissars, a spectrum between "kill them all" and "treat them with particular respect"?
    • Rewrite
  • the OKW's Allgemeines Wehrmachtsamt.: see comment earlier about German terms -- if this one is really untranslatable, we should at least explain what it was in English.
  • the Korücks,: likewise -- can we explain who these people were?
    • To be honest, I don't really understand. I may do more research, or it may be that the intricacies of the chain of command are not WP:DUE (given that they aren't even mentioned in most of the sources). Update: I decided take out these couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A figure of 200,000 to 250,000 deaths in transit is provided in Russian estimates: we imply here that other estimates are available, or that these might not be above suspicion -- can we expand on either side?
    • I only put it this way because both of the cited sources state explicitly that it is a "Russian estimate" (apparently from Rossija i SSSR ν vojnach XX veka. Statisticeskoe issledovanie. Red. G. F. Krivoseev. Moskva 2001)
  • Make sure that date ranges, including in work titles, have endashes (I noticed Moore 2022).
    • Fixed
  • "barbed-wire fences" should have a hyphen, as a compound modifier.
    • Done
  • the encirclements of Vyazma and Bryansk: can we put an explicit date on this?
    • Done
  • The vast majority of prisoners (ethnic Russians) : I think this would be more grammatical as "Ethnic Russians, the vast majority of the prisoners, were not..."
    • Done
  • prisoners were released so they could volunteer for the Wehrmacht or the police: see my point earlier about the word Wehrmacht.
  • About one-third became Hiwis: suggest explaining what Hiwis were.
    • Reworded
  • Wehrmacht soldiers often conducted the executions: as above.
  • a stereotypically-Jewish appearance: MOS:HYPHEN says not to use a hyphen when the compound modifier is formed by a regular -ly adverb.
    • done
  • With Wehrmacht cooperation, Einsatzgruppen units: I think Einsatzgruppen may have to stay as untranslatable, but see earlier comments about Wehrmacht and lang templates.
    • As with Waffen-SS, the majority of scholarly English language sources don't italicize.
  • five to 25 percent escaped detection: MOS:NUM would like consistency.
    • Done
  • Invalid soldiers were in particular danger when the front approached. invalid meaning "sick" is only usually a noun: suggest "disabled", "soldiers too sick to work", or similar.
    • Done
  • if their responses were unsatisfactory, they were discharged from prisoner-of-war status: I think we should be a little more explicit as to what this means -- "discharged" often means "released", especially in a military context.
    • Done
  • Suggest knocking the "were" out of the "killed at Mauthausen" link to break the sea of blue.
    • Done
  • Hitler opposed recruiting Soviet collaborators for military and police functions, blaming non-German recruits for defeat in World War I.: would this point be useful further up to explain what we meant about Germany's WWI experience causing animosity to certain eastern European ethnicities?
    • I could move it up but then it wouldn't explain in this section why Hitler opposed their recruitment, but his underlings disagreed.
  • some having living conditions similar to Wehrmacht soldiers: another beat on the same drum, I'm afraid.
  • 14 in the Turkestan Legion, nine in the Armenian Legion, eight each in the Azerbaijani and Georgian Legions, and seven in the North Caucasian and Idel-Ural Legions.: MOS:FIGURES again.
    • Fixed
  • Employers paid RM0.54 per day per man This and similar values a little later -- it seems intuitive that these are small amounts, but can we contextualise them vs. the price of something worth buying, or the wages of someone like a soldier?
    • Add currency conversion, although I'm not sure how meaningful it is.
  • the Channel Islands, where many died: my impression is that Jersey, at least, was a fairly 'tame' (by Nazi standards!) place to be, both for the soldiers and for the prisoners, at least until Germany started losing badly and food became more scarce. Is the conflation of Norway and the CI justified here?
  • Unlike the Holocaust, where killings occurred far from Germany's borders : we need a mostly in here -- Dachau and Ravensbrück, for example, were certainly in Germany.
    • The vast, vast majority of Jewish holocaust victims were killed east of Germany's 1937 borders. None of the death camps, ghettos, or mass execution sites were located in Germany's prewar territory. Unless they were in the army, a German could well have seen their Jewish neighbors rounded up but would not have witnessed anyone being killed, except perhaps at the very end of the war. Dachau and Ravensbrück, and other concentration camps (except Auschwitz and Majdanek which were located in Poland) were not used for mass executions of Jews.
      • No, but Jews died in Dachau and Ravensbrück, didn't they? I agree there's a difference of degree, but we still surely need something like "almost all", unless we mean to exclude someone who starved or was beaten to death there from the victims of the Holocaust. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • What the cited source says is: "After 1945, many Germans claimed that they had not known about the murder of Jews, which had happened far away... Soviet POWs were dying in huge numbers in camps inside Germany by 1941 – a fact that was widely known and was occurring before most of the Jews had been deported and killed"
  • The caption on the Hess at Minsk photo has a lot of links on common terms that were linked much earlier -- and, I'm afraid, I must ask about "Wehrmacht" again...
    • It's often recommended to repeat links in captions
  • About 500,000 prisoners had been freed by Allied armies by February 1945: is this just on the Eastern Front, or in the West as well?
    • Only the Red Army, clarified
  • German Army scorched-earth tactics: I would cut Army, as the air force played its role too. One might even consider cutting German too -- didn't the Soviets carry out scorched earth tactics as they withdrew?
    • Source says German Army. I don't know if the Red Army used scorched earth tactics but the vast majority of war destruction seems to be attributed to the German occupiers.
  • who fell into enemy hands or was encircled without capture: this seems rather harsh! Am I reading correctly that being surrounded made you a traitor if you didn't surrender?
    • While Moore states, "Servicemen who had been captured and escaped, or who had been encircled but not captured—something that may have applied to up to a million men in the first weeks of the conflict—had been dealt with under the Soviet criminal code as though they had committed high treason and were therefore subject to execution and the confiscation of their property." I was curious about this and tracked down the source he cited (Pavel Polian, ‘The Internment of Returning Soviet Prisoners-of-War after 1945’, in Bob Moore and Barbara Hately-Broad (eds), Prisoners of War, Prisoners of Peace (Oxford: Berg, 2005) p. 127.) Polian does not say that this class of people was considered universally traitors, only that they were screened after the war to find traitors. I rewrote the sentence based on Edele and Polian; it seems like in theory you were not a traitor if you surrendered due to the impossibility of continuing resistance, but in practice you would fall under suspicion.
      • That makes more sense: I suppose the (twisted) Soviet logic would have been that getting yourself encircled might show a less-than-stellar desire to fight and win: perhaps you only got into that situation because you weren't aggressive enough, or were hoping to be captured. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • classified all surrendering commanders and political officers culpable deserters : better as as culpable deserters, or culpable as deserters. If the former, could cut culpable -- you can't be a not-culpable deserter.
    • Done
  • Trawniki men were typically sentenced : I would explain who these people were.
  • According to official statistics, "57.8 per cent were sent home, 19.1 per cent were remobilized into the army, 14.5 per cent were transferred to labour battalions of the People's Commissariat for Defence, 6.5 per cent were transferred to the NKVD 'for disposal', and 2.1 per cent were deployed in Soviet military offices abroad".: an odd place to quote -- this is just bare facts, so better as a paraphrase. It's minor, but the WP:NONFREE case here is not strong.
    • Rewrote
  • Different figures appear in the book Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II: better as a colon, not a full stop, between title and subtitle -- but why give the title at all, rather than the author, as we've normally done with scholars' opinions?
    • Non-notable authors, rephrased
  • They were excluded from the Foundation Remembrance, Responsibility and Future fund: this could do with a bit of explanation -- it sounds from the article as though this was a Soviet thing.
    • Done
  • others belonged to the NKVD, People's Militia, were from uniformed civilian services: not grammatical: "to the NKVD or People's Militia, were from..."
    • Done
  • Christian Streit's landmark Keine Kameraden : landmark is a bit WP:PROMO, and I would translate the title for Anglophone readers.
    • Rewrote

That's a first pass -- my admiration continues. Clear and authoritative throughout: purely on prose, I found the "death toll" section slightly less sparkling than the rest, but that may be a reflection of the difficulty of conveying what is essentially a long list of (rather harrowing) statistics. As ever, my respect for taking on such a challenging and important topic and conveying it so well. I hope these comments are helpful, and please do take them as the beginning rather than the end of a conversation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- apologies for a long and no doubt torturous review, but I hope it's been to the article's benefit. Once again, huge respect for doing an excellent job with such a challenging subject. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary from fifelfoo on all of 1, 1c (inflation specific), all of 2, 3 (textual quotation), 4, including plagiarism samplings

[edit]

I appear to be liable to assist, for various reasons of past personal reading. And in that matter, if people believe my past editing in historiography of state murders would bias me or cause the appearance of bias, please ask me to cease my contributions immediately? I haven't done one of these in a while, so this may take some time, and my standards may be out of alignment with current standards (I did check back on customs and practices last year). If I can have 4 days to get through the major headings? Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a: reviewed: oppose
[edit]
  • I am aware that I'm reviewing a GA
  • Now that is a lede sentence. That's a masterful lede sentence. It is also a masterful lede.
  • "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the execution of captured Soviet commissars." => "Among the criminal orders issued before the invasion was the order for the execution of captured Soviet commissars." Otherwise it appears that the executions happened before the war due to verb chaining issues across comparative verbal clauses.
  • "military planners decided to breach it with the Soviet prisoners" => "with Soviet prisoners" the collective noun doesn't need an article
  • "Soviet Jews, political commissars, and some officers, communists, intellectuals, Asians, and female combatants" => ", some officers," unnecessary "and" within a comma separated noun list.
  • Completely agree with decision to exclude historiography from lede: article isn't "Historiography of…". The implicit historiographical summary of "but far less studied" is an appropriate historical conclusion of interest to the general reader. Really well handled here. Historiography is often too danke for the general reader, but necessary in body. Picked the right lede point in complex terrain.
  • "To increase the speed of conquest, the Germans" do note that I'm reading for stuff like this. The correct noun choices based on the historiographical arguments around "Ordinary men" are observed by readers like me, and I have read for these observations of "avoidance of Clean Wehrmacht" type myths. Correctly handled here, as a note, will observe if ever incorrectly handled (do not expect it to be.) I note that merely a paragraph later Nazi is used correctly to typify a view not universally held, compared to standard German myths of the East. This reinforces my belief that tonal choices of collective agent nouns will be correct.
  • "World War I led to increased antisemitism" => "World War I had lead to increased antisemitism" consider? My en_AU_scholarly views of which English past tense to use may be atypical though. The point being that WWI didn't simply produce a result, but was an active process producing a result in the past.
  • "and recognition of the need to secure food supplies" whose need? Unnamed noun. Suggest "recognition of Germany's need" as this dolchstosselegende myth isn't Nazi specific.
  • "they were less effective than expected because of flight" whose flight? "because of civilian flight" missing noun. Alternately civilian and military flight if more representative of HQRS scholarly judgement? Scholars may have generalised all kinds of flight, regardless of STAVKA's hopes.
    • The source says : "Many managed to flee other large Soviet cities that were under German occupation" so I cannot explicitly say civilian if the source doesn't.
  • "Although the mass deaths of prisoners in 1941 were controversial within the military, Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This is a bit of a mess. Complex multivalued expression with subtle nods to variations. "Although the virtue of mass deaths of prisoners…was controversial… [for purely instrumental reasons of policy?], Abwehr…according to law." I'm not sure what I'm meant to read here as a reader? Sure von Moltke might be admirable because he likes law of war, but what's the controversy about then?: Shoot them now or shoot them later?; Oh we don't want to starve slaves to death, we want to work them to death, work them in conditions of life unworthy of life, demonstratively punish them indefinitely, while your racial views are admirable they are of military detriment to defeating our enemy? Dangling an implicit controversy without explaining it in the sentence leads me unable to read von Moltke's legalism appropriately. Was he legalist in comparison to now/later policy views; was he legalist in comparison to military efficacy is death/ military efficacy is preservation of surrender as possible? This one is really troubling for me as I can't read it to an adequate conclusion of what kind of barbarism OKW/OKH policy level leaders were controverting over.
    • The source does not allow me to elaborate on Moltke's views, which would probably be WP:UNDUE because the article is not about Moltke.
  • "Little planning was made for housing and feeding the millions of soldiers to be captured as part of the rapid encirclement actions that German generals were planning." I've read enough mass human death studies to understand what "little planning" indicates. The general reader may not have? "were planning, the absence of plans implied necessarily deficient ad hoc solutions regardless of intention."? I'm reading here for language, not for OR/HQRS representation obviously. The follow on sentence implies the hermeneutic gap: absence of planning results in deficient outcomes regardless of intention. (With the intentions I'd anticipate supplied below during implementation).
    • I'm not sure what you want me to add here. Some sources highlight the lack of planning and suggest that the mass death was driven by logistical factors rather than malice. Others imply the lack of planning is indicative of malice, or at best depraved, callous, and criminal disregard for human life. But there is one point on which they agree and that's what is encyclopedically included as an undisputed fact; my inclination is to WP:Let the reader decide on the rest.
  • I love the section headings. I hate that I love the section headings (appropriate for the article). They are perfectly chosen, encyclopaedic, representative, NPOV.
  • "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed in action;" comma unnecessary for clause, "In 1941 three or four Soviet…"
  • "the ratio of prisoners was reduced later in the war" agents "reduce" ratios. Which agent decided to kill more prisoners? Passive voice here is an enemy to good writing in an agentic situation. "German forces reduced the number of captures later in the war." "Soviet operational and strategic art reduced the capacity for German forces to capture more POWs later in…". Do you see what I'm getting at here? Dangling an unspecified agent might be "safe" but it isn't "safe" for a history encyclopaedia article in an area of history where agents ordered people not to surrender or invited people out for a nice clean "partisan" hunt to be off the front lines?
    • Edele's argument isn't that more captured soldiers were killed—but that fewer defected and others were more inclined to put up a fight rather than surrender. (t · c) buidhe 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) I have clarified this point (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By mid-December 1941, 79 percent of prisoners (more than two million) had been captured". 79% of what period? All of the GPW? Of 1941? Of the period of rout and retreat to the turning point? And which prisoners? I know it is implied by the article title but it's a dangling absent noun. "in thirteen major cauldron battles."? 79% of prisoners to mid-December 1941 were captured in cauldron battles specifically?
  • "military factors such as poor leadership, lack of arms and ammunition, and being completely overwhelmed by" "and [who] being completely". Soviet soldiers? Soviet commands?
    • I could add another couple "Soviet" modifiers here but that would be repetitive and I believe that the intended meaning is 100% clear from context.
  • "The [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) " lmftfy. Why is there a de link against Waffen-SS? What editorial decision led to this? does this indicate cross-wiki porting? I'd appreciate an answer as it would go to another section (plagiarism detailed detection). Not a threat by the way, but a request for explanation of the editorial decision.
  • "The Red Army shot prisoners [less often]", German aligned combatant prisoners? Soviet or formerly soviet-aligned prisoners?
    • Clarified
  • "this contributed to a mutual escalation of violence" how did the Red Army shooting fewer prisoners contribute to escalation? It violates the conceptual structure of the initial verbal comparative. Try breaking into separate sentences?
  • "Killings before reaching the collection point [de] are not counted as part of the figures for Soviet prisoner deaths." Okay… so why is there a trailing de link? Whose figures for Soviet deaths? Where has this content come from? Seriously, from a plagiarism basis where has this come from? Stranded sentences that are incoherent in the paragraphs' argument that reference cross-wiki content make me really bloody worried about copyvio/closepara. Separate from cv/cp issues, whose figures, and why do we care? "OKH compiled figures ignored deaths prior to concentration at collection points." "Post-war Soviet figures neglected as POW deaths deaths prior to collection by OKH POW authorities." See the issue with a lack of a collective noun?
    • The link is a result of trying to avoid jargon (see some of UC's comments above), not copyvio from a foreign language source. The death statistics referred to are the German ones, since Soviet collection of information naturally cannot distinguish between missing and prisoners. Nevertheless, I have clarified. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" were ordered by whom? STAVKA? OKH? Kinda matters there. One's a lawful order, the other is an order given to unsurrendered combatants by OPFOR. The collapsed nouns are causing real problems in reading. I know what you're saying because I'm already aware of which institutional authority is responsible for which abhorrent preventable killings, but "average reader" won't be.
  • "Despite the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) order, prisoners were often taken under such circumstances;[57][54] thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed on the spot as "partisans" or "irregulars"". So we have a comparative between "Despite X: prisoners were taken; thousands of Soldiers were shot." That's not a good construction. Break into sentences to avoid spanning comparatives. "OKH ordered shootings. Prisoners were often taken by Heer units despite OKH commands. Yet thousands of Red Army soldiers were executed." Breaking into sentences prevents OKH orders spanning opposed comparatives.
  • "Others evaded capture " which others? OKH, Heer, Soviet soldiers? There are three major nouns in the prior multi clause sentence, you need to reestablish the central noun.
  • I have reached "Processing." I believe this is a sufficient basis to oppose on 1a. Failed noun targets, verbal clauses which avoid comparatives correctly, and passive voice avoiding assigning agentic power to responsible state authorities is sufficient. The clarity of the lede isn't present in the body where implied subjects and objects have to be read for aggressively exist. I will of course continue the review in other areas I identified I'd review, and expect good results there. (rest of 1, 2, plagiarism). Generalised editing on the points above throughout the article would be required for reassessment of this criteria (which I'd be happy to do.) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've rephrased in most of the above cases, while there are a few where I felt the suggestion was not an improvement. While I appreciate your feedback helping to improve the article and reduce the potential for misunderstanding, other editors seem to feel there is sufficient clarity from context. Some vagueness is inevitable, indeed appropriate, when dealing with many agencies issuing conflicting orders and people on the ground not necessarily following any of them. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1c Well-researched inflation specific: improvement needed
[edit]

I am not attacking the sources selected, or the choice to make a calculation for the purposes of the readers' benefit. Nor am I attacking the choice of calculation for comparison (USCPI). But there are two problems with the inflations: US cents are not specified (a wide variety of nations use cents); Current footnote 190abc Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019. doesn't indicate that the calculation was a triviality performed by editorial staff. Consider "Approximately 13 cents in contemporary US dollars,[189] or $2 today." and "Calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis 2019." Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, I'm not attached to this way of indicating inflation, but I used it because it was already in other featured articles, including the Holocaust in Slovakia. I did add "United States" for clarification. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not troubled by the editorial decision to use a post-war interstate arbitration of values between RM and USD, or your choice of CPI as appropriate inflator: these are good editorial decisions in inflation. Wages of unskilled workers (as Soviet POWS were forced to labour) is an appropriate CPI inflation use. I'm concerned about attribution of the calculation, and indication that the "modern comparator" is in USD. I think many people across the world can readily recognise USD values in beer and skittles, rent and hours of labour. Please see this edit: attempted indication of calculation for me indicating a fix. If you like the fix, please incorporate it. I am going to indicate that I'd 1c Inflation Only oppose over attribution of calculation, by I understand FAC moderators know who I am, and what bee I have in my bonnet over inflation calculation and the potential for original research in this domain, and that in my oppose they would read that I do not consider the underlying choice of inter-state value transformation or CPI as incorrect. They would weight my oppose on 1c inflation only appropriately. (compared to my expectation that every other category of my review would be support / resolved). Do you see what I'm getting at with the sample edit? We're showing that the calculation is Wikipedia's because the calculation is trivial here. Trivial equalling "not OR". Thank you for indicating the reference cents are USD cents.
    • Additionally in relation to other FAs: "Other stuff exists." I'm reviewing the high quality article that your editorial community has put time into on its merits in front of my eyes: FAC coordinators know how to value my opinion and would not overweight it. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1e Stability: support
[edit]

I'm convinced the article is stable, I noted a series of 3K additions, and removals, the talk page appears to have been functioning when these emerged and raised them, and editors on the talk page sought as editors to reach a proper editorial resolution including asking for external assistance without prompting or conflict requiring such. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Media: query (resolved)
[edit]

Have you considered using blockquotes drawn from primary sources which are themselves used in secondary sources as "typifying" of individual experiences? Text can act as media. It is useful for blending "colour" with "personal experience" and "voice from the era"? This is a query only, not a decline. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that the encyclopedia's goals include capturing "colour", "personal experience" and "voice from the era". Furthermore, you don't find many similar quotations in a lot of related articles, including FAs. I'm not opposed to quotations but I only add them if I feel that it increases the reader's encyclopedic understanding more than paraphrasing/rewriting, per MOS:QUOTE. (t · c) buidhe 14:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for responding to this query. I was following MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE's concept of media as "an important illustrative aid to understanding." While I've got the reading to experience the illustrative affect (emotional reaction) to the image files presented. From your MOS:QUOTE: "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that cannot be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice, but never to present cultural norms as simply opinional." My personal editorial opinion is that History articles can benefit from illustrative blockquotes from primary sources acting "as Media," for the purposes we use other media for. I must admit that I contributed significantly to the essay, which includes the observation at WP:HISTIP, "A fact qualifies for illustration when a major scholarly text explicitly demonstrates a point by reference to a primary source, or quotes a primary source in demonstration of a major (as weighted) fact." Text causes me to react in ways illustrative image media doesn't. I'm not suggesting quoting Idi i smotri. As the sponsoring editor you may have read the most reputable scholarly sources who themselves cannot avoid quoting primary sources to illustrate the impact on humans that encamped starvation or sub-survival calorie slave labour do not have when referred to technically. I trust your judgement entirely here, but was suggesting a category of historical media that is sometimes neglected. If a more versed editor than I could recommend an example of a recent historical FA that quotes a primary source in terms of WP:HISTIP's suggestions I would value their example of style, as I've been on an extended wikibreak. Thank you again for considering this query, I've noted it as resolved based on your consideration. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statistical graphic "Soviet prisoners of war by year of capture" almost certainly requires sourcing for its stats. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The data is cited in the Commons image description as recommended, which you get to by clicking on the image. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4 Length: support
[edit]

I am satisfied the length suits the topic, and the section lengths suit the importance of the sections to the encyclopaedic presentation. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Shushugah

[edit]
  • Specify USD$ in the footnotes
    • Done
  • Consistently italicize and capitalize the German words used, e.g Abwher -> Abwher and lebensraum -> Lebensraum
    • I capitalized lebensraum but I don't agree with italicizing when most English sources don't (Abwehr, Waffen-SS, etc.)
  • Use Umlaut consistently or not (ä replaced with ae etc..) e.g Flossenbürg becomes Flossenbuerg
  • I understood the comparison of Polish/Russian prisons of war, but given it mentions other civilians of Russian citizenry, I am surprised by lack of mention of World War II casualties of Poland which is one of the highest in WW2.
    • why is this relevant to include? It's certainly not true in absolute terms, where the Soviet losses dwarfed everyone else's. Losses were proportionally higher in the western Soviet union as well
  • I was confused by the racial hierarchy paragraph; Nazi racial theories § Slavs left me more confused what is meant by Asians, and what is meant by Russian, particularly with counter-examples of Georgians being consider Aryan potentially on one hand, and Ukrainians being called "Untermentsch" on the other.
    • Where Soviet citizens were concerned there was a clear hierarchy of treatment in practice, which was only partly based on Nazi racial theories." Asian does not mean Georgian but Central Asians, Siberians who looked" Mongoloid ". I can try to source more explanation on that point
  • @Buidhe and Shushugah: is there more to come from either of you here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild @Buidhe thanks for the ping! The link to Mongoloids for Asians helped me better understand what is being referred within local racial hierarchies. I am happy to give my suppport and wanted to mention some small nitpicks (not blockers for my support)
    ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shushugah. Without actually checking the captions, I assume that the perceived problem is because they adhere to MOS:CAPFRAG ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild exactly. I see that consistency between sentence and caption fragment is not explicitly required. Some of the captions could easily be converted into sentences, but not required nor beneficial. So strike my feedback on MOS:CAPFRAG. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the wikilink, appreciate feedback and your support :) (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

It's great to see a high quality article on this very important topic. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • I agree that the article seems miss-titled given it covers all aspects of how the Germans treated Soviet POWs. The current title could give readers the impression that only some Soviet POWs were subjected to atrocities or that this was a sub-set of the German policies.
  • There's a fair bit of over-linking. I'd suggest using one of the tools to identify duplicate links.
    • Guidance on MOS:REPEATLINK has changed and I believe the article fulfills the new standards (it's now recommended to repeat links each section where that aids reader understanding): many readers don't go in order.
  • "To increase the speed of conquest, the German invaders planned to feed their army by looting" - from memory, Adam Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that this was also due to the weakness of the German war economy
    • I'm not sure if that is worth mentioning in this article, it's not mainly about pillage.
      • The statement that this was done only to "increase the speed of conquest" is an oversimplification. The strain that the German war economy was under is relevant to the topic of this article, so it seems a good idea to get details like this right. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because prisoners of war were held under tighter control than urban or Jewish civilians, they had a higher death rate from starvation" - this seems out of place
  • The text starting with "It is disputed if the German command" doesn't really cover the differing views and who holds them
    • OK, I have attempted to rewrite. I think sources agree that as time went on the labor of prisoners was prioritized, but where they differ is emphasizing logistical vs ideological factors, and whether it is a "mass killing" or only "mass death".
  • "Especially in 1941, the German Army often refused to take prisoners on the Eastern Front and shot Soviet soldiers who tried to surrender." - this sentence seems far too categorical. It would also be good to explain whether this was the actions of individual soldiers or whether they were directed to not take prisoners (or a bit of both)
    • clarified that these do not seem to be ordered from above, but tacitly tolerated by the military leadership
  • "Red Army soldiers overtaken by the German advance without being captured were ordered by the Supreme Command of Ground Forces (OKH) to present themselves to the German authorities under the threat of summary execution" - how could and did the German high command order Soviet soldiers to do this?
    • "Schon am 25. Juli 1941 befahl das OKH, versprengte Rotarmisten hätten „sich sofort bei der nächsten deutschen Wehrmachtsdienststelle zu melden. Geschieht das nicht, sind sie von einem gebietsweise festzusetzenden Zeitpunkt ab als Freischärler anzusehen und entsprechend zu behandeln."" and what was the result? "Im Rahmen der Partisanenbekämpfung wurde nicht nur in Zivil untergetauchten Soldaten, sondern sogar aufgegriffenen Uniformierten die Erschießung angedroht." Yes, the order was actually directed at Red Army soldiers, although the extent to which it reached them was debatable: "Mit Hilfe von Fristen sollte das deutsche Besatzungsgebiet „von Versprengten gereinigt" werden53. Aber war es realistisch und vor allem fair, die in den Wäldern und Sümpfen vagabundierenden Uberlebenskünstler mittels Plakaten und Flugblättern erreichen zu wollen?"
  • "An estimated 20 percent or more" - what is this a proportion of? The total POWs taken during this period or something else?
    • Clarified
  • "Shooting prisoners was encouraged." - by whom, and who were they encouraging to do this?
    • Clarified
  • "about half were recaptured,[92] and around 10,000 reached Switzerland." - surely far more would have returned home to German occupied territory, cross the front line to Soviet territory or become partisans?
    • that's true but we have no figures for that.
  • "Due to its clear-cut criminality, the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war was mentioned in the International Military Tribunal's indictment" - can you say why?
  • "Viktor Zemskov says" - I'd suggest identifying who this person is (e.g. is he a historian?)
    • Done
  • "Thousands of books have been published about the Holocaust, but in 2016 there were no books in English about the fate of Soviet prisoners of war." - this seems over-simplistic given that the topic is routinely covered in English language works on the Soviet-German war, sometimes in quite a bit of detail.
    • While it's not a perfect metric, I've seen it in multiple sources. It's clear to me that the topic is vastly under studied compared to the number of deaths, even in comparison to other atrocities that killed large numbers of Soviet citizens - such as anti-partisan warfare. (t · c) buidhe 21:12, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely something can be said that acknowledges that there is in fact a sizable English language literature on this topic while also noting the lack of dedicated books? (the English language literature on the Soviet Union's war experiences continues to be very patchy across the board). The topic is usually covered as part of popular works on the war, so English language people with an interest in the conflict should be aware of it as a result. For instance, I first became aware of his issue in the 1990s through Anthony Beevor's enormously popular book Stalingrad, which includes a focus on the experiances of the Soviet prisoners who ended up fighting with the Germans at Stalingrad. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        While that's true, I don't think it's verifiable to make such a claim about the English language literature specifically. Quinkert et al. discuss Russian and German literatures but not publications in English. (t · c) buidhe 01:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've had a poke around academic journal databases, and haven't hard any luck here either. I really don't like this text as it misrepresents the literature, but I guess it's technically accurate. I'd suggest continuing to look for sources here, perhaps in PhD thesis literature review sections and the like. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest briefly noting the far right narrative that has attempted to present the way in which the western Allies held German POWs in 1945 as being directly comparable to the treatment of Soviet POWs. Nick-D (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review (t · c) buidhe 04:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed, though I've left a further response above. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I am surprised that there has not been an image review so far. Here goes my attempt at one, Buidhe:

Matarisvan

[edit]

Text review:

  • "Although more than a million": "Although" is not necessary here, consider removing?
  • "mass death of prisoners, with": prefix "along" before "with", since we have a conjuctive here?
  • "Little planning was made": "done" instead of "made"?
  • "that was fewer": "the actual number" instead of "that"?
  • "ordered from above": "by the high command" instead of "from above"?
  • "while escaped": "after their escape" would be better grammatically?
  • Link to Gestapo on first use instead of second?
  • "1,487 calories": consider providing the required calories per day for an adult male as a comparable?
    • This is a bit difficult. Many were required to perform hard labor which increases calorie requirements. I did mention that it's a starvation amount even if the POWs received it, which they didn't.
  • "and by the end of the war around a million were": "and the total number released was around a million by the end of the war" would be grammatically better, wdyt?
  • "With the army's cooperation, [] Error: [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help): no text (help) units": Fix the lang template?
  • "Soviet Muslims mistaken for Jews were sometimes killed": are any numbers available? If so, consider adding?
    • No
  • "when the front approached": what does "front" mean here? Frontline? Do we intend to say "when the frontline was closer to the camps"?
  • "advocating the transfer": add "for" after "advocating"?
  • "under the control of the SS": "to" instead of under?
  • "Officers were over-represented": are any percentages known?
    • Not in any of the sources consulted
  • Link to Hanover-Wülfel?
    • There isn't a good link, even on de wikipedia the closest is de:Döhren-Wülfel, no en wiki article for that
  • Is the 2015 reparations amount known? If so, consider adding along with an inflation adjusted figure?
    • Done (still recent enough that I'm not sure inflation is helpful to include)
  • "Hartmann's 3 million": Introduce and link to Hartmann here instead of in the legacy section?

Source formatting review:

  • Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide them. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
    • I have no objection if you want to do it.
  • For Quinkert, Keller, Kozlova, Meier & Winkel and Latyschew 2021, I don't think the following text is necessary if you're using harvc: "Dimensionen eines Verbrechens: Sowjetische Kriegsgefangene im Zweiten Weltkrieg | Dimensions of a Crime. Soviet Prisoners of War in World War II (in German and English). Metropol Verlag. ISBN 978-3-86331-582-5." Just using in1, in2 and year parameters would be enough.
    • I don't understand in1 and the documentation doesn't explain it, as far as I can tell. Could you reformat one of the refs so I can see what you mean?
  • Add archive URLs for "Consumer Price Index, 1800–", Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 1968, Otto & Keller 2019?
    • I don't have the script or bot that does this, but I don't have any objection to it.
  • Remove the links to USGPO, Cambridge University Press, Yale University Press, Militärgeschichtliche Zeitschrift and Russian History? Otherwise you will have to link to all other publishers and journals to maintain consistency.
    • I should now have bluelinked everything that has an enwiki article.
  • Consider adding series and volume numbers for sources which provide these? For example, Pohl 2012, Otto & Keller 2019 etc.
    • I guess I'm not convinced that this is particularly helpful (it isn't needed to find the book) and I try to keep the info in bibliographies to what is actually going to be useful.
  • Is there any material in Keller 2011 which we could add here? Otherwise, if it is similar to the works cited here, then you may have to remove it.
    • It goes into a lot of detail on a particular group of Soviet POWs that are a minority of the total, thus WP:UNDUE to add. We already cite a bunch of info from his summary of his research in Keller 2021. The full book is listed for readers desiring more information on that specifically. If there was a separate article for Soviet prisoners of war in Germany I would remove it and list in there instead.

I'll try to do a source review with spot checks soon. Overall, I found the article impressive and well written, congratulations to you on writing such a great article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review, I have actioned everything except some of what I mentioned above. (t · c) buidhe 13:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I have done the biblio formatting, please let me know if my format is ok with you. On the text and source formatting, a support from me. Will try to get the spotchecks done in 1-2 days. Matarisvan (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! All the formatting looks good. Note: I added a source, Westermann 2023, in response to comments above (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should be able to get you pdfs of almost all the sources if you can't access them (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a problem, I had noticed that addition during my edit and formatted it too. For the spot checks, I will be going through 15 refs which is roughly 6% of the total refs. For generating the ref numbers I will use a random number generator to get as random numbers as possible. Here goes the source review, @Buidhe:
    • All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
    • #9, #14, #39, #43, #47, #49, #80, #93, #106, #117, #134, #156, #190: all ok
    • #28: mostly ok but I couldn't find the supporting text for "several weeks after the start of the war", since no date is given for Hitler's rejection of POW terms.
    • #254: The second sentence is ok, but the first is not. The source says "Post-war German rationalizations and apologia for the Soviet mortality even included claims that it was the long-term undernourishment of Soviet soldiers by their own Government that had led to their widespread deaths in German captivity" while the article says "After the war, some Germans made apologetic statements about the 1941 causes of mass death". I think you misunderstood what apologia means here, the Germans were not apologizing for the Soviet deaths but trying to defend themselves, one definition of apologia can be "a formal written defence of one's opinions or conduct". So you will have to change the first sentence to some variant of "After the war, there were some German attempts to deflect the blame for the 1941 mass deaths".
    Matarisvan (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For #28, based on the text it occurred before another Soviet order that was dated in August. I'm looking for another source that gives the time frame more explicitly. It is supposed to be in Streim's chapter of this book, but I cannot access it :(
    For #254, I mean apologetic in the second sense listed in the dictionary, but evidently that's not clear so I rewrote it. (t · c) buidhe 20:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find anything else for #28, but I could remove it if you want. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, let me check by using Streim's book's DOI and JSTOR, I'll wikimail you the page or page range. Matarisvan (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, Google Books has the access to the relevant pages, namely 295-296, but these also do not have any dates. I think you will have to remove the phrase "several weeks after the start of the war". Matarisvan (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at page 296, these diplomatic communication are dated to July and August 1941—aka within the first several weeks of the war. (t · c) buidhe 13:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source review a pass then, @Buidhe. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Beards

[edit]

There are redundancies in the prose. I have made some edits to the Lead as examples [27]. The main problem is the excessive use of "numbers" as in "numbers of" and so forth. Can we check that these are needed and for variations where possible? Graham Beards (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the copyedits. I went through the body and reduced the use of the word "numbers", but I cannot think of a better rephrasing in the remaining cases. Although some could be replaced by "amount", I don't think it would be an improvement. (t · c) buidhe 16:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am pleased to add my Support. Well done. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "The German military did not record Soviet prisoner deaths that occurred prior to arriving at the collection points." Slightly clumsy. Perhaps a slight rephrase? Eg 'The German military did not record Soviet deaths that occurred prior to prisoners arriving at the collection points' or similar.
  • Only one work has a publisher location (Foreign Claims Settlement Commission). Could we have consistency?
  • "Two-thirds of them died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942". Perhaps 'Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942'.
  • "ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." Really! Surely there were plenty with a 100% death rate? I note that the same phrase is used in the main article, but the greater context makes it more reasonable to take "rate" as meaning 'number'. I suggest tweaking the wording in both cases, certainly in the lead.
    • "Death rate" doesn't refer to the percentage of people who died, but the ratio of deaths per unit of time, in this case deaths per month: "one of the highest rates of human destruction in history". Is there a way to rephrase it so it's clearer what the source means? (t · c) buidhe 03:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so currently you have "Two-thirds of them had died from starvation, exposure, and disease by early 1942—ranking as one of the highest death rates from mass atrocity in history." I think that if you are going to go with this it needs to be based on a number rather than a fraction. Eg 'By early 1942 over two-thirds of the more than three million Soviet military personal taken prisoner had died.' Then, perhaps in a separate sentence, 'This is one of the highest sustained rates of killing for any mass atrocity in history.' How does this or something like it sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More prisoners were shot for being wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches." Optional, → 'More prisoners were shot because they were wounded, ill, or unable to keep up with forced marches.'

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe. I keep coming across niggly issues in the main article, so I am going to recuse and review in full. I anticipate that much of it will be copy editing. I will do some of it straight into the article. If you disagree with or don't understand any changes, could we discuss that here? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Foreign language words, eg Lebensraum, should be in lang templates, not just italics.
    • Done
  • "the German military's High Command (OKW) ... The OKW said ..." OKW only needs introducing once, similarly linking the short form.
  • "Abwehr officer Helmuth James Graf von Moltke was one of the few who favored treating Soviet prisoners according to the law." This seems a bit odd. Why cherry pick this one German soldier to have his opinion detailed?
  • "intent to use the prisoners as a labor reserve before and during the war." Use as labor before the war? (Ie, before they were captured.)
    • There is a better way to phrase this, but the controversy is over whether, before the war and during its first months, Wehrmacht planners intended to feed their prisoners so that they could be deployed in large scale forced labor projects (which would occur once the war started and prisoners were captured) (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the invasion of France in 1940, 1.9 million prisoners of war". Just the invasion of France or the whole Western Campaign?
  • "In 1941, three or four Soviet soldiers were captured for each one killed, indicating widespread surrender". This is a tautology. I mean, a PoW pretty much assumes a prior surrender.
  • "thirteen major cauldron battles". Rather than going with the (unexplained) technical term, how about 'thirteen battles where large Soviet forces were surrounded' or similar?
    • Done
  • "a collection point at the division or army level." There were no corps level collection points?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild do you have further input? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David, I do, I do. Apologies, I am fighting my way out of a nasty, six-day dose of Covid. (Unless I go radio silent again, in which case keep counting.) I shall get onto it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some prisoners had to live in the open for the entire winter, in unheated rooms." Living in even "unheated rooms" is not living "in the open for the entire winter",
  • "Following setbacks in the military campaign, Hitler ordered on 31 October". What military setbacks occurred prior to 31 October?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infant school

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People who grew up in the UK might remember attending an infant school or the "infants" of their primary school. What they might not be aware of is that the concept has a long and complicated history; stretching from New York to New Zealand.

This is my second featured nomination. The article has recently been promoted to good status (See:Talk:Infant school/GA1). Thank you to anyone who decides to review it.Llewee (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • Since the movement began in Scotland, could some lead mention be done as to whether infant schools flourished in Scotland?
  • Frustratingly, I haven't been able to find much information about Scotland. Charitable infant schools certainly existed there in the early part of the movement but Scotland seems to drop out of the story at the middle of the 19th century. Presumably infant schools weren't adopted into the state system there to the same extent.--Llewee (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to David Salmon and Winifred Hindshaw," What is their profession?
  • "manager Robert Owen". Is manager the proper term or was the the owner or some such?
  • "He saw child labour as damaging and forbid children under the age of ten from working in his factory." Should forbid be forbade.
  • "Various other figures — including Robert Pole, David Goyder, William Wilson, William Allen and Thomas Bilby — also established infant schools and wrote books about the subject." Given that these are apparently not notable, though I did not check, are they worth naming?
  • "Academic David Turner" this and also Owen above, I thought false titles were disfavoured in British English?
  • "T.B Stephens" Is this properly punctuated?
  • "making it easier for them to pay infant schools relatively low fees.[47]" An apostrophe somewhere, likely after schools
  • "The number of children under seven in schools for older children also rose." I'm not a fan of having "also rose" refer back to a previous section. Perhaps begin, "Like workers' wages, the number of ..."
  • "it would be sometime" some time?
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some teachers failed to teach reading to poorer pupils, with no reason to develop an interest in the subject outside of school. " This sentence doesn't read as complete.
  • "For instance, an employee of the Board of Education, Lord Eustace Percy later wrote in his memoirs:" He appears to have been president of the Board of Education (and earlier, parliamentary secretary), which are political positions held by members of Parliament. He was not an employee.
  • "Infant-stage children solving puzzles at a school in Dominion of New Zealand (c. 1900 – c. 1947)" I would omit "Dominion of".
  • "In order to encourage the freed workers to remain working there and spread Christianity among their children." Not a sentence.
  • the owners power: missing apostrophe
  • "a system of state funded schooling in Ireland " redirects to Stanley letter. WP:EASTEREGG would seem to have some relevance.
  • I'm surprised throughout the Ireland section, there is no mention of religion.
  • The Catholic Church is mentioned a lot in the book. I've added more information about its influence into the article but I'm trying to keep the focus on topics that are specifically relevant to infant schools/classes.--Llewee (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skepticism". I thought this was "scepticism" in BrEng.
  • Overtime maybe over time
That's it for now. I guess what strikes me at first glance is that this seems mostly about the past, the history, without much discussion of what present-day infant schools are like. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt I think less information specific to infant schools exists for more recent times because they have gradually lost some of their separate identity. I have tried to flesh out the "part of primary education" section with more information.--Llewee (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly on prose. I'm hedging some on comprehensiveness for the reasons stated above, but hope to be able to enter a full support following additional reviews. Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

Some general notes:

  • I'm not sure thefreedictionary.com is the best source to use for the first ref; also, Collins and Merriam-Webster both state that its simply in use "in the UK". Since these have at least some history in Scotland, I think that'll be better to use.
  • Ref 98 has an error that needs fixing.
  • Grimshaw (1931) and Morgan (1936) needs the publisher put in title case.
  • Capitalise Co in Longmans, Green, and Co.
  • You wikilink RTE News in bibliography, but not BBC News. Try for consistency one way or another here.
  • Some of your sources aren't in title case and need to be converted to such; Garland, Keane et al, Lehane, Lewis, Pence, and Salmon.
  • University of Wales Press needs a location (Cardiff), as does Palgrave Macmillan (London), Routledge (Abingdon), Peter Lang (Laussane), and Taylor & Francis (Milton Park). Alternatively, remove location from all the cites that have it.
  • You need to wikilink either all publishers or none of them.
  • Take "others=Internet Archive" out of the Pence cite. They didn't make the book. Also take out the via, since you (rightfully) Yaren't saying Via Jstor for the JSTOR cites.
  • Add a space between the initials T.B Turner.
  • May et al Doesn't have an ISBN.
  • This is a very broad article in a field thats well-studied, so obviously we can't use all sourcing. I do feel like you're underusing modern educational journal articles though, and there might be some good ones we can find. Some sources that came up from a search which might be useful:
    • Shannon, R. L., & Shannon, D. M. (1992). The British Infant School: A Reconsideration. The Educational Forum, 56(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131729109335177 - Good sourcing for its influence outside of the UK.
    • Monks, Claire P., and Sarah O’Toole. "Bullying in preschool and infant school." The Wiley Blackwell handbook of bullying: A comprehensive and international review of research and intervention 2 (2021): 2-19.
    • Burger, Kaspar. "Entanglement and transnational transfer in the history of infant schools in Great Britain and salles d’asile in France, 1816–1881." History of Education 43, no. 3 (2014): 304-333.
    • Luc, Jean-Noël. "The spread of infant school models in Europe during the first half of the nineteenth century." In The Development of Early Childhood Education in Europe and North America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, pp. 31-50. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015.
    • Raveaud, Maroussia. "Assessment in French and English infant schools: assessing the work, the child or the culture?." Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 11, no. 2 (2004): 193-211.
    • Blatchford, Peter, Viv Moriarty, Suzanne Edmonds, and Clare Martin. "Relationships between class size and teaching: A multimethod analysis of English infant schools." American Educational Research Journal 39, no. 1 (2002): 101-132.

That's about it for now. Let me know when you want me to take a second look, @Llewee:. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, I have responded to each of your points now and expanded the article with information from journals. I hope you will be able to have another look when you have time.--Llewee (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Took a look back over - apologies that this took a while - but I think it's in a lot better spot now! Happy to support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:British_Central_School_Borough_Road.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Infant_gallery.png, File:Beckside_Infants_c.1900s_(archive_ref_DDPD-2-2-8)_(25384528296).jpg, File:First_Infant_School_in_Green_Street,_New_York_MET_MM82866.jpg
  • I've replaced this image with File:St Marys Infants School children in Saturday Market, Beverley for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee 1899 (archive ref DDPD-2-2-8) (25381071806).jpg. It was taken in 1897 and does not appear to have been published until it was released on Flickr in 2016.--Llewee (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Which_is_your_Right_Hand%3F_A_study_in_an_Infant_School._(Graphic,_1898).jpg: copyright terms turn over on the new year, so life+100 tagging won't be correct until 1 January 2025.
  • File:The_dog_(BM_1846,1219.12).jpg: the permission field and the licensing tags are contradictory here - NC images are considered non-free for our purposes
  • File:The_Infant_Model_School,_with_Owen's_Original_clocktower.png: what is the specific source?

Also, not an image issue, but I would suggest a thorough review of the article for style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]
  • There are 9,279 words, which will take half an hour to read. That's 0.3 tomats, so a third of a short novel. This is pushing the upper end of WP:SIZE, and reduces the odds that the whole article will get read.
  • It is missing obvious links to articles such as Moral education, Physical exercise, and Playground. I've looked at a sample of 188 randomly selected articles over 5,000 words in length, and they typically have between 200 and 500 links to other articles (median of 312, mean of 376). Infant school is at the low end, so it could be a case of needing more links, or it could be a case of not choosing the right links. I think that the former is more likely than the latter.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pessimistic drive-by from UC

[edit]

I'm not sure that this article really is what it says on the tin -- there is comparatively little, indeed almost nothing as far as I can see, about what an infant school actually is in the modern day, how they work, what it's like inside them, how important they are, the problems facing them, and so on. What we currently have, I think, is closer to an article like History of primary education in the United Kingdom.

Similarly, I think the section on Ireland would be better re-thought: as the scope of the article is currently conceived, we need one, and yet it really doesn't have the substance to do what it needs to do -- we have barely anything there after the 1960s, which clearly won't do for an article that purports to be the port of call for infant schools in Ireland as they exist right now.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that these issues can be easily remedied, at least not within the scope of an FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UndercoverClassicist I have added more information on present day infant schools in the UK and will do more research into them in Ireland. I think the overall structure of the article is inevitable as they are mainly notable for their historic role. There aren't that many separate infant schools left and the term doesn't seem to be used much officially.--Llewee (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our article says that 10% of children of the relevant age attended one in 2018, and there are 1,700 of them -- that's not a small number, though it is obviously much smaller than the figure for primary schools. More generally, throughout the article, I think the distinction between those two things often gets muddy: as alluded above, I don't get the sense that the article really knows how it defines its scope between "infant schools" and "the education of children under about 8". UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, with the exception of the earliest infant schools, I don't think there is much distinction between the two. The article says the term infant school "might refer to a separate school or a department within a larger school". The UK government uses the term infant classes for all children in the relevant age group.--Llewee (talk) 12:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we have this article (Infant school), a separate article for primary education (Primary school), a specific article for primary education in Wales and a lengthy article on education in England with relevant sections that don't fully overlap any of those categorisations. We then have History of education in Ireland and Education in the Republic of Ireland on the Irish material.
In my view, this is a scope-of-article problem, not a scope-of-subject one -- I think it would help for you to have a look at that set of articles, work out how they do (or should) fit together, and then think about where the material you want to write about would be best located. As it stands, I think this article is quite a comprehensive history of how young children have been educated in Britain, but it wouldn't be enough for the article about cars to be primarily a history of how cars used to be built. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that infant schools were a distinctive institution and phase of schooling in the past but have merged into primary education over time. "Infant school" is only really a notable topic for a Wikipedia article because of the history. The balance of the sources available seems to support that. In any case, I've updated the information about Ireland.--Llewee (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

This has been open for over six weeks and hasn't garnered a consensus to promote, and comments seem to have stalled. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week or so I am afraid that it is going to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

I was invited and am willing to take a look, but have no idea of the topic, being familiar only with German and US varieties of Kindergarten and preschool. But sometimes the view of someone from outside might help ;) I'll write as I read, turning to the lead last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Gerda, I will answer some of the later comments first and then circle back to deal with the more complicated issues in the early sections.--Llewee (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

  • The image of just some building tells me nothing. How about the one about "right hand" further below. I want to see an infant ;)
    done, I have added that 1898 drawing which is a nice image--Llewee (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

  • "An infant school is a type of school or school department for young children. Today, it is mainly used in England and Wales." It is unclear to me what "it" means in the second sentence, the type, or perhaps rather that specific name for it.
    clarified--Llewee (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

  • I suggest not to start with infant school (lower case, not expected at the beginning), but perhaps say: The term "infant school" ...*
    done--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "age ranges for the group they cater to" - why "they"? So far it was singular.
    changed to "age ranges for this phase of education"
  • I never need more than three refs for on fact.
    I have moved the dictionary definitions from a note into the body of the article.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For someone completely unfamiliar, Reception, even with a link, comes as too much of a surprise, - perhaps turn the sentence around to prepare it?
    reworked this sentence--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, Early Years Foundation Stage is a pompous term, - stage means podium for me ;) - perhaps pipe to early childhood education which makes more sense to me?
    I've changed the working to "integrated into preschool education" to try and use less jargon.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd make 3 paras for UK, Wales and Ireland, or one.
    I have two paragraphs one covering the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and another for Ireland or more precisely the republic. I'd like to keep the Republic of Ireland in its own paragraph in order to not give the impression its in the same category to the various parts of the UK.--Llewee (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • I think that for me it would be easier to first read Background, then Terminology.
    I think that would be a bit disjointed. As the terminology section is about the present day, it would effectively be setting the scene in circa-1800 then returning to the present before going back to the 1810s.--Llewee (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if - after saying it's new, and I don't know if we have to mention the two people without an article - we can tell the story chronologically: first the common situation in the 19th century of one classroom schools, then take it from there.
    Do you mean moving the terminology section lower down the article?
    That was my point further up but I understand if not, as you explained. No, I meant, I wouldn't begin with the idea, then say what was previously and even later say what was before the 19th century. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reorganised the first paragraph of the background section along the lines you suggested.--Llewee (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First establishments

Theory ...

Evolution

  • I notice names of scholars who - without article - should get a little introduction about when they wrote these things and why it seems significant.
    I think I have dealt with all instances of this. Please tell me if I have missed any.--Llewee (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you introduced them, it's just that my memory fails to recognise easily that a name was already mentioned in the previous section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide spread

Teaching methods

Infant departments

Need a break, read until header "Shift to child-centered approach". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read now - without problems - until Ireland. I will take a look at headers and there levels because I don't recall any similar England - Scptland that would have prepared me for Ireland being a different topic. I'll be out tomorrow, patience please. Thank you for changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

19th century

  • "Attempts were made to introduce kindergarten methods into infant classes during the 1880s and 1890s. The method was treated as a separate subject within an academically focused curriculum." - methods, - what does "the method" mean then?
    Changed to plural.--Llewee (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20th century

  • "Wider society was sceptical of the changes." - what's wider society?
    relevant text on page 152 - "...parents and the wider community were ill-informed about the rationale for the content and methodologies promoted in the programme of 1900 and began to question the educational value of handwork. There were requests for a return to the all important study of Reading, Writing and Arithmetic by parents, the wider community, the Catholic Church and not least the teachers (O’Connell, 1968: 336–7)."
    page 175 - "...it would appear that parents remained unconvinced of the educational value of the reform. As early as 1901, Mr Downing, the Chief Inspector, indicated that there was a ‘grievous lack of public interest in the National Schools’. He questioned how this attitude ‘of indifference, is to be met, and their interest enlisted’ (Sixty-eighth Report of the CNEI for 1901, Appendix, Section I: 72). By 1912–1913 Miss Austin could report that while the attitude of the public towards the education of infants was of a negative nature, it was improving (Seventy-ninth Report of the CNEI for 1912–1913, Appendix, Section I: 137). In relation to the context of the time, although many parents were not educated, nevertheless, they did not seem to value handwork. For them, schoolwork involved analysis and conceptualisation with less stress on manual instruction."--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if you don't want more detail from those sources, it might help to say "parents and the wider society". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some detail to that section which should make it clearer.--Llewee (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "teaching in infant classes in the Irish Free State was made solely Irish-medium" - "teaching was made"
    I'm not quite sure what you mean here, it was a reform by the new Irish government.--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just wondered about the verb "made" which sounds kind of weak, but I'm no native speaker of English which may explain some questions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more varied teacher methods" - what are teacher methods?
    corrected to "teaching methods"--Llewee (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll turn to the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I recommend to make Ireland an extra paragraph, matching a level-2 header.
  • For my taste, the lead could be a bit longer to reflect the structure of the article. In old style, the TOC gave an overview, but now we get only the most important headers if we don't dig deeper. If you want to leave it as it as, fine. - I am pretty busy (Rohan de Saram + 3 Bach cantatas + two more who recently died + RL), so will look at your replies later, perhaps later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure about these changes. I think the pre-independence Irish history broadly mirrors England and Wales. So if you added another paragraph it would add a degree of repetition. The heading already feels quite long to me. It's 372 works which is at the upper end of the usual length for featured articles.--Llewee (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand. What you might do for distinction at a glance is: place "In Ireland" first in the third sentence. I am ready to support the article for featured quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    done--Llewee (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

[edit]
Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • make the lead two paragraphs (per MOS:LEADLENGTH)
  • The album was recorded on analogue tape ==> "The album was recorded on analog tape" (AmEng)
  • The album was recorded on analog tape, and Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections. ==> "Recorded on analog tape, Elverum embraced the medium's technical imperfections"
background and recording
  • came to increasingly trust his musical abilities. ==> "came to trust his musical abilities increasingly."
  • Prior to It Was Hot's release ==> "Before It Was Hot's release" (conciseness)
  • between September 24, 1999, and March 6, 2000 at Dub add a comma after "2000"
  • on analogue tape, which ==> "on analog tape, which"
music and themes
  • merge the first paragraph and second paragraph (single-sentence paragraphs are generally unfavorable)
release and reception
  • droning, distorted guitars and organs" ==> "droning, distorted guitars[,] and organs"

That's all i got. Fine work on the article! 750h+ 08:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@750h+: Thank you for the review! All comments implemented. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which was explored in more depth on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." - this reads a tiny bit oddly, as you refer to this album in the present tense but then a later album in past tense. Maybe this could be dodged by saying "which would be explored".......?
  • "as well as the extended play Window:." - is that colon part of the title, rather than a typo.....?
  • Check for overlinking - drones is linked multiple times, as are K Records, Phil Elverum, the Microphones, PopMatters, and more....
  • That's all I got. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments! "was" changed to "would be". The colon is intentional.
    Per MOS:REPEATLINK, repeat links are allowed if in different sections. I don't think removing many of the links you mentioned would be beneficial to the reader, although I removed some. Let me know your thoughts. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review and spotcheck

[edit]

Images seem well-placed. File:ItWasHotWeStayedInTheWaterCover.jpg has a broken source URL. Where on the source for File:Will Oldham 2017.jpg is the licence? File:The Pull - The Microphones.ogg's rationale probably needs to describe a bit more why a sample is needed. File:Eric'striplive.jpg from which one file is derived has a broken source. I don't see ALT text anywhere. Source-wise (spot-check contained therein):

Thanks for the review: will reply to each point in order. Source URL fixed; per diario.madrid.es website, "With few exceptions expressly indicated, the contents of the daily website.madrid.es are published under Creative Commons CC by 4.0 license" (google translate); file rationale expanded; can't find the Eric's trip file anywhere else, not sure what else I can do, deadlinked content doesnt necessitate removal; alt text added. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • #1 doesn't mention "The Pull" anywhere. It also doesn't say that "The Glow" is the climax or that it has segments.
    • It Was Hot opens with lightly-strummed acoustic guitar switching rhythmically from the right to left channel of your speaker. Don't need to cite that the opener is "The Pull".
    • leading up perfectly to the album's climax, the laid-back yet riveting charms of the Microphones' otherworldly cover of Eric's Trip's "Sand," and the epic "The Glow." [...] The latter [...] weaves several loosely connected segments together into a disjointed, yet brilliantly self-referential epic.— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • Where does #2 speak of liner notes?
    • It's kind of a WP:BLUE. The liner notes not giving individual contributions is an obvious fact and is used to introduce the following quote. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • In #3, the article text resembles the source's "It was his first LP in a streak to revolve around an element of nature – here, of course, water — before 2001’s The Glow pt. II captured fire and air and 2003’s Mount Eerie did rock. " a bit much. Is the "B" in the sidebar supposed to source the 4 out of 5 star thing?
    • 4/5 changed to B. For the wording, honestly, I disagree. The parts that are similar are mostly the parts that are facts and have to be kept— the albums, the element names, use of the word "element". I don't see ways to reword without making the sentence less clear but open to ideas. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • #4's "because even though he collaborated with other musicians on the project throughout the years, the Microphones name is really synonymous with Elverum himself. " might resemble "Although the project has involved many collaborations with other musicians, it is considered synonymous with Elverum" too much.
  • #6 Again sentence structure very similar to source. What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • #8 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #9 Does Johnson still own the studio?
  • #10 What makes this podcast a reliable source?
  • #11 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #12 What makes this website a reliable source?
  • #13 Archive is broken.
    • So, that's odd. I keep trying to archive this and it isn't going through. I'll remove the broken link for now. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c)
  • #15 says "chaos", not "noise"
  • #16 What makes Heather Phares a reliable source? "presents delicate, almost folky melodies wrapped up in and surrounded by waves of droning, distorted guitars" isn't there, either.
  • #17 where does it say that The Breeze has experimental bits?
  • #18 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #20 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented.
  • #21 I'll assume good faith that it isn't too-closely-paraphrased or misrepresented, but the URL may not be working.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the formatting of the bullet points, hope you don't mind. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for taking the time to review! All comments have received replies — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Could you confirm if this is a pass on the reviews you've conducted here or are there any outstanding issues? FrB.TG (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only the question under #3 needs input. And if someone can access #18-#21 that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algebra

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like . However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (Support)

[edit]
  • As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
  • I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!
    Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.
    That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • x-y-pair do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".
    Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ... This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.
    That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An operation admits inverse elements... explain what it means to "admit" an element.
    I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers Why not "positive integers"?
    Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups. studying -> which studies.
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?
    You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.
    I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)

I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.

I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception
    I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:

  • Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.
    Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?
    We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?
    Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking countable noun.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.
    I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?
    Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.
    Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.
    I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?
    Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?
    Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.
    I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?
    Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations and contradict each other since no values of and exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.
    I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?
    Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.
    Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?
    I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?
    Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
  • the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).
    I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".
    I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.
    I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

[edit]

Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.

  • Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?
    You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?
    This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good
    We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?
    You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me
    I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?
    Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus
    I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations
    Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?
    I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?
    For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more:

  • x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?
    Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"
    Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title
    Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
  • 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.
    I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4
    I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current first sentence is: "Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures". This definition is not circular since "algebraic structure" has a precise definition that does not refer to the field of algebra. So it's not a problem with the definition itself but only with the linguistic level since it is preferable to avoid repeating the words algebra-algebraic.
I'll brainstorm some alternatives:
  1. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies abstract structures and the manipulation of statements within those structures
    The expression "abstract structures" does not have a precise definition and could mean all kinds of things, so this formulation sacrifices information for linguistic improvements
  2. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is precise but most readers will have difficulties figuring out what "operations from a Cartesian power of a set into that set" means. Especially for the first sentence, this is not a good idea.
  3. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies operations on mathematical objects and the manipulation of statements using these operations.
    This is a less detailed and more accessible version of (2). Instead of repeating algebra-algebraic, this formulation repeats mathematics-mathematical.
When compared to these alternatives, I prefer the current version, but I'm also open to other ideas. Option 3 would be my second choice.
Roughly speaking, the first clause on algebraic structures covers abstract/universal algebra while the second clause on the manipulation of statements covers elementary/linear algebra. If we removed the second clause, we would focus only on the more abstract side of algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for generating alternatives, much appreciated. I'd be curious to hear what other FAC reviewers think. In my mini-sample of 2 non-maths people, both raised an eyebrow at "algebraic". Alternative 2 is too technical indeed. Number 3 would be my preferred option. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any mileage in "certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures", or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract structures, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those structures.
5. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract systems, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those systems.
6. Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies certain abstract frameworks, known as algebraic structures, and the manipulation of statements within those frameworks.
All of them are a little bit longer than the original. Maybe they could work without the word "certain". In (4), the repeated use of the word "structure" might be a problem. Of these three, (5) would be my preference. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like (5). Edwininlondon (talk) 08:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 makes sense to me as a layman, though obviously I can't speak for its technical accuracy/completeness. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented the suggestion. It's a little longer but should be more accessible. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Support on prose. My uni algebra is too long ago to fully vouch for the technical aspect, but it looks very convincing. A nice piece of work. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comments and the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathwriter2718's comments

[edit]

I am here in my capacity as a mathematical expert. My goal is to review the mathematical content of this page and make sure it is accurate and clear. Others have already done more comprehensive reviews of other aspects.

I think this article is excellent. I have a few extremely minor concerns and one bigger concern, but none will take so long to address. For the big concern, Let us look at the descriptions of linear algebra, abstract algebra, and universal algebra in this article.

"Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations in the system at the same time. Abstract algebra studies algebraic structures, which consist of a set of mathematical objects together with one or several binary operations defined on that set. It is a generalization of elementary and linear algebra since it allows mathematical objects other than numbers and non-arithmetic operations. ... Universal algebra constitutes a further level of generalization that is not limited to binary operations and investigates more abstract patterns that characterize different classes of algebraic structures."
"Abstract algebra usually restricts itself to binary operations that take any two objects from the underlying set as inputs and map them to another object from this set as output."
"Universal algebra is the study of algebraic structures in general. It is a generalization of abstract algebra that is not limited to binary operations and allows operations with more inputs as well, such as ternary operations."

I think many mathematicians define linear algebra as the study of finite-dimensional vector spaces. The description of linear algebra in this article is pretty different on the surface, but still a valid POV, and not actually as different as it may appear. Anyway, it would be nice to put in somewhere that the algebraic structure linear algebra studies is a finite-dimensional vector space. The bigger issue is that everyone thinks vector spaces are under the domain of abstract algebra, and scalar multiplication is not a binary operation on a single set, so the descriptions of abstract algebra and universal algebra are wrong. Even if you expanded abstract algebra to be about binary operations where the input sets can be different, this would still not be how mathematicians view abstract algebra.

I think the way mathematicians view abstract algebra vs universal algebra vs linear algebra is like this:

Abstract algebra is the broad field of math that studies algebraic structures.
Linear algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure that is important in the study of systems of linear equations: finite-dimensional vector spaces.
Universal algebra is the study of a specific algebraic structure called a universal algebra. This structure is kind of unusual in that its instantiations include many of the most important algebraic structures.

I think we should just remove the offending content and not change things too much otherwise. I am merely arguing that we should avoid explicitly limiting "abstract algebra" to binary operations on a single set, and that we should avoid thinking of universal algebra as a generalization of abstract algebra, but rather as the study of a structure that encases many of the most important algebraic structures. If there are no objections, I can make these changes.

@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking a look at the article! I followed your suggestion to mention that linear algebra can also be defined in terms of vector spaces. I included the reference to linear maps in the definition so it is more focused. I put it in a footnote since I have the impression that it is difficult to understand for the average reader but we could try to work it into the main text if that is preferable.
Concerning abstract algebra, one problem is that some sources restrict abstract algebra to binary operations. In order to avoid taking sides, I softened this claim by saying that it is "primarily interested in binary operations".
The relation between abstract and universal algebra is tricky. Pratt 2022 says "Universal algebra is the next level of abstraction after abstract algebra". Other sources also emphasize the general nature of universal algebra but don't make the relation to abstract algebra this explicit. I reformulated some passages to emphasize the generality. I tried not to imply that universal algebra is distinct from and more general than abstract algebra. I also added a footnote covering the alternative definition of universal algebra as the study of universal algebras, as you suggested.
I hope these changes are roughly what you had in mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good compromise to me. Thanks. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Less important comments:

  • Consider replacing
    For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x.
with
For example, the expression 7x − 3x can be replaced with the expression 4x, since 7x - 3x = (7-3)x = 4x by the distributive property.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider replacing
    This technique is common for polynomials to determine for which values the expression is zero.
with
This technique is commonly used to determine the values of a polynomial that evaluate to zero.
Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article uses the term "x-y pair". I don't think I've seen this before, but it perhaps isn't wrong? I would expect to see (x,y)-pair or (x,y) pair, I think.
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it could be good to put in some image of a symmetry group when the article is talking about symmetry groups, though I didn't find an image on dihedral group that really stood out to me.

Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a short look, I didn't find a good image either. This part of the article already has several images so we might have to remove an image to create space for a new one. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: I appreciate the insightful suggestions. I hope I was able to address your main concerns. I was wondering whether, from the mathematical perspective, you would support the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I hope that I can read up more on universal algebra before giving an answer. This might take a bit. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look at the subsection "Universal algebra". The main challenge for this subsection is to make the abstract topic accessible to the reader without oversimplifying too much. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phlsph7, is this ready for the reviewer to take another look at yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The article is ready and, as far as I'm aware, there are no outstanding comments to be addressed. Mathwriter2718 said that they needed more time to familiarize themselves with the literature before wrapping up the review.
@Mathwriter2718: Just checking to see how things are progressing. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 I am very sorry for not getting back to you sooner!! I have recently become extremely busy and I have had trouble finding the time to review the mathematical literature and decide whether I support/don't support this nomination. I will give myself a deadline of tonight to finish this and if I can't get it done by then, then I think I can declare I just don't have enough time right now to do this. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathwriter2718: Thanks for taking another look! If turns out that you don't have the time to review the part on universal algebra, you could explicitly exclude that part from your assessment. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7 @Gog the Mild I have finished my review of the mathematical content of the article except for the "Universal algebra" section and I support the FA nomination based on the content that I have reviewed. Maybe there is someone else who can review that section but I am not sure if there are many Wikipedians familiar with universal algebra. Looking at the history of the page Universal algebra one can maybe find people who are familiar with the subject. @Jochen Burghardt has a decent number of edits there. Personally, I'm just not qualified to offer my perspective on that area and I am too busy at this time to really become familiar in the way I would like to before offering an opinion. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more assistance here. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and all the time and energy you have poured into this review! Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

So, this is one of these broad topics where it's hard to tell for an outsider whether the coverage is representative. So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing that aspect of a source review. I wonder why some page numbers have Google Books links and others don't. Google Books serves up different results to different people, so I am not sure that these links are very helpful at all. By the same principle, I don't think that Google Books needs archive links. Springer is referred to by various names, is there a need for consistency? Are Jones & Bartlett Publishers and Linus Learning a prominent publisher? What makes "Edwards, C. H. (2012). Advanced Calculus of Several Variables. Courier Corporation. ISBN 978-0-486-13195-5. Archived from the original on January 24, 2024. Retrieved January 24, 2024." a high-quality reliable source? "Majewski, Miroslaw (2004). MuPAD Pro Computing Essentials (2 ed.). Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-21943-9.", "Nicholson, W. Keith (2012). Introduction to Abstract Algebra. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13535-8." and "Mishra, Sanjay (2016). Fundamentals of Mathematics: Algebra. Pearson India. ISBN 978-93-325-5891-5." don't have the retrieval dates where other sources have, although with books and papers I don't think we need these at all. Otherwise we are using prominent publishers and series, although I notice the overrepresentation of Western sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for taking care of the source review! I usually add links to google book pages that offer page previews if I'm aware of them. For some books, google books does not offer previews, in which case I can't add links. It could depend on the reader's geo-region whether a page preview is available. If it is available, it is a convenient way for the reader to verify the material without needing to buy the book. I removed all the google book webarchive links. The problem is that IABot adds them automatically when it runs, so they could be back soon. I implemented a more consistent approach for referring to Springer. I replaced the sources by Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Linus Learning, and Edwards 2012 with alternatives. I added an access/retrieval date for Nicholson 2012. Majewski 2004 and Mishra 2016 don't have access dates because they have no links to a website. The overrepresentation of sources by Western publishers in the article reflects the general prevalence of Western publishers regarding high-quality English-language sources on the subject.
Phlsph7 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like we need some discussion somewhere about IAbot adding archives to Google Books. But not an issue for a FAC I figure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this has already come up several times. I started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Google_Books_web_archive_links_and_IABot. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo, sorry to drag you back to this again. Would I be correct in understanding this to be a source review pass so far as FAC is concerned? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but note the caveats "So I'll qualify that I am not reviewing [the thorough and representative survey] aspect of a source review." and "overrepresentation of Western sources." I am not sure that limiting oneself to English sources justifies incompleteness, although we can't expect editors to be polylingual. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D.Lazard

[edit]

I did not follow the changes of the article done by Phlsph7 since January 2023. My first impression is that the new vesion is much better. Nevertheless it is too much biased toward educational aspects of algebra. I'll discuss this in several items in order to makes improvements easier.

  • Abstract algebra: Presently, this phrase is almost never used outside mathematical education. This must be said in the article, and in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebraabstract" must be removed.
    Hello D.Lazard and thanks for taking a look at the article! I found a source that talks about how the term "abstract algebra" is used in the educational context and added a sentence on it. I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind. If you know of a source that spells your point out in more detail, I would be happy to have a look at it. Most of the sources that I'm aware of define abstract algebra as a field of inquiry rather than a math course in undergraduate studies.
    Clearly, I have no source saying "I do not use abstract algebra because this is reserved to educational context", but, AFAIK, there is no recent sources (say, not older than 50 years) that use "abstract algebra" outside educational or historical context. D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to suggest the addition of a sentence like the following: "In the last 50 years, the term abstract algebra has only been used in educational and historical contexts." I'm not opposed in principle, but we would need to figure out how to source this sentence and how to deal with possible counterexamples like [29], [30] and [31]. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't get what you mean by in many occurences of this phrase the word "algebra" must be removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it was a typo, I meant "abstract". D.Lazard (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Depending on the context, the term algebra is sometimes used to refer only to elementary algebra or only to abstract algebra, as explained in our section "Definition and etymology". I think it's in the best interest of the readers to use the more specific names to avoid confusing them. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, reading the article again, I do not find any improper use of "abstract algebra", except in the last paragraph of section "abstract algebra", which is controversial for other reasons, for example, by asserting implicitly that, say, the the study of groups of geometric transformations belong to abstract algebra. D.Lazard (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major branches: Presently, this section has only 4 subsections: "Elementary algebra", "Linear algebra", "Abstract algebra", "Universal algebra".
    For defining branches of algebra, the most authoritative source is the Mathematics Subject Classification. The previous version of the article referred to this source by writing: Today algebra includes section 08-General algebraic systems, 12-Field theory and polynomials, 13-Commutative algebra, 15-Linear and multilinear algebra; matrix theory, 16-Associative rings and algebras, 17-Nonassociative rings and algebras, 18-Category theory; homological algebra, 19-K-theory and 20-Group theory. Algebra is also used extensively in 11-Number theory and 14-Algebraic geometry.
    Three of the four major areas belong to 08-General algebraic systems, and very little is said about the seven other major areas of algebra. So, without sections on other major branches of areas, this article fails the second criterion of featured articles: comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
    As far as I'm aware, the Mathematics Subject Classification does not provide a general definition or subdivision of algebra. The sentences you cited from an older version of our article were unsourced. If you know of a source that supports this subdivision of algebra, I would be interested to read it. The sources that I'm aware of do not divide it this way, but there may be different ways of dividing it.
    Most of the categories you mention are covered in one form or another in our article. For example, polynomials are covered by the section "Linear algebra", algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory are mentioned in the subsection "Other branches of mathematics", and the different rings, fields, and algebras would be belong to the section "Abstract algebra". The last paragraph of the section "Abstract algebra" gives various examples of different algebraic structures. We could add more if you feel that this would help comprehensiveness, but we probably shouldn't overdo it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Mathematics Subject Classification was elaborated by the whole mathematical community, this is a reliable source for subdivision of mathematics; it is undoubtly much more reliable than any text written by a single author. So, it is wrong to say that the old paragraph was unsourced. Per WP:BLUE, no source is needed for asserting that field theory, polynomial theory, commutative algebra, associative rings and algebras, nonassociative rings, homological algebra, and group theory are branches of algebra. Nevertheless it suffices to open any textbook having these subjects in their title to see that these subjects belong to algebra. So, the present state of the article breaks policy WP:NPOV by giving much less place to all these subjects together than to universal algebra, a subject that is not really used outside itself (it has been replaced by the much more powerful category theory). D.Lazard (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts that this is a WP:BLUE-statement. The Mathematics Subject Classification is a reliable source but does not support the claim about how algebra is divided into the main branches. Of the items you mentioned, our article provides a detailed explanation of the basics of groups, rings, fields, and polynomials. It also mentions some of the more specific algebras without going too much into detail. I think it's not the responsibility of this type of overview article to go into the more advanced details of these subjects.
    Universal algebra is usually given more weight in reliable sources than the other areas you mentioned so I don't think this violates WP:NPOV. For example, Pratt 2022 discusses it as one of the main branches, without characterizing any of the other areas you mentioned as main branches. Bronshtein's "Handbook of Mathematics" paints a similar picture: in its division "5 Algebra and Discrete Mathematics", universal algebra gets the main subdivision "5.3 Univeral algebra" but none of the other fields you mention get main subdivisions. But you are right that universal algebra is not as important as abstract algebra. I could try to reduce the length of the section "Univeral algebra" by boiling it down to 2 paragraphs. Would that address your main concern? I was thinking about adding a few sentences on homological algebra but this topic could be quite challenging to the average reader. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The most influential graduate textbooks in algebra are probably Van der Waerden's Algebra and Lang's Algebra. They are probably the most reliable sources for this subjects. In particular, Lang has more than 10,000 citations. It is unbelievable that none of these books is cited in our article. Clearly, they do not contain everything that belongs to algebra, but they are certainly reliable sources for the important branches of algebra. I have not these books under hand, but the phrases abstract algebra and universal algebra do not appear in the table of content of Lang nor in the list of Van der Waerden's chapters. On the other hand, all the branches that are cited above appear, at least in Lang (which is more recent). So, the fact that the above cited branches belong to algebra is supported by reliable sources. They support also the fact that "abstact algebra" is not used outside educational level, and that universal algebra is not a major branch of algebra (Lang knew universal algebra, since he is an author of an article on this subject, and did not included the subkect in his book). D.Lazard (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sections "Abstract algebra" and "Universal algebra" are both devoted to the general study of algebraic structures. So, there must be merged and shortened for making place to (presently lacking) other major branches that are much more active.
  • Theorems: The article is misleading by suggesting wrongly that there are no important theorems in algebra. As an example, one thinks immediatly of Feit–Thompson theorem, which is the theorem of algebra with the longest proof (the complete proof of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is probably longer, and contains much algebra, but is not limited to this area of mathematics). Other examples are Hilbert's basis theorem, Hilbert's Nullstellensatz and Hilbert's syzygy theorem. Beside their historical importance, they are interesting here, since they predate "abstract algebra", and are therefore difficult to classify in this branch of algebra.
    I responded to this and the two preceding points on the article talk page, which is probably a better place for this type of discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@D.Lazard It seems to me like your overarching concern is that the article Algebra should be about exactly the thing mathematicians call "algebra". I think it makes more sense for this particular article to be a middle ground between what most people call algebra and what mathematicians mean when they say algebra. For example, you want to remove the use of the word "abstract algebra". Indeed, mathematicians don't use this word to talk to each other about research-level mathematics. But I think it makes a lot of sense to use this word for contrast with elementary algebra. The way I interpret the current state of this article, everything under the mathematics subject classification for algebra falls under what this article calls "abstract algebra".
I probably support your view that this article should be closer to the viewpoint of a modern mathematician than it is now, but I want to be very careful to not transform the intended readership of this article away from the most lay audience possible by going into things like K-theory and nonassociative rings that are certainly not necessary for a comprehensive description of "Algebra" for the lay reader. Math Wikipedia already has a bad reputation for being too technical and obscure, and only a vanishing fraction of those who search for the article Algebra on Wikipedia will have much background. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Mathematics Subject Classification is to be used by journals to organize research. I don't we should expect that purpose to align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an encyclopedic article is not to adhere to the conception of some readers ("what most people call algebra"); it is to inform the reader on the whole subject implied by the title. Here, this includes "abstract algebra", and also all the content of the most influencal books entitled Algebra (in particular, Serge Lang's and Van der Waerden's ones). Since no way is given to the reader to accede to information on most of the content of these books, the article is far to respect the policy WP:NPOV, and thus should never to have been labeled as a WP:GA.
I never asked to not speak of "abstract algebra", but it must be given its WP:due weight, which is the name of the part of algebra that is taught at some level of mathematical education. D.Lazard (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Mathwriter2718 here. Writing an article that respects both the mathematicians' definition of algebra and the more vernacular meaning is an intrinsically difficult problem. Having no representation for the latter meaning would itself be a violation of NPOV, and would make the page far less useful for a large and important audience. Moreover, I agree that the Mathematics Subject Classification doesn't necessarily align very well with what subfields an expository article about "Algebra" should cover. The topics that it lists are important enough to include, but it doesn't dictate the organization of an encyclopedia article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a related discussion at WT:WPM#Should Algebra be reverted to the version of 21 Decembre 2023?. D.Lazard (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D. Eppstein

[edit]

A drive-by comment: the claim in the universal algebra section that "Two algebraic structures that share all their identities are said to belong to the same variety." and the examples that follow this claim do not match my understanding of the subject. As I understand it, and as Variety (universal algebra) describes, a variety is defined by any set of identities, and an algebra belongs to a variety when it obeys all those identities (even when it might also obey others). So a single algebra might belong to many varieties, not merely the single variety defined by all its identities. Two algebras might belong to one variety, and differ in their membership of another variety. In this same section, "the ring of polynomials" is ambiguous: polynomials over what domain? Footnote [74] appears off-topic; neither linked reference page is about membership of integers, polynomial rings, or rationals in varieties. (One of the two pages uses "variety" in a different sense, from algebraic geometry rather than universal algebra.) The claim that the integers and ring of polynomials (over whatever domain) obey the same identities is unsourced, and may be false depending on the domain of the polynomials. For instance polynomials over GF(2) obey the identity x+x=0 that the integers do not.

Hello David Eppstein and thanks for your comments! I had a look at a few sources and I think your interpretation of varieties is correct. I reformulated the passage to avoid the misleading formulation used earlier. I added the sources I consulted and replaced the example with another. It's a simplified version of the one found in Rosen 2012. If this is still controversial, we could either use the full example from Rosen 2012 or leave it out. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There another issue in this section: it is not said explicitely that not all algebraic structure belong to a variety. For example, fields do not form a variety since division by zero is not defined. D.Lazard (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to mention this. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter

[edit]

A drive-by comment: this article is well on its way to being very nice indeed. I am somewhat dissatisfied by the "Applications" section. Despite a recent reorganization for the better, it still suffers from the problem that the applications of algebra are so staggeringly vast that any selection of examples will look weird and arbitrary. Right now, it reads rather like, "Linear algebra is useful in optimizing the yield of pumpkin patches." It needs both to be augmented with further examples and to be phrased in a way that makes clear the choice of examples is illustrative, not exhaustive. The "Education" section is also a bit shallow. It makes sense to focus on "elementary" or "school" algebra, as the text currently does, but we should say at least a little about the teaching of "higher"/"modern"/"abstract" algebra at the university level.

The references need to be combed through for cruft. I have removed a couple that looked like someone just pulled the first item in a Google Books search that wasn't obvious crankery [32][33]. XOR'easter (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Thanks for your comments. I added a short paragraph on tertiary education to the "Education" sections. I think it's a good idea to mention it but I don't want to delve too much into it given that most of the literature on algebra education focuses on secondary education. I reformulated some parts of the "Applications" section to make sure that the examples are not presented as an exhaustive account. I also expanded it by adding several new examples. If you have specific examples in mind that are not yet mentioned, I can also try to include them. I also replaced some sources with better alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Saipan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.

The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps
  • Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2
  • Some images are missing alt text
  • Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames

Matarisvan

[edit]

I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matarisvan,
I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
  • #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
  • #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.
Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye 7

[edit]

I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:

  • "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

I figured I should review it since I have an FAC open too.

  • "Organized resistance ended when at least 3,000 Japanese soldiers died in the final gyokusai attack" - eesh I had to look up what gyokusai was. I'm not sure what I expected, but I think a brief description here, either wave or swarming. I also noticed that gyokusai redirects to Banzai charge. Any reason for this particular wording here? I'm not familiar with the subject matter, just the first thing I've noticed.
  • " and left Japan vulnerable to strategic bombing" - you mention this in the third lead paragraph, but it's also in the first. I'm not sure if the material in the first paragraph should be moved to the third, since that all kind of lumps together the aftermath of the battle.
  • removed repeat of strategic bombing in lead, taking out mention of strategic bombing from the fourth paragraph, but left it in the first since it is important.
  • Is it worth mentioning the brief history of Saipan being taken by Japan/Germany/US as part of the background? The US was kind of taking the island back, and it never gave it up after the war. Or furthermore, there isn't even much of a background to the Pacific campaign, just starting the narrative in 1944. I see you mention more history under "geography", but that kind of feels like "background" to me.
  • Changed section name to "History and Geography". The US occupied Guam before the war, but not Saipan. The Saipan became a Japanese possession, part of the mandates, immediately after World War I.
  • I notice that two times you use "nmi", without ever using the term "nautical mile". I was only familiar with the abbreviation because tropical cyclone articles (which I usually focus on) often have their units listed in nautical miles/knots, which we always convert since the average reader probably doesn't know what they are. Considering you mostly use imperial with metric units in parenthesis, I don't think you need the nmi, unless you think otherwise.
  • " 81 and 91 inches" - convert to metric please. Ditto "seven miles"
  • nmi removed, rainfall has cm conversions, seven miles now has kilometers.
  • "The largest towns on the island–the administrative center of Garapan with its population of 10,000, Charan Kanoa, and Tanapag–were on the western coast of the island, which was where the best landing beaches for an invasion were. " clunky wording here
  • reworded, breaking it into two sentences.
  • "Nimitz assigned Admiral Raymond Spruance, " - I had to scroll up to remember who Nimitz was. Maybe remind the reader his significance, since it's the start of a section (Opposing forces). Kinda similarly when you say "the amphibious landings of Forager". I had to look up what Forager was again. Not a huge deal, but to a non-military expert, it might be helpful to have a few more reminders.
  • added that Nimitz was commander of the Pacific Fleet. Replaced "Forager" with "Mariana Islands"
  • Over 60,000 troops were assigned to the assault:[b] Approximately 22,000 were in each Marine division and 16,500 in the 27th Infantry Division. - I'm not sure the use of the colon after assault:
  • Colon deleted
  • "6 June 1944" - this stood out to me that your date format is European. Saipan is a US territory now, and most of the US uses Month and Day, not Day then Month. Is there a reason you chose this date format?
  • I wanted to keep the format consistent with this article's companion article, Battle of Tinian. Tinian was the next island invaded a month after Saipan. (It's about three miles from Saipan.) I kept the format of that article because it passed both the A-class review and is a featured article using the DD Month Year format.
  • "This made the defenses brittle." - is "brittle" the best word here? I'm not familiar with military terms here, and I'm not sure if "weak" is better, but maybe there's a better word out there than a word that makes me think of brittle candy.
  • "brittle" changed to "weak"
Battle
  • "On 11 June, over 200 F6F Hellcats from the Fast Carrier Task Force launched a surprise attack on Japanese airfields in Saipan and Tinian..." - we don't have an exact number?
  • "which began around 08:40" - timezone? Is this local time? Washington time? Coordinated Universal Time?
    Here I followed MOS:TIMEZONE which states that event times should be given in the time zone in which the event occurred.
    That's fair, but anytime I deal with anything time specific, it's helpful to clarify with a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink, I assume that for the American sources, time would be based on the WWII version of Military time zone (Zulu time) Saipan's military time zone falls within K time (or Kilo time), GMT+10. But none of the sources clarify this. Wtfiv (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason "8000 men" doesn't have a comma for 8,000? Also, is this exact or about?
  • Added "around" before 8000. Followed MOS:DIGITS, which states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.(Added comma)
  • I see "pillbox" is linked in the pic farther down in the article than when it's mentioned for the first time in prose.
  • Linked first occurrence of pillbox in main text.
  • "He proposed to indefinitely postpone the 18 June invasion of Guam." - I'm guessing that happened? There's nothing else of this
  • Added footnote that the Invasion of Guam took place on 21 July.
  • "Intelligence had estimated that there were no more than 300 Japanese soldiers in the area" - do we know what intelligence? It might be better saying "Advanced reconnaissance" or "Spies" or however they estimated that, than starting with "Intelligence", which is odd to me as a civilian.
  • Replaced "Intelligence" with "Smith". This follow's Lacey's wording.
  • Why does the "American firepower" section appear under "25-30 June: Central Saipan, breakthrough"? I noticed that the Sherman tanks were already mentioned previously, just not in as much detail. I wonder if the "American firepower" should appear under "Opposing forces" under the American section? I think I see the logic having it where it is now: the American firepower allowed for this turning point. Right now parts of the section feels like it disrupts the narrative, considering what came before it. All of that said, the tanks with flamethrowers sounds fucking badass, which is partly why I think that needs to be highlighted better in the article than where it is. This section is what caught my eye:
  • "The Americans had other assets as well. Over 150 tanks–over 100 of which were M4 Sherman tanks–had been committed to the invasion.[204] The M4 Sherman tank was superior to the Japanese Type 97 tank.[205] It was primarily used to support infantry and was considered one of the most effective weapons for destroying enemy emplacements.[206] Flame throwers were extensively used. Smith had seen the need for motorized flamethrowers and had requested that the Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) in Hawaii install them in M3 Stuart tanks. Seabees with the CWS had 24 tanks, nicknamed "Satans", converted to flamethrowing in time for the invasion. They were very effective for destroying pillboxes, cave defenses, buildings, canefields, and brush."
  • Moved the section on the tanks to "Opposing Forces". Kept the sections on artillery and portable flame-throwers in this section, as this is when they were actively deployed.
  • "But his army's cohesion was disintegrating. Some of the remaining forces moved north, others holed up in whatever caves they could find and put up sporadic, disorganized resistance." - I noticed a few times earlier where a sentence started with "But", which felt clunky. And then the second part felt like it was missing a word, or a semicolon. Maybe "while others holed up"?
  • Reworded sentences. Removed initial "But". Removed some of the other lead "But's" too.
  • "On 4 July, the 27th Infantry Division and 4th Marine Division headed northwest. The 27th division reached the east coast at Flores Point, south of Tanapag" - wait is the 27th the same for both sentences here? How did it go northwest and end up east? Going around the tip of the island, I'm guessing? If so, maybe clarify that?
  • That should have read "west coast at Flores Point". Fixed
  • "and inflicting 80% casualties" - the rest of the article used exact number of casualties, not percentages, so I suggest using an exact number if you can.
    Added "about 900 casualties". I left 80% as a clause to illustrate the magnitude of the loss.
  • "who survived the last banzai charge" - see my earlier comment about gyokusai or banzai, as long as it's consistent.
  • Changed to gyokusai.
  • "Eventually 1700" - why no comma?
  • Added comma. (MOS:DIGITS states that commas are optional for four digit numbers.)
  • " It was the Americans' most costly battle in the Pacific up to that time." - seems to have been deadly, not costly, unless I'm mistaken
  • Changed to "deadly"
  • What is "ordnance "?
  • replaced with "shells during the battle".
  • "Hirohito only accepted Saipan's eventual fall on 25 June when his advisors told him all was lost" - in 1944 or 1945? The last year mentioned was 1945, so I have to ask
  • added 1944

All in all an interesting read about a battle I knew nothing about! Well done all around. Most of my notes should be pretty easy to fix/address (I hope). Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I've responded. Do these address the issues you pointed out? Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, thanks so much for the quick responses! Happy to support now. Good work on this. I don't usually read military articles, but I found this fairly easy to follow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. Are "free Press" and "Metro books" really lowercase? Is Samuel Eliot Morison a reliable source? Some of what it says raises questions. Is http://www.historytoday.com/ a high-quality reliable source? In terms of reliability, it seems like we are working with good sources ... but even with WP:NONENG the fact that English and US-affiliated sources are almost the entire source body raises some WP:UNDUE concerns. Are there really no Japanese sources on the battle? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Capitalization: "Free Press" and "Metro Books" have been fixed.
  • Morison as a source: "New Guinea and the Marianas, March 1944–August 1944." is part of the History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. It is not a perfect source, as that article points out. Unlike the United States Marines and the United States Army, the United States Navy never published an official history. Morison's is the closest it comes. The Navy stated that Morison's history was not its official history. His advantage however, is that the navy gave him access to its records, gave him an office office in the Navy Department under the Director of Naval Records and History while writing the book, and a staff of assistance. See the Naval Command and Heritage site for a review of Morison. Morison's strength is clearly one of the reference sources for later histories of the Pacific War, including Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy and Hornfischer. (see Hornfischer's review of Morison here.) In using Morison as a source, I did not use his analyses or assumptions of motivations. I used what he had access to, (e.g., ship number, troops, information about plans, and the like.)
  • Just to add here, Morison continues to be widely used by professional historians so is clearly a reliable source. He shouldn't be used in isolation as the books can be dated at times (and sometimes can be slightly eccentric), but that's not the case here. I've referenced Morrison in several FAs that passed with no concerns being raised over the source. The series remains the most detailed account of the US Navy in World War II. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Japanese sources: My contributions tend to aim to a close adherence WP:NONENG when possible, though I will provide foreign language sources with a quote and translation when they make a critical point (see Frederick the Great or Joan of Arc). One of the major problems in most writing about the island warfare in the Pacific is that almost all the Japanese witnesses died. Testimony from Japanese survivors interrogated by the military is included in the article. I did include English-language works from Japanese-speaking scholars studying the Pacific War. These include Tanaka, Irokawa, Kawamura, and Hiroyuki. The former three have author links with their sources. They mainly focus on how the battle impacted Japanese decision making at the grand strategic level.
  • Ironically, one of the major sources for the Japanese military perspective on the island-as cited in the English-language sources- was Takashi Hirakushi. Almost all contemporary histories still cite him as a source, but as a footnote in the article suggests, his first-person testimony may not be reliable. Much of his testimony was initially shared under the name of an officer who had actually died in the fighting, and his story changed over time (cf., Hoffman's version written in the 1950s and Toland's summary based his interviews with Hirakushi in World War II), and some statements are contradicted by interrogations of other survivors. Problems with the details can be found in footnote h in the article. The sources in the footnote provide more information. I've provided convenience links to the sources wherever possible so English-speaking readers can verify the information themselves.
Wtfiv (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • oops, forgot about the Hughes. Removed it and replaced with Atroth.
  • Also,with respect to Japanese sources: Trefalt is an English-speaking source, but her article gives a critical treatment of civilians in Saipan in her analysis of civilian survivor's diaries. Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the Hughes from history today with the peer-reviewed article by him in the Journal of Military History. It's more in-depth and fully cited.
  • Interestingly, Hughes on pg 102 (with a footnote with specific references) also points out that the Japanese sources remain thin, though they would be useful. Very little of the Senshi Sōsho, the Japanese multivolume official history of the war has been translated, and it doesn't include the sections on Saipan Most personal memoirs by Japanese people who were at Saipan have not been translated either. Hughes mentions two untranslated memoirs about Saipan.
Wtfiv (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hughes also mentions Saburō Ienaga's work, which was translated into English, The Pacific War: World War II and the Japanese, 1931–45 (1968; New York: Pantheon, 1978). I had access to this book when writing the article. It gives an overview of a Japanese perspective, but Saipan is not discussed. The closest he comes is a passing mention of the Battle of the Philippine sea as part of the Japanese military being ground down by overwhelming American production. Wtfiv (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jo-Jo, I am moderately up to speed with the Pacific Campaign, so I will reread the article with this in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, did you get a chance to do this yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for missing this Ian. There didn't seem to be any bias to me, nor any clearly relevant and unused sources. In brief, I am happy - in the light of my checks and Jo-Jo and Wtfiv's comments with the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, I missed this until now. When working on the article, I looked for relevant articles in journals without a military focus when researching the article in the academic search engines of had access to, including Google Scholar. They were few. I used Trefalt (2018) in The Journal of Pacific History analyses Japanese civilian's experience using Japanese diaries and memoirs, Plung (2021) in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus discusses Saipan in the context of evacuation policies in Japan, Giangreco (2003) in the Pacific Historical Review discusses American casualties in terms of policy decisions in the war. The Tanaka (2023) chapter in the edited volume The Modern Japanese Nation and Empire c. 1868 to the Twenty-First Century described where Saipan fit into Japanese defense strategy at the governmental level. Though Astroth (2019), Mass Suicides on Saipan and Tinian, 1944: An Examination of the Civilian Deaths in Historical Context. is a book, not a journal, its is an in-depth about civilian casualties in a larger historical context. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

[edit]

I also reviewed this in its A-class review. I'd like to offer the following comments in regards to meeting the FA criteria:

  • The article appears to have been considerably expanded and copy edited since the ACR. It is clearly of FA standard - I can't find much to comment on, though I've made a few minor tweaks to tidy up the article.
  • The lead is excellent, and a model of how they should be structured.
  • As a very minor suggestion, I'd suggest replacing "took out" with something more formal, liked "destroyed" Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done! Thank you for the review Nick-D! Wtfiv (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Saipan's loss had a greater impact in Japan than all its previous defeats. Could be read as "all of its previous defeats put together" or "any of its previous defeats". Could we clarify in the text? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Wtfiv who may not have seen this note. Matarisvan (talk) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Matarisvan, I did miss this! I've updated it to any of its previous defeats as per Ian Rose's suggestion. Wtfiv (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1251406502"