Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Rain (Madonna song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Madonna's most underrated -and my personal favorite- ballad. It's also included on one of her most underrated studio albums (again, one of my favorites). I have taken the previous information that was used on the GA nomination to expand it. I also looked for more relevant information. Christian (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-American Bitch

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first track on Olivia Rodrigo's album Guts, "All-American Bitch". A strongly-worded critique of society's expectations from women, this song has everything, from a Kennedy reference to a transition from folk to pop-punk and a scream for the ages. Although not given the full single treatment, it did receive a great SNL performance! I wanted to time this around Election season in America, but no comment on the outcome of said election... I hope all American Wikipedians voted, and thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's New Island

[edit]
Nominator(s): ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's New Island is a 2014 platform video game developed by Arzest and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 3DS, essentially serving as a direct sequel to the events of Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. This is my third FA nomination and my first one for a game not in the Mario Party series. To my knowledge, this would be the first article for a Yoshi game to reach FA status.

I would say the "Development and release" section is the best one I've worked on yet, due largely in part to sources suggested by Captain Galaxy. This article was previously promoted to GA status following a much-appreciated review from Cukie Gherkin. Most of my edits since then have actually been removing redundant or less helpful citations from the gameplay section to make it easier to read. I was recently able to archive a source that had not been archived prior to the Wayback Machine shutdown. As always, feedback is welcomed. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cukie Gherkin

[edit]

Reserving in case I have the time to review. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm more like, in tune with games and stuff, I'll try to offer comments on how to make the article more legible to non-gamers. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]

I will at least do this much. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Yoshinewislandboxart3ds.jpg - Sufficiently low res, description is accurate. Should state that it is not the whole image, as it is a cropped image. Image does not match the image used in this source, should change source to this: [1]
File:Yoshi's New Island - Mega Eggdozer gameplay.jpg - Sufficiently low res, source is accurately stated showing the context of its use. I would recommend using a stronger rationale, including exactly why the screenshot is necessary for the reader to understand. Ie, you could mention UI elements being depicted, the graphics, the gameplay, etc.
I've clarified that certain elements of the first image were cropped out and corrected its source. I've also strengthened the rationale for the second image, mainly by noting UI elements that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from SC
  • This looks like it's been citation bombed to within an inch of its life, making it difficult to read. Can I strongly recommend you consider both rationalising and bundling them so there are no more than two or three at any point. (For example: Does "All of Yoshi's transformations are controlled with the console's gyroscope" need five citations to support the information? Without checking the sources, I would guess that one of those five would probably suffice.)
  • I'm opposing based on reading just the Gameplay section. This needs a re-write so it makes sense to people who have never played the game, or even heard of it. Even after reading it, I still have no idea what a "yoshi" is, nor what or who a "Baby Mario" is. Ditto for a "Kamek". Some of the terminology is equally incomprehensible: "30 Yoshi Medals are collected from a goul roulette" is gibberish without any context and I have no idea what "a mid-boss" is supposed to be. Even having read that section, I still don't understand what the point of the game is: does it have an end that people can reach and "win" the game? There doesn't seem to be any description of the overall game (which is what the section should open with): it's straight into detail without context. This seems to be a common problem with video game articles, where it's written from the point of view of gamers and insiders, which excludes a large percentage of readers, who are left confused. - SchroCat (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking generally, but would terminology such as "mid-boss" be more comprehensible if mid-boss linked to this? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS says - MOS:NOFORCELINK - "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." So, if it is necessary to understand something to understand what is more generally being communicated then that something needs explaining in line. After all, we're an encyclopedia, explaining things to people who don't understand them is what we do. Sending a reader off to a link to read another article to come back to yours, possibly in mid-sentence, doesn't really cut it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will keep that in mind for any game articles I bring to FAC then. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. I'll simply rephrase some parts of the section to make it easier for readers with a lack of knowledge of video game terminology to understand. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Would you mind taking another look at the gameplay section? I've kept most of the information the same, but restructured it in a way that should make the actual goal of the game clearer and the terminology less confusing to all readers. I've also cut a good number of citations from both that section and the plot section. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Bradley

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another cookery book writer from history for your consideration. I created this about four years ago and took it to GA, but I've recently added more and brushed it up, and I think it's mature enough to try for FA now. All constructive comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima

[edit]

All images are public domain and good to use. Alt-text would be nice but not a requirement. Will do a prose review later. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text: a perpetual weakness of mine: I shall add this shortly. Thanks for reviewing the images and I look forward to any other comments you have. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alts now added - SchroCat (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

[edit]

750h

[edit]

like every other review feel free to refuse my suggestions with proper justification. 750h+ 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lead
  • released in two-volumes in 1758 does this mean there were two volumes released? if so why is there a hyphen?
life
the british housewife (1758)
  • showed an economical aspect to their ==> "showed an economic aspect to their"
I see. 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • criticise their approach for certain dishes ==> "criticise their approach to certain dishes"
  • and no way extravagant in the expense. ==> "and in no way extravagant in the expense."
oh oops didn't realise 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article @SchroCat:! I have an open candidacy if you'd like to take a look. 750h+ 06:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks 750. Done, except where commented on. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 09:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPARS

[edit]
Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Coast Gurad Women's Reserve–SPARs–is about the women who served in the U.S. military during World War II. SPARs was created by the U.S Congress, and it authorized the USCG to replace male officers and enlisted men with women at shore stations. Working with the top-secret LORAN project was its most unique assignment. LORAN was a land-based radio navigation system developed to monitor locations of ships at sea and aircraft in flight. Monitoring stations were able to calculate a ship's exact location by measuring the amount of time each signal took to reach a ship. Chatham, Massachusetts, was staffed by SPARs and was believed to be the only all-female staffed monitoring station of its kind in the world. The article was promoted to A-Class in October 2024. Pendright (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately I don't think this is ready, and I think it'll take significant effort to get it there. Some specific concerns:

  • Structure. There's a bunch of content about Stratton that doesn't really need to be here, there's a Notable People section that's a set of in-text citations, and there's a "Women of the SPARs" section that is... I'm not really sure what it's meant to contain?
"To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paraphrasing seems to be too close to the original sources. Compare for example "Within weeks of her arrival, however, she received a telegram from the Bureau of Naval Personnel to report posthaste to Washington D.C. Once there, Stratton was ushered to the Coast Guard headquarters. She was informed about legislation pending in the U.S. Congress to form a USCG Women's Reserve, and further informed that she had been recommended to become its first director." with "I had only been there for a couple of weeks when I received a telegram from the Bureau of Naval Personnel telling me to report to Washington as soon as possible. Upon arrival at BuPers, I was whisked off to the Coast Guard’s headquarters ... I was told that there was legislation pending to create a women’s reserve in the Coast Guard, and I had been recommended to become the first head", or "Congress enacted legislation ending the Women's Volunteer Reserve and allowing women to be officially integrated into active duty or the reserve. Following the change, those enlisted female reservists then serving on active duty were given the choice of enlisting in the regular USCG or completing their reserve enlistments" vs "Congressional legislation ended the Women's Reserve and women were first officially integrated into the active-duty Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Female reservists then serving on active duty were given the choice of enlisting in the regular Coast Guard or completing their reserve enlistments". (The latter is a PD source so direct copying is permissible but would need to be properly attributed).
I'll change the items mentioned for your approval. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourcing. The article relies quite heavily on non-independent sources, and there appears to be independent literature available but not cited
Name the literatur and where it resides. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would benefit from a thorough copy-editing, particularly with an eye to non-specialist readers
The article was copy-edited in March 2024. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose, followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm butting in here, as I don't intend to review, but I'm not sure that copy-pasting the directions for how to oppose – twice – is the best tack to take when responding to an oppose from an experienced FAC contributor. Especially when a quite specific rationale has been provided. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Martin DB11

[edit]
Nominator(s): 750h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a gorgeous grand tourer, which is the successor to the Aston Martin DB9—the first FA I made. This is my seventh nomination, and underwent a recent GA review by Mertbiol for which I'm very grateful. Thanks for any comments I get. 750h+ 05:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Just doing the image review:

  • All images have a free license from the photographer on the Commons. All have alt text, captions, and links to the Commons. The Aston Martin logo is de minimis and not a major part of any photo.
  • For the first caption in "Background", I think it would be more clear to people unfamiliar the cars to have "The DB9" either link to that car's article or expanded to "Aston Martin DB9" as it is in the body text.

And that's it, Rjjiii (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the review. 750h+ 23:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite welcome. No issues remaining, Rjjiii (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of infant schools in Great Britain

[edit]
Nominator(s): Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if a history article but with cute pictures?

This is my second nomination of this article. It was previously nominated under the title "infant school" (see) but as there were concerns about that article's scope it's focus has been made more specific. I will link everyone who commented on the original nomination so they can decide whether to say anything about the articles current state; Wehwalt, Generalissima, Nikkimaria, WhatamIdoing, UndercoverClassicist, Gerda Arendt, Crisco 1492 and Serial Number 54129. Llewee (talk) 11:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llewee: you're supposed to wait 2 weeks before starting another nominations. It's been five days. {{@FAC}} 750h+ 23:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FrB.TG, said that doesn't apply in this case when they closed the last nomination--Llewee (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw that. My bad 750h+ 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Valhalla train crash

[edit]
Nominator(s): Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the deadliest train crash in the 40-year history of New York's Metro-North Railroad. Five people on a Harlem Line train were killed during a winter evening rush hour in suburban Westchester County when a driver stopped her SUV on the tracks at a grade crossing near one of the largest cemeteries in the New York area. Almost ten years, an NTSB investigation and a lawsuit later, we still don't know why because she was killed as well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment

Overall in very fine shape, though there are 71 instances of the word 'accident' throughout while there are only a handful of uses of that word in RS. Should be switched to better words throughout (crash, fire, collision, incident, etc). I've been challenged in the aviation space for suggesting the same and have been told that MOS overrules RS, but I think this shouldn't be so contentious for this article Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we had this discussion last year, and then its sequel. All I can say is that, for the reasons I gave in the first discussion, I feel you, and that should consensus come around on this I would be the first to make that change. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAOT

[edit]

I will be reviewing this over the coming days. I will start at the lead and go in the order of the article's sections.

Lead and infobox

  • On the evening of February 3, 2015, a commuter train on Metro-North Railroad's Harlem Line struck a passenger car at a grade crossing on Commerce Street near Valhalla, New York, United States, between the Valhalla and Mount Pleasant stations, killing six people and injuring 15 others, seven very seriously. This is 307 characters long; I recommend splitting it into two sentences.
I took the middle part about which two stations the crash was between out (more detail than the lede needs to have) and split the section about the fatalities and injuries into a separate sentence. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the deadliest crash in Metro-North's history, and at the time the deadliest rail accident in the United States "Is" and "and at the time" do not go together, because "at the time" refers to a past event but "is" refers to something in the present.
Done
  • how the passengers were killed Suggest "how the train passengers were killed" since a car can also have passengers.
Done
  • In 2024, a jury hearing one found the railroad and Brody liable for the accident. What is the meaning of "one" here? Hearing one what?
Added the words "of the suits".
Changed.
  • This is minor, but the crossing signage should really be "the crossing signals" since this is a crossing with active warning devices, not just crossbucks.
Done.
  • Suggesting linking NTSB in the infobox photo caption.
Done.
I will continue this review soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded above. I will have limited ability to respond to comments here early this week because I am working at the polls on Tuesday (aaaallll day here in NY) Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Bombardier M7A electric multiple units is a MOS:SOB.
Fixed, although it made the sentence a little wordier.
  • Suggest linking M7A in the image caption.
Did that too.
  • I'm curious about the use of "boom barrier", as I'm pretty sure the standard terminology in the U.S. is crossing gate. I do see that crossing gate is also linked in the following section, though both links go to the same page.
I don't remember writing this ... might have been someone else shortly after the article was started. I have changed it to crossing gates since the cited Times article uses that term.
  • Probably worth mentioning the M7As are in pairs, as otherwise the mentions of 8 cars and 4 M7As seem contradictory.
Done Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all these links and mentions of the counties locations are in really needed? Imho they are excessive and make the sentences too long.
I trimmed them. Writing both this and December 2013 Spuyten Duyvil derailment drew a lot on my experiences visiting various Metro-North stations with my son when he was younger so he could take pictures and video, and the understanding of Metro-North's operations I gained. So maybe I was still thinking that way at the time, but it's not that time anymore.
  • It might be best to reorder the second and third paragraphs, as you switch topics to the train leaving GCT and then go back to the previous topic in the next paragraph.
Saw your point. Reads better now.
  • I really think making a turn onto Lakeview Avenue from the northbound parkway is too much detail for this article. What's relevant is that the parkway was closed, I don't think this adds anything to understanding the topic.
Tightened that a bit.
  • Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing should be "crossed the two tracks at a grade crossing". Also, grade crossing can be linked.
I made it "crossed the tracks at grade" and linked the whole phrase.
  • After a crash at the Commerce Street crossing in 1984 that had killed the driver of the van involved remove "had".
Done.
  • The sentences discussing Commerce Street should be consistent in tense, you use both present and past tense here.
I changed that "next crossing was" to "is"; obviously it's still there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crash

  • Why is there a citation after the word "Alan"?
  • Not liking the organization of the first paragraph. You start with the driver going up Commerce Street, then backtrack to her being on the Taconic and having to divert due to the crash. Consider reworking this paragraph to put events in order.
  • The same issue is apparent in the next paragraph, where the phone call is said to have taken place before the driver left the parkway at all.
  • Isn't it original research to say the claim of hearing a bell was wrong and sourcing it to the inspection report, a primary document? There's also nothing in the cited source to support in New York bells are only required for pedestrian crossings. Additionally, trains are often equipped with bells as a warning device. My advice here would be to simply say an inspection after the accident found the crossing was not equipped with a bell.
  • Hit the air brakes should be "applied the emergency brakes" as specified in the NTSB report.
  • Passengers in the first car recalled being thrown from their seats on impact as the fire started There hasn't been any mention of a fire until this point, so it should be "a fire".
  • until a manual override was sent Was this from dispatch at Grand Central? Can you specify who did the override?
  • Link the first mention of third rail.

Victims

Generalissima

[edit]

Very solid prose throughout. I took the liberty of fixing a few citation orders.

  • In the paragraph beginning The call was dropped, you should say "Brody" instead of "she" for the first mention of her.
I went further. I changed it to "Alan's" per MOS:SAMESURNAME. Daniel Case (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This also happens a couple times in the Driver's behavior.
Again per MOS:SAMESURNAME, I used "Allan" and "Ellen". Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS:EMPHASIS, use em tags when italicizing for emphasis, like when you emphasize any under "Design of third rails".
Done. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I will leave some comments later. I'm not sure if I can formally !vote on the nomination since I seem to have the second-most edits to this article, but I guess I'll ask the FAC coords when we reach that point. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just state for the record that I have no objections to you taking part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
  • Para 2: "the first car" - More specifically, the first train car (since "car" can be misconstrued here for "private vehicle").
  • Para 3: "Investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) focused on two issues in the accident: how the train passengers were killed, since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions; and why Brody went forward into the train's path." - I get why you used the semicolon; it may appear in lists with three or more items, where at least one item has a comma. However, it usually isn't used in lists with only two items. This would otherwise imply "and why Brody went forward into the train's path" is a standalone sentence, which it isn't. I suggest adding dashes, e.g. "how the train passengers were killed—since that rarely occurs in grade crossing collisions—and why Brody went forward into the train's path."
  • Para 3: "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street, Westchester County, the railroad, and the engineer" - Conversely, you can add semicolons here, e.g. "town of Mount Pleasant, which maintains Commerce Street; Westchester County; the railroad; and the engineer". This is because "which maintains Commerce Street" isn't a party to a lawsuit, but rather clarifying the town of Mount Pleasant's involvement in the lawsuit.
Background:
  • Para 1: "At about 5:30 p.m. on February 3, 2015, 14 minutes after sunset" - I'd change to "...fourteen minutes after sunset" or reword this to put more distance between "2015" and "14" per MOS:NUMNOTES, which advises to "avoid awkward juxtapositions" such as this one.
  • Para 1: "both lanes of the southbound Taconic and one northbound lane" - How about "both southbound lanes and one northbound lane of the Taconic"?
  • Para 2: " Bombardier M7A electric multiple units" - This is a pretty severe case of WP:SEAOFBLUE; there are three links in a row without any indicator that these links are separate. I would either put distance between these links (e.g. four M7A electric multiple units made by Bombardier) or remove two of them. Actually I see TAOT has mentioned this above.
  • Para 3: "Lakeview Avenue crossed the two tracks using a grade crossing" - The wording "crossed...using a grade crossing" seems slightly repetitive. Is there a way to reword this?
More tomorrow, probably. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith

[edit]

I reviewed this at PR I probably won't do another full review, but I'm happy to report that most of the issues I raised at that time, particularly those about going into excessive detail, have been addressed. I mentioned at PR my concern that an overwhelming number of the sources were from local news media immediately after the crash. I see that's still largely true. On the other hand for an article like this, that may simply be unavoidable; if those are the sources that exist, that's what we've got to use. I took the liberty of uploading a new version of the rail image, with some exposure adjustments which bring out the detail better.

Khalji Revolution

[edit]
Nominator(s): Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a political revolution in the Delhi Sultanate in the year 1290. It significantly saw the fall of the Mamluk dynasty and the rise of the Khalji dynasty. Khalji rule would go on to see the Delhi Sultanate encompass most of India under them. The revolution itself had many changes socially as well, with the end of Turkic dominance over the nobility of the Delhi Sultanate. Noorullah (talk) 18:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Alt text shouldn't duplicate caption
  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • File:Islamic_Sultanates._Delhi_(Khaljis)._Jalal_al_Din_Firuz._1290-1296_AD._AV_Tanka_(10.95_gm)._Delhi_mint._Dated_AH_691_(1291-2_AD)._Legend_citing_the_sultan_Legend_citing_the_caliph_al_Must'asim.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Hey, I think I've fixed the other issues except for the file. Can you clarify what you exactly mean by "needs a tag for the original work."? Thanks. Noorullah (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging on the image reflects the copyright status of the photo, but the coin itself has a separate status - it's likely in the public domain due to its age, we just need an additional tag to reflect that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Ah, thanks, should be good now. Noorullah (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Day (Nigeria)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria's Independence Day, known colloquially as October First, is observed annually on 1 October to commemorate the country's independence from British rule in 1960. It marks the end of colonial governance and the establishment of Nigeria as a sovereign republic.

Disclosure: I plan on making sure this article appears on the main page as today's featured article for 1 October 2025 (I guess it's better to reserve the spot earlier :-)). So, I am literally ready to do any reasonable work suggested of any editor :) Thank you in advance of your comments and assistance. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

[edit]

Always good to see a nomination for an article that pushes Wikipedia's interests and coverages a little wider, and looking at its history, it has clearly improved dramatically in the last ten days or so.

  • There are a few sentences here which seem a bit "woolly" to me: when you think carefully about them, they're either saying something trivial or not really saying a whole lot. Some examples:
    • The day ... holds historical significance as the culmination of efforts for self-governance after decades of colonial rule, coming immediately after the sentence where we say the holiday commemorates independence from Britain.
    • marking Nigeria's entry into the international community as an independent state (again, we've just said that it was the day that Nigeria became independent, and this is the same thing in more words)
    • Over the years, Independence Day has continued to reflect Nigeria's political and social changes.: either needs fleshing out or cutting: the day hasn't, but perhaps the way it has been celebrated has.
    • The amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates in 1914 was a key event in Nigeria's political history: why not just keep it to a factual statement that Nigeria was created by merging the two protectorates in 1914? If it was a key event for reasons above and beyond the obvious, we can say so, but I'm not sure it was.
    • The annual Independence Day celebrations offer an opportunity to reflect on the nation's history since 1960.
  • A lot of the lead seems to discuss Nigerian independence and its post-independence history, rather than the subject of the article itself: see this lengthy section: Since independence, Nigeria has faced challenges, including political instability, civil conflict, and military coups. The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, was a significant conflict that had lasting effects on the nation's development. Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence. As Africa's most populous nation and one of its largest economies, Nigeria plays a prominent role in both regional and global affairs.
  • Some of the language reads as promotional -- see for instance:
    • more inclusive activities that embrace Nigeria's cultural diversity
    • Despite these challenges, Nigeria has grown in regional and international influence.
    • Independence was achieved through negotiations with Britain, contrasting with other African nations that attained independence through conflict.
    • traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades highlighted Nigeria's diverse ethnic heritage
    • Balewa acknowledged the nation's diversity and honoured the efforts of Nigerian nationalists whose determination had made independence possible
    • The event also resonated across the African continent, symbolising Nigeria's entry into the growing list of newly independent states during the decolonisation wave
  • More generally, the article needs a bit of a look for the "small stuff" like MoS and grammar: see for instance:
    • Is "October First" routinely double-capitalised in Nigerian English?
    • I don't think the "liturgical color" parameter in the infobox is quite right: that term has a particular Christian meaning.
    • The independence ceremony on 1 October 1960, was attended by international representatives: no comma needed here.
      • This was part of what I worked on, so we no longer have this statement; it is now Independence Day celebrations included an official ceremony in Lagos attended by Nigerian leaders and international representatives. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • with Secretary-General messages noting Nigeria's contributions: this isn't idiomatic English: better phrased as a straightforward sentence that Secretaries-General have issued messages (etc).
      • I worked on the entire section but particularly we now have with Secretaries-General issuing messages that commend Nigeria's contributions to. Is this okay?
    • Nigeria had been a British colony for more than sixty years: we don't actually put a start date on this, either here or in the article, but should. I appreciate it's a bit complicated, but there are known dates when the first bits of Nigeria came under British colonies, and when the last bits of Nigeria ceased to be independent, and neither of these are 1914.

I'm going to stop there for now -- this is not an exhaustive list, but the broad points raised seem to run throughout the article, and I think it would be best to give you the chance to work on them before coming back to it. I note that it doesn't seem to have been nominated as a Good Article or been to Peer Review, and wonder if those might be good ports of call before an FAC run? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist Thank you so much for the comments, I will work on these now and let you know when I am done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist I have worked on the lead significantly especially based on your comments. You might want to take a look at it while I will reply to your other comments inline based on status. Thank you again. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see changes, but am not sure that the balance has really shifted on the issues I raised, particularly regarding promotional tone. I'm going to oppose for now: it's not that it's a bad article (it's very far from that), but on the basis that I think the work needed to make it an FA would be best started elsewhere (in particular, one or several of Peer Review, a thorough Good Article Nomination, or the Guild of Copyeditors). I do sympathise, as editing your own writing for tone is not an easy business. Very much open to revisiting that vote if I am wrong and things change significantly, perhaps after a few more reviews. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Ah, I was actually already working on a rewrite based on your comments, only to see this. I have incorporated my rewrite into the article, please you might want to check them out. They were especially based on the concerns your brought up above. I do not see the need of taking this through Peer review or GoCE when I am in the guild and I am a copyeditor myself. Although, I somehow agree that copyediting your own writing for tone can be hard. But please take a look, thanks again! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I had misunderstood, in that case. I've just given it another re-read, and I don't see anything that I would like to change in my comments at this time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RB

[edit]

Thank you for this nomination VWF. I will be doing a source text–entry statement integrity. Which means I will be verifying each statement against each source cited. If I am unable to access any source, I will ask you to send it to me, most likely, privately. From top to bottom, here are few:

Colonial era and path to independence
  • Nigeria's road to independence was marked by British colonisation and the rise of nationalist movements seeking greater autonomy and representation. is cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 pp=154–155. While the source text verifies the rise of nationalist movements seeking autonomy and a cohesive national government, it does not explicitly support the complete context of "British colonisation" marking the road to independence. Something like this would be better, Nigeria's journey toward independence involved nationalist efforts, marked by the establishment of regional self-governance under the Lyttleton Constitution and the unification of diverse regional parties to form a national government.
  • British interests in resources, trade, and imperial expansion drove the colonization of Nigeria in the late 19th century. By 1914, the British administration merged the Northern and Southern protectorates with the Colony of Lagos to form Nigeria. While the unification spurred economic activities, it introduced centralized governance to diverse cultural groups, often leading to political tensions. is cited to Simwa 2020. The source supports the claim that British territorial expansion began with Lagos. It also confirms that the unification of the Northern and Southern Protectorates with Lagos occurred in 1914, forming what is now modern Nigeria. But, there is no specific mention in the source about "British interests in trade and imperial expansion" as the primary drivers of colonization efforts, nor does it provide direct evidence about the impact of centralized governance on economic activities and regional dynamics post-unification. Suggestion: British colonial involvement in Nigeria began with the annexation of Lagos in 1861, marking the start of direct influence over the region. In 1914, the British administration unified the Northern and Southern protectorates along with the Colony of Lagos, officially forming modern Nigeria. This unification laid the foundation for a centralized administrative structure across diverse regions.
  • In the early 20th century, Nigerian intellectuals and leaders, including Herbert Macaulay and Nnamdi Azikiwe, promoted political consciousness and questioned colonial policies. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=140. Since the source text mainly emphasizes Herbert Macaulay's early role in Nigerian nationalist movements and his impact in Lagos, I suggest In the early 20th century, Herbert Macaulay and his followers in Lagos laid the groundwork for Nigerian nationalism, advocating for constitutional rights and increased political representation under colonial rule.
  • The establishment of the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) in the 1930s marked a call for increased political representation. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008 p=141. This checks out as the source correct supports this, but a slight adjustment could enhance clarity by including the NYM's original focus and subsequent expansion, like this The Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM), established in the 1930s, initially focused on educational reforms but quickly grew into a call for increased political representation and pan-Nigerian nationalism.
  • By the 1940s, the drive for independence had intensified, resulting in constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1946, which allowed for limited Nigerian participation in governance. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 148 and Tignor 1998, p. 207. This checks out because both sources provide evidence that, by the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement and desire for independence had gained momentum, and constitutional reforms were part of a response to this growing political consciousness. My 'suggestion By the 1940s, Nigeria's nationalist movement had intensified, leading to constitutional changes like the Richards Constitution of 1947, which expanded Nigerian representation in governance and introduced regional assemblies for the first time.

I'd leave you with this for now. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these, RB. I have done the above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, please, see more below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which extended legislative representation, cited to Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152., and and the Lyttleton Constitution of 1954, which established a federal system. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153. Falola & Heaton confirm that this constitution allowed Nigerian ministers and representatives from different regions, expanding the political structure to better include Nigerian voices in governance. Tignor also confirms that the Macpherson Constitution "magnified African electoral powers". Falola & Heaton p. 153 clearly states that the Lyttleton Constitution established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos as a federal territory. This supports the second part of the statement. Suggested rephrasing for full verifiability; As nationalist pressure grew, the British implemented further reforms, including the Macpherson Constitution of 1951, which introduced regional assemblies and increased Nigerian representation in a central legislature. (Tignor 1998, p. 228; Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 152) The Lyttleton Constitution of 1954 established Nigeria as a federation, with Lagos designated as a federal territory. (Falola & Heaton 2008, p. 153' ')
  • Despite these steps, Nigerian leaders continued to demand full autonomy. Political organizations such as the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC), the Action Group (AG), and the Northern People's Congress (NPC) emerged, representing various regional and ethnic interests. cited to Falola & Heaton 2008, pp. 144–145, 254. and Tignor 1998, pp. 235, 262–263. The text is largely verified concerning the NCNC and AG's emergence as political organizations representing regional interests, as detailed in both Falola & Heaton (pp. 144-145, 254) and Tignor (pp. 235, 262-263). However, there is no direct mention of the Northern People's Congress (NPC) in the provided pages, nor explicit references to continued demands for full autonomy. Suggested rephrasing is Despite colonial attempts at reform, Nigerian leaders pursued further autonomy. The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) under Nnamdi Azikiwe became prominent in advocating for a pan-Nigerian identity, while the Action Group (AG) and other emerging groups began representing distinct regional and ethnic interests.
  • Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Azikiwe played notable roles in advocating for self-governance. The source does support parts of the statement but omits specific mention of "self-governance." Instead, it mentions that these leaders "began to organize to pressure the colonial government for greater representation for Nigerians in their own governance and for an eventual end to colonial rule in Nigeria." This indicates a movement towards nationalist goals and independence rather than the specific term "self-governance". Suggestion, Leaders like Obafemi Awolowo, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Azikiwe led nationalist movements, advocating for greater representation of Nigerians in governance and pushing for eventual independence from British rule.
  • Following extended negotiations, the British agreed to Nigeria's independence. → Following significant negotiations and diplomatic efforts, the British agreed to grant Nigeria independence. This phrasing more closely aligns with the source by describing the process as significant without implying any direct cause-effect relationship beyond what is mentioned in Simwa 2020.
  • Several constitutional conferences were held in London and Lagos, where regional leaders deliberated on governance structures for the future nation. → Nigeria's independence movement was characterized by numerous constitutional discussions and conferences, beginning as early as the 1940s. Regional leaders, both from the South and North, engaged in deliberations with British officials on the governance structures for Nigeria's future. This revision aligns better with the content from both Simwa and Okoro, who describe the historical context and the contributions of key nationalists in advocating for Nigeria's self-governance.
  • In 1959, Nigeria held its first general election, where the NPC won a majority and formed a coalition government, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition set Nigeria on its path to full independence, achieved on 1 October 1960. → In 1959, Nigeria held a federal election in which the NPC won the largest number of seats. A coalition government was formed between the NPC and NCNC, with Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister. This coalition led to Nigeria's independence on 1 October 1960, with Balewa addressing the nation on this historic day. The original statement is correctly verified but could be refined for precise accuracy. The sources emphasize the NPC-NCNC coalition as a necessary step toward independence rather than as setting "Nigeria on its path to full independence."

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reading Beans Done. Thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanderwaalforces, check below. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independence in 1960
  • The formal declaration of Nigerian independence on 1 October 1960 marked the end of British colonial rule and the establishment of Nigeria's self-governance. Ceremonies in Lagos included dignitaries from around the world who observed the transition of power. The article statement is partly verified. There is no explicit mention of dignitaries from around the world attending ceremonies in Lagos in Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156), but Shuaibu 2023 verifies that, so put Falola & Heaton at the end of "self-governance" and put Shuaibu 2023 at the end of "transition of power".
  • Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority, concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements. While both sources (Balewa 2020 and Shuaibu 2023) confirm Princess Alexandra's role in delivering constitutional instruments as a symbol of independence, neither explicitly attributes her presence to "concluding years of negotiations driven by Nigerian nationalist movements." So let's omit that and we would now have Princess Alexandra of Kent, representing Queen Elizabeth II, presented the constitutional documents that ended British authority.
  • During the ceremony, Nigeria's new green and white flag was raised, replacing the Union Jack to signal the nation's new sovereignty. verified
  • Public spaces were adorned for the occasion, and events included traditional dances, cultural displays, and parades celebrating Nigeria's ethnic diversity. verified
  • In his speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa focused on themes of unity, national development, and responsibility, expressing hope for the country's future as a cohesive and independent nation. He acknowledged the diverse backgrounds of Nigeria's people and praised the efforts of nationalists who had worked toward independence. → In his Independence Day speech, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa expressed "joy and pride" at Nigeria's new status as an "independent sovereign nation" and acknowledged the "selfless labours" of those who had contributed to the nation's progress. He described the journey to independence as "purposefully and peacefully planned with full and open consultation" and emphasised the "great task" of responsibly representing Nigeria on the "world stage". Balewa also paid tribute to various contributors, including British officials and local figures, thanking them "for your devoted service, which helped build Nigeria into a nation". He expressed gratitude to Queen Elizabeth II and the Commonwealth, concluding with a declaration: "I open a new chapter in the history of Nigeria, and of the Commonwealth, and indeed of the world".
  • Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, formalising its position in global affairs. cited to Weaver (1961, pp. 146, 153, 157). The cited pages from Weaver indeed discuss Nigeria's entry into the British Commonwealth and the United Nations, as well as the implications of these memberships. But they do not directly state that these memberships "formalised [Nigeria’s] position in global affairs." Instead, Weaver's text elaborates on the specific benefits, opportunities, and challenges Nigeria faced within these organizations, as well as the country's strategic position within the Commonwealth as part of a non-aligned, Afro-Asian bloc. The source emphasizes economic and strategic advantages for Nigeria but does not summarize the memberships as a formalization of its global position. → Following independence, Nigeria joined the United Nations and the British Commonwealth, gaining economic and strategic advantages, as well as the opportunity to engage with other nations on issues of global significance.
  • As one of the largest African nations to gain independence at the time, Nigeria's status was notable among other newly independent countries during the period of decolonisation in Africa. → On October 1, 1960, Nigeria became a fully sovereign state, marking a significant moment in Africa's decolonization process, as one of the continent's most populous nations achieved independence. Falola & Heaton (2008, p. 156) does describe Nigeria's independence and highlights its significance. However, it does not directly mention Nigeria's "notable status" among other newly independent nations in Africa. Instead, it focuses on the events leading to independence, the roles of Tafawa Balewa and Nnamdi Azikiwe, and some of the challenges facing Nigeria at the time, such as regionalism and ethnic divisions.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We’re almost there. Please, see below. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Post-independence era
  • In the years after independence, Nigeria faced challenges in building stable governance structures and addressing economic and social disparities. → Independence Day in Nigeria serves as an occasion for reflection on the nation's progress, with government broadcasts reviewing achievements, challenges, and future aspirations annually. This revision aligns more directly with the content in Simwa 2020 and Olaniyan 2016 p. 105, focusing on Independence Day's role in reflecting on the nation's journey rather than explicitly detailing post-independence governance and economic challenges.
  • The federal system, adapted from the colonial model, aimed to support regional autonomy but also underscored significant ethnic tensions among major groups, particularly the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo, who were competing for political power. The Al Jazeera source does not explicitly mention that Nigeria's federal system was adapted from the colonial model to support regional autonomy. It does discuss Nigeria's three-part division under colonial rule and highlights regional divisions, but it does not directly link these divisions to the goal of supporting autonomy. It also does discuss the ethnic divisions and power struggles among the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo. It describes how tribalism and ethnic divisions were pronounced at independence, including how ethnic groups vied for political dominance, leading to military intervention and civil conflict. Suggested rephrase is Upon gaining independence, Nigeria's federal structure divided the country into three main regions dominated by the Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo.
  • These divisions contributed to political instability and a series of military coups, beginning with the January 1966 coup and leading to the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970. → These divisions contributed to political instability and the January 1966 coup which later escalated into the Nigerian Civil War from 1967 to 1970.
  • Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a three-year national development plan, with initiatives intended to address economic disparities and encourage national unity. His 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, emphasized peace and the need for national rebuilding. The statement is only partially verified by the text from Ugo (2017). While the source indeed references Yakubu Gowon's emphasis on national unity, peace, and the need for development, it does not explicitly state a "three-year national development plan" or mention "initiatives to address economic disparities." Furthermore, the source text presents a set of five national objectives in a broader, more aspirational sense rather than concrete initiatives targeting economic disparities. Suggested rephrase, Following the civil war, the government focused on national reconstruction. Yakubu Gowon, who assumed power after the January 1966 coup, introduced a National Development Plan with objectives to foster unity, strengthen the economy, and create equal opportunities for all citizens. In his 1970 Independence Day address, shortly after the war's end, Gowon emphasized peace and the importance of building a "united, strong, and self-reliant nation" as part of Nigeria's future direction.
  • In the 1970s, Nigeria became increasingly involved in regional affairs, supporting various African independence movements. cited to Tignor (1998, p. 268.) does not verify this statement. But I found a source your might consider using to backup this statement; <ref>{{sfn|Nagar|Paterson|2012|p=8}} "During the 1960s and 1970s, Nigeria took a leading role in supporting black liberation movements in Southern Africa, including the African National Congress (ANC).</ref>. Full citation * {{cite techreport | last=Nagar | first=Dawn | last2=Paterson | first2=Mark | title=The Eagle and the Springbok: Strengthening the Nigeria/South Africa Relationship | year=2012 | jstor=resrep05152.6 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05152.6 | access-date=8 November 2024}}.
  • The country's oil boom brought economic opportunities but also introduced challenges such as corruption and inflation, issues that would persist in the following decades. The Al Jazeera source mentions that while Nigeria's oil wealth increased government revenue and showed potential for prosperity, this was marred by extensive corruption and economic mismanagement, which kept much of the population in poverty. However, the source does not explicitly mention inflation as a consequence of the oil boom, nor does it directly attribute the emergence of economic "opportunities" solely to the oil boom. Suggested rephrase, The country's oil wealth increased government revenues, but widespread corruption and mismanagement kept most Nigerians impoverished, issues that continued in the following decades.
  • These challenges contributed to political instability, resulting in additional periods of military rule, including under Ibrahim Babangida, whose administration initiated limited democratic reforms. Olaniyan (2016, p. 104) focuses on the genre of Independence Day broadcasts in Nigeria, analyzing them from a linguistic perspective, specifically through Babangida's speeches, as a genre of political discourse. It does mention Babangida's regime as a significant period for transitioning to democracy in Nigeria, but it does not directly state that his administration "initiated limited democratic reforms" or connect his regime's significance specifically to challenges contributing to political instability and military rule. Suggested rephrase, These challenges contributed to political instability, which continued through various military regimes. Under Ibrahim Babangida, a significant focus was placed on political discourse, as reflected in his Independence Day broadcasts, which symbolized the period’s role in transitioning toward democracy.
  • Independence Day remains a significant annual event, with leaders often using the occasion to address themes of unity and national development. The day provides an opportunity for reflecting on Nigeria's progress and the ongoing efforts to achieve stability and cohesion. → Independence Day is celebrated annually as a reminder of Nigeria's journey to freedom, marked by events that foster unity and national pride. It is an occasion for Nigerians to reflect on their shared heritage and express hope for the country's future. This revised statement more accurately mirrors the source's emphasis on unity, pride, and celebration without introducing themes not present in the text.

Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 00:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

Please note the bit of the FAC instructions starting "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 ..." Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Notts County F.C. season

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever wondered what happens when a struggling lower league football club is taken over as part of an elaborate attempt to defraud (among others) the North Korean government? Well, as far fetched as that might sound, you can find out! This article is about Notts County's 2009–10 season, a hugely successful one on the field, but one largely overshadowed by off-field events, as the club found itself unwittingly embroiled in a massive attempted fraud. This was unquestionably the most bizarre season in Notts County's (and maybe any football club's) history, and the story is complex and sometimes scarcely believable, but I hope I've been able to bring it all together in a sensible and understandable way. All comments and feedback gratefully received. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks - alt text added Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder

[edit]

Putting my name down to do a review of this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]
  • "the club were subject to a high-profile takeover" - although whether to treat a football club as singular or plural is a bit nebulous in British English, I would say that in this case the club is being referred to as a corporate entity and should therefore be singular
  • That's all I got on the lead - more to follow! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris, the above is now amended. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

[edit]
  • "Green "sold" his stake in the club to the Trust for £75,000" - why is "sold" in quote marks? If a transaction occurred in exchange for money, that seems like a pretty straightforward sale to me.....
Quotation marks removed
  • "It was relegated from Division Two (now EFL League One) in 2004" - as the name changed in 2004, I think you could avoid the need for brackets if you frame it as "It was relegated to EFL League One in 2004"
Changed
  • "as this would not be a sale, no money would need to be paid to the estate of Haydn Green" - I'm unclear why money would ever have needed to be paid to his estate - didn't he sell his shares to the Trust before he died?
I've edited the background section above to clarify that the money would become due to Green's estate in the event of his death.
These are now addressed. If there's anything further you need clarifying from these let me know. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the second 2–2 at home to Torquay United, a result which left the team in fifth place" => pedantically, "the team" here could refer to either Notts or Torquay
I've switched to "the Magpies" to make it clear that this refers to Notts.
  • "The club's off-field was by now deteriorating rapidly" - think there's a word or words missing after "off-field"
Word added
  • "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte" => "it was reported that Trembling was planning a management buyout of the club,[90] and that Eriksson was on the verge of resigning,[91] and Armstrong-Holmes admitte"
Done
  • "it became apparent that the club were subject to a new winding-up petition" - I think "the club was" here per my earlier comment
  • Suggest linking "brace" to somewhere appropriate on first usage
Done
  • "Due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped" - don't think this works grammatically. Try "As the match was due to be played in the midst of Trembling's efforts to find a new buyer for the club, he had reportedly hoped"
Done
  • "company with reserves of $1.9trillion" - think there should be a non-breaking space between 9 and trillion
  • "supposedly worth $2billion" - same here
  • Same for all the million amounts in the last section
All done
  • "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered he pay £322,212" => "At a later hearing, Jersey authorities ordered that he pay £322,212"
  • That's all I got in the rest of the article. Great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read through Chris, these are all now addressed. Eric Idle's Cat (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DK, Donkey Kong, DK, Donkey Kong is here (at FAC!). As the franchise that put Nintendo on the map, Donkey Kong's got one of the most bizarre and entertaining histories of any media franchise—did you know, for instance, that the 1981 original began as a Popeye game? Or that Shigeru Miyamoto, widely regarded as the Spielberg of video games, had never designed a video game before he had to create the big ape to save Nintendo from bankruptcy? Or that the franchise got a musical TV adaptation in the late '90s animated entirely through motion capture?

I've spent almost two years working on this article, from February 2023 until now. I think it paints a complete picture of the franchise's history, inner workings, and influence. I hope you enjoy reading the article as much as I enjoyed writing it! JOEBRO64 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM

[edit]
  • "and the success of Taito's Space Invaders (1978)" While most readers would know, could add "Taito's video game Space Invaders".
  • " The $280 million windfall" I had no idea what this meant, could add "gain" to the term, as in the linked article, so it's easier to deduct.
  • "Four programmers from Ikegami Tsushinki spent three months turning them into a finished game." A bit unclear what "them" refers to, as the preceding sentence is very long.
  • "had won a lawsuit years prior" Perhaps more interesting and informative (and less wordy) to just give the date?
  • "Popeye became Mario" Perhaps worth stating in a footnote it was originally "Jumpman"? Here it makes it seem like if he had the Mario identity from the beginning.
  • "Donkey Kong's appearances in the years following Donkey Kong 3 were limited to cameos in unrelated games" Worth mentioning them in a footnote, or even in-text.
  • "It begins as a remake of the 1981 game before introducing over 100 puzzle-platforming levels that incorporate elements from Donkey Kong Jr. and Super Mario Bros. 2 (1988)." I think it's worth mentioning that Mario was again the protagonist.
  • "Miyamoto named "Beauty and the Beast" and the 1933 film King Kong as influences" Perhaps clarify "named the fairytale "Beauty and the Beast"", so readers don't assume the film.
  • "but the sprite was too big to easily maneuver" Perhaps add "the sprite graphic" or similar for clarity, as many readers might not understand what's implied.
  • "but was moved to the Wii with support for the peripheral dropped" should that be "when support for the peripheral dropped"?

Fathoms Below

[edit]

Hey Joe, it's been a while right? This is a big step up from DKC so I'll save a spot here and I should have some comments up by next week. I also have a FAC open and would really appreciate some quick comments if you're available. Fathoms Below (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

I'll have a proper run-through later, but some driveby thoughts for now:

  • For the purposes of the lead, how important is it to list all of the supporting characters? I ask partially because the "Rare's games expanded the cast" sentence is trying to pack a lot of information in, is a bit confusing (when you get to the end and we're talking about antagonists instead) and hits you with a ton of names that most people are not necessarily going to know anyhow.
    • How's it now? I chopped it down to only the characters who have articles (e.g. Mario and Pauline). I think "friendly Kongs" should suffice for the supporting characters; I kept mention of the Kremlings since they're the only recurring antagonists. JOEBRO64 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both the lead and body, the text says "to provide a new game that could salvage the unsold Radar Scope cabinets", and I'm wondering if "salvage" makes sense here? They were taking the cabinets and putting a new game into them, correct, versus scrapping them for parts or the like, so "repurpose" maybe makes more sense?
  • I get trying to show the variety of games with File:Donkey Kong Country Gameplay Elements.png, but from a practical standpoint, especially given that the core formula is unchanged between them in terms of platforming and with the limitations of non-free content, I think it would make sense to use a single, higher-resolution screenshot.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

[edit]

Nice to see this at FAC. I'll review it during this week. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Panini!

[edit]

I reviewed the GAN and I can't remember if there's a rule withholding me from reviewing and supporting here. But regardless, just wanted to say thank you! For swapping around those gameplay images! Those are definitely some excellent choices, considering that most of the games are dark jungles and finding good ones can be tricky. The second one does have a dark background, but the lack of intractable gameplay elements on top of that besides the barrels, which are the object of discussion, keep the image clear for demonstration. Panini! • 🥪 22:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No rule. Reviews from editors already closely familiar with the article are welcome. Disclosing this is helpful mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

[edit]
Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the basic structure of reality. Some of its main topics include the categories of being, the concepts of possibility and necessity, the nature of spacetime, and the relation between mind and matter. It is relevant to many fields, ranging from other branches of philosophy to the sciences, which often implicitly rely on metaphysical concepts and ideas. Thanks to 750h+ for their GA review and to Patrick Welsh for their peer review! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's comments

[edit]

Mark me down for a prose review here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurra-yi Khuttali

[edit]
Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this article after it failed the first nomination only because of a lack of engagement from reviewers. This article is about a minor figure in the history of the Ghaznavid dynasty, the dynasty that ruled what is modern day Afghanistan and eastern Iran. Hurra-yi Khuttali was a princess from this dynasty and is regarded as the most politically active woman of her era because she interfered in the succession of her brother. Small details are known about her life, therefore the article itself is quite short. Amir Ghandi (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThaesOfereode

[edit]

Hi Amir, it looks like you have Arabic transliterations in the {{Lang}} template. Unless the Arabic script is used, you should use {{translit}} instead. Other issues below:

  • "free woman" → 'free woman' per MOS:SINGLE (also want single quotes around "agnomen").
    • Done
  • Deitalicize established loan words like "amir", "harem", and "sultan". All of these are common enough terms in English that they don't need italics.
    • Done
  • First instance of amir should be delinked to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE violation (i.e., before Mas'ud of Ghazna)
    • Done
  • Any reason you picked the spelling "Seljuq" over the more common "Seljuk"?
    • Force of habit; changed it to Seljuk

More to follow later. ThaesOfereode (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

As always, the following are suggestions, not demands:

  • "considered the most prominent woman in Ghaznavid politics" this is not quite what the body says—that an action she took was the most prominent by a woman in Ghaznavid politics.
    • Changed it
  • Not sure if "in modern Afghanistan" needs to be in the lead.
    • Deleted
  • Two consecutive sentences starting "she was" could be combined.
    • Done
  • "a direct cause for" "a direct cause of" sounds more natural.
    • Done
  • "who was deemed unfit" this omits that she was one who deemed Muhammad unfit.
    • Deleted
  • " Her letter was one of the main reasons for Mas'ud's usurpation of the throne." a bit vague, you could go into more detail about what actually happened.
    • Done
  • "the Ghaznavid dynasty, who were a dynasty of Turkic origin" could be simplified to something like "the Ghaznavids, a dynasty of Turkic origin..."
    • Done
  • "she sought to learn sciences" this is slightly ungrammatical, probably needing a "the", and also a little unclear—which sciences?
    • This was originally 'other sciences' beside theology, but one reviewer commented that theology is not a science, so I omited the 'other'. I'll add 'other' again since the source itself considers theology a science.
  • The map provided is not that useful—a better one would show the Ghaznavid territories, which are referred to more often, instead of intricate details of Khwarazm. File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg seems ideal, if you can find a source that verifies it.
    • Done
  • "The latter" is unnecessary—it wouldn't be the person who's died, would it?
    • Replaced with 'He'.
  • "patriotist" is not a word, is "patriotic" meant? If yes, I suggest "nationalist" instead as more suitable.
    • I myself prefer 'patriotic' since the source uses it
  • "the rebels killed Ma'mun because of his submission" if the whole rebellion broke out because of the submission, I would suggest mentioning that at the start of the sentence, not the end.
    • I reworded the sentence. Thoughts?
  • You could mention that Muhammad and his brother were twins.
    • Done
  • "inviting him" is a bit oddly phrased, would suggest "encouraging him" or similar.
    • Done
  • "Mas'ud marched east to claim the throne, and continued to receive letters from Hurra and his mother regarding the situation in Ghazna. On his arrival in 1030 in Ghazna, Mas'ud captured Muhammad and took the throne." these sentences are quite clunky; try to trim to reduce duplication.
    • Done
  • "who had assumed total power in Ghazna after Muhammad's ascension to become the real power behind Muhammad's government" this also essentially says the same thing twice.
    • Amended
  • The last paragraph of the "Biography" section needs a thorough copyedit—it really lacks clarity.
    • Done
  • Too many commas in the last sentence of "Assessments".
    • Amended

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]

HF

[edit]
  • "Abu al-Hasan died at an uncertain date between 1006 to 1010 and was succeeded by his brother, Ma'mun II." - If I'm reading the source correctly, the source says The date of ʿAlī’s death and the accession of his brother Abu’l-ʿAbbās Maʾmūn II is not definitely known, but must have been ca. 399/1008-9
  • "He, with the same intent as his brother, married Hurra in 1015" - source says 1015/1016 which doesn't seem to be quite the same as what's in the article?
    • When I was writing the article, I based the dated on the dates in the Encyclopaedia of the World of Islam article, which uses the Hijri calendar. I had to use an app that converts the dates, that is why the year is specified. For example, in the article the year of Hurra's second marriage is recorded as 406 AH, which in turn could be converted to 1015. I'll correct the date now.
  • "a dynasty of Turkic origin whose realm included modern day Afghanistan, eastern Iran and northwestern India" - source specifies Baluchistan, rather than "eastern Iran"; is this really the best way to phrase this, as from what I can tell eastern Iran is more expansive than Baluchistan?
    • From the source: "GHAZNAVIDS, an Islamic dynasty of Turkish slave origin (366-582/977-1186), which in its heyday ruled in the eastern Iranian lands, briefly as far west as Ray and Jebāl; for a while in certain regions north of the Oxus, most notably, in Kᵛārazm; and in Baluchistan." The source doesn't single out Baluchistan, it is mentioned with other regions.

I was going to check Bosworth 1963 as well, but the Internet Archive is acting up again today. I'm a bit concerned about source-text after some issues came up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabuktigin/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon

[edit]

Just a few drive-by comments from a complete lay person:

  • would be nice if the opening sentence would mention which modern-day part of the world we're talking about
  • ruler of Ghazna --> links to the city of Ghazni, or should it perhaps go to Ghazni Province?
    • I believe I've already linked Ghazna both in the lead and in the body
  • She used two nisbas --> perhaps help the reader out a bit by explaining what directly in the textthat is, rather than forcing them to click through or guess that footnote c explains it
    • Done
  • recorded by Shabankara'i --> add a description, just like British orientalist Clifford Edmund Bosworth
    • Done
  • by Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (d. 1077) a secretary --> comma missing
    • Done
  • Amir Mas'ud of Ghazna --> 1) should Amir be linked? is it a title like emir? 2) am I right that this is the newphew? Better to say so, plus when the nephew is introduced I would refer to him by his full name and title
    • 1) to prevent WP:SEAOFBLUE, no, and yes it is the Persianized version of emir. 2) Yes, done
  • since the Ma'amunids --> is there a stray "a" here, given that it is the Ma'munid dynasty?
    • Indeed, amended
  • However, he was killed --> he is a bit ambiguous (and the subsequent his)
    • Mentioned the name
  • Hurra, along with her younger brother, Yusuf ibn Sabuktigin --> is that the name of her brother or a different person? do we need some commas here?
    • Moved the comma to the end
  • the Sultan --> the sultan (if I interpret MOS:JOBTITLE correctly)
    • Done
  • the Seljuks --> who are they? what happened to the Turkomans?
    • My mistake, the Seljuks are a Turkoman dynasty that lead the other Turkomans. I replaced 'Seljuk tribes' with 'Seljuk dynasty.'
  • footnote h: why not put this in the main text?
    • Its a hinderance to the flow of the text
  • she is metaphorically covering their shame --> I would add attribution here
    • Done
  • as it was Bayhaqi's intentions --> singular or plural? and did Bayyhaqi state this intention or is this an interpretation by Amirsoleimani?
    • Reworded the sentence
  • Iranian historian, Shirin Bayani --> no comma here
    • Done
  • The Boswell sources in ibliography should be order by time, not randomly
    • Done

That's all I have. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borsoka

[edit]
  • It was most likely... Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
    • That makes two 'according to's in one paragraph. I don't think that's pleasing to read. Also, could not find anything to expand on that
  • ...an honorific laqab 'agnomen'... I think the three non-cotidian terms are unneccessary; furthermore, the term "agnomen" is possibly misleading. Why not "a laqab (honorific)" with links? If you think all three terms are to be mentioned, the last term ("agnomen") should be enclosed in brackets.
    • Done
  • ... and not her actual name Is this necessary? If not, delete it. If yes, could you add a link (because for me the laqab is also an "actual" name used in souces)?
    • Deleted
  • Do we know what is the origin of her second nisba (Kaliji)? If we do not know it, we should make it clear.
    • No, and wouldn't that be an unsourced edition? None of the sources even mention that the origin of Kaliji is unknown.
  • An explanation for khatun?
    • Done
  • Could you expand the first section's second paragraph to avoid a one-sentence paragraph? For instance, it could be stated in a separate sentence that the only source contains only sparse references, and we could also be informed that it is reliable or unreliable. Based on section "Assessments and historiography", I understand one of her letters has also been preserved in a manuscript - is it the same source?
  • Mention the period of reign of Mas'ud (as it is mentioned in the first sentence of the following section in connection with her father).
    • Done
  • ...is a probable candidate Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)?
    • Done for the attribution, sadly can't expand it further
  • This marriage would have secured an alliance... Why future-in-the-past?
  • Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Could you attribute this PoV to a scholar (and ideally explain it a bit)? Please also read my comment below.
  • Hurra may have been taken hostage by them. Mahmud threatened the rebels with invasion unless they released Hurra. Contradiction? (The first sentence implies that she may have not been taken hostage, but the second sentence says that she had been seized.) Perhaps the two sentences could be rephrased to contain only facts ("Hurra was seized/imprisoned/prevented from returning to her homeland/...).
  • ...after Mahmud's death, she was entrusted with the care of his wives... Why not widows?
    • Changed to widows
  • ...who was crowned in Ghazna... Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
    • Bosworth: "...Muhammad succeeded in Ghazna according to his father's will"
      • His coronation is not verified. I am not sure that Ghaznavids were indeed crowned.
        • Okay I'll delete it then
  • ..., which was dependent on the powerful leadership of the sultan Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying this statement?
    • Bosworth: "...Ghaznavid empire was basically dependent on the military leadership and executive talent of its Sultan"
  • ...encouraging him to take the throne while she and the other women of the court were confided in the Citadel of Ghazni I do not understand the relevance of the part beginning with "while she...".
    • Deleted
  • He also imprisoned Ali b. Il-Arsalan Qarib, the al-hajib al-kabir (commander-in-chief) of the army, who had become the real power behind Muhammad's government. Is this relevant in the article's context? I would delete it.
    • Deleted
  • ...Hurra is suspected to have influenced By whom?
  • The region of Khorasan housed rich oases, centres of industry and crafts and important trade routes. Therefore it was an integral part of the empire. Therefore?
    • Deleted
  • File:Ghaznavid Empire (map).jpg: 1. Explain that Mahmud was her brother in the caption (as you introduce similarly Mas'ud I in the other picture's caption). 2. What is the source of the map?

Borsoka (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overdrawn at the Memory Bank

[edit]
Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to try getting another movie shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000 to Featured Article status. This time around its Overdrawn at the Memory Bank, a major for public television movie starring the late great Raul Julia. A very bizarre science fiction film that tries its best to be profound but ends up being pretty confusing at times. Still a fun movie to watch and I believe that the article meets FAC criteria. Always looking forward for critiques, however. GamerPro64 23:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Voss (Alexander McQueen collection)

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's late 2000. You've had it up to here with the jerks at LVMH telling you how to run Givenchy, with the press making snarky comments about your weight, and with the whole bloody madhouse of the fashion industry top to tail. Do you quit this all and become an accountant now? Hell no. You're Alexander McQueen, and you're going to channel your rage into the most beautiful showcase of your entire career: Voss.

Combining incredible showpieces, virtuoso staging, and – the biggest middle finger of all – beautifully wearable designs, Voss was McQueen at the top of his game, all killer no filler. I hope this article does it justice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51611p).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 38 (Voss blouse).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Alexander McQueen clamshell dress (51590).jpg - CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Publicité pour Elizabeth Arden 4 by Adolf de Meyer.jpg, PD, including a PD-US tag
  • Two good fair-use images with appropriate rationale
  • File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 15 (cropped to jacket).jpg CC-BY-SA 4.0
  • File:Platos Atlantis at Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY 2.0
  • File:ErinOConnor (cropped).jpg GNU FDL / CC-BY-SA 3.0

Everything looks good to me. :) Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • "beaches on the coast of Norfolk in London": there's quite a gap between London and the beaches of Norfolk – two whole counties worth England lie between them!
  • "; some four thousand from the beach alone." It should only be a grammatical full sentence before or after a semi colon, and this isn't one
    • Ooohhh this was a consequence of bad clause swapping. I've revised the whole sentence now to account for the semicolon issue.
  • "three seasons prior": "three seasons before" sounds a bit more natural
    • Done

Down to "Models and styling", more later. – SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off:

  • "the classic Johannes Vermeer": just "the Johannes Vermeer" would do ("classic" is a bit too peacock-y in this context)
    • Trimmed
  • "The look was inspired by The Birds": as you've already mentioned that one of his collections and the film are called this, you may want to clarify which one here
    • Revised
  • "Many analysis commented" -> "Many analyses commented"
    • Changed to academics, which is what I think I meant in the first place
  • "becoming-indiscernible": is the hyphen there in the original? I'm not sure what it's doing there
    • Oh, it sure is. The whole article is littered with "becoming-this", "becoming-that". Trying to unpack it any further is, uh, challenging.
  • "of 'becoming' something else'," Is that ' after "else" doing anything or is it a rogue one?
    • Rogue
  • "models acting psychotic" -> "models acting psychotically"
    • Done

That's my lot – I hope they're of help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I'll pick up the sources once I'm done with the prose. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done. Please ping if needed and I'll pick up again.
  • Formatting is mostly OK. The only quibbles are around the capitalisation in one or two places:
    • FN1: "Ready to Wear" should be lower case as it's not a formal noun
    • FN44: "spring/summer" should be capitalised (you capitalise the seasons elsewhere)
    • FN72: "Fashion" should be lower case
  • Coverage seems spot on. I've run some additional searches and can't see anything that has been missed out or that is stronger than the extant refs.

Nothing more to add. – SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Girl

[edit]
Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article about a somewhat obscure 2005 song by Mariah Carey. I believe it meets the criteria. Pinging Sammi Brie who kindly reviewed it for GA, if they wish to comment. Thanks to all, Heartfox (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Any reason why "extended play" is not linked?
    Linked
  • "It incorporates the same acoustic guitar ..." I don't get this, the same guitar as what?
    Changed to "It incorporates the acoustic guitar from 'A Life with You'"
Ah! Light bulb! You mean "It incorporates the acoustic guitar music as in 'A Life with You'". Er, yes?
  • "it is a derivative of the Motown sound." I am not sure that is grammatical. Maybe 'it is a derived from the Motown sound' or similar?
    Changed to "derived from the Motown sound"
  • "for her Las Vegas concert residency". Minor point: why "for"? 'at' or 'as part of' may flow better.
    Changed to "at"

A nice little article. But my big gripe is:

  • The mentions of belting in both the lead and the article jar. "She uses belting as part of her vocal performance." The sentences just sit there, like factoids in a bullet list, unconnected to the sentences before and after. What is belting? Why does Carey use it? What do the critics think of her using it? How well or badly does Carey use it, or is considered to use it? What, if anything, does it add to the composition? There must be something you can say about it.
    Tried to make more clear by connecting her use of belting with the direct nature of the song. Added a note describing belting.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just when I was about to sign off on this I realised that you now arguably have more information on belting in the lead than in the main article. And why put the description of belting into a footnote? This means that a reader can only understand the part of the sentence after the semi colon if they have diverted via the footnote. And even then you haven't explicitly stated the link (as you do in the lead). Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it: "The lyrics are about Carey confidently addressing a prospective lover. She uses belting, a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre, to project this in her singing." Heartfox (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

UC

[edit]

I enjoyed reading this one: in places, it feels a little thin, as if being excessively parsimonious about which pieces of information it passes on to the reader. I particularly felt this in the "Reception" section. More specific nit-picks below:

  • In reviews, music critics compared Carey's vocals to their state in the 1990s.: It feels as if we're burying the important thing here: it seems from the body text that they generally thought the comparison was unfavourable, though admittedly there's not a whole lot of data points to go on down there.
    Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."
  • She uses belting as part of her vocal performance, which aligns with her upfront delivery: I admit to complete ignorance on the musical side here, but I have no idea how these two clauses would follow from each other (or, honestly, what "upfront delivery" is).
    Changed to "The lyrics of "Your Girl" are about Carey confidently approaching a potential lover. She uses belting as part of her vocal performance to evoke this sentiment in her singing."
  • Critics described the music as containing disco, gospel, jazz, pop, and soul influences: do we need to hedge this behind the critics -- can we just say "the music is influenced by..."?
    Changed to "The music contains"
  • Some viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi. : as further up, this seems like a slightly misleading thing to put in the lead as the only real judgement on the song's quality, since it seems that some viewed it as pretty ropey.
    Changed sentence to "Some critics viewed "Your Girl" as one of the best tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi and others criticized her vocals."
  • She performed the song live: suggest She has performed..., which implies that she might perform it again, as opposed to the current phrasing, which implies that she won't.
    Changed to "she has performed"
  • For its follow-up, The Emancipation of Mimi (2005), she intended to displace overwrought ballads with more simplistic and authentic compositions: what does displace mean here? Are we talking about her changing her own musical style, or pushing others' ballads out of the market? Minor NPOV concerns on "overwrought", which is a loaded (negative) description, and "simplistic", which means "dumbed-down": I think "simple" was intended?
    Changed to "she intended to move on from singing elaborate ballads and instead create more simple and authentic compositions"
    I am inherently pretty wary of these kind of retrospective statements from creative people as to their intentions: they're inherently unverifiable, since we can never know what someone was thinking, and there are clear vested interests at play (with a few noble and notable exceptions, no artist is going to say "I wrote it like that because I thought it would sell more records and make me a whole load of money".) It's wiser, I think, to couch them as reported statements: for example, "in a 2020 interview, Carey said that she had intended...", which is absolutely verifiable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Prefaced by starting the sentence with "According to her,"
@UndercoverClassicist: Thanks, done. Heartfox (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrospectively, Entertainment Weekly writer Michael Slezak attributed its lack of radio airplay to the number of other worthy tracks on The Emancipation of Mimi: perhaps this belongs in the Reception section, but it might be relevant to say which songs were considered more worthy?
    The author doesn't specifically mention any, only: "It says something about the depth of Carey’s latest disc that this lovely little ditty hasn’t yet made it to radio"
  • Chris Gardner of The Hollywood Reporter described the song as a deep cut: similar to the bullet point above. Any idea what led him to say this?
    Added to the sentence: "described the song as a deep cut on the album in contrast to the commercially successful "We Belong Together", "Shake It Off", and "Say Somethin'""
  • "Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career: when was this?
    The sentence introduces the date in the next sentence "On January 29, 2021". There is also a link to MC30. I could add another ref to support "2020–2021 #MC30 campaign" but I feel that might be excessive.
    Indeed: it's the next sentence, so doesn't imply that the two happened at the same time. Compare: The United States fought a war of independence against Great Britain. Last week, the King visited the White House. That's a perfectly coherent statement of the same construction, but no reader would take away the implication that the War of Independence happened last week. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to ""Your Girl" was later promoted as part of the #MC30 campaign marking three decades of Carey's career in 2021. On January 29 that year, she issued an extended play..."
  • All work occurred at various locations in New York City.: what does work mean in this context?
    Changed to "The production process occurred at various locations in New York City"
  • Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala: is "Pat 'Em Down" a stage name? Suggest Pat Viala (also known as "Pat 'Em Down") or similar: we wouldn't say Stefani "Lady Gaga" Germanotta.
    He is credited as Pat "Pat 'Em Down" Viala in the liner notes, so that's what I used in the article.
  • It incorporates the acoustic guitar from "A Life with You": suggest the acoustic guitar part or similar, to be clear that we mean the musical track, rather than someone playing the same instrument.
    Changed to "acoustic guitar part"
  • a party for the group's record label: might be worth making it absolutely clear that this is Adeaze, not Jones and his collaborators. Does this mean "the record label owned by Adeaze" or "the record label to which Adeaze are signed"?
    Changed to "after performing at a party for Dawn Raid Entertainment, the record label to which Adeaze were signed."
  • The arranger and guitarist of "A Life with You", Dominique Leauga, alleged he was not credited for his contributions: seems like an odd phrasing -- surely it's easy enough to find out whether he was credited or not? Presumably, he means that he wasn't credited, but felt that he should have been. This might need a bit more explanation.
    Changed to "was not credited for his contributions".
  • a "brassy, full-throated sound" common in musical theatre,: per WP:NFCC, quotes should be attributed inline, but I need some convincing that we need this one as a quotation (as opposed to a paraphrase) anyway.
    Paraphrased as "full-throated technique common in musical theatre"
  • In The New York Times, Jon Pareles said she uses an impersonal delivery: I think wrote is better than said, as it's in print (but stated would be fine).
    Changed to "stated"
  • The song is "innocent, yet still a bit grimy" according to Carey: comma after the quotation?
    Added a comma after quotation
  • There's something a bit "off" about the reviews section to me. We have four named reviews -- three are local news, and one is a fairly small British online newspaper. Where are the big hitters? Is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, with its circulation of 48,000, really a major voice in music criticism?
    I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi, and this is what I could extrapolate. I would definitely prioritize citing major publications, but for whatever reason the song didn't receive much attention from them. The section is still a thorough and representative survey of the literature that exists.
    I'm sure it is, but I think we could still do with giving the reader a bit more, rather than asking us to trust us. Out of all those 90 reviews, we seem to have four points of analysis: 1) her performance was confident; 2) her singing was good, because it was restrained; 3) her singing was bad, because it wasn't restrained; 4) her voice was "weaker", in some undefined way, than it had been before. It's a pretty dire comment on the music reviewing industry if that's the best that all ninety of them could do! Even then, if those views are widely held, we're doing a disservice by saying e.g. "Dave Tianen said...", if we really mean "Dave Tianen and another thirty-three reviewers said...". I would suggest both adding a few more names and fleshing out the points of praise and criticism a little more. It's a rather more complicated and studied piece of work, admittedly, but I think it would be illustrative to look at the relevant section in Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, a recently promoted song FA: that section does an excellent job of distilling a lot of reading while still giving the reader a sense of the scale of the writing about the song. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a sentence "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" to flesh out this theme more. Other than that I don't think there's more I can do. I would love for there to be more literature, but there isn't, and so I literally can't add more names to the section.
    I'm a little confused as to how this chimes with I looked at over 90 album reviews of The Emancipation of Mimi. Did eighty-six of them not mention the song at all? There seem to be some useful unused analytical comments in the reviews that have already been used to say that the reviewer thinks the song is particularly good. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the vast majority of album reviews did not mention the song. I looked through the reviews again and didn't find anything new to add; if you can specify what are you are referring to that would be helpful. Heartfox (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just from the ones in the article, we have:
    • "Carey comes off as confident and utterly carefree" (The Atlanta Constitution), which would seem to merit equal billing with the similar, if less poetic, comment from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
    This is already cited supporting the sentence "Her presence received positive feedback from Marino and Kevin C. Johnson of St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who viewed her as exuding confidence" – is "who both viewed her as exuding confidence" clearer?
    Ah, this is my misreading: I think it would be clearer with a from before "Kevin C. Johnson". As written, it sounds as if Marino is also of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Also agreed that adding "both" is necessary: at the moment, it looks as though who is just Johnson. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to "Her presence received positive feedback from both Marino and Kevin C. Johnson"
    That doesn't fix the problem, I'm afraid. As above, would advise Her presence received positive feedback from Marino and from Kevin C. Johnson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, who both viewed her as exuding confidence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added your suggestion
    • The chorus is an exercise in exhilaration that arrives in a high-registered delirium ... It’s a transcendent moment so bright it’s nearly blinding (Pitchfork): this is much better than the trivial amount of commentary we currently have on the chorus (that it's catchy, and sounds a bit like gospel).
    Added the quote.
    • Billboard calls it a "fan favorite" as well as a deep cut, which gives the opposite impression to what we have currently said: as we've framed it, nobody really listens to it.
    I don't really view this as encyclopedic. "Carey's fans like the song a lot" doesn't add much to the article. The link to "deep cut" at wiktionary already implies this with the listed definition: "Any obscure work, a thing likely to be recognized only by a connoisseur" (ie Carey fans).
    It does, though we shouldn't force readers to follow links to understand important points about this article (MOS:NOFORCELINK). More to the point, that's the second, general definition: the first, specifically musical, definition reads An obscure song by a well known musician. As it stands, I think we've misrepresented Gardner's comments: our article implies that it is little known and largely unsuccessful; he says it is widely known and beloved among her fans, of whom there are quite a few. If readers have to navigate to a new page and pick the right definition out of three to get our point, we need to make it more clearly in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gardner doesn't say at all that "it is widely known and beloved among her fans". The quote is "Alongside The Emancipation of Mimi’s biggest hits like “We Belong Together,” “Shake it Off” and “Say Something,” Carey also performed “deep cuts” like the fan favorite “Circles,” a track that she said she wrote with “the late, great Big Jim White,” and “Your Girl.”"
    Added a sentence about fan favorite: "According to Billboard, "Your Girl" is a favorite song among Carey's fans."
    As you say, I'd named the wrong reviewer (it was Rowley in Billboard), but we seem to have ended up in the right place regardless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rather unkind Independent review goes into much more detail as to the reviewer's problems with the music, particularly lyrical unoriginality and what he sees as lazy production, when talking about the album as a whole.
    I would never cite general comments about an album as a whole as relating to a song when the song is not explicitly mentioned. This leans too much into synthesis and the reviewer's opinion is more relevant for the album article.
    If a reviewer is writing about all of the songs on the album, as here, those comments also apply to the individual songs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They may, but I think it's still undue weight to apply that to every song article when it is in the context of the album and a song article should be focused on reception where the song is actually explicitly mentioned. If a critic said "All of Carey's songs are boring" are we supposed to consider adding that to every song article? No, it's more pertinent in the main biography. It's dangerous and disingenuous to present these broader sentiments as about a specific song. Doing more of this would open a can of worms and introduce so much synthesis. It's just lazy, malpractice to rely on broad statements about an album and apply them to individual songs. We don't know if a critic would say the same thing if they were only reviewing one song. That the album "contains not one nanosecond of original thought, elevating lyric, nor interesting music" does not mean the author singled out this song as such and I don't feel comfortable presenting things like that. This is more relevant for the album article.
    If the review says that the album contains "not one nanosecond" of those things, they are saying that this song contains none of them. This is a fairly minor point overall, but in this case the reviewer has gone out of their way to say that their comments apply every one of the songs in question. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the song is not explicitly mentioned, I do not believe this critique is notable for inclusion in the song article. This would create a precedent that would require going back to all of the album reviews and seeing where stuff like "Carey's voice sounds good on the album" and "Carey's voice sounds bad on the album" comes up. Adding these types of vague responses about the album as a whole to every song article is inappropriate when there is no specific song mentioned and would duplicate the album's critical reception section where it is far more relevant to place. This proposal would give undue weight to reviewers who either loved or hated the album as ones in the middle would be unable to make sweeping statements about every song like The Independent.
    I could only access one review in addition to those, and that's four quite big bit bits of useful additional context from five sources. That doesn't give me much confidence that there's nothing at all to be gained from any of the other eighty-five. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's usually spelled a cappella: any reason for the single p?
    The source used the single "p" – I don't really care either way
    The double p is "correct" (it's Italian for "from the chapel", and the Italian for "chapel" is cappella: the single-p spelling is a mistake so common that it's sometimes accepted as a variant, though I don't think any significant publication prefers it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to double p
  • In 2005, Slezak listed "Your Girl" among the 10 best songs of her career. Escobedo Shepherd considered it one of Carey's top 20 tracks in a 2007 Vibe article. Billboard ranked it at number 38 on their 2020 list of Carey's 100 greatest songs: there may not be much you can do about this, but the shifting dates create a comparability problem here: presumably Carey has written a lot of songs in the past 20 years, so being in the top 40 in 2020 might well be more impressive than being in the two 10 in 2005?
    I think moving chronologically flows fine.
    The direction of travel is not the problem; the problem is that there's an important piece of missing context to these numbers (the increasing scale of Carey's discography). However, as I said, that might not be a problem we can fix here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, I hope this is helpful, and please do counter-quibble where it's warranted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Thank you for the helpful comments, I have replied above. Heartfox (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I have a comment on this sentence from the lead: (Carey later released two remixes featuring rappers Cam'ron, Juelz Santana, and N.O.R.E as part of a digital extended play.) I think that it would be beneficial to clarify the year that the EP was released as "later" is rather vague.
    Added the year: "as part of a 2021 digital extended play"
  • I think more context could be added to the part on Glitter as it seems to gloss over the reasons for Carey leaving Island Def Jam. I can understand the rationale against it as this song is not about Glitter, but I still believe it would be beneficial to have a brief part to provide further context to readers. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Following the critical and commercial disappointments of her album Glitter (2001)". The Pitchfork citation used in this sentence would already support this addition as it describes Glitter as a "commercial flop reviled by critics". Again, just something really brief would help.
    Added this context as suggested

I hope this review is helpful. The article is in great shape, and I just have two nitpick-y comments. I always enjoy reading your articles. I have been listening to Charmbracelet lately so I thought it would be nice to review a Mariah-related article. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! Heartfox (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

I presume that File:Mariah Carey Your Girl Sample.ogg is representative of the song's themes or style or whatever? I notice that the two files don't use the same formatting for their source/origination. Does the ogg file have an ALT text or equivalent? Source formatting seems consistent. "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" is currently attached to Abbott 2005, which does not support it as we can't extrapolate from just one review. I wonder which logic is used for applying webarchive, newspapers.com and ProQuest links and their formatting. In the credits and personnel section, do the references support just the bullet point they are attached to, or the entire (sub)section? In the latter case, you should put them in the (sub)header or after each bullet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "I presume that File:Mariah Carey Your Girl Sample.ogg is representative of the song's themes or style or whatever?" → Yes this is mentioned in the NFUR: "The section of the music used is discussed in the article in relation to the song (belting vocal style, background vocals, composition, lyrics) which received critical commentary and are mentioned in adjacent text. The sample includes the final words of the chorus which includes the song title "Your Girl" and thus helps readers understand the major theme of the song and connects the title with the lyrics and sound."
  • "Does the ogg file have an ALT text or equivalent?" → Alt text for Template:Listen is only when there is an image. I didn't bother adding the lyrics as the sample is only 12 seconds and 2 lines long.
  • "Carey's vocals received largely negative reviews" → This is meant as a summary of the following two sentences in which 3 opinions are negative and 1 is positive. Added the sfns to the summary sentence to avoid confusion.
  • "I wonder which logic is used for applying webarchive, newspapers.com and ProQuest links and their formatting" → Generally everything that can be found freely online uses the publication's URL while resources only available on databases like Newspapers.com and ProQuest have links to those. All archive URLs that show the full text are given, as archiving a ProQuest page with no text is not helpful.
  • "In the credits and personnel section, do the references support just the bullet point they are attached to, or the entire (sub)section" → They support the entire section; moved them to the subheadings.

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review, Heartfox (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulgasari

[edit]
Nominator(s): Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Pulgasari, an absurd 1985 North Korean/Japanese/Chinese monster movie by a kidnapped South Korean filmmaker. It's been 39 years since its production, and the film has become a cult classic worldwide. I have done some major reworking of this page over the last few months, and so far it has since been listed as a good article and received a copyedit. This is my third time nominating an article for FA. Thanks in advance to anyone who offers any feedback. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support
Emerging from the void to offer mt support. Looking over the article, I don't see any issues with sources or prose. The only issue would be making sure the image licenses are fully clarified as free to use and (or) have the right attributions to satisfy the WP:NFCC#8. Other than that, well done. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg has a dead source link and incomplete FUR
  • File:19660529申相玉.jpg has a dead source link and is missing info on first publication
I believe I've fixed the link and FUR problems on File:Pulgasari_poster_japan.jpg and File:Pulgasary.png but there's not much I can do for File:19660529申相玉.jpg, as that one's source appears inaccessible, not dead. Could remove that and Kim's photo and replace them with a non-free one of Shin and Kim together. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just changed File:19660529申相玉.jpg to the Non-free use file File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png from the year of the film's production. I will remove it if its use is deemed unacceptable by anyone. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment about this file's non-free use at User talk:Eiga-Kevin2#File:Shin, Kim Il Sung, and Choi.png for more details, but I don't think this non-free use can be justified per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seefooddiet

I didn't look at KOREANNAME, I just went by consulted my Korean friend about the English spelling of them a few times and went by Google Translate elsewhere. I'll do my best to re-write the names based on WP:NCKOREAN henceforth but might need more assistance. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can try this automatic converter [3] to get the Revised Romanization spellings. The converter is sometimes incorrect though; if you give it your best effort I can go through later and correct mistakes seefooddiet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Google Translate doesn't produce the romanizations we prefer for Korean; see MOS:KO-ROMAN, second row of the table seefooddiet (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not replying sooner, I've been quite busy lately. I'll fix any romanizations that are incorrect over the next few days. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all of the romanizations now as far as I can tell. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some possible mistakes in ref romanizations. What would make these not mistakes is if you've seen these specific people using this spelling for their surnames.
  • "Moon" -> "Mun" for "Moon, Seok"
  • "Noh" -> "No" for "Noh, Sun-dong"
  • "Choi" -> "Choe" for "Choi, Yeong-chang"
  • For the Kim, Jung-ki ref I'm not seeing the author's name given on the article website. Is his name spelled 김중키 or 김중기? I suspect it's the latter; former is uncommon. If so, it should be "Kim Jung-gi".
Other comment:
  • Cast and production section also need to be romanized per WP:KOREANNAME. These spelling systems will unfortunately vary by person, depending on who is North Korean and who is South Korean. North Koreans use McCune–Reischauer, South Koreans Revised Romanization. If you don't know a person's nationality, I think assuming North Korean by default is fine.
seefooddiet (talk) 01:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seefooddiet: Changed "Moon", "Noh", and "Choi" per your suggestions. Kim Jung-ki's name is spelled 金重基 in the source and I've found it hard to directly translate. And for the staff and cast, I've already done some research on most of them and it seems Shin is the only one whose nationality is confirmed to be South Korean (IMDb does claim the film's star, Chang Son-hui, was born in South Korea but I can't find their source for that and a source in this article indicates otherwise). So probably keeping their names as McCune–Reischauer translations would be fine I presume. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] 基 -> "gi". Unfortunately "重" can be read either 중 (jung) or 동 (dong). I can't find for certain what his name is through googling, but I suspect it is "Jung-gi". Think it's minimally harmful to put that down.
The MR for the cast and production crew are incorrect; I'll fix them. I'll just leave Shin Sang-ok's name as it is. seefooddiet (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gave it a pass; you'll need to verify that the new spellings are consistent throughout the article although I gave it a solid try.
Notes:
  • I try to avoid putting Korean text glosses in infoboxes; some of the names in there are not in the body of the article and effectively unsourced I think. Once you also put them in the body, you should also move the glosses to the body too.
  • It's possible that 유경애 (Yu Kyŏngae)'s surname should be changed. It's reasonably common for the surname 柳 to be written 류 (ryu) in North Korea and 유 (yu) in South Korea due to dialect (similar to how 李 is 리 (ri) in North Korea and 이 (i) in South Korea), although this is not universal practice. Some South Koreans use Ryu and probably vice versa. South Korean sources sometimes South Koreanize these surnames by default, regardless of the personal preference of the person, although they did give "리" consistently. Tl;dr to be extra correct this person's name could be researched; probably a North Korean poster with Korean writing would work.
seefooddiet (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Bank robbery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The still unsolved Northern Bank robbery took place in 2004 in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Working with military precision, an armed gang took family members of workers hostage, in order to force them to hand over £26.5 million in cash. The reaction of both the UK and the Irish governments was that the IRA was behind the heist, causing a rupture in the then ongoing peace process. It's now twenty years later and nobody has ever been directly convicted for the crime. Whilst Ted Cunningham does continue to fight his money laundering conviction, the article is stable and I hope ready to be a featured article. Mujinga (talk) 18:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "£4.5 million in used notes supplied by other banks" This would include Bank of England notes?
    Moore says these other used notes were "made up of Bank of Ireland, First Trust, Bank of England and other notes". I could be more specific if you think it's necessary? Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering why the hundred-pound notes did not cause more of a problem than they did. Do they pass that freely in Northern Ireland? I know the Bank of England only goes up to fifty pounds.
    I don't remember anything in the sources discussing that unfortunately Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The arrests were made under the Offences against the State Act.[19] " Does this convey something that I'm missing? Also, Offenses against the State Act is double linked.
    It's in the source and since the act was mentioned earlier, seems worth mentioning (and linking) again, but that's as far as my rationale goes. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 ..." At least the first half of this paragraph has the feel of background rather than legacy.
    I can see what you mean, if it's OK I'd like to see what other reviewers think Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ripe for the picking: The inside story of the Northern Bank robbery" Should be in title case.
    I've used sentence case in the refs so perhaps it makes more sense to have sentence case here as well. But in that event, then Northern Heist should prob be Northern heist, so I've changed that one Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why the Portuguese bank note crisis of 1925 is a see also. That was nothing like this, that was someone forging the authority for the bank note printers to print new currency and passing the resultant currency. It's not a particularly close case of money laundering to this.
Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the comments, I've replied on everything. Mujinga (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

SC

[edit]
  • "Sinn Féin, however, denied": you can lose the 'however': it does nothing useful here
    I'm not tied to it, but I think it's doing something as all the big players are saying the IRA did it but then Sinn Féin denies it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Orde ... blamed the Provisional IRA for the robbery. ... Sinn Féin denied the Chief Constable's claim": it says exactly the same thing but without the "however". - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see what other people think on this. To expand on my rationale: commentators, police officers, the Chief Constable of the PSNI (ie Orde), the British government and the body appointed by the Irish and British governments to oversee the Northern Ireland ceasefires (ie IMC) all immediately blamed the IRA (as did the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern although that's below in the text), but Sinn Féin (ie the political party associated with the IRA) then denied it, so for the "however" is flagging this up. Mujinga (talk) 11:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I’ve shown above, the text without the ‘however’ does exactly the same thing, but with one less word, which is one of the most over used (and badly used) words on WP). - SchroCat (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the other hand,": You can lose these four words happily: they do nothing and are unencyclopaedic filler
    good point, removed Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in compost and Cunningham": As this stands, the money was discovered after being found and after the couple were taken for questioning. A semi colon in place of the 'and' would work better.
    rejigged the sentence Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The PSNI stated it was a stunt attempting to divert attention from the heist yet it was being investigated": there's a couple of bits awry here, including the word "stunt". Maybe better framed as "The PSNI stated it was an attempt to divert attention from the heist, but was being investigated".
    rephrased and actually "stunt" gets used quite soon after so it's good to remove it here Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hugh Orde described": Just "Orde", as you've already full named him
    done - as with the other names below I've reduced it to one full naming per section Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "went in 25 Land Rovers": is this level of detail necessary?
    it conveys that it was a large operation, but rather journalistically, so I've removed it Mujinga (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ted Cunningham was found guilty": Just 'Cunningham' is necessary
  • "Bertie Ahern suspected Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness" -> "Ahern suspected Adams and McGuinness"
  • "meeting with Ted Cunningham" -> "meeting with Cunningham"
  • "When Gerry Adams denied" -> "When Adams denied"
  • "regarding the murder of McGuigan": who is McGuigan and where does this fit in with the robbery in which no-one was killed?
    good spot, I've rejigged this bit and got rid of the Mcguigan sentence Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)" -> "the House of Commons by UUP" (the common name for the Commons will suffice, and you've already full-named, linked and provided the abbreviation for UUP a couple of lines above.
    done Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your linking of sources - I see the Daily telegraph is linked, but many are not, and consistency is key.
    thanks for that, I've unlinked it as I prefer to not wikilink the sources Mujinga (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Redfield

[edit]
Nominator(s): 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red jacket and ponytail. The article recently received copyedits. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add a template to the talk page for this. GamerPro64 02:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shapeyness

[edit]

Hi Boneless Pizza!, thanks for your work on the article! Here are some comments from a first read-through, mainly to do with style. Shapeyness (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Critics have positively responded to Claire's personality and as a strong female lead character. Should this be "and her role as a strong female lead character"?
Done
  • Several journalists also considered Claire significantly less sexualized than other female game characters; she was also cited as an example of a female character who was as competent and skilled as her male counterparts, though her costumes and design in the Resident Evil 2 remake were criticized. Minor one but imo this is a bit long and awkward (and repetitive), optionally might want to reword/restructure the sentence and/or split it up into a few shorter sentences
Done
  • Producer Michiteru Okabe believed that this was a good thing since it shows that he consider them to be entirely different personalities rather than simply their gender. Not the best worded, maybe something like would be better: Producer Michiteru Okabe reflected that they had not reduced the two characters to their gender and had instead given them unique personalities, which he felt reflected positively on the direction of the video game industry at the time.
Done
  • He also landed on the idea that the players can play multiple roles and stated that "it isn't two against the world, it's one against the world with a helper". Why is this relevant?
Done
  • Okabe also hinted that Claire's experience would be more traumatizing than other protagonists' as she is not prepared for such a situation This should mention that it is other protagonists in the Resident Evil franchise. The sentence also doesn't really explain why she isn't prepared for the situation or how this feeds into her design/characterisation.
Done
  • They were excited to do so because they really prefer Claire Previous sentence already mentions that they were a fan of the character so I don't think this is needed (it is also less encyclopedic in tone)
Done
  • Voice-over and live-action actresses section - maybe adding a picture for the live action actresses would be helpful, what do you think?
    I added only for it to be simple. Done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She encounters a young girl named Sherry Birkin in the Raccoon Police Department building, including the mutated scientist William Birkin. The bit after the comma doesn't make sense in this sentence I don't think so needs rewording
This one was removed so the sentence now makes sense, but William Birkin isn't introduced anymore. Would this work? She encounters a young girl named Sherry Birkin in the Raccoon Police Department building, who is being pursued by her father, the mutated scientist William Birkin. Shapeyness (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Changed 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and finds the vaccine to let Sherry's scientist mother Annette Birkin cure her daughter before dying from her injuries The her in "before dying from her injuries" is ambiguous
I made some edits to this one, hopefully that is ok and feel free to change if I got anything wrong! One small change that is still needed: this paragraph doesn't mention that Sherry is infected before it says she is cured, which it should. Shapeyness (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made some more edits, I haven't played the game so if I get anything wrong please correct me! One thing I'm not sure about, do you know how Arnette is injured? The paragraph says "Annette dies from her injuries" but it doesn't say what injured her. Shapeyness (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • director Paul W. S. Anderson and producer Jeremy Bolt decided to bring Claire into the film because they thought her inclusion was important Why did they think it was important?
This still says they thought including her was important, but doesn't say why they thought it was important to include her. Shapeyness (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up removing it 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the source and realised it is a bit weirdly worded, I agree that removing it makes sense. Don't forget to re-add the first movie name though "Resident Evil: Extinction". Shapeyness (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I already added it. Any thoughts now or conclusion? 😊 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She plays a major role in Resident Evil: Degeneration (2008), reuniting her with Leon I think this should be something like "in which she is reunited with Leon" or "where she is reunited with Leon".
Done
  • IGN editors and Kimberly Wallace of Game Informer both praised with Wallace stating that Claire is her favorite Resident Evil character Both praised what?
Done
  • as well as her portrayal in the horror game This is a bit vague
Done
  • An essay in Nadine Farghaly's Unraveling Resident Evil also compared Claire to the "typical trope" of "a virgin or tomboy" This might need explaining a bit more - why does the essay say this?
  • In general, I think the reception section could do a better job of identifying key themes from different writers and exploring them, atm it feels a bit directionless
    Hi Shapeyness. Thanks for the review. I already dealth with all of your concerns. Some of them have been removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to my comments, I have added some more comments to help keep track. Shapeyness (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shapeyness Done. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 21:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corleck Head

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A haunting three-faced Celtic stone head dated to the 1st century AD, ie only a few hundred-odd years before written Irish history, yet it seems endlessly ancient and enigmatic. The article has received a number of skilled copyedits (by John especially), became a GA during the summer (after a review by Hog Farm) and recently went through an exhaustive and very rewarding peer review (mainly UndercoverClassicist). Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

[edit]

Good to see this here: will review once a few others have been past, as I've already said my piece on the current version at PR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sawyer777

[edit]

i've also already reviewed this at the PR, and said i'd support it at FAC once it got here. i stand by that; the prose & sourcing on this article is excellent (indeed i spot a couple of my textbooks). i've given it another look-over and have nothing new to contribute. i'll keep up with this FAC though in case anything comes up. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 14:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your help and support over the last few months. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

caeciliusinhorto

[edit]

Some prose nitpicks. I also did some hopefully uncontentious fixes myself in these edits.

  • "The three faces may represent an all-knowing, all-seeing god representing the unity of the past, present and future or ancestral mother figures representing strength and fertility": is there a way of rewriting this sentence so as not to say "represent" quite so many times in close proximity?
  • "Archaeologists do not believe it was intended as a prominent element of a larger structure ... This suggests that the larger structure may have represented a phallus" seems self-contradictory. Was it or was it not an element of a larger structure? (Or is the point that it was part of a larger structure but not a prominent part, in which case that is not at all clear currently?)
  • "on Corleck Hill in townland of Drumeague": I would expect "in the townland" here: is the omission of the article intentional? I know some varieties of English omit the definite article in some contexts where Br.Eng. speakers include it...
  • The second paragraph on §Discovery has three mentions of "Barron", but his full name and the link to his article is only given in the following section.
  • "only a small number three-faces": I would expect either "three-faced" or "have three faces" here.
  • "only around eight known prehistoric Nordic stone heads have been identified": are both "known" and "have been identified" necessary here? It seems to me they are giving the same information and you can cut "known".
  • 'Strabo wrote that heads of noble enemies were embalmed in cedar oil and exhibited to strangers"': unmatched quotation mark. Either the opening one is missing or this can be deleted.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caeciliusinhorto, all now addressed. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Very interesting.

  • Although its origin cannot be known for certain, – I would say "never say never". Wouldn't "although its origin is not known for certain" be sufficient?
  • a major religious centre during the late Iron Age that was a major site of celebration – no need to have "major" twice, I think.
  • As with any stone artefact, its dating and cultural significance are difficult to establish. – I don't think that's true. As with the first issue, this is an absolute statement and I am sure there are exceptions. "As with many stone artefacts" maybe?
  • They all have a broad and flat wedge-shaped nose and a thin, narrow, slit mouth. – "both" instead of "all"?
  • One has heavy eyebrows; another has – "the other", as there are only two?
  • is extremely difficult – do we loose anything if we remove "extremely" here?
  • It may be not clear to readers what precisely "modern period" means; you should at least link it.
  • More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jens, done to here except using "both", as there are three faces. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "As with many stone artefacts"....have found a source that goes into deeper discussion on the basis for the dating; will add shortly. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The head was found c. 1855 in the townland of Drumeague in County Cavan, Ireland, during the excavation of a large passage grave dated to c. 2500 BC. – This is stated as a non-controversial fact in the lead but has a "probable" in the body.
  • a mostly lost and stylistically very different janiform sculpture – but when the human head survives, then "mostly lost" seems like an overstatement?
  • as are sculptures of the hooded figues know as – "known"
  • and would, in the words of Ross: "tie them to the necks – maybe a , instead of a : flows better here?
  • I was wondering about the article structure. It seems that this article starts with the specifics on the head first, and then provides the background information and context later. Usually, we write Wikipedia articles the other way around? I am not sure if this is necessarily bad in this case though. However, I'm a bit concerned that the last section "Head cult" does not seem to have direct relevance to the Corleck Head, and the head is never mentioned there. Ending an article with a section that is not really about the topic makes me wonder if there could be some better structure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Have swapped out the image. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As with many stone artefact" -> "As with many stone artefacts"
  • "or ancestral mother figures symbolise strength and fertility": "symbolising"? I don't think the grammar works otherwise
  • "today, it is on permanent display": I think "today" is verboten by the MOS, which would prefer "As at 2024" or similar
  • "Boa Island. County Fermanagh": that should be a comma, I think
  • "Age;[43][44] and was" -> "Age;[43][44] it was" or "Age,[43][44] and was" ('and' should only really go after a semi colon in a list, it replaces the coordinating conjunction when joining two sentences).
  • Corleck hill was a major site: Capital 'h' on Hill?
  • "Insular Celtic": I think this could do with a quick explanation of what it is, even if in a footnote; it's not a readily understandable term, even from the context. If not, then a piped link to Insular Celts, although this seems to focus only on the British and Irish celts and ignores the European ones

That's my lot – an interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Schro, all done for the last point as mentioned above. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK I still think you need something to explain what is meant in the context of this article by "Insular Celtic": it pops out of nowhere and people unfamiliar with the concept will be completely confused by it. I'll add my support to the nom, but I do think something is needed to clarify this point to, say, a Californian, Cameroonian or Canadian who reads this when it's a TFA and has no idea what is meant by the term. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a note to explain. Ceoil (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod

Socompa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano along the border of Argentina and Chile, which has been noted for the giant landslide that removed part of the structure six thousand years ago, the occurrence of fumaroles with mosses and a neighbouring important pass between the two countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Graham Beards

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits to the article rather than list suggestions here. I have a problem with this phrase: "The collapse removed about 70° (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[45]) of Socompa's circumference on its northwestern side". It's the "of radius of..circumference" that is confusing me. Is it just me? Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to say that the landslide took out part of the volcano, like you'd cut off a slice of cake or pizza, equivalent to 70° of the circumference. The 9km refers to the width of the slice and 7.5km to its length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could just say what volume of the volcano was lost as a percentage (on the volcano's northwestern side). Graham Beards (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this can simply be computed. Is there an alternative way to formulate the slice bit? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is circumference is not measured in degrees. Why not just say "a 70° sector"? It's simpler and much easier to understand. Graham Beards (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did an edit, is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can live with that. I am happy to add my support now. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]
  • Is there nothing that topographical dominance could be linked to in that footnote? Having a redlink for a not well-known geological term is not useful for reader understanding.
    This is User:MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, and I'm afraid it means no more to me than to you. Unfortunately, I don't even know where to begin when looking for sources on mountaineering terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view "with a topographical dominance of 12.08%" should be removed. I don't see how it is helpful to a reader. In fact, given the improbability of the source being considered high quality, I would remove the whole foot note. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it in the interim. Regarding andes-specialists, it seems to be the page of Maximo Kausch and his team. They have been referenced by other sources for climbing exploits in the Andes and elsewhere ... does this make 'em a subject matter experts and therefore RS? I don't think this kind of information is usually discussed outside of circles concerned with mountaineering records. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

Lead
  • Since you link Bolivia in the lead, maybe also link Argentina and Chile? I get why you didn't, since you linked them in the infobox. And speaking of, what about linking Central Volcanic Zone in the lead?
    Hmm, CVZ at this moment is still a redirect to Andean Volcanic Belt which is the preceding link. Granted, it's a redirect that could be expanded to an article in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 44 active volcanoes" - I gotta ask, why is "about" used here when 44 isn't a number rounded to a nearest 5 or 10? I'm guessing you mean something like "an estimated 44 active volcanoes", since there's probably a good guess for the number, but it's not precise?
    So, the source says 44 but a few more volcanoes have been discovered since then. Would "more than 40" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the stuff about the collapse 7,200 years ago in the lead. I just feel that the second sentence is too long, and that it's out of order. The part about the collapse being "among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi) " - that's all interesting and good stuff, and I think should be before the Mt. St. Helens bit personally, but either way, the lead could be improved here.
    Rearranged a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable are the large toreva blocks which were left behind within the collapse crater." - the "notable are" construction is difficult to understand for non-English readers, or even people who don't have a great sense of English. Could you dumb this down a bit and make the sentence structure a bit easier? "The collapsed crater left behind large toreva blocks", or something.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Socompa is also noteworthy for the high-altitude biotic communities that are bound to fumaroles on the mountain and form well above the regular vegetation in the region." - again, cool stuff, but could you split this into two sentences so you could expand on this a bit? That would make the 3rd paragraph feel a bit more complete.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
  • "due east of Monturaqui" - wish you mentioned that this was an impact crater, that's cool shit
    'fraid that the source refers to the railway station with that name, not the crater which is north of Socompa and much farther away. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mountain is considered to be an apu by the local population, and Inca constructions have been reported either from its slopes[10][11] or from its summit." - any Simpsons fan with ADHD is going to click on the link to figure out what an apu is. I'd add the explanation for what it is. Also, the second part "Inca constructions" feels like a completely different thought.
    Well, the Inca constructions exist because of the mountain's status as apu, and there isn't much detail in the sources about these constructions, so putting it elsewhere would leave it pretty stubby. A sourceable definition of "apu" is hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,600 to 5,800 metres (18,400–19,000 ft)" - is there a reason you use a different construction for metric versus imperial? You could do "to" or the dash for both of them.
    No, changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you don't abbreviate to km at a certain point?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The existence of a lake in the summit area within the scarps at an elevation of 5,300 metres (17,400 ft) has been reported." - is there a lake or not? I'm not sure why the "has been reported" is needed. Also, is that "Laguna Socompa? If so, the parts about the lake should be together.
    No, Laguna Socompa is at the foot of the volcano. "has been reported" because many other sources don't mention its existence. It might be ephemeral or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the northeastern flank a pumice deposit is clearly visible." - not to someone who's reading the Wikipedia article. Is "clearly visible" the best description?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The collapse removed a 70° sector (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[42]) on Socompa's northwestern side, descended over a vertical distance of about 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and spread over distances of over 40 kilometres (25 mi),[25] at a modelled speed of c. 100 metres per second (220 mph)." - awesome stuff, but that's a lot for one sentence.
    Split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant." - "probably"?
    Already under discussion in Hog's section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the weight of the volcano these layers can deform and "flow" outward from the edifice - why the quotation marks?
    It's a very slow type of flow, akin to glass or rock deforming over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "petajoules " - should link to "Joule"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 200-kilometre (120 mi) long lineament known as the Socompa Lineament is associated with the volcano." - I don't know what this means unless I click on "lineament"
    Clarified this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, directly north-northwest of Socompa lie three anticlines probably formed under the influence of the mass of both Socompa and Pajonales: The Loma del Inca, Loma Alta and La Flexura." - similar here, no idea what it means unless I click on "anticlines"
    Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fumaroles on Socompa also feature stands of bryophytes such as liverworts and mosses[e] as well as lichens and algae, and animals have been found in the stands.[102][103] These stands" - wait what are "stands"? There's not even a link here.
    In the sense of "grove"; how does one say groups of mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the sector collapse 7,200 years ago, activity continued filling the collapse scar. The explosion craters on the summit are the youngest volcanic landforms on Socompa,[6] one dome in the scar has been dated to 5,910 ± 430 years ago.[112] An eruption 7,220 ± 100 years before present produced the El Túnel pyroclastic deposit on the western side of Socompa.[113] The youngest eruption was dated to have occurred 5,250 BCE." - consistency with dating would be nice. The last one "youngest eruption" would've been 7,250 years ago, which would be before the sector collapse by... 50 years? Or potentially the cause of the collapse, right?
    I've recast this whole thing. GVP hasn't updated yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011, the Chilean mining company Escondida Mining was considering building a geothermal power plant on Socompa to supply energy;[125] the Argentine Servicio Geológico Minero agency started exploration work in January 2018 for geothermal power production." - I was curious what's happened since. this says that the work completed in 2020, with an estimate for how much power could be created. That's from 2023.
    Doesn't seem like it amounted to much, going by recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good read. Pretty easy to follow, just a few spots I recommend including a bit of basic words instead of forcing the reader to rely on links. That's the main recurring theme I noticed. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the fixes/replies, happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
Introduction
Geography and geomorphology

That's all I have to comment on. Volcanoguy 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Volcanoguy 19:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I get the feeling the nomintor in areas doest fully understand the sources; apart from typical not first language issues there seems to be a wood from the trees issue. The statement "not witnessed in historical records" about an event that occurred 7,200 years ago gives pause, as does the fact that the dating is so low in the lead, and in the lead the geography is confusing. And the focus on measurements and all the overcitation is confusing and missing the point. However, I do respect this nominator's work, and hope they can meet these general points. Have been making trivial edits and enjoying this facinating article very much otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that arguing examples isn't normally the right way to go about this, but I don't think that we can assume people know that events 7,200 years ago have no historical records left b/c historical records don't go that far back. And the "activity" - unlike the collapse - has only been dated recently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a collapse and an eruption are definitively not the same thing. I get the point about the (over)use of "collapse", though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo Jo, hopeful and confident this will get over the line, and I well know the dept of research that wnt into this. I'll better articulate prose issues in a few days. As I say, the article is fascinating, and am very happy it has been brought to such a standard. Its also very impressive the expertise of the reviews above. I'm just stalling for now. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, please check your spelling before publishing your changes; I've had to correct some of your typos. Volcanoguy 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair. Will post here only re rewording before my eventual support. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth (Taylor Swift song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, arguably the biggest pop star right now. She has loads of chart-topping hits, but this one, "Labyrinth", is not one of them. It's a lesser-known entry in her oeuvre, but it knocked me sideways after maybe the 4th or 5th listen and now ranks among my favorite Swift songs. For a song article, I believe this is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. I'm open to any and all comments :) Ippantekina (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

[edit]

Placeholder. From a scan last night and read through today, the article is very well written and the music and production is well and informativly described. The article is appropriately concise, and the sourcing seems fine. Leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, will be supporting this article as per above once the reception section flows better; it seems very jumbled atm, tying to gather thoughts to articulate concerns (and making light edits). For one thing there are way too many slight quotes (eg "airy") that could be paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ceoil, I'm looking for ways to improve the flow of the "Critical reception" section. Ippantekina (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: how does the section read now? Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Media is appropriately justified, but are there any images that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of adding a photo of Swift performing on the Eras Tour, but it might not be directly related to prose.. Ippantekina (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • In the infobox one studio is given as Brooklyn and another New York City, but aren't these the same place?
  • ""Labyrinth" peaked at number 12 on the Billboard Global 200" → "Billboard Global 200 singles chart" would help clarify for readers unfamiliar with this term
  • "In the Associated Press" → Maybe "For" or a rewording would work better as Associated Press doesn't feel like something written "in" like a newspaper or magazine
  • I would try to paraphrase more quotes in the critical reception section

Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Heartfox. I've replied above, let me know if there are any outstanding concerns :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If you are interested, I do have a current FAC open. Heartfox (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pagtatag!

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second extended play by SB19 released back in 2023, which spawned their hit single, "Gento", which sparked a TikTok trend. I previously worked with the "Gento" article last year and was promoted to FA, and I'm here to get its parent project to get to FA as well. I already attempted to get Pagtatag! promoted last June 2024 but was unsuccessful due to prose issues. I think the article has had substantial improvements since the previous nomination, and I do think this article has the potential of becoming one of the featured content here on Wikipedia.

This is part of my ongoing efforts to improve SB19's coverage here on Wikipedia. Once promoted, it will be the first Filipino album to attain such status (and could be a little cool milestone as SB19 reaches their 6th anniversary). Feel free to leave any constructive criticism, feedback, and suggestions; thank you, reviewers, in advance who will take their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NØ

[edit]

Given how much I enjoyed "Gento", I am excited to review this soon!--NØ 09:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MaranoFan! Nice to see you here again! I'm looking forward to your review. – Relayed (t • c) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could split "released by Sony Music Philippines on June 9, 2023." into its own sentence as it doesn't work as good as a run-on in the current sentence.
    Split I noticed that that's the convention you're going for in most of your FAs; I did receive a comment last time to make it a run-on, but we'll see how it goes.
  • The 2020 debut album's name should be written out in the prose.
    Done
  • "Development on Pagtatag! began in 2022" - Should this maybe be "development of"?
    Done
  • Apologies if I am missing something, but where is the fact that "Gento" received critical acclaim sourced in the article? Also, the claim that it achieved commercial success seems to not be repeated in the article body and just the chart positions are. Whereas, this type of claim would require a reference to a secondary source.
    • About the “Gento” receiving critical acclaim, that’s supposed to be a summary of how critics liked the catchiness of the song (mentioned in the “Music and lyrics” section), as well as some other comments in the “Critical reception” section. Should I tone down the wording in the lead?
    • Added Regarding the commercial success of the lead single, I have added a source mentioning that the single was a commercial success, hope that’ll suffice.
  • "Pagtatag! has been featured on 2023 year-end rankings and nominated for Album of the Year at the 2024 Awit Awards" - Why "has been" instead of "was" when 2023 is over?
    Replaced
  • "They were able to release three singles" - "were able to release" seems unnecessary to me, maybe "released"?
    Rephrased
  • Other than two Nase (brothers?), I am counting three additional producers on Pagsibol, so the claim that they "worked with several record producers" seems excessive and I would recommend "worked with a few other record producers" or something to that effect.
    Rephrased Yep, they are indeed siblings.
  • "and that, in it, they would continue to explore different genres and life experiences" - "in it" could be removed
    Removed
  • Two samples for a six-track EP seems to be pushing WP:NFCC#3 a bit. Do you have a preference between these when it comes to conveying the EP's sound, and could the other one be removed?
    "I Want You" sample removed I understand. The thing with Pagtatag! is that one half of the EP sounds sonically different from the other half, so it’s hard to illustrate the EP with only one track sample (at least for me). However, I previously received a comment that "Liham" has a stronger rationale for inclusion in the article than "I Want You", so I removed the latter.
  • "Critics were fond of its lyricism" - maybe "praised its lyricism"?
    Rephrased
  • "The local press considered the release a significant one" - Admittedly, it is quite a bold claim that the local press thought so, when it only seems to be supported by the Bulatlat review. Which are the other ones?
    Looking back at it, yeah I agree. Toned down the sentence since I couldn't find another source to support that; would that suffice?
  • "Pagtatag! was nominated for the Album of the Year at the 2024 Awit Awards" - Don't think "the" is required. Also, if this ceremony has already happened I would suggest more clearly making the sentence about it in the lead past tense too.
    Removed the ceremony has yet to happen, but I will update once that’s done
  • Awards and nominations for songs are not included in the awards table of their parent album/EP
    Removed
  • Do you think the EP could go into Category:Hip hop EPs, Category:Soul EPs, and Category:Contemporary R&B EPs since these genres are included in the infobox? Also, I believe Contemporary R&B is usually used instead of Rhythm and blues in articles for modern releases like this.
    Added That’s actually a good idea! And links for R&B have been changed to Contemporary R&B.
Those would be all the comments from me. Based on my reading, I find the article to be a strong contender for FA status so it is quite the mystery why the nomination hasn't attracted that much attention, lol. Anyways, I hope you enjoyed the review!--NØ 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for the comments, MaranoFan. I will be looking over at them soon. And yeah, unfortunately, that's the case at the moment, but hopefully, this can get more traction sooner, not later. – Relayed (t • c) 08:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, MaranoFan! I have finished going over your comments, and I think I have addressed everything on the latest revision (see difference here). I have also responded to some of your points above. Let me know if everything has been sorted to your liking or you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 06:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Impeccable work. Hopefully my review has been able to help push the article towards a well-deserved gold star. If you are able to, I am currently seeking a third prose review on my current FAC.--NØ 13:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, MaranoFan! Your review is indeed a great help. I'll try to have a look at your latest nom within the week; I would say "Feather" is one of my low-key favorites off her discography. – Relayed (t • c) 14:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead

No problems here.

background and development

no problems here.

music and lyrics

no problems here.

release and promotion
  • that trended on the video sharing service TikTok add a hyphen between "video" and "sharing"
critical reception
accoldates

no problems here.

Overall this article is near-perfect; excellent work on it, @Relayed:. 750h+ 08:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+, Relayed: I did the hyphen between "video" and "sharing".
I think the Critical Reception paragraph is indeed bulky, but if we split the paragraph to two, we need to rework the section again (transitioning the paragraphs and their ideas to not make it look like a broken bulky paragraph). So, for me, I'll keep it. RFNirmala (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. 750h+ 02:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding early. Thanks for taking care of the minor edit, RFNirmala! I'll attempt to split the "Critical reception" into two paragraphs since I also notice that it's quite lengthy. Other than that, thank you for supporting, 750h+! – Relayed (t • c) 15:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virgo interferometer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the major current gravitational wave detectors. This is the second nomination; during the first one, the article was found lacking in copy editing, so I submitted a request to WP:GOCER, which was completed a few days ago, hence the resubmission. Looking forward to your comments. Thuiop (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thuiop, have you considered persuing Good article nomination first? It's not technically required for featured articles to be successfully nominated as good articles first, but it is almost always done and is strongly recommended—especially given that this is your first nomination. Good articles have less strict criteria, and a one-on-one dialog is often more efficient to identify and correct certain common problems, compared to the FAC process. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Remsense, I was not aware of that. I did know about Good articles though, but considered it as a second option; I usually contribute to the French Wikipedia, where "FAC" are usually not already "GA" before the nomination. If you think this is a better idea, I am ok with rescinding this nomination and go to GA before. Thuiop (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend it, but keep in mind that it sometimes takes a prolonged period of time before an editor will pick up your submission for review—often days or weeks, sometimes even months. I think this one wouldn't sit too long though. Remsense ‥ 论 08:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will do this if there are no other comment against this idea in the next one or two days. Thanks! Thuiop (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

[edit]

I don't think a GA nomination is needed. I have made some edits to the article, which can be found in the history. The images look a little cluttered, at least on my screens, but this is no big deal. In my view this is an excellent, and fairly lay-friendly, introduction to an exciting new field in cosmology. I am interested in what other reviewers have to say, but I am happy to add my tentative support. Graham Beards (talk) 10:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

I have placed {{cn}} tags in a few places; note that image captions do require citations if the information within is not sourced elsewhere in the body. In my opinion, the prose is good but in need of improvement; I cannot comment on the technical and scientific details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the missing citations. Thuiop (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Logo-virgo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:GW170814.png
  • File:GW170814_signal.png: where is this licensing coming from? The source site has an all rights reserved notice
  • File:Virgo3_1.jpg: is a more specific source available? Ditto File:BestVirgoSensitivityCurveVSR4.png
  • Indeed, it seems it does not. Do you think it would make sense to move it at the beginning of the instrument section, replacing the already present File:Virgo aerial view 01.jpg ?
  • Fixed.
  • I added the original paper which is indeed under CC.
  • I added extra sources in the caption. Did you mean to add the sources in Commons? These files were directly uploaded by the collaboration, but I can link articles where they were used, although those articles are not necessarily under the correct license.
  • Fixed.
Thanks for the comments! Thuiop (talk) 11:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons page for each image should include sourcing that confirms that the image is available under the licensing given. Do you mean that the licensing given is not correct, or that the articles where they are used don't credit them properly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, no, I meant that these two files were produced by the Virgo collaboration and upload by someone from the collaboration in its name, falling under the "own work" category. It was also used by the collaboration in other places (including a journal paper), but these do not fall under the same licence as far as I know. If you think this is important, I can contact the person who uploaded it and have them confirm this officially. Thuiop (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations

[edit]

The Suicide of Rachel Foster

[edit]
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game that proved somewhat controversial upon its release due to tackling taboo subjects like suicide and pedophilia. A game in the vein of Firewatch and Gone Home, The Suicide of Rachel Foster is a walking simulator where players navigate the eery Shining-esque hotel owned by the player character Nicole's family. There, Nicole hopes to uncover the true nature of 16-year-old Rachel's suicide, who seemingly killed herself after the community found out about her "affair" with Nicole's father and ensuing pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, the game's depiction of pedophilia and suicide were some of the topics most-discussed by journalists. Outside of the more sensationalistic aspects, the game's setting and characters were well-received, but the story and gameplay proved less interesting to reviewers.

Image review by Nikkimaria

[edit]

Support from BP!

[edit]

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco

[edit]

I've had this on my backlog for ages. Will review.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the abuse between Leonard and Rachel - Implies that Rachel was also abusive of Leonard, which seems incongruous with what's been presented so far. Perhaps "Leonard's abuse of Rachel"?
  • such as child sexual abuse and suicide, to portray them with sensitivity. - Not sure the comma is correct
    • Removed.
  • Three sentences in a row start with variations of "it" in the third paragraph of the lede. Worth reshuffling?
    • Changed.
  • Nicole's attempts to do so anyway, but is unable to do so, angering her. - Do so ... do so
    • Given that this part isn't all that significant to the plot, I just removed the sentence.
  • Rachel might still be alive, collecting various clues - Is Rachel collecting clues, or is Nicole?
    • Clarified that it's Nicole collecting clues.
  • Irving is Rachel's younger brother and in their abusive household, only his sister brought him joy. - Perhaps "Irving is Rachel's younger brother, and she was the only one who brought him joy and in their abusive household."?
    • Made a few changes; hopefully for the better.
  • The game was developed by the Italian studio One-O-One Games using Unreal Engine 4 and published by Daedalic Entertainment.[6][7] The game was directed by Daniele Azara and its music was composed by Federico Landini. - Repetition
    • Changed.
  • From the beginning of the game's development, the studio wanted the narrative and gameplay to complement one another, rather than finishing the story first and then choosing an appropriate gameplay style. - Perhaps "Rather than finish the story first and then choosing an appropriate gameplay style, from the beginning of the game's development the studio wanted the narrative and gameplay to complement one another."? Feels a bit more logical in flow.
  • being set in an enclosed space to increase the claustrophobia. - The hotel itself wasn't in an enclosed space. Perhaps "being replete with enclosed spaces"?
  • the Overlook Hotel, featured in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980) - Perhaps "as featured"? That better distinguishes the Overlook from the one in the novel or the television series.
  • Two "according to"s at the beginning of the Reception section
  • handling of suicide, especially regarding Nicole's suicide attempt at the end, - Worth recasting to avoid double mentions of suicide?
    • Reworked the sentence and expanded on what Bell had to say about the subject.

Overall, very tight.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: Thank you. :) I believe I've made most of the necessary changes, though I've also changed a few things a bit, so I'm not sure if said changes also need revision.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Aoba47 (pass)

[edit]

For clarification, I am using this version of the article for my source review. My comments are below:

  • Have you looked through to see if there was any academic coverage on this game by using tools like Google Scholar? I have found some potential sources here, but for some of them, you would need to go through the Wikipedia Library to access them: A Review of Indie Games for Serious Mental Health Game Design, Narrative Space in Videogames, and Using Indie Games to Inform Serious Mental Health Games Design. These are all conference papers so I am unsure how that works for Wikipedia, but they were published by Springer Publishing, which is a notable publishing company. It may be worthwhile to look into this type of coverage further.
    • Good idea. I'll be looking into it.
      • Take as much time as you need, and let me know if there is anything that I can do to help you with this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked into all three sources. I went through both sources talking about Nicole's attempted suicide. Admittedly, I didn't read in-depth every thing these two chapters said, but I believe I pinpointed the most important details; as with other critics, they didn't like the ending. The third book source is about the Timberline. Although I do for the most part understand what it's trying to say, it's a bit too theoretical for my taste and focuses on something that never really interested me when analyzing texts; the geometry/geography of physical spaces. It also has A LOT to say about the Timberline, so I'm not sure how I could even consense all of that. Even the other book sources talking about Nicole's suicide still came out to almost 8 whole lines.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for the response. I understand that it can be difficult to incorporate academic sources into a Wikipedia article. I think that the final paragraph in the "Critical response" section could be condensed. I am not sure that the serious game classification or the Actual Sunlight comparisons are particularly useful, and I believe it would be better to focus on the discussions regarding the critique that the game uses suicide for shock value. I would think this could folded into the paragraph directly above it, which already focuses on the game's handling of suicide.
            • All right, I've condensed it. I think its size is more appropriate now, and the section fits better with the paragraph about suicide.
          • The Narrative Space in Videogames article is primarily saying that the hotel is set in such a way to intentionally confuse the player and their connection to the story and characters. It might fit in the second paragraph of the "Critical response" section as that is already about the hotel, but since it is more of an analysis than a review, it may not work out that well. I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations for the most part list both the website/work and the publisher, but there are some spots where only one is listed, such as Citation 6 including only the website (The Washington Post) and Citation 13 including only the website (JeuxOnline). I do not think it is necessary to include both, particularly for well known citations such as Metacritic, but it is important to be consistent.
    • I just wanted to add a reminder that this part has not been addressed yet. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Aoba47: Regarding the Unreal Engine, Nintendo, Italian Video Game Awards, and DStars sources, I'm not quite sure how else to cite them. In the case of the first one, I could label "Unreal Engine" as the website and "Epic Games" as the publisher, but I'm not sure if that's right either.
        • I think that the question then becomes how useful is it to have both the website/work and publisher if they cannot be applied consistently throughout the citations. It may just be me, but I am not sure how useful it is for readers to have the publisher for citations like Bloody Disgusting or Metacritic, but I looked at recent FAs on video games, such as Islanders (video game), which has a similiar inconsistency, but was passed as a FA without issue so I think that this is just a matter of personal preference so it will no longer be an issue. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be consistent on whether title case is used for the citation titles or not as there are some instances, such as Citation 30, where it is not being used.
    • Oops. This point was raised a few days ago by Boneless Pizza. I made sure to use title case everywhere, but didn't add the source for the sequel until later, and in my excitement I forgot to use the title case.
      • That is understandable. I was only made aware of the title case stuff relatively recently, and I completely understand getting caught up in the moment when you find something new. I would not have expected a sequel for this game, and I am curious on how it will turn out. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 9 is no longer active and currently redirects to a spam website. The archive link also leads to an error screen. I also cannot open Citation 25 as it leads to an error screen (at least for me), but the archive link does work for me.
    • Regarding Citation 9, the archive page actually works just fine for me. However, since you also mention further down that this is one source that's unreliable, I decided to remove it altogether. It's unreliability was actually raised by IceWelder during the GAN, so I kinda expected that I'd have to remove it. I guess I was just waiting for someone to say so.
    • Regarding Citation 25, on my end it actually said that it's a malicious website (probably from my antivirus program) so I removed that as well. Besides, the second source I used there already shows that Rachel Foster got nominated but lost.
  • I partially relied on the WP:VG/RS to judge the reliability and appropriateness of the sources. I am not as familiar with the non-English sources so could you please explain how/why the following would be appropriate for a FA? To be clear, I am not saying that they should be removed, but I wanted some more insight on these: L'Ambidextre, Nikoofar Music, and ProSieben Games.
    • Regarding Nikoofar Music, I explain more above why I removed it. Having checked L'Ambidextre out again, it seems to be a blog, so not all that reliable. As for ProSieben Games, I'll admit I don't really have any information about this specific site and how reliable or not it is. I do know that ProSieben itself is a news channel, and from the little I do know, ProSieben is considered reputable.
      • Thank you for addressing this for me. I agree with your rationale for the ProSieban source. I noticed that you did remove Graziano Pimpolari as the game's artist, but I think that you could cite this information directly to the game's credits, where they are listed as the art director and user interface artists. I have used credits for this kind of thing for Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King without any issue, and it may be helpful to use so more key information is included in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not part of the source review, but I would re-examine short sections, specifically the "Accolades" subsection and the "Sequel" section. The accolades could be folded into the general reception section, and until more information on the sequel comes out, I do not think a one-sentence section is necessary.
    • I can definitely place the "Accolade" subsection into the "Critical response" one and just remove both subsections. However, how could the "Sequel" section be placed somewhere else. Could we "in good faith" leave it there under the assumption more information will come out in the coming months about it?--PanagiotisZois (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair. As I said above, this falls outside of the scope of a source review so I will leave this up to reviewers who are looking at the prose. I can understand your perspective on it. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems like the "Accolades" subsection has been put back into the article. I will not dwell on it as again, it is outside of the scope of my source review, but I just do not think that this particular structure is the best approach. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments for now. Either tomorrow or later in the week, I will do a spot check to make sure that things said in the article are supported in the citations and to make sure the information in the citation structure (i.e. authors, publication date) are accurate. I hope that this review is helpful, and please let me know if you have any questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, I am looking at this version for this set of comments:

  • For this sentence, (Players take control of Nicole as she explores the Timberline Hotel), Citation 2 does not use the name of the hotel. This is nitpick-y as Citation 2 does talk about the family hotel, but I would add Citation 3 here as well just to support the actual hotel name.
    • Done
  • It may be helpful to include examples of the puzzles in the prose. For instance, Citation 3 lists "hunting for a screwdriver or a generator switch" as examples of the "very light environmental puzzle" in the game. Citation 18 mentions using the flash from the polaroid camera as way to navigate during a blackout. Citation 4 talks about a map feature that may be useful to bring up in the article. I am mostly just bringing some gameplay areas that could be expanded with the sources already in the article.
  • For Citation 11, I think it would be more beneficial to use the interview citation template instead.
  • I did a spot-check and the authors, publication dates, etc. match between the sources and the citations.
  • I am uncertain about using quotes from non-English sources. Examples are "central to the horror experience" and "religious population and legal framework that offered a plausible setting for the narrative of psychological horror and moral taboo [the developers] were making", which are both tied to Citation 11. However, neither are really direct quotes, and are translated versions of these quotes. I think it may be best to paraphrase in this context, and I would double-check the article for other instances of this type of quote.
    • @Aoba47: I might be wrong, but I checked the non-English sources used in this article, and none of them exist in the article with quotations. Citation 11 does come from a French website, but the article itself was actually presented in English. I think there was also a French-language version of the same interview, but the one cited here is the English-language one.
  • This is outside of the scope of a source review, but I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction when possible as it is something that is often pointed out and discouraged in FACs. I do not have a particularly strong opinion on it, but I still thought it was worth drawing your attention to it. An example of this would be (with Nicole and Irving's relationship and voice actors also being commended) in the lead.

Thank you for your patience with my review. I believe that should be everything, but once everything has been addressed, I will double-check through everything just to make sure that I have not missed anything. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything, and apologies again for my mistake with the JeuxOnline source. Everything looks good to me in regards to the sources. They are reliable and appropriate for a potential video game FA, support the information provided in the article, and are formatted correctly. This passes my source review. I hope that this was helpful, and thank you again for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to do a source review. And for going above and beyond to not do just that, but also give me suggestions on how to enlarge and improve the article's content. And also informing me that those academic sources could be accessed through the Wikipedia Library. PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I am just glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba47. This is the nominator's first run at FAC, so it also needs a source to text integrity check and a plagiarism check. Would you consider your sour source review to also have appropriately have covered them? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the ping. Apologies for not clarifying this in my above review. I am not that experienced in source reviews if I am being honest. I have done a source to text integrity check, and I did not notice any issues. I also did a plagiarism check, and for the most part, everything looks good to me, but I did find something.
    Looking through the article again, I did notice two instances in the article, ("affected by the tragedies surrounding" and "to encourage players to think critically about"), where the prose was taken directly from the source (i.e. Citation 12) and I believe both parts should be paraphrased. Apologies for not catching this during my review. Hopefully, both should be somewhat easy fixes. Thank you again for the ping. I greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

[edit]

Forthcoming. JOEBRO64 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have some notes for a review. Posting sometime later today or early tomorrow. JOEBRO64 13:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get that this is a fairly plot-heavy game, but I think the first paragraph of the lede should have some gameplay details. I think that's pretty important to cover when introducing a reader to a video game.
  • Going off the previous point, I think the first paragraph is a little excessive on plot details. If I were you, I would reduce it. Here's my recommendation:
    • Original: The story follows Nicole Wilson in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, during December 1993 on a visit to her family's Timberline Hotel. Having left ten years prior with her mother following the revelation that her father Leonard was in a sexual relationship with the teenaged Rachel Foster, Nicole plans on quickly inspecting the Timberline and selling it. After being forced to stay there due to a heavy snowstorm starting after her arrival, Nicole's only contact with the outside world is a Federal Emergency Management Agency agent named Irving. With his help, Nicole decides to investigate the relationship between Leonard and Rachel, as well as her mysterious suicide.
    • Suggested revision: The story, set in December 1993, follows Nicole Wilson on a visit to her family's Timberline Hotel. Having left ten years prior with her mother after learning of her father Leonard's affair with the teenaged Rachel Foster, Nicole plans to quickly inspect the Timberline and sell it. She is forced to stay longer due to a heavy snowstorm, and decides to investigate Leonard and Rachel's relationship, as well as Rachel's mysterious suicide.
then dedicate a sentence or two to summarizing the gameplay.
  • Here's a copyedit suggestion: hit Ctrl+F and search for "the game's" and "of the game". You will find that in 99.9% of all cases, you can cut them without losing anything. Examples:
    • "The game's narrative and gameplay were developed simultaneously to ensure that one would complement the other.
    • "The game's setting—the Timberline Hotel—was praised, as was the sound design for helping create an appropriate atmosphere."
    • "Joffard denounced the narrative for not being engaging enough, causing the player to become a spectator, as well as the game's ending and twists, finding them inconsistent with the rest of the game's story."
    • "The Windows version of the game was released on February 19, 2020."
    • "During the course of the game, Nicole will have to solve "very light environmental puzzles" to progress with the story, such as acquiring a screwdriver or finding a generator switch."
  • In general, I think the prose could use a lot of tightening: I think you could be a bit more compact and straight to the point, and use the active voice as much as possible. I'll reproduce the second lede paragraph:
    • In developing The Suicide of Rachel Foster, One-O-One Games aimed to create a horror game that emphasized suspense and fear instead of traditional monsters. The game's narrative and gameplay were developed simultaneously to ensure that one would complement the other. The game was created as a walking simulator to allow real-life topics to be explored, given the genre's emphasis on narrative. The Overlook Hotel from the 1980 film The Shining was used as inspiration for the Timberline's architecture. The developers sought professional advice for the game's depiction of topics such as child sexual abuse and suicide to portray them with sensitivity. The game was released in February 2020 for Windows and in September 2020 for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One; it was ported to the Nintendo Switch in October 2021.
Here's what I was able to cut it down to in just a few minutes:
One-O-One Games aimed to create a horror game that emphasized suspense and fear over traditional monsters, and developed the narrative and gameplay simultaneously to ensure they would complement each other. They designed The Suicide of Rachel Foster as a walking simulator to explore real-life topics, given the genre's emphasis on narrative, and the Overlook Hotel from the 1980 film The Shining served as inspiration for the Timberline. The developers sought professional advice for the depiction of topics such as child sexual abuse and suicide to portray them with sensitivity. Daedalic released The Suicide of Rachel Foster for Windows in February 2020, for PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in September 2020, and for Nintendo Switch in October 2021.
I've managed to reduce the word count substantially without removing any information or changing any meaning. I would take some scissors, go through the rest of the article, and see what you can trim. You'll be left with leaner, clearer, and more direct prose. I recommend the following essays if you need some additional assistance: WP:REDEX, WP:ELEVAR
  • Will do a reference spotcheck sometime tomorrow.

I guess you could call this a light oppose for the moment; I think the research and structure's good, but the writing needs some cleanup before we're ready for the star. Ping me once you've gone through I'll give the article another read, and I'll make some minor tweaks myself if necessary. JOEBRO64 19:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions! I agree that I can be more direct and concise. A problem I often struggle with; that and repeating words and/or information for some reason. I'll try to thoroughly go through the article and see how I can trim a few things or change others. PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feather (song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Carpenter, who thankfully does not need much of an introduction in 2024, found her first taste of success with the song "Feather" before, um, swiftly rising to superstardom the following year. The song's music video was a classic display of her twisted humor and got a priest in a world of trouble... I probably still have the Meghan Trainor demo of her debut single on an old laptop somewhere. What a great song it was but such a far cry from her raunchy music now. Also, her new album cover bears an eery resemblance to the Title cover. Would be pretty cool if Ms. Carpenter can gain her first FA within her breakout year. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 07:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • believed it was easy to listen to - That's... nondescript. Is there perhaps a more meaty means of summarizing critical views?
  • Critical reviews generally hovered around calling it light, feathery, digestible, breezy, and airy so this seemed like the best way of capturing that. Open to suggestions.
  • number 21 on ... first number one - Inconsistency in spelling of numbers ("Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32.", per MOS:NUMNOTES)
  • Mia Barnes - worth a redlink?
  • She does not seem to be notable based on a search.
  • I kept the name out since she isn't really a public figure and is non-notable.
  • "Feather" is a pop,[20] dance,[21] dance-pop,[2] disco,[22] and neo-disco song,[3] - Given how subjective genres can be, I think it may be worth something like "'Feather' has been identified as
  • which lasts for three minutes and five seconds - Is this the sped-up version, or the original version? Or are both 3:05?
  • It's the original version. Since the sped-up version didn't really gain notability, I think its duration would be excess detail.
  • Reminiscing their memories together - I believe "reminiscing" is generally followed by about when used as a verb
  • send him pictures - "send him pictures" could be pictures of the dog, food, whatever, which would not necessarily be "stereotypical". If the source supports what this sentence seems to be implying ("nudes"), it should be made explicit.
  • "You fit every stereotype, 'Send a pic'" is the lyric so it being nudes isn't stated but the behavior being stereotypical is.
  • It's cited to American Songwriter, where the lyric appears. I haven't encountered any sources inferring a nude is being discussed, unfortunately.--NØ 21:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With 37 weeks, it is her longest-charting track on the ranking - Two things... "with 37 weeks" is unclear (you seem to mean "Spending 37 weeks in the Billboard Hot 100"). Second, this information could end up dated and as such should use {{as of}}.
  • Is there a guideline stating the use of the as of template is necessary? I would prefer to just remove the statement when it is no longer true.
  • her achievements in 2024 - Being...? As someone unfamiliar with Carpenter, this only raises questions.
  • This falls out of scope of the article but I have incorporated it as a note since it is a valid question, really.
  • sharing a clip of it on Instagram - I'd nix "of it"
  • before getting ran over by a truck. - "run"; this is the present perfect tense, which requires V3 ("run", see Collins)
  • I'd link Knee highs
  • gruesomely is a value judgment, and thus should be attributed or removed (per WP:WIKIVOICE, point 1)
  • She pulls his tie while exiting it and puts it between the elevator shaft, decapitating him in the process - pulls ... pulls
  • I didn't understand.
  • Tulle - Probably should be linked to Tulle (netting)
  • afront - Ironically, per Merriam-Webster this means "next to" ("abreast"). You probably mean "in front of"
  • Others also likened the visuals to Jennifer's Body, - We already had Jennifer's Body mentioned immediately before this... is it really necessary to repeat?
  • I think it is necessary so we are representing all three of the critics that had this opinion. It is to give additional weightage compared to the movies that only received comparisons by two critics.
  • character "the Girlfriend Reaper and compared it to the Grim Reaper. - Missing a closing quote, and this could be handled a bit more gracefully to avoid repeating "reaper" (for example, "the Girlfriend Reaper")
  • the Emails I Can't Send Tour and the Eras Tour - Another repetition of "tour"
  • She opened her KIIS-FM Jingle Ball set with the song in December 2023, clad in a red mini-dress and gloves on one date and a white corset top, shorts, and gloves on another. - Probably worth mentioning explicitly that this was a two-day event (in which case "sets" probably works best)
  • I'm seeing a lot of focus on Carpenter's outfits during these performances. How relevant are they to the topic?
  • I generally let the sources decide this. If reliable, secondary sources cover outfits I usually give them some air time in the article. In this case, the dress being decorated with feathers seems relevant to the song topic and the Jingle Bell outfits seem to be Christmas color-themed and relevant to the event.
  • Not a formal source review, but I'm seeing some references are not in order (see, for example, [62][60][63] and [65][63])

Overall, this is fairly easy to digest.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Chris! I hope the changes are satisfactory.--NØ 18:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • ""Feather" is song" => ""Feather" is a song"
  • This drove me crazy so I tracked it back and apparently it has been in the article since April... Crazy how I just kept skipping over the first sentence assuming it must be correct.
  • "Island Records released its sped-up version for digital download and streaming on August 4, 2023." - is this the only version that was released?
  • The digital download and streaming release on that date was indeed just the sped-up version.
  • I added that the original version was later promoted to airplay, if that helps? I know it's a bit odd but the sped-up version's release did begin the promotion of this song as a single so it seems to be the appropriate one for the lead.--NØ 18:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became Carpenter's first one to reach the top 40" => "became Carpenter's first song to reach the top 40"
  • "puts it between the elevator shaft" - I don't think you can put something "between" a singular object
  • "which People's Jack Irvin believed was upraised" - what does "upraised" mean? Never seen this word before......
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review

[edit]

This time I'll let File:Feather screenshot.png pass, even though it illustrates a subtopic, because this subtopic is apparently more relevant than usual to the article topic. Otherwise, it seems like image use, rationale and placement are OK. ALT text is OK. Sources seem to be mainstream and I guess adequate and consistently formatted. What is rollingstoneindia.com, is it affiliated with Rolling Stone? What makes The Fader a high-quality reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, according to Reuters, Rolling Stone India is the Indian version of the Rolling Stone magazine, which is considered a prestigious source for musical commentary. The Fader is considered a reliable source according to WP:RSMUSIC and the author, Raphael Helfand, has contributed to the publication Pitchfork. Although I have removed it since the cited information appears in the other sources. Agreed with you about the music video screenshot. Do the reviews pass now, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Best, NØ 11:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes, although I must state a caveat that this isn't a topic where I know the sources well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

[edit]

MaranoFan, how could you write good-quality articles about both Sabrina and Olivia? I thought the had a feud or something! Anyways, gonna leave some comments very soon. My review is prose-focused btw. I haven't listened to this song yet, but "Espresso" is a catchy (albeit a little annoying) one. Ippantekina (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, doing my seven-day reminder a day early. I've heard Halloween is a good time to enjoy the music video, so you might be interested in finally checking out the song :) Although, the performances are a good option too. Have you ever tried this one?--NØ 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a smooth read. Some issues that I see:

  • Do we have an exact release date for the radio release? If not I think the Hits source can provide a range (at least month).
  • "Critics have identified" kind of nitpick-y but why not the present tense/simple past tense but the present perfect tense?
  • "I feel so much lighter like a feather with you off my mind". the period should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ - make sure other parts of the article also adhere to this
  • shouldn't there be a comma before this part: "according to Rolling Stone India's Amit Vaidya"?
  • "Carpenter employs a delicate vocal style on the song" hmm, I think something like "Carpenter's vocals are delicate on the song" could read better
  • I wouldn't include hyperlinks in quotes per MOS:LWQ (e.g. "a neo-disco bop", "a masterclass in 2020s pop music")
  • Looking at MOS:LWQ, it seems to discourage their use if there is a chance they do not convey the author's intended meaning. The links in this case are straightforward, in my opinion. The 2020s in music article, in particular, has a dedicated paragraph about Carpenter which is useful.--NØ 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of critical reviews is surprisingly little.. have we got more retrospective reviews/rankings of Carpenter's songs etc.?
  • Medium.com is the only other source that has featured "Feather" on a ranking of Carpenter's discography, but that is a blog-hosting service.--NØ 06:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • For this part in the lead, (and its original version was later promoted to radio stations by Republic Records), I would clarify what is meant by later as that is rather unclear at least to me.
  • I have a comment for this part from the lead, (issued a statement that he was "appalled" by the church scenes). I am not sure that the quote is necessary. I believe that this could be paraphrased without losing anything. Some suggestions are "a statement against the church scenes" or "a statement criticizing the church scenes", but go with what you think is best.
  • I have a nitpick for this part, (Emails I Can't Send Fwd:, which she did not view as a follow-up to the original album but "just a few songs that belong in the Emails world" to thank her fans). I believe that the semicolon should be a comma as the part after that is not an independent sentence and is instead a dependent clause.
  • Do we have a more specific date or time frame for this sentence: (Republic Records eventually promoted the song to radio in the United States.). Eventually is rather vague.
  • The best information available regarding this is that the song hit the top 10 in early November 2023, so I have now included that this happened later within the same year.--NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I would clarify who is describing the song in this way. I am imagining that this is referencing critics so I would go with something like "Critics have identified 'Feather' as ... ". With that change, it would also avoid having two paragraphs in a row starting with the song title.
  • I am uncertain about this sentence: (The original version lasts for three minutes and five seconds.) I believe that you are specifying "the original version" to clarify that this is not referencing either the sped-up version or some other version, but it does read a bit unnecessary to clarify a certain version is a certain length if the lengths of the other versions are not mentioned here as well.
  • I would suggest that pre-chorus is linked to help people who may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon.
  • Apologies again as I believe that this has been discussed above. I am unclear on on what the "send him pictures" line means in this part, (ask her to do stereotypical things like send him pictures). Send pictures of what? How is that stereotypical? I looked at the citations for the sentence, and I could only see this lyric in the American Songwriter source, but it does not really discuss it separately and it is instead quoted in a longer set of lyrics from the song. I am uncertain on how useful this part is if it cannot be clarified further.
  • It appears that Carpenter has performed this song while dressed up as Sandy from Grease for the Halloween performance of her tour. It is only covered in Cosmopolitan from what I can see so it may not be notable enough to include in the article, but I still wanted to raise this to your attention regardless.
  • I hope a slightly better reputed source will pick the story up in a few days, which is possible given the recency. While Cosmo would situationally be a reliable source for fashion matters, I do question if just them covering it justifies due weightage of its inclusion.--NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your assessment. I am uncertain if this performance will get any additional coverage, or any real coverage in more music-based sources, as it is just one stop on a larger tour and it is a performance of an older song, as opposed to her new singles. As I said in my comment, I did not find much on it, but again, just wanted to bring it to your attention as it is rather recent. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work as always. I hope that these comments are helpful. They are most justly minor nitpicks, but let me know if there is anything that needs further clarification. I hope you are having a great weekend so far, and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for the review! NØ 02:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: May I initiate another nomination?--NØ 04:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gao Qifeng

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Chinese painter, one of several who sought to introduce a "new national style" of painting that blended traditional approaches with Japanese and European ones, as part of a broader aspiration to create a new China. If this is promoted, it will be my first FA in... eight and a half years. I would like to thank Rollinginhisgrave and SchroCat for their comments at the GA and Peer reviews, respectively. The article is looking in really good shape! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor thing, but can the caption for the lead image say roughly when it was taken? If that information exists in sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I'll get back to it as soon as possible. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda late to the party but it seems like most of the issues I found before were already resolved below. After reading it again, I found no issues (for me) at all. Support 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens

[edit]

Good to see something about China here.

  • The lead section seems to assume that the reader knows many things already, and could be improved by making some things clearer:
    • You could state "older brother" instead of just "brother", to give a hint why he was following this brother.
    • Gao joined the Tongmenghui – You explain this term in the main text but not in the lead; since the lead should be as accessible as possible, it makes sense to explain it there too.
    • where he established the Tianfang Studio – I had no idea what this "Tianfang Studio" is supposed to be. Perhaps add that he teached students there, which gives the reader a good impression.
  • In the lead: he published The True Record to challenge the Qing dynasty – the main text does not state this fact; instead it seems to say that the Qing dynasty has already ended at that point.
  • Lead: later, the Beiyang government. Although offered a position in the new Republic of China, – The chronology seems wrong here, which is confusing. He was offered that position before he criticised the Beiyang government, but this sentence seem to imply it was the other way around, which makes little sense.
  • You sometimes provide translations, or the originals of translations, and sometimes not. For example, the "Chinesische Malerei der Gegenwart" lacks a translation (it should be "Contemporary Chinese Painting"). Also, you have the Chinese original in explanatory note e, but not in m.
  • I'll get a bit of a footnote ready for the German exhibition. I've been unable to obtain the original Chinese for [m]; Chu does quote the passage in her 1981 publication, which was bilingual, but I only requested the English at REFEXCHANGE. I could nix the original from [e] to standardize. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing for the Southern Metropolis Daily, Wang Jingjing notes that Gao favoured vigorous yet delicate brushwork and vivid images. – This is supposed to be in source 8, the Guandong Museum site, but I can't find it there (which might be because I can't really read Chinese, so I'm just checking here).
    • It's cited to [15]. I see that I did misattribute the quote, however. It should be attributed to Li Gongming of the Guangzhou Academy of Arts, as he was the one being interviewed and who mentioned a "vigorous yet elegant" style. Fixed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • But cite [15] is in the middle of a sentence; from my understanding, it would only support that particular part of the sentence, not the preceding sentences? It should be behind the sentence (behind the dot) to imply that it supports multiple sentences? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've always understood citations as supporting all preceding materials in the same paragraph, which is how the ref is used here. Referring to WP:CITETYPE, an in-line citation is "close to the material it supports, for example after the sentence or paragraph, normally in the form of a footnote;" it doesn't specify a leapfrog effect. That being said, since there is an attributed statement here, there is definitely an argument to duplicate the reference, which I have done.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is the case, my inline citations are incorrect in all my FAs. What about a case like this: who has been described as his goddaughter[36] or adopted daughter,[9], would cite [36] also support all preceding sentences of the paragraph, even if the sentence would be at the end of the paragraph? I always assumed it would, in such cases, only support this particular fact, since it is provided within the sentence, not at the end of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, it's been a long day. I meant to say "all preceding materials in the same paragraph up to the previous reference." I certainly did not mean to imply that there were errors in any previous FAs.
            • This is how all of my previous FAs have been written. As an example, the section #Release and reception at Panggilan Darah starts with "Panggilan Darah debuted at the Orion Theatre in Batavia on 30 June 1941. It was reported as a modest success," It cites two references, both of which are used to support the information. The next clause, "making most of its money from lower class audiences." is supported entirely by Biran. Likewise, Jacobus Anthonie Meessen cites everything from "He was one of the few photographers" through "opened a studio" to the same reference. The Encyclopedia of Jakarta reference is used exclusively to support what sort of materials were being sold at Meessen's studio/shop. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • used as settings for animal subjects – dot missing.
  • Otherwise, reads very well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Jens. I believe I have addressed everything.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima review

[edit]

Since it seems you're good on prose supports, I'll do a source review.

  • Publishers are wikilinked inconsistently; the museums have links, but the university presses are not. The same is true for websites, where you wikilink Sina.com but not Grove Art Online.
  • Shouldn't it be just "Urban Council" or "Urban Council of Hong Kong" as the publisher? And see above.
    • The book uses Urban Council, Hong Kong. I've trimmed it to Urban Council for ease.
  • The translated title for Chen 2009 isn't capitalized the same as the others.
  • You give the location for Brill, but none of the other publishers. Again, choose one or the other, but be consistent.
  • For sources without authors, you give the SFN as the name of the work in two instances and the name of the author in the other; I'd cite The Art of Gao Qifeng as "Urban Council Hong Kong 1981" to resolve this.
  • I'm a bit confused why there's shortened footnotes like "Guangdong Museum, Gao Qifeng", "HKHM, The Heavenly Breeze", and "Ou, Gao Qifeng" (the former of which doesn't include a date). Why not just "Guangdong Museum 2017", "HKHM", and "Ou"? It wouldn't be ambiguous.
    • I've changed Guangdong Museum to {{sfn}}. The other two are a vestige from when I write articles with multiple newspaper sources. I can go either way, but I think as long as it's consistent it should be okay.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why no page number on Floriani 2023?

Moving on to the good part: These are good quality sources that seem fitting for the topic and seem to cover it quite well. It's a suitably in-depth article. @Crisco 1492: Just a bunch of stylistic and formatting tweaks and we're golden. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Image review & spot-check

[edit]

File:Tomb of Gao Qifeng 2010-11.jpg needs a note about the copyright of the structure (e.g a freedom of panorama note). File:高奇峰 鹿.jpg has a broken bare URL as a source. Image placement and ALT text seem fine.

Hi Jo-Jo and thanks for the spot check. Have the image issues above been resolved to your satisfaction? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check: * 4 Can I have a copy of these sources?

Spotcheck passed - several minor issues (now resolved), not enough to call the unchecked cites into question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

[edit]

Lead

  • give founding of school a year
    • The Lingnan School was more of a movement than a proper school, and thus cannot readily be given a specific year.
  • give a footnote explaining that - due to the brothers often being mentioned, together and individually - that they will be referred to sometimes by first name, and that Gao alone means Qifeng?
    • I think it's implied, as standard practice for articles with people who share names. Furthermore, in writing about Chinese artists, there is a tendency to repeat both names where clarity is needed (viz Croizier, etc.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his older brother" - unclear at this point that there were more brothers, and that here Jianfu is meant
  • give travel to Tokyo a year

Early ...

  • "One of six brothers": I suggest to be at this point - instead of close to the end - more explicit about other brothers' names and age, especially how much older Jianfu was, and which "number" Qifeng was
    • The sources don't really provide ages for most of the brothers. I have added "ten years his elder" for Jianfu. — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • I suggest to first mention school, then art specifics
    • In most cases, I'd agree with you. In this case, the sources basically say that he had the techniques, but his attendance at the school cannot be confirmed. As such, the priority is the techniques. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should his art name be mentioned in the lead, bold as a redirect?
  • "Gao Qifeng studied directly"- by footnote suggested above, Gao would be sufficient. (will not mention this all occasions)
  • Ralph Croizier - when a person mentioned has no article, I suggest to give a short explanation about why we should listen to them. Same for other scholars cited later, without extra mentioning.

Artistic ...

Later ...

  • "Before his death, he asked" - "Before his death, he had asked", unless you mention it before his death which may be better
  • "He died on 2 November 1933" - I commonly see the sentence about death being a new paragraph, with the name and also the location, for people who don't read the whole thing. (I come from the - few - composers' articles without infobox, where this is the only way to determine the POD.)
  • perhaps offer the word "legacy" in the section header?
  • I am not sure that the history of road naming is of encyclopedic value
  • A conversion of the government cnntrib to a better-known currency might be of more help
    • Yes and no. I agree that it would be nice to have, but it runs the risk of overfilling the article with numbers. I know SC generally has his currency in footnotes, and that may allow for more detail, but at this point we already have quite a few footnotes. Thoughts, other reviewers? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relation...

  • Together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren, Gao is recognized - how about "Gao is recognized, together with his brother Jianfu and fellow Ju Lian student Chen Shuren,"?
  • How about mentioning the names of the (later) 7 when the studio is first mentioned? Then we coud see better who is linked and who is not.
  • I think that the wife deserves a new para however short
  • "after he became ill she tended to Gao" - better: "to him", - as clear from the context (or use Gao the first time in this sentence)

Analysis

  • other section headers could be Art, or Work - I don't believe that the value comparisons fit "Analysis"
  • please find a way for the left image not displacing the next section header, - easiest to have it right, others to make it much smaller with less caption, or place in the following section, or combine the two sections
  • the prices fetched might be lead material to give the ignorants (like me) a rough idea
  • "Gao's angry lions and roaring tigers evoke a "bold and unyielding spirit" + "depictions of animals to reflect a revolutionary spirit" - some of that might also be lead material
  • I'd first mention the rare landscapes and figures (now at the very end), and end instead with the quote , on "charms" ;)

General: I miss a link to the commonscat.

Thank you for an interesting life and work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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
Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria (talk · contribs). Zzzs (talk · contribs) helped fix the first two points. As for the third, I'm not sure if I understand correctly. The page for Dennis 205 path has the standard information that appears in every tropical cyclone track map, such as the fact that it's in the public domain, what the symbols mean, when it was made. Compare to other featured hurricane articles' track maps here and here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one too FYI. The code was broken by the standard file info format. That's all I'm going to be doing for this nomination. ZZZ'S 16:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sweet thanks for fixing that too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • Comment: Just a drive-by, but I could not tell from the lead paragraph whether it briefly attained the record strength and held the record permanently, or whether it attained the record strength for its duration and held the record only briefly (or possibly both). An alternate option might be "...tropical cyclone that briefly became held the record for the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever to form before August"? Mrfoogles (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EG

[edit]

I might be able to leave a few comments later. Feel free to ping me if I haven't left any comments by Friday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
  • Para 1: "Six days later, Dennis's record intensity was surpassed by Hurricane Emily." - This sentence seems like an outlier, given that the previous and next sentences both talk about Dennis. Should this be moved to the end of the paragraph and slightly reworded?
  • I moved the bit about Emily to the end of the paragraph, changing it to ""While Dennis was still active as a tropical cyclone, it lost its status as the strongest hurricane before August to Hurricane Emily, which also moved through the Caribbean." What do you think? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "However, the storm only killed one person in Jamaica but resulted in over $34.5 million in damages." - To me, it sounds somewhat awkward to start a sentence with "However" and then also use the word "but" in the middle of the sentence. I would cut "however", since the word "only" already emphasizes the low death toll.
  • Para 2: "Its agricultural industry was also affected" - Granma Province's, or Cuba's?
  • Para 3: "In neighboring Georgia, the storm killed one person due to drowning." - I'd personally go with something like "In neighboring Georgia, one person drowned due to the storm".
  • Para 3: "Dennis spawned ten tornadoes in the United States, all of them weak." - Could this be reworded to just "Dennis spawned ten weak tornadoes in the United States", or is there a reason for this specific wording?
  • Para 4: "Dennis's passage led to the retirement of its name due to its effects" - Similarly, I'd say something like "Due to the extensive damage, the name "Dennis" was retired". "Effects" is vague; "extensive damage" is more clear.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback so far, Epicgenius (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'll have some more feedback tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Due to work and a concert that I was excited about, I forgot about this. I'll resume my review below.
Meteorological history:
  • Para 1: "It later emerged over the Atlantic Ocean on June 29 and moved quickly to the west" - I might be missing something, but did it disappear and re-emerge, or did it travel over Africa for three days?
  • Para 1: "It then subsequently traversed" - The words "then" and "subsequently" are redundant to each other in this context.
  • Para 2: The second paragraph contains several "howevers", which distracts from what is otherwise a well-written paragraph. I would consider replacing or removing some of them.
Caribbean:
  • Para 1: Is "centre national de météorologie" all-lowercase in its original language?
  • Para 4: "About 140,000 people were mobilizing to assist in preparations, including about 1,600 civil defense units" - Should this be "About 140,000 people mobilized"?
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I totally get that, thanks Gog the Mild (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 by Paleface Jack

[edit]

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]
Sorry, I forgot to reply to your comment on the DEvelopment and Writing sub sections. Typically on films this would be the other way around, but in this case the development section can't happen without the writing section since all the writing happened first as an independent script rather than as part of a planned project. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me, if you are having trouble with information on some sections, there are behind the scenes videos that you could possibly include if you are still having problems. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not having any trouble with sections, it was just the Thematic Analysis section was fairly brief because noone really discussed the first film, they focus on the later ones which have a great deal more lore around the High Table and the assassins. But I've rectified that now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:21, 26 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]
Support I never had any issue with the article to begin with: DWB writes some of the best articles on WP. But I do agree the analysis section in particular looks better this time around. My only critique would be that the picture of Ian McShane in reception (as of this revision), does not appear relevant to the section itself (compared to the image of Lance Reddick in analysis). I'd advise making the McShane caption more relevant to the section or remove it. Other than that I support. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zmbro, fixed the caption, the image was there since he was singled out by a few critics but I too felt the caption made it look like a weak addition. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a well-done article; I like the organization of the meta and reception of the movie. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really good read, thoroughly enjoyed it and happy to support. Lankyant (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Draken Bowser

[edit]

It was very interesting to read the analysis on the memetic mythologization of Mr. Reeves, having grown up on the internet and watched the process first hand. This looks like a quality piece, so I'll just leave a few short comments:

  • Baba Yaga - is this a personal nick-name invoking the old slavic legend? If so we might want to surround it with quotation marks.
  • experienced actor rather than an elderly one. - considering we've just mentioned Eastwood and Ford the contrast doesn't fully make sense. Sure, they're old, but also experienced.
  • Variety praised the idea for targeting the same male audience as John Wick without the cost of making a full game based on it. - maybe I'm overly sensitive, but could we rephrase their analysis of the merits of this marketing campaign to not use the word "praised"?
  • There seems to be some confusion on the internet about Ballerina being John Wick 5. Should we clarify also, if that is indeed still true, that 5 hasn't begun filming as of 2024?

And with that, I'm all out of ideas. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Draken Bowser, good notes, this is how I found out there is a planned spin off starring Donnie Yen. I've made the changes you've suggested. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • Typical fair-use cover art, no worries there.
  • All other photos are appropriate CC licenses.

The photos in "multiple image" templates don't have alt-text, although that is not an FA requirement, it'd just be nice to have. The photos all seem relevant to the film. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Generalissima, I think the alt text may be a technical issue as they do have alt text included per the template for Template:Multiple image, but it doesn't show for me on Microsoft Edge when hovering over the image. The images under the Production section had "alt_fotter" but I've added individual alt text as well. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh interesting! Scratch that then. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

It doesn't seem like the sourcing notably changed from the review I gave this article last year. There are a bunch of naked URLs though that need fixing. Is a spotcheck needed? My usual caveat about this not being a topic I know well applies, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know a few bare links had snuck in but I've sorted them, thanks for spotting. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TompaDompa

[edit]

In the interest of not making it necessary to read through the entire article, I'll re-ask the question asked by AirshipJungleman29 in the second nomination: Can you give specific examples of how you have addressed the issues I raised in the first nomination? TompaDompa (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The context section was removed, the article was copyedited for tone, effort was made to remove as many quotes as possible and turn the content into prose, the thematic analysis section has expanded by about three times, and the commentary on best action film lists was reduced down to the mildest and vaguest of mentions despite the support of its inclusion by other editors. There have been a lot of changes, but these areas seemed to be the biggest bugbears for you last time around.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging TompaDompa Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at parts of the article, and it looks much better than it did the first time around. I unfortunately do not anticipate finding the time to give this a full review, but I will state for the record that my oppose from the first nomination should be treated as being out of date. TompaDompa (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

[edit]

I'll take a look today and tomorrow, looks like the article's improved a lot since I last reviewed it JOEBRO64 13:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is personal preference and you're free to ignore this, but you're using false titles—for instance, writing "Producer Basil Iwanyk" instead of "The producer Basil Iwanyk". This is discouraged by some style guides and the WP:FALSETITLE essay makes a decent argument that it should be avoided on Wikipedia as we're an encyclopedia rather than a news source. Again, up to you—just some food for thought!
  • the inspiration for which came from two 'terrible revenge movies' he had watched Any information out there on which films in question he was referring to?
  • I'd try to ensure you're using the active voice as much as possible, like in the reception section. Example: The directors' decades of experience in stunt work was seen as a major benefit to the action sequences → Reviewers saw the directors' decades of experience in stunt work as a major benefit to the action sequences
  • I don't think you really need subsections in the Legacy section; it's just four paragraphs and I think the first paragraph actually leads into the second one nicely
  • Some of the refbundles are a little confusing, to highlight two instances in particular that stand out to me:
    • The third paragraph of the critical response section has four sentences (beginning with "Reviews commended the fluidity...") with a lot of generalizations about specific aspects that critics praised, all cited to a single refbundle with a whopping 13 references. It's hard to tell who's being cited for what. I'd go through the references, pick which ones support which statements, and add those to the end of the statements, incorporating them in refbundles if it's necessary.
    • In legacy, you quote Rolling Stone calling John Wick "The Last Great American Action-Movie Franchise", but rather than directly citing the article, I have to open the refbundle and hover over multiple references to find it.
I would go through all of the refbundles in the article to make sure there isn't anything else like these.
  • This is optional and not going to affect my support, but going off the previous point, I think it'd be useful if you identified the references in text in the refbundles. I've been recommended this at my previous FACs and I think it both aids in navigation and makes it a lot easier to identify precisely what's being referenced. (Examples: Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts#Notes, Donkey Kong Land#Notes)
  • Spotchecked statements attributed to references 70, 75, 100, 134, and 166. All backed up the statements I checked.

That's my 2p. Good article. JOEBRO64 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheJoebro64, I have done all of these except: No, there is no information on what terrible revenge movies he saw; and your second to last point. I may do that in the future if it won't hold up a support, tbh I've been working on this for so long I kinda want to move on from it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TheJoebro64, how is ths looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. nice work. JOEBRO64 18:56, 7 November 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:

  • Why do we not have the casualties and losses in the infobox when we do have them in the lead and body? Also, are the strengths of the units before the battle known?
    • I haven't seen a good estimate of Union strength at the battle in any of the sources I have consulted for this. I don't know how relevant it is to post casualties when there's no strengths listed in the infobox for proportionality comparisons and the Confederate loss records are so incomplete. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fewer than 300 Union soldiers became casualties": Sounds a little odd, consider rephrasing to "The Union army suffered less than 300 casualties"?
  • "capture" of New Orleans, Louisiana: Link "capture" to "Capture of New Orleans"?
  • Consider linking to field of fire?
  • "Osterhaus replaced by": "Osterhaus was replaced by"?
  • Might we consider adding the DOI and JSTOR ID for Smith 2024?
    It isn't yet for non-hard sciences articles but I think it should be. JSTOR IDs and DOIs allow direct access to the source if you're logged in through The Wikipedia Library. ISBNs on the other hand are relatively tougher to access. Matarisvan (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this book on JSTOR? I thought JSTOR was more for journal articles. I tried to bring up the Wikipedia Library JSTOR but my internet connection is not great at the moment and I couldn't get the library to load properly. My understanding is that doi's are used to point to online documents - would this be helpful for a print hardcopy book? Hog Farm Talk 01:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is not a deal breaker at all. Adding my support. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Smith 2013, is the first editor Stephen Woodworth or Steven Woodworth? Google Books lists the latter. Guess this is a passing error.

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]

UC

[edit]

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]

I think I've caught all of these. Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made two small edits on GNL, but otherwise have no further concerns. As ever, the article is thorough, detailed, accessible and scholarly, and in my view meets the FA criteria soundly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • During the retreat from Champion Hill: I struggled to get my head around the movements here -- I think I was hampered by ignorance of the directions involved. Do I understand it right that Pemberton and co were retreating westwards, that the main body of the force had crossed the BBR, and that he told a small force to wait behind so that any Union advance wouldn't cut off the opportunity for Loring's division to do likewise?
    • I've tried to clarify this a bit - Loring was cut off during the retreat from the Champion Hill field (trying to cross a creek, but not really detail for the lead of this article), and I've noted later in that Pemberton was falling back westwards when he held the BBR bridgehead. Is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • an old meander scar: is there such thing as a new meander scar? By their very nature, they have to have a certain antiquity.
  • The collapse of this portion of the Confederate line forced the troops on either side to withdraw: possibly ambiguous, grammatically if not by common sense, as to whether we mean "the rest of the Confederate troops" or "both the Union and the Confederates".
  • On May 18, the Union army crossed the Big Black River. The surviving Confederate soldiers entered the fortifications at Vicksburg: does this include Loring's troops?
  • the Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, which was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America.: I think we generally take as read that military planners seek to defeat their enemies: perhaps add "by blockading it" or something to clarify the anaconda-ness of this particular plan?
  • a joint army-navy: MOS:DASH wants an endash in this and similar.
  • An attempt to cut Williams's Canal: I wonder whether cut might be misread as "interdict" rather than "build"?
  • In late November, about 40,000 Union infantry commanded by Major General Ulysses S. Grant began moving south towards Vicksburg from a starting point in Tennessee.: any idea roughly how far this was?
  • and was spearheaded by Major General John A. McClernand's XIII Corps troops: troops seems superfluous, unless we mean that it wasn't all of them, in which case I think we need elements of Major General John A. McLernand's XIII Corps or similar.
  • Any reason why the Vicksburg campaign map is left aligned? MOS:ACCESSIBILITY advises right, for a consistent left margin, unless there's a good reason to vary.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • the lead elements of Grant's army, McClernand's corps, crossed the river at Bruinsburg, Mississippi.: two comma-ed off phrases are a bit awkward. Suggest "McLernand's corps, which formed the lead element of Grant's army, crossed...", or else putting dashes around "McClernand's corps" instead of commas.
  • Why doesn't David Dixon Porter get a rank -- almost everyone else seems to?
  • McClernand advanced on the Union left with his corps, Sherman and the XV Corps in the center,: whose corps is this? Looks like McClernand's troops are in two places at once.
  • Pemberton decided that Johnston's orders were not compatible with previous directives that he had received from the Confederate president.: any idea what those directives were (and, incidentally, should we name that president?)
  • forgone utilizing is a tautology: simply forgone. What had Grant done instead?
  • towards Edwards: suggest the town of Edwards; it reads like a person's name here.
  • To the south lay Gin Lake, the Confederate right flank was at the lake with the line running north to the Big Black River: first comma needs to be a colon or semicolon, or a full stop. Personally, I'd favour the first.
  • I know they're comparatively junior, but should we name the commander of the 4th Mississippi Infantry Regiment, as we have for other formations deemed important enough to name-check?
    • Even Bearss' magnificent trilogy, perhaps the most detailed work ever published on this campaign, only mentions the commander of the 4th Mississippi's name at BBR in an order of battle that lists all regimental commanders in the action, so I don't think this would be due detail. I've generally been mentioning the regimental commanders' names when the sources do. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as Carter L. Stevenson's division: for consistency, would give his rank.
    • Added, although it's a bit annoying as I've had to add an isolated page number from the beginning of the source to support that Stevenson was a Major General
  • the East Tennessee region, which was loyal to the Union: would rephrase was loyal to the Union, which most naturally reads as "which had not seceded" rather than "in which most people supported the Union, despite it being part of the Confederacy"
    • Is "heavily pro-Union" better? I'd had "disloyal to the Confederacy", but someone had objected to that phrasing at the A-Class review on the grounds that the Confederacy itself was disloyal. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but you might want to make absolutely that it was the population rather than the government of the region to which this applied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have clarified this further. Hog Farm Talk 21:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they were fresh their loyalty to the Confederacy was uncertain: comma needed after fresh, and I would change while to although to remove ambiguity (were they more dependable when they were exhausted?).
  • Bowen's division was the elite unit of Pemberton's army, but they were exhausted after hard fighting at Port Gibson and Champion Hill and had suffered nearly 1,000 casualties in the latter battle: I think we need a sense of how big this division was to begin with to put that number into context.
  • held the southern portion of the Confederate line and the area where the Jackson Road crossed the line: crossed it?
  • Lindsey advanced his brigade along the railroad 300 yards (270 m),: might be a BrE thing, but don't you normally give the distance before the direction: 100 miles to the north?
  • This advance was accomplished without significant casualties: might consider adjusting significant to many or similar: do we mean "few people died" or "nobody important died"? As a frequent flier around here would ask: what did they signify?
  • In the 1st Missouri Cavalry (dismounted): I would rewrite the bracketed word as a clause: "which was employed as dismounted infantry"? At the moment, it seems like (dismounted) is part of the name. If it is part of the name, shouldn't it be capitalised?
    Strange, but you're right to follow the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90 men and the unit's commander, Colonel Elijah Gates, were captured: my overarching point on "men" notwithstanding, here we've implied that Gates was a woman.
  • Two other Confederate steamboats, Charm and Paul Jones, who had been located downstream from the bridge were also burned: I don't think we use who for ships, even if we're going for she.
    I think so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 4th Mississippi, one of Vaughn's regiments, and Cockrell's brigade: could this be reworked: it's currently a bit unclear whether we're talking about two units or three.
  • not report losses: does this mean that they reported that they had suffered none, or that they made no report as to their losses?
  • Should Fred Grant be named as Frederick? We wouldn't talk about Abe Lincoln or Ike Eisenhower in a formal context.
    • I think using "Fred" is appropriate per the sources. See Ballard, pp. 316-317 Fred Grant, the general's twelve-year-old son, strayed too near the river and received a slight wound in the leg. Fred insisted he "had been killed", but he recovered quickly enough his reassured father showed little concern. Smith 2024 p. 367 Fred's enthusiasm was quickly dampened when a Confederate sharpshooter hit him in the leg. Also, I've found and corrected some pretty blatant errors in Fred/Frederick's article as a result of this. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant launched significant attacks on May 19 and 22.: another significant where I think we need to distinguish big from important.
    I think it would be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking the West Point Atlas map further up as external media? It looks, to me at least, much clearer than the PD map we already have.

That's my lot for now: mostly nit-picks, as ever, but I hope some of them are helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: - Thanks for a very detailed review! I've replied above; this led to me finding and correcting issues in the David Dixon Porter and Frederick Dent Grant articles. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]

I can do a source review here Eddie891 Talk Work 21:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sources all seem high quality and reliable. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming there's nothing worth adding from the Further reading? I checked a newspaperarchive to see if there was anything super relevant about preservation of the battlefield but didn't find anything. Hoping to head to the library tomorrow just to confirm that there aren't any relevant books missing. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I own a copy of the Fullenkamp further reading source. Those battlefield guides are usually just primary source quotations and then some description about how what you have just read from the participants' writings relates to the stop at the battlefield that you are currently at. I will check tonight after work to make sure there isn't anything useful to add though. I've looked at Grant's Lieutenants (don't remember where; I don't have a copy) before and didn't think it looked useful - it's just biographies of various officers Grant interacted with. I'll try to verify that that isn't going to be useful either, though. Hog Farm Talk 20:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just spot-checked some of the citations to Woodworth, Ballard, Smith 2013, Shea and Winschel, and every citation lined up how it should. This makes me very happy :) Eddie891 Talk Work 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I've looked at Schultz The Most Glorious Fourth and Groom Vicksburg, 1863 (which, after skimming, are less academic than I had anticipated), and neither had anything really to offer, and I'm reasonably satisfied that this is a sufficiently comprehensive account. Source review - Pass Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 25 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)"
    • I see why that might be seen as desirable (and thanks for the template magic!) but it interrupts the sentence flow without clarifying anything that is likely to be misunderstood so I'd rather not unless it's a dealbreaker.
      • I'd rather it this way because 7-metre-tall is a compound adjective, so it shouldn't be separated, and this seems to be the specific situation where adj=mid should be used in Template:Convert.
  • "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.
    • Surrey done. I don't think Somerset or Berkshire are directly relevant enough to require links in such quick succession to the war memorials (which are linked) located in those counties.
  • "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]
    @HJ Mitchell: I still think this should be changed so that the lead is consistent with the body. The lead could be changed to say "Lutyens built his early reputation on designing country houses. His connection with Busbridge began in the 1880s when he partnered with Gertrude Jekyll, a local artist and gardener who lived at nearby Munstead Wood." This then does not imply something that the body does not. Steelkamp (talk) 03:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Steelkamp Sorry to keep you waiting. I've made just about all the suggested changes except where I've commented above. Happy to chat if there's anything else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 21 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]

Supporting; not much to complain about here. Hog Farm Talk 01:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support 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]

@Tim riley, @Hog Farm Apologies for the delay. I think I've addressed all your comments. Please let me know if not! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced by his designing a-sister-in-law nor what is lozenge-shaped. Tim riley talk 22:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley I've worded the sister-in-law; open to further wordsmithing. We share an understanding of what a lozenge is, but I assure you the memorial is lonzenge-shaped. Possibly slightly squat but it has four roughly diagonal sides. It's more evident towards the top because of the tapering. The photos we have on Commons (including some of mine) don't do it justice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK – that will do me fine on both points. Very pleased to add my support for this top-notch article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Rather sad if this is the last of Harry's articles on war memorials we'll be seeing here. Tim riley talk 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. It's probably the last Lutyens (unless I do some of the memorials abroad) but it won't be the last war memorial. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Tim riley talk 22:18, 28 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).
    • I don't think it's inaccurate. It's a bit of an oversimplification, but for the sake of concision in the lead.
  • 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).
    • It's not a misrepresentation to say that a pair exists when three pairs exist; the others are of limited relevance to the war memorial. Nonetheless, I've added in a note to be clear.
  • 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?
    • I was never very happy with this form of words but I can't come up with anything better and even that half a sentence is getting away from the subject at hand so I've culled it.
  • 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]

Hi Harry. Just a reminder that there are still comments to address above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding some supplementary comments to make my position clearer: (1) The Earl of Shannon comment is tangential (no sources talk about any of those the memorial commemorates as far as I can see), so please disregard this. (2) The sentence in the lead about Munstead Wood would be better if it stopped at the word "London". The origin of the name of the London Cenotaph is not needed in the lead of this article. (3) More relevant is the military service of the rector at the unveiling (for one of the clergy dedicating a local war memorial to have been a military chaplain serving in the war, and with direct experience, may have been relatively rare, it certainly adds context): The Rector, Rev. Larner, served as British Civil Chaplain in Calais from 1915-1916 and as chaplain to the forces in France and Belgium 1917-18. Full name and roles: "Rev Capt. Henry Meredith Larner" (c.1866-1950). It seems his appointment for the period 1917 to 1918 was temporary: see ACAD entry. Carcharoth (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I see that the Larner military connection is already there! I somehow missed that... The point I am trying to make (a bit clumsily) is that the military and war service aspects are not in the lead, while Munstead Wood is mentioned twice. Lutyens is mentioned in the lead seven times. The lead feels at times more like a paean to Lutyens, rather than a summary of the purpose and history of this war memorial. I would personally add the number of FWW names in the church (42) to the lead, add the name of Nicholson, maybe add the name of McLaren, and say more about the unveiling (e.g. that buglers from the Grenadier Guards were there, which is actually really fascinating - they were likely there because some of the men commemorated were from the Grenadier Guards, not, again, that anyone will have written about that - at least not yet). It is very likely, IMO, that the Grenadier Guard buglers were there, in part, because Lieutenant-Colonel L R Fisher-Rowe was among those being commemorated. It is awkward, because the point of such memorials is to commemorate all equally, so mentioning individual names in the Wikipedia article about the memorial feels wrong (but many of our articles on war memorials do just this, listing the 'famous' people named on the memorial or whom the memorial is intended for). There is a listing of names here and I am glad I looked at that because it turns out that a second person that this memorial commemorates has a Wikipedia article, namely Harry Pennell. And FWIW, you can see here an artwork of Sir Edward George Jenkinson one of the bereaved (his son John Jenkinson is commemorated here). Sir Edward would not have been in the crowd at the unveiling (he died in 1919), but you get the idea (e.g. Charles Hodson, Baron Hodson was the younger brother of Hubert Bernard Hodson (one of those named here), and one of the sisters of the Hodsons was Catherine Mary Maskew Hodson who was the wife of Harry Pennell - it appears that like McLaren, Pennell appears on this memorial because of having married into a local family). I do think mentioning Pennell can be justified (it is the sort of thing that would be of interest to those reading the article), and maybe even mentioning Fisher-Rowe (e.g. from this Western Front Association article, Fisher-Rowe features as one of "nine Lieutenant Colonels [...] killed during the course of the battle" (the Battle of Neuve Chapelle) because of the Grenadier Guards connection. What you really want is a source saying why the Grenadier Guards buglers were there, but that doesn't seem to exist. It is also worth making the point (as some readers will assume that all those named died abroad) that three of those named are buried in the churchyard where this memorial is erected: McLaren, W. T. Knight, and Robert John Potter. We have photos available of all three headstones: 1, 2, 3). What I am trying to get at is that a reader stood in front of the war memorial, in the same churchyard, and reading this Wikipedia article would want to be told this, so they have the additional context - possibly in a footnote if you think it would disturb the flow of the main article. I do get the argument that for this wider context, the article on the church itself would be a better location for text and photos relating to this, but war graves and war memorial content feels more appropriate here in this article. In essence, I am questioning why there is so much content relating to Lutyens, Jekyll and Munstead Wood, compared to text about the purpose of the memorial and its place in the wider memorial landscape. I do think, given the 'group value' that includes the church itself, you could include more on the FWW graves and the memorial windows. I have gone on a bit (sorry). Will stop there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Edited to add bit more. Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
In a nutshell, there's so much about Lutyens because that's why this memorial is notable. It's why it's grade ii* listed and has a detailed list entry and why the majority of the source material is about Lutyens (four of the books are biographies of Lutyens, two discuss it in passing, and Pevsner only mentions it in relation to Lutyens's other works). Here's a fairly random example of a churchyard war memorial by an unknown architect. If Busbridge had been designed by an unknown/local architect, it probably wouldn't even be notable, much less a viable FA candidate. It doesn't even merit a mention in any of the books I have on British memorials generally, even Borg and Boorman who discuss hundreds of them including some fairly obscure ones. So I will definitely look at some of your suggested inclusions but the nutshell if the nutshell is that the article reflects the source material as it is, not as we wish it would be. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very fair summary of why this article (as you acknowledged in the nomination) is on the edge of what is possible for a featured article. Some might argue that this is better done as a series of well-referenced list entries. Indeed, I did try and look at the other 15 Lutyens 'War Crosses' (you use the phrase "one of 15 crosses Lutyens designed") that are presumably in List of works by Edwin Lutyens (which you have as a 'See also' in this article), but it is surprisingly difficult to identify which the 15 'war crosses' are from that list... My wider point was more that when writing about war memorials like this, as well as the general "why we care about Lutyens and his war memorials" spiel (which those reading your series of articles will be very familiar with by now), what occurred to me was that what is really needed is something explaining why we care (and still care) about war memorials (or more specifically, what it was about local war memorials in Britain)? You do cover this with your line "In the aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918) and its unprecedented casualties, thousands of war memorials were built across Britain." and the line "an eloquent witness to the tragic impacts of world events on this community". But then you don't say anything about the diverse range of types within those thousands of memorials, and who erected them. The real context only comes when you read an article such as World War I memorials. There are lines from that article and its references that (suitably rewritten) would really enhance this article (and others like it):

"In Britain and Australia, local community leaders were expected to organise local committees to create war memorials. Britain had a strong tradition of local government, and mayors, council chairmen or similar leaders would usually step forward to establish a memorial committee."

What you don't explicitly state anywhere in the article is that the origin of this memorial was supported by the church who provided the land on which it was erected. It was not erected in a public space such as the village green, but within the consecrated environment of the churchyard (in some villages, this would have caused problems relating to different Christian denominations, but clearly that issue was overcome here, or not a factor). And in mentioning the location within the churchyard you can mention the other memorials within the church's space (the three FWW graves and the memorial windows and so on). That it was part of an explicit scheme driven by the church. This makes it different from Mells War Memorial (on a public road) and Wargrave War Memorial (on a donated piece of land on the village green). This is a key point of difference which is not emphasised enough, nor referred to explicitly, in the current article. The other point of difference is that this is not a regimental memorial, or a workplace memorial, or a county memorial, it is a local (parish) memorial. You also need something in the lead explicitly stating that the memorial was to the dead of this village, as currently the phrase "the colonel of the local regiment" means people might think this is a regimental memorial. It is nice that a photo of the unveiling is here - probably not possible to obtain a freely licensed version of that, sadly. Maybe that page can be an external link? BTW, you mentioned Borg (1988) and Boorman (1991), and I know you use more recent sources, but so much has been written in the last 20 years. Is there nothing you have that would help the reader get a sense for what memorials like this meant to the communities that erected them? A general line that following their erection, such memorials became the centre of subsequent commemoration, whether personal or in the form of community events such as Armistice Day silences and services? On the unveiling itself, does the newspaper article you cite (from The Surrey Advertiser) explicitly say that the crowd included the families of the fallen soldiers? Do you leave that unsaid because it is so obvious, or because no sources explicitly state it? Carcharoth (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SC

Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose following my PR checks and the additional work done since. The only query I would have on a further readthrough is that you link First World War, but not Second World War; is that a deliberate choice? - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Why is NHLE linked every time but Historic England not?
  • Ranges should use endashes, including in titles
Hi Nikki, many thanks for taking a(nother!) look. The bibliography was supposed to be alphabetical but I put a later addition in the wrong place, now fixed! Dash also fixed. The NHLE citations are produced by {{NHLE}}; apparently there's a "fewer links" option but that's actually "no links". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

A high-class article which I can support off the bat. Just a couple of comments:

  • Maybe just note the dates of WWI at its first mention in the body?
    • Done for now but there's potential confusion with the dates on the memorial.
  • Do we know who commissioned this particular memorial?
    • Unfortunately we know very little about how it came to be. These things were often not recorded in small villages or the recirds have been lost.
  • I would switch the ordering of the second and third paragraphs of the "History" section, because the discussion of what the different "listing" classifications mean in the current third paragraph will reveal more about the actual listings in the current second.
  • If the Abinger Common memorial is of similar design and nearby, maybe it's worth mentioning in the body?

Otherwise, very nice and moving work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still working on this. Two quick replies to Airship above. I'll be back but it might be Sunday. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:09, 6 November 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]

SC prose

[edit]

12 days and no visitors?? I'll start the ball rolling shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of History. More to come. Overall, an enjoyable read, with not much for me to pick up on. - SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • I fixed this yesterday when I was addressing your first point.
Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bank of New York": as you refer to BNY shortly afterwards, this should be "Bank of New York (BNY)"
  • "BNY Mellon opened a museum on the 10th floor in 1998": I though the BNY/Mellon merger and renaming was in 2006 or 07? I'd be inclined to keep the name as "BNY" for all references pre-merge, then move to "BNY Mellon" post merge (with a passing reference to the name change)
  • "Additionally, in 2007,": I don't think the "additionally" adds anything here – it makes it look like a forgotten add-on.

That's my lot. A long, but interesting read that I enjoyed going through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review @SC. I've addressed the rest of your issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

I'll pick up on this too. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check the capitalisation on the titles – there are some lower case in there that need to be capitalised (FNs 12, 63 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
  • Ditto there are some caps that should be lower case (FNs 8, 34,43, 97 are the ones in the first column that caught my eye, but these are examples only and there are probably more)
  • FN24 " Skyscraper Style :" Rogue space before the colon
  • Wider searches show no major sources overlooked, and the coverage seems to be adequate for FAC requirements

- SchroCat (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review SC. I'll fix the ref titles on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed all the remaining titles now. The tool I was using didn't consistently capitalize or lowercase some conjunctions, so I changed these manually. Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SchroCat, how is the source review looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - this dropped off my watchlist. Passed the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

[edit]

Prose review by Generalissima

[edit]

Very solid piece. I went through and fixed some out of order cites, and wasn't able to find anything errant or out of place - so support from me. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

  • "1 Wall Street (also known as the Irving Trust Company Building, the Bank of New York Building, and the BNY Mellon Building) is a primarily residential skyscraper at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City, New York, U.S. " - that's a lot for the first sentence. I get including the other names, but I think the "primarily residential" part could be mentioned later, since so much of the first sentence already talks about the business names for the building. Maybe also simplify the location? The existing featured article, 23 Wall Street, has it as such:
"23 Wall Street (also known as the J.P. Morgan Building) is a four-story office building in the Financial District of Manhattan in New York City, at the southeast corner of Wall Street and Broad Street. "
I have reworded this bit, moving the exact location into the second paragraph of the lead. (The previous location was imprecise. It wasn't just at the intersection of Broadway and Wall Street, it occupies a full city block, and these streets are only two of the four streets that surround the block.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the lower stories are narrow windows with mullions" - this sort of sentence might be difficult to understand to a non-English reader. "Windows" is the subject of the sentence, but here "On the lower stories are" is how the sentence begins.
  • "The original portion of the building and its Red Room are designated city landmarks, and the structure is a contributing property to the Wall Street Historic District, a National Register of Historic Places district." - this seems like an afterthought, but perhaps add the year it became designated as landmarks? That would contrast better with it being ignored.
  • "There are also five basement levels under the original structure, three of which were below sea level." - small point, but are/were those basement levels still below sea level? The past tense "were below sea level" just seems striking compared to most of the article being in present tense.
  • "The top stories of the annex (completed in the 2020s)" - we're in the 2020s, but people in the future might read that and think plausibly that the event might not happen for another five years (2029). When were the top stories completed?
  • You might want to indicate somewhere that all currency figures are in the original year's USD, like in a note or something. I noticed one spot where you don't indicate the year - "which added $40,000 to the construction cost"
  • "An air-conditioning system was installed at 1 Wall Street in 1953."
  • "at which point it was 85% occupied" - minor point, but the rest of the article says the word "percent"
  • "A new entrance was also constructed on Broadway, with a design based on one of Walker's unrealized plans for the building,[43] and five stories were added to the southern annex." - the last part feels like an add-on, but five additional stories sounds a lot more significant than a new entrance. Unless I'm reading something wrong here.
  • Any more news/history since May? I did a Google news search and didn't find anything, but felt it worth asking.

All in all, a great read. Lemme know if you have questions about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback @Hurricanehink. I'll respond to these comments over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments. I think I have now addressed all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick replies! Good job on this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, I appreciate it. Also, I just noticed that you linked your FAC above - I didn't notice it before but can definitely take a look over the next few weeks. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PMC

[edit]

I'm shocked to see you writing about another building in New York. Comments within the week :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review, @PMC. Take as much time as you need ;) – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I lied, but eight days is pretty close :P

Lead & Site
  • I've got 27 instances of "contain" on a ctrl+F (well, 26, I removed one just now)
  • "A 36-story annex to the south was designed by successor firm Voorhees, Walker, Smith, Smith & Haines and built between 1963 and 1965." having now read a little further into Architecture, this isn't quite correct - it was 28 stories when they built it. The expansion to 36 was only in 2019.
  • "The facade, made of limestone" - could simplify to "The limestone facade", but only a mild suggestion
  • Para 2 in the lead is almost entirely sentences like "The X has Y. The Z has X and Y. The Thing has Thing." the prose could stand to be livened up a little, if possible
  • "After 1 Wall Street's residential conversion" - this comes before the actual mention of the residential conversion in para 3, making it a bit confusing. Also, "After...have contained" is grammatically off. Could probably solve both issues at once with something like "In 2023, the upper stories were renovated into 566 condominium apartments."
  • Harry Macklowe - who?
  • "despite initially remaining ignored" - by whom? Until when? What changed?
    • Basically, mid-20th-century architectural critics largely ignored the building, but it did receive some commentary in a few sources from 1975, 1987, and 2001. Honestly, I don't know the reason for this. Epicgenius (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last 3 sentences of para 2 for Site feel out of order. I might revise to something like "Under municipal law...revert to the government of New York City. When 1 Wall Street was built, its main occupant Irving Trust embedded small metal plaques to delineate the boundaries of its lot to preclude such a seizure." This also removes a touch of redundancy
Architecture
Architecture - Form & facade through Features
Architecture - Red Room and lobby to end
  • Hildreth Meière - who?
  • "as a reception room" for the bank I'm assuming?
  • "In addition, " not sure this is doing much here
  • The measurements might fit better in para 2, which seems to focus more on physical details like shape; para 1 is all about how it was designed and what for
  • "Although the building..." the "although" makes it seem like this was done reluctantly despite the crash, while the cited source says it was done "Because of the collapse" in order to make themselves look successful
    • From reading the sources, I was under the impression that the crash would have restricted the bank's ability to use ornate materials. However, I think you're right about this. I've switched around the sentences. Epicgenius (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feels odd to go from the color scheme of the mosaics, to lightened tiles, and back to color scheme with the gold abstract bits
  • "The remainders of the walls" probably should be "rest of the walls" instead, but if you want to keep remainder, it should be singular I think
  • "The ceiling had an allegorical painting" I thought the ceiling had mosaics. Was the painting tiled over, making this correctly past tense? Or is there something else going on
  • "After 1 Wall Street's residential conversion, there have been" - "after" doesn't work with "have been". You could sub since for after and keep "have been", or keep after and sub "were" for "have been"
  • "are designed" should be past
  • "Other apartments included model units" it's not entirely clear what this means
  • "There are also amenities" - this reads oddly because we're going from discussing individual units straight to general amenities. I would revise to something like "Amenities for residents include..." or similar. That would have the bonus of making the following sentence ("The building also contains...") feel less repetitive
  • Is One Works separate from the "communal spaces with kitchens, phone booths, AV equipment, and printers"?
  • Entire section about the vault is past tense, implying it's no longer there - any confirmation or details about its final disposition?
History
  • Basically no notes till "A 10-inch (250 mm) strip of land..." - what?? do we know why he leased this, or what kind of "structure" he built? So weird.
  • "founded in 1851, had merged with numerous other banks in preceding years" - possibly I'm just a beer in, but wording kind of implies that the bank merged in the years before being founded. Maybe "Since its founding in 1851, Irving Trust had merged..."?
  • "outgrown its offices in" did it have these offices in succession as it merged? Like it moved from A -> B -> C and finally into 1 Wall Street? Or was it one entity scattered through 3 buildings that then consolidated into 1 Wall St?
  • You could merge the sentence that starts "The initial plans..." with the subsequent sentence for less redundancy
  • "Walker and his associate ... Smith and Meière..." these two sentences about the Red Room are tacked on to the end of para 1 in Construction, but they feel more like Planning to me, since they're about the design process
  • "Timekeepers and auditors checked employees' attendance, as well as job runners..." Is this particularly unusual? Otherwise it just feels like details about routine stuff that could be omitted
  • Why does footnote [vi] not have a dollar sign?
  • "Fiduciary Trust Company of New York also moved" cut also; it implies that some other bank moved to the 30th floor as well before it
  • "Macklowe initially planned...and he planned" in same sentence
  • "In addition, the Red Room..." can ditch the "in addition"
  • "Five stories were added to the southern annex" if the annex was 28 stories when it was built, and no other stories were ever built, where does the final number of 36 come from? ;_; what is the truth Epic
  • "The Printemps store was to use the Red Room." - "was" makes it sound like it fell through, but it sounds like maybe it just hasn't happened yet?
Impact
  • I'm not entirely sure about the Clute quote, especially the second portion. I got a snippet view of the source and it doesn't really help with the context.
    • I interpreted the quote as saying that the facade was little more than a skin, rather than an integral part of the structural framework. Clute doesn't say this, but it's akin to draping a blanket over a box - the blanket doesn't hold up the walls of the box, it merely covers the box. Epicgenius (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was also praise for what Stern characterized as "Walker's only completed skyscraper"." this sentence is odd. It renders the praise in the passive voice (who praised it? when?) and also ties it to Stern's characterization in a way that I don't think fits, unless the praise is directly related to it being a completed skyscraper. Since all this stuff seems to be post-mid-century, I might say something like "The building began to be reappraised in the 1970s" or "Some later critics have praised the building".

That's all I have for now. I'll give it another look after changes and see how I fare. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll take a stab at these tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PMC, thanks for the comments. I've addressed the points you've raised so far. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:01, 8 November 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]

Review from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Support. As a musician familiar with this song, I figured I'd review it, due to having an FAC of my own.

  • She also said: "[Pat and I] both think that we were Latin in another life [...] [because] Latin rhythms often dominate our uptempo compositions". - seeing as previously Pat was introduced as Patrick Leonard, perhaps the name should be Patrick here for consistency, especially since it's in a bracket.Done
  • "In 2014, while working on her thirteenth studio album Rebel Heart (2015) with producer Diplo, Madonna recorded a dubplate of "La Isla Bonita" with new lyrics that referenced trio Major Lazer.[15] This version premiered in March 2015 on BBC Radio 1Xtra." - I had to look up what a dubplate is... seems like this version is for vinyl release, right? I think a lot more people are aware of vinyl records. Either way, it sounds like it's a new recorded version, correct? If so, are the new lyrics in the form of a new verse, or is it just new vocals? This part comes out of left field and I'm not sure what to make of it. Shouldn't the dubplate version also be included under "Track listing and formats"? Done I aditionally changed the mention to the Composition and Lyrics section
I didn't found any sources mentioning a release that merits being under the forementioned section, just YouTube and SoundCloud links.
Isn't digital release a format? It just seems odd this version of the song isn't included in this section. ♫ Hurricanehink (
It is not on itunes/spotify/amazon music; like I mentioned, it is only available on YouTube and soundcloud, and there are many links, and none from an official source.
Yea but Youtube and Soundcloud both cound as release format, don't they? Also, it seems like the remix version is available from the Madonna channel, which is considered the official Madonna channel on YouTube, having almost all of her stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The dubplate Diplo Remix is not included on neither Madonna or Diplo's official YouTube Channel.

talk) 21:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The song is set in the key of C♯ minor, with Madonna's voice spanning between G3 to C5." - because of the key signature, those notes should be G#3 and C#5. I appreciate you including this information, however. Done
  • Not a complaint, but I also really appreciated the balanced reviews of the song, plus its place in Latin music history in the US.
  • "and became the most requested video in the channel's history for a record-breaking 20 consecutive weeks." - was that for TRL? How did people request the video on MTV pre-internet? This was a bit before my time. That's how/what the source mentions, that it was the most requested. I tried looking for sources that specify how it was requested (my guess is that people usually phoned the channels) but didn't find any valid sources
  • "As of 2018, it is one of her most viewed music videos on YouTube." - what about 6 years later? Or I'm guessing you might not have an updated source, no biggie if that's the case.
  • "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours: Who's That Girl (1987), the Girlie Show (1993), Drowned World (2001), Confessions (2006), Sticky & Sweet (2008–2009), Rebel Heart (2015–2016), Madame X (2019–2020), and Celebration (2023–2024). On the first one, she wore a Spanish cabaret dress, and was joined by her backup singers Niki Haris, Donna De Lory, and Debra Parson. - just doing a random spotcheck here, but the references here are from 1987 and 1988, so how could those references cite the rest of the tours? Perhaps a source for the songs from Madonna's concert tours? Or otherwise a grouped citation? I could cite the tour's program, which mentions the vocalists; it does not, however, specify their participation on the performance
Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just checking back! I quite personally like how this section looks/is structured; lumping citations for each tour, I believe would causeemore notes than necessary.--Christian (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind how the section is structured, but there isn't a citation that proves "La Isla Bonita" has been included on eight of Madonna's concert tours. It's implied that the song's appearance is in refs 103 and 104, but that's not the case. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a great read, and I'm shocked no one else has commented yet! Let me know if you have any questions about these comments. Cheers - ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your great comments @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Few replies. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if how I've left it works @Hurricanehink:--Christian (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking how you're doing about my last few comments? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chrishm21 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hurricanehink:! Just got back home from a trip so I hadn't got the chance to log in. I have included the citations that mention the song's inclusion on the mentioned concert tours. Let me know'--Christian (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. I just fixed the one comment on my own, the one about linking Patrick Leonard, and changing the quote from [Pat and I] to [Patrick and I]. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

As per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC, please refrain from using graphics like {{done}} as they slow down the page load time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next five or six days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Madonna_-_La_Isla_Bonita.ogg needs a more substantial FUR, particularly purpose of use
Hi @Nikkimaria:! Thank you for your comments; both files are meant to showcase the mentioning of the San Pedro line, and Madonna's Flamenco dancer character from the video--Christian (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases the rationale should be elaborated in the FUR template on the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria:! Let me know if how I've mentioned on the image talk page is correct.--Christian (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow the change you've made on the second - is it replaceable, or is it necessary to illustrate what you've said it's illustrating? And I'm not seeing any changes on the first? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is is replaceable, but I mentioned why this particular screenshot was used. If it were to be replaced, it should first be discussed on the article's talk page. Same for the audio file; I explained the purpose on the section it's used. Let me if it works @Nikkimaria:! Christian (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Massachusetts Daily Collegian | It is a student-newspaper, and not sure if is enough reliable to use it.
Charts: West Germany (GfK) (weekly) vs West Germany (Official German Charts), you should use one only. Or GFK or Official German Charts to keep consistensy. The same goes to Iceland (RÚV) while in ref's parameter RÚV is italicized. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Let me know @Apoxyomenus Christian (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Article looks fine to me. Support nomination. Cheers --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:56, 6 November 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]

Source review 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]

Decided to go with a source review since I already read a bunch for the GAN. Sourcing is based on newspapers, academic journals, magazines, and publications by non-profits. No concerns about reliability of any of them. Formatting is consistent, organisation is clear.

Nitpicks:

  • Drosendahl is missing the website or publishing organization or what have you
  • Refs where the date is unavailable like Houser and Michelson 2 should use |date=n.d..
  • These 2 refs and Williams also don't have retrieval dates
  • Why is Michaelson 2 sfn'd as PCAD when we have an author name?

I did some spot checking at the GAN, which was all addressed, but I'll poke at a few more since I'm here.

  • Cottrell-Crawford & Heuser 2023 - text with refs to this source are supported by the source
  • Drosendahl 2016 - supports the building of the Des Moines library, which isn't in Shaping Seattle, so not redundant
    • Did the firm complete any other notable projects? The Shaping Seattle source doesn't mention any. If there aren't any, I think it might be somewhat redundant to say they went on to construct other projects - if the firm survived for 20 years, surely they were doing architectural work during that time.
  • PCAD/Michaelson 2 good
  • Mahmoud 2022 no issues here

No rush on responding, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Good call on the Drosendahl; fixed everything else too. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passes my source review. (I made a slight tweak to the Des Moines sentence, but feel free to revert if you don't like it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 23 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.)

    • Ultimately felt it was right to unlink it. Ty for looking that over! - G
  • 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.

    • Found a source. - G
  • 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.

  • I did my best to reword this section. - G
    • Hmm, is it accurate that Stokes resigned? I checked the sources on his page and they don't mention a resignation and simply say that he served 3 terms (1950, 52, 56). The main source cited here says "Stokes had decided to step down in 1954" but I would probably read that as an implicit "stepping down", i.e. simply not running again for that office, rather than straight-up resigning. If nothing else, the mood is about a decision, which implies that for McAdoo specifically, all he knew was that Stokes would at some point leave (whether it be a belated resignation or as a result of his term timing out).
  • 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]

    • I removed that part. - G

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.

  • Picked the hyphenated one. - G
  • 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.

    • Fixed. - G
  • 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.

    • Fixed. - G
  • 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.

    • I couldn't get that to flow right, but I made it more heavily implied that he moved. - G
  • 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.

    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • 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?

    • I couldn't find much on these. I think it's because his early career was highly publicized in architectural press, while by the time he was doing these big civic commissions he didn't really need the publicity to attract new clients. - G

Looks very solid overall, great work!

  • @SnowFire: Sorry that took a second! I think I got to everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. That said, I have two other comments that don't affect support status:
    • Why did you remove the "Personal life and political ventures" section header? I think it's kinda handy to have a section end on his death, and then clearly delineate the switch to a retrospective on the non-architectural, non-career parts of his life.
      • Accident, I switched it back. - G
    • I see that Gog the Mild suggested switching NAACP to its spelled out form, but I don't agree. MOS:ACRO1STUSE is a little unclear - it writes "If there is an article about the subject of an acronym (e.g. NATO), then other articles should use the same style (capitalisation and punctuation) as that main article" but then also in the next paragraph restricts acronym-only use to just to a short list of exceptions. I'm not 100% certain what the guideline is saying (the first sentence suggests honoring our article being at just "NAACP", the second for spelling it out) but the NAACP is clearly way closer to NATO IMO - they're known by the acronym 99.99% of the time in 2024, and even in the 1950s & 60s were generally known as just the NAACP. NATO isn't directly in the list, but I don't think there's anything unusual about using NATO unadorned either. I respect that you're getting conflicting advice here, but if Gog is right about the MOS, then I think the MOS should be updated - the old style of just "NAACP" is better and how sources would write it and how Wikipedia titles the article. SnowFire (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed the link I think you are being very North-American-centric. The majority of English-speaking readers will have no clue what a NAACP is. The MoS actually lists the - handful of - exceptions to the in full at first mention rule. Remember that this is an encyclopedia; the reason we are writing is to explain things to readers that they didn't know before. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true, but these non-North American readers won't have a clue what the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is, either. It is significantly more educational to learn the term they are actually known by and use, NAACP, then a vestigial name from the 1910s that they can't really change because it'd change the acronym. Readers can click a wikilink for more detail, if desired, just like all wikilinks to side mentions.
If we were really desperate to include more explanatory context for non-American readers, then "the NAACP, an African-American civil rights organization" would be more helpful, because I really cannot stress enough how vestigial their old name is. Colored was a neutral term in the 1910s but was dated by the 1960s and very dated now. There's a reason that it's not highlighted by the organization itself. SnowFire (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "A residence designed by McAdoo in Burien was declared the "Home of the Year" by the Seattle Times " — I've always believed and used in all my articles that if the title of a newspaper contains the word The, the, we shouldn't be omitting it. Same with " residence three times in her Seattle Times coverage"
  • "Benjamin Franklin McAdoo Jr. was born in Pasadena, California to" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • "He attended school at Pasadena High School " — repetition of school
  • "In 1940, he won second place" — I would have used the word achieved, but its totally upto you. Just a suggestion.
  • "with their newborn daughter to Portland, Oregon for McAdoo" — missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • I have made some table formatting errors ([5]) per MOS:DTAB. Please refer to it. Center align all the references.
  • Please check the formatting for sources. The Seattle Times should be italicizes in th sfn as well the sources.

Solid work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you very much! I implemented all of this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "was declared the "Home of the Year" by The Seattle Times in association with the American Institute of Architects." "Home of the Year" for Seattle, for Washington, or some other area?
    • Clarified. - G
  • "After designing a number of low-income houses and apartments throughout the 1950s, including eighty single-family houses in his "House of Merit" design". Having "design" twice in the clause, once as a verb and once as a noun, is a little confusing.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "he participated in the NAACP". MOS:ACRO1STUSE says "an acronym should be written out in full for the first time, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses ... if it is used again in the article".
See my comment elsewhere on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this has now been resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. - G
  • "Early life and education" The first sentence of this section should give a date of birth.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "McAdoo grew up in a ..." "McAdoo" → 'McAdoo Jr.'
    • Fixed. - G
  • "He then began work at a number of private firms in Los Angeles." Were any of these employments connected to architecture?
    • Clarified. - G
  • "He entered employment at the firm of James J. Chiarelli and Paul Hayden Kirk". 1. Was this one firm or two? 2. Is it known either what the firm did or what McAdoo did while there?
    • Elaborated. - G
  • "He was initially hired for remodels and alterations, designing seventeen such commissions during his first year of business." Maybe "designing" → 'undertaking'?
    • Fixed. - G

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unlike other apartment complexes in the area, these apartments were not limited to White tenants." Did this have anything to do with McAdoo?
    • Clarified that McAdoo also owned these. - G
  • "His 1955–1956 design for the Kenneth & Kimi Ota house, the residence of a Japanese-American family living in Rainier Valley, Seattle." This is a sentence fragment.
    • Fixed. - G
  • "which had no enforced laws against Black property owners." This implies that Bothell had such statutes, but did not enforce them. Is this what you mean?
    • Source has weird phrasing on this, so I followed it more closely. - G
  • "Such ventures were unsuccessful". "Such ventures" or 'This venture'?
    • Fixed. - G
  • "He served as the coordinating architect". Is there a link for "coordinating architect", or could you give a brief in line explanation.
    • Clarified to avoid using the term. - G
  • "the USAID". What is this?
    • Defined. - G
  • "Upon returning to Seattle" Is it known when?
    • Clarified. - G
  • The title of the table "Architectural designs by Benjamin F. McAdoo" suggests that what follows is the full list. I assume this is not the case, in which case it needs retitling.
    • I restricted the scale of the list to just designs mentioned in the article. If this is weird, I could take it out; I couldn't think of another clear criteria. - G
The list is fine. Maybe 'A selection of McAdoo's designs'? Or ' A sample ....' or similar?
"Select" works. - G
  • "After his death, architects Garold Malcolm and Richard Youel continued his firm". Is it known if it still exists?
    • It lasted about twenty years, clarified. - G
  • Titles in the References should consistently be in title case. (Eg, see Sprague, lower case c for "contributions".
    • Fixed. - G

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC) Okiedokie, @Gog the Mild:, thank you very much for your review. I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better, btw. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: may I nominate another article? (also to minimize needing to bug yall in the future, should I just presume its okay to nom a second article when it gets up to the required amount of source and prose reviews?) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. To start a second, as a rule of thumb, things need to be ticking well after three weeks or so and the nom have source and image passes and three general supports. There may be other reasons why the coordinators would not want a second nomination opening, but in this case that is moot as the nomination only has two general supports - Snowfire's and from someone called Gog. Feel free to ask again once this attracts a third general support. And this sort of thing is why we ask that a nominator check in separately each time they wish to open a second nom. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apologies for being premature on that - I thought Kavyansh had responded but I misremembered. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]

Ill try to review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 22:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "That July, he joined the United States Marine Corps at Camp Roberts, California, where he continued to work as a draftsman." - where is the Marine Corps coming from? Both Cottrell-Crawford and Sprague say he was working for the Army Corps of Engineers. And Sprague refers to this as the "civil service". I highly doubt somehow who had formally joined the Marines would be allowed to go transfer to Kaiser in the middle of World War II
  • "Benjamin McAdoo Sr. worked a variety of jobs, including as a general contractor," - where are you getting "general contractor"? Ref [3] state his father was an auto mechanic in 1917 and a hardwood floor contractor in 1930. Ref [1] also mentions tree hauling. This doesn't really fit well with what general contractor usually entails
  • "After graduating in 1938, McAdoo attended Pasadena Junior College; at this time, he was living alongside his parents and siblings with his paternal grandmother, who ran a grocery store in the area." - Again, a bit nit-picky, but the source mentioning him living with his grandmother has this being according to the 1940 census; there doesn't seem to be evidence for when this living arrangment began, but the current phrasing of the article strongly implies this was ongoing in 1938
  • "He became interested in architecture, motivated by his belief in fair housing and by his admiration for California African-American architect Paul R. Williams. " - both this and the lead imply that he became interested in architecture as a college student, but then there's Sprague p. 21 which has In ninth grade, he took a mechanical drawing class and, showing great promise in his drawing ability, focuse on becoming an architect from then on. Cottrell-Crawford does have him becoming interested in architecture in college, but I don't think we can just pick one source over the other here without a great reason, especially when Sprague is probably the stronger source
  • "In the April of the following year, he left Chiarelli & Kirk to found his own practice, working from his apartment in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. " - this doesn't seem to be right. Sprague says his office was in the University District, Seattle. The version of Shaping Seattle Architecture on Wikipedia Library Project MUSE has the McAdoo chapter in a different page range (328-333) rather than the 50s cited in this article, but it appears to be the same source. It references the Capitol Hill office as being "after 1951"
  • "McAdoo graduated with a Bachelor of Architecture degree on June 22, 1946" - your citations are off here. This is cited to Sprague, Dunham, and Mumford, but the exact date is found in none of this and is actually from Cottrell-Crawford
  • "He participated in a small homes design competition in 1947, designing a 887 sq ft (80 m2) ranch house featuring a butterfly roof. Although the design did not receive the prize, it was reviewed favorably in a column in The Seattle Times." - why is this mentioned after his 1949 move? It would fit better in the chronology to have it earlier.
  • "Financed with profits from his previous residence commissions and mortgage insurance from the Federal Housing Administration, " - is "Financed with [...] mortgage insurance" really the best phrasing? Mortgage insurance isn't a type of financing. It's a sort of secondary backing of the mortgage to allow to get the borrower to get a better financing rate, but it's not really financing per se. Instead the financing was provided by that mortgage company that he had previously rented office space from. And I'm not quite seeing where "financed with profits from his previous residence commissions" is coming from unless you're getting that from "As a successful profession, McAdoo began acquiring other properties in Seattle"
  • "with around eighty constructed over the following three years" - actually four, per the source. '51, '52, '53, '54
  • "he purchased an office building for his firm in 1951" - is "office building" really the best way to describe this? Sprague describes a house purchased and then converted into an office space, while "office building" usually implies something purpose-built
  • "McAdoo and his wife chose to relocate from Montlake into a residence outside of the Seattle city limits in 1958," is from the article, but the cited source states By 1957, as new suburban residential tracts proliferated, McAdoo and his family chose to leave the Seattle city limits,. The source does talk about characteristics of Bothell in 1958, and doesn't directly say he moved in 1957 vs 1958, but I don't think we can use the "chose to relocate [...] in 1958" language when the source says the decision had been made by 1957
  • "which had nonexistent or unenforced laws against Black property owners." - a nitpick, but the source has and restrictions on people of color may have been either nonexistent or laxly enforced. which is a somewhat weaker claim

Ready for Overseas and D.C. section, but I can't stay up any later or I'll have trouble getting around to work tomorrow morning. The source-text integrity isn't quite there; I'm at an oppose right now. I've been having to go line-by-line through here since I've found a number of sourcing issues and I really don't have the energy right now to keep doing that. Hog Farm Talk 03:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thorough review, Hog Farm. I'll try to address this over the next few days and get the source integrity into shipshape condition. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Apologies for the delay; came down with a nasty bug. I went through and checked source-text alignment throughout the article. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He attended ceremonies for the Independence of Jamaica on August 6, 1962, alongside other American dignitaries such as President Lyndon B. Johnson" - I'd drop the specific date. This isn't direclty supported in the source, which just mentions participating in celebrations. The source very much leaves open the possibility that these ceremonies referred to in the source weren't only on the specific date of independence
    • Took out the date. - G
  • I'm still confused by the citations of a page range of 50-51 for Mumford 2014 - were two different editions being used? The edition on the Wikipedia Library agrees with the later usage of pages like 329 and 331; while the 50-51 seems to be an outlier given that there is only a single chapter in this book focusing on McAdoo
    • Oops. I know exactly how this happened - McAdoo is the 50th chapter in the book, but the chapter headings kinda look like page numbers. Total brainfart there; fixed. - G
  • "In D.C., McAdoo designed elements of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the never-built National Fisheries Center and Aquarium, " - I'm not seeing where either source supports that the National Fisheries Center and Aquarium was never built
    • Huh. So, looking it to more, the aquarium was designed by Charles and Ray Eames, and Stone isn't mentioned at all.. I'm thinking that what McAdoo worked on was probably one of multiple competing designs for the project. Anyhow, it's not mentioned anywhere else, so I just removed it. - G
  • "He designed the Queen Anne Pool in 1974–1977 as part of the Forward Thrust development project" - again, a bit of a nitpick, but the 1974-1977 date doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. The obit doesn't have a date, and PCAD and docomomo has 1978 (which appears to be the year the pool opened). Mumford has 1974-1978
    • Oh good catch. 1974–1978 is correct. - G
  • "and a warehouse at the Naval Submarine Base Bangor" - a minor nitpick, but the source has that he designed a complex of warehouses, not just one building
    • Fixed. - G
  • "The same year, he began hosting a weekly KUOW-FM radio show discussing racial issues, which ran until 1968" - are the sources saying that the radio program lasted until 1968, or his NAACP chapter presidency? The relevant bit from Houser is In 1964 he served as president of the Seattle chapter of the NAACP, and began broadcasting a weekly radio show focused on social issues. He maintained this post for four years. The PCAD source says he was NAACP chapter president from 1964 to 1968, so I wonder if that's what Houser is referring to by "post"
    • Very good catch there. I agree with your assessment that the post is probably the chapter presidency. Rephrased. - G

I think that's all from me for now; this is much better and I'll go ahead and strike the oppose. Some of these are fairly nit-picky. Hog Farm Talk 02:19, 4 November 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

[edit]
  • 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]
    I also looked through the edits of the user with the copyvio (assuming I have the right one), but it's mostly deletions and ref polishing. Feoffer (talk) 10:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

[edit]
  • On June 4, researchers at Alamogordo Army Air Field launched a long train of these balloons...the balloon subsequently crashed Why not "a balloon/one of the ballons subsequently crashe"?
  • Where is Alamogordo Army Air Field located? (For instance, near X in state Y)
  • Where is Brazel's ranch located?
  • Publicity of Arnold's report incited a wave of over 800 sightings... I would avoid the verb "incite".
  • I would also avoid the verb "trigger". Could a more neutral language be used? I think nobody could prove that Arnold's report triggered each sighting?
  • Where is Roswell Army Air Field located?
  • Where is Fort Worth Army Air Field located?
  • Why is not Associated Press italicised?
  • Where is Wright-Patterson Air Force Base located?

So far no major issues, more to come... Borsoka (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link (and possibly decrypt) USAF when it is first mentioned.
  • I would write "the alleged Majestic 12 group" instead of MJ-12 because the abbreviation is not introduced anywhere in the text.
  • ..., many of whom still accepted earlier hoaxes like the Aztec crash,... I would delete it to avoid possible original synthesis.
  • The reports of bodies came decades later. Delete, because the core of the statement is repeated in a following sentence ("The claims of alien bodies – made decades later by elderly witnesses,...")
  • He identifies six distinct narratives... Could these be listed in a footnote?
  • The 1994 film Roswell was based on the book UFO Crash at Roswell by Kevin D. Randle and Donald R. Schmitt. Delete (the info is covered twice in previous sections, and this section should not be an exhaustive list).
  • Could section "Popular fiction" be expanded from international perpective?
  • I think section "Statements by US Presidents" is the only weak point of this otherwise excellent article. As it is not introduced, it reads like a random collection of quotes about Roswell from randomly chosen US presidents. Borsoka (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wandering whether the article could be expanded to become more international. As far as I know, Roswell is an important topic of conspiracy theorists all over the world. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great suggestions all! We've addressed them with the following exceptions:
    • Alamagordo, Roswell, and Ft. Worth are place names, so we can't add "near X" without being redundant (e.g. "Roswell Army Air Field, near Roswell".
    • Per desire for international fiction, search yielded no results. Also looked at French, German, Russian, and Japanese wikipedias, -- only one non-English fictional work mentioned, with only a minimal link to Roswell.
    • per desire for international influence of the story, searched was conducted, but it's unclear if RSes exist on its international influence. @Rjjiii might have more ideas on these last two points.
    Thanks again for the feedback. Feoffer (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two minor issues pending but they cannot prevent me from supporting the article's promotion, even if I know this article is only a new attempt by the US government to conceal its cooperation with blood-sucking grey aliens. The Truth Is Out There. Thank you for this thoroughly researched, well-written and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and discussion seems to have dried up with two general supports. It's on the urgents list, but unless there's significant activity towards a consensus to promote in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

Will comment shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 7 November 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

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "However, at the end of the conflict, Arnold's leg and horse were shot. When the horse fell, Arnold's leg shattered." This doesn't really make sense, it is given almost in bullet point. It needs unpacking a litle and expressing in full prose.
  • I tried changing it to "While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold's left leg was severely injured after it had been shot and crushed by his horse, which had been hit by gunfire as well.". Let me know your thoughts.
How's about something like 'While fighting at the Battle of Bemis Heights, Arnold was shot and severely injured in his left leg. His horse was also hit by gunfire and fell on Arnold, crushing his already injured leg.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it :). Done
  • "This contributed to Arnold's bitterness ... This along with the fact that his ..." Could we avoid two consequecutive sentences starting with "This"?
  • Both sentences changed
  • Also, suggest rephrasing the first 'Along with his combat wounds, business troubles, Congress having promoted some rival and younger generals ahead of him, and a court-martial which resulted in him being convicted of two minor charges of using his role as military commander of Philadelphia to make a profit, this being overlooked caused Arnold to develop a growing bitterness towards the revolutionary cause.' or similar.
  • Changed to "In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further angered Arnold.", although I'm not sure how I feel about it.
"in his report of the aftermath of the battle". Delete "of the aftermath", I assume the report was on the whole battle. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would 'which angered Arnold. In addition, his combat wounds, business troubles, the promotion of rival and younger generals by Congress, and a court-martial conviction of two minor charges of profiting off of his military commander of Philadelphia role further embittered him.' work better for you?
Better, yes. I've changed it.
  • "with Sir Henry Clinton finally offering". Introduce Clinton.
  • I added "British General." Hopefully that's enough...
  • "and remained as a general there until the war ended." Could we be told the year it ended?
  • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In a Saratoga Monument Association (SMA) meeting in July of 1882". Introduce the SMA.
  • Done
  • "There were no objections to the stake." It is a little unclear by this.
  • Tried "No one at the meeting objected to the stake being placed"
  • "The monument underwent restoration after Adolph S. Ochs, publisher of The New York Times, financed it." Is it known when this restoration took place?
  • As I said above, unfortunately no. All of the sources that were used in that little section date from 1927-1931, but a specific date is never mentioned.
  • but it was later moved after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, which was the more southern end of the main redoubt line." This is not clear and could probably be usefully rephrased.
  • Tried "The monument was originally located further to the north at the top of the hill at the Breymann Redoubt site, but after further research as to where Arnold injured his leg, the monument was moved further south to where the main fortifications of the redoubt were"
Suggest removing the second "further", but otherwise that looks good.
Removed
  • "Appearance" section. This should start with an overall description - not with the inscription. This could be resolved by swapping the first and second paragraphs of the section
  • Done
  • References: article titles should consistently be in title case, regardless of how they appear in their original.
  • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I think I've addressed everything you've brought up above. Thank you for taking the time to review! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 22:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grand. A couple of come backs and suggestions above. If I don't respond to something it means I am content. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Addressed everything. Thanks again ‍Relativity ⚡️ 01:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[edit]

I'll do this in a little bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few comments to start:

  • Aryes should be Ayres
  • Fixed
  • Ayres: I recommend replacing the url with this one that links directly to the book listing, rather than to a word search within the book.
  • Fixed
  • I can't find the Ayres book in WorldCat, but I can find a 2006 print book with a similar name by the same author. Is the 2008 e-book a less-distributed update on the 2006 print book?
  • Ducharme and Fine: the pages parameter should show the page numbering, not the number of pages. For this entry, it should be 1309–1331, not 23.
  • Fixed
  • Ducharme and Fine: Social Forces appears to be published in Chapel Hill, NC. Where did you find the publication place to be Athens, GA?
  • I believe that I had seen that Ducharme and Fine were both from the University of Georgia, and found that the university was located in Athens. Fixing now.
  • Duling: I recomment this url in place of the one the article currently uses, for the same reason as the one above for the Ayres book.
  • Fixed
  • Frothingham: This listing makes it seem like it is for an article called "The Turning Point of the Revolution" by Frothingham and and Nickerson, whereas it is a review by Frothingham of Nickerson's book The Turning Point of the Revolution. You should remove Nickerson as author of the article and change the article title to "Reviewed Work: The Turning Point of the Revolution Hoffman Nickerson". Also add the full page range.
  • I'm not sure how I messed this up, but this citation is for the actual book by Hoffman Nickerson. Oops. Hopefully I've fixed that accordingly.

I'll continue looking through the sources and add more comments later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few more:

  • Done
  • Lossing: add New York, New York as location of publication.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Lossing: the url goes to volume 2. If the citation is to that volume, then add the volume number to the works cited listing.
  • Added volume number
  • Lossing: In a works cited list otherwise entirely composed of publications from the 20th and 21st centuries, this work stands out. Is there not a newer work that can support the claim that Arnold fled to New York to join the British?
  • Yes, Philbrick's book works as well. Should I replace it?
Fixed
  • I recommend Wikilinking Savas Beatie. It's a redirect to the founder of the company, which is not the most helpful, but I suppose there's a possibility someone will convert that redirect into a real article someday.
  • Linked
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Citation 5 is Luzader 2008, p. 388–390 but should be "pp."
  • Fixed
  • Citation 14 is Randall 1990, pp. 448–540. Is that supposed to be 448–450? 122 pages is way too long a range for this citation to be useful.
  • I'd added the wrong pages anyways so I've fixed it now.
I've lost access to the book, but I'll message someone or ask at WP:TREX t. rex... :) to see if they know which pages that appears on specifically.
@Dugan Murphy: Done ‍Relativity ⚡️ 02:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but now there's no link to the actual document. Is that okay?
Thank you!

I'll add more later. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the rest of my comments:

  • MOS:DATETIES tells me the date format for both the body and the citations should MDY instead of DMY. The exception listed there for articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military doesn't seem to apply well to a history marker commemorating an 18th-century figure.
  • I think I've now fixed all of the instances of dmy.
  • When using Template:Poem quote, don't use the source parameter for the citations. That parameter is for the name of the person being quoted, which the reader already knows is the monument. Instead, move the citations to the main body so they attach to the end of the inscription, rather than appear on a new line, preceded by an emdash.
  • Moved. Is that what you're looking for?
Thank you (again)
  • Watson: Add a publication place since this is not a super well-known publication.
  • Added
  • I recommend piping The Telegraph Wikilink so "(Nashua, New Hampshire)" doesn't show up in italics.
  • Done
  • "Find Clue to Missing Monument": Wikilink goes to wrong paper.
  • It does? For me it goes where it should. Where does it go for you?
Fixed
  • "May Find Toe of Only Statue to a Left Leg": Since there's no Wikilink for the newspaper, I recommend adding the publication city.
  • Done
  • Thompson: add publication date.
  • Done
  • Rather than including "(U.S. National Park Service)" in the web page title, you list National Park Service in the publisher parameter.
  • Done
  • "Digital Collections": It would be helpful to add New York State Archives using the publisher parameter. Also, capitalize "dedicated". Also, why is this the only web item without an archive link?
  • Added publisher, capitalized, and added archive link.
  • If The Washington Post is Wikilinked, so should The New York Times.
  • Linked
  • Coe: Capitalize the article title.
  • Done
  • I would say you should pipe The Evening Tribune Wikilink, but it goes to the wrong paper anyway. If there isn't a Wiki article for this paper, you should add Providence as the publication place.
  • Unlinked and added location
  • Duffus's initials appears to be R.I., not R.L.
  • Fixed
  • I'm of the opinion that information in the infobox shouldn't need citations because it should only summarize information that is already cited in the body. In that regard, I recommend adding to the body the monument's location within the historical park (that info seems to be indicated in the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the History section, but it says it is in "Saratoga National Park", not Saratoga National Historical Park, as the lead and infobox indicate. Anyway, once that information is clearly indicated in the body, I think you can remove all citations from the infobox because all that info is already cited in the body.
  • Done

Summary: Everything in the works cited list are either books held by university libraries (with the semi-exception of Ayres, per comment above) or articles in academic journals. The inline citations includes a few other sources, which all seem reliable. There's an impressive breadth of scholarship and journalism represented in this article for how short it is. Earwig finds plagiarism unlikely. Most of the similarities it can find are quotes. Citations are consistently formatted with the exception of minor issues, outlined above. Overall, the sources look great and I think all the issues above are very fixable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dugan Murphy: I think that I've addressed all of your concerns above, although I have a few questions about the comments you left about Leopold's source, Template:Poem quote, and "Find Clue to Missing Monument". This is a very impressive review and thank you for taking the time to do it! ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm happy to see articles about esoteric history markers being improved. I've responded to a few things that still need work. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing a few more things. At this point, I think the only thing holding back this source review from passing is the Randall 1990 page range issue above. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work with this article, Relativity! I see no other issues holding back this source review from passing. I have an FAC nomination of my own that needs more attention. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate it. You'll find it here. Dugan Murphy (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC - Support

[edit]

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The most accepted version of Arnold's contributions,[2] supported by Arnold biographer James Kirby Martin,[3] is that he led troops on the battlefield." The references here are in an odd position. Ref two is only supporting the first seven words of the sentence, while the final eight words are not supported by either of the citations that are supporting it. It would be better to move both to the end of the sentence where they will be supporting everything they need to.
  • Done
  • "Arnold to start making communications with": This is a bit clunky. Would "Arnold started to communicate with" be an improvement?
  • I'm not sure. It sounds a bit odd with the "caused" in front. I changed it to "caused Arnold to start communicating with" though— let me know your thoughts
  • "These troubles, along with the fact that his wife, Peggy Shippen, came from a family of Loyalists, caused Arnold to start making communications with the British army, with British general Sir Henry Clinton finally offering Arnold £20,000 (equivalent to £3,353,000 in 2023) for the capture of West Point,[11] a fortification that was important to the control of the Hudson River" This is a monster sentence of sixty words. There are a few places where it could be split in two, but I think that after "British army" would be the best place for a full stop.
  • Fixed
  • You have "British general" Clinton but "British Major" Andre – consistent formatting would be good
  • Fixed— capitalized "General"
  • "July of 1882": just "July 1882" would be more in line with the MOS
  • Fixed
  • Caption of "The Boot Monument from the back": "The reverse of the Boot Monument" may be a bit better?
  • Changed
  • "It never mentions Arnold": ->"It does not mention Arnold". Even better would be to reframe the whole sentence as "Because of Arnold's defection to the British it does not mention him by name"
  • Reframed
  • "(see damnatio memoriae)": Dropping a Latin tag, unexplained, in brackets into the prose isn't the best way to deal with it. Either inline ("in an example of damnatio memoriae—Latin for "condemnation of memory"—etc") or include as a footnote.
  • Additionally, if it's in Latin, you should use a ... template, which also has the benefit of italicising it
  • "Similarly to how Arnold's name does not appear on the Boot Monument because of his betrayal to the British side, the Saratoga" is a bit cumbersome and wordy: "As with the absence of Arnold's name from the Boot monument, the Saratoga" would be better for readers. Again, the two references are floating in the middle of the sentence, not supporting the final part of the sentence - probably best to move them to the end of the sentence.
  • Fixed

An interesting piece. I hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

[edit]

Spot-checking this revision:

  • 6 Can't access this source, but going by commons:Template:PD-US-expired it should be out of copyright, which means that a) you might want to link to a free version, or as Google Books to make its version public and b) is it that good of a source if it's this old?
  • 9 Can't access this source.
  • 10 Can't access this source.
  • 19 Doesn't say he was a major general of the New York State Militia.
  • 20 Doesn't say that de Peyster was a historian.
  • 22 OK
  • 23 OK
  • 25 Google Books supports most, save for 1975.
  • 26 Google Books supports.
  • 27 OK
  • 31 Partly supported by the Google Books snippet.
  • 32 OK
  • 35 OK
  • 37 Can't access this source.
  • 39 OK
  • 41 Is two-stars = major general?
  • 42 OK
  • 44 Can't access this source.
  • 47 Can't access this source.
  • 49 Can't access this source.

By the by, I don't think that the New York Times requires an ISSN.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:57, 5 November 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

[edit]

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

  • File:Ernest_Rutherford_1905.jpg needs a US tag. File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg, File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg, File:Otto_Hahn_Nobelpreis_1945-a.jpg, and File:Ottohahn1915.jpg have pending issues above. Given the above, suggest removing File:Edith_and_Otto_Hahn,_1959.jpg and File:Hahnfch.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass

[edit]
  • 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]
Hawkeye7, how are your considerations going? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since a couple of editors have recommended it, I have arranged the article into sections and subsections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 7 November 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]

Hi HF, any further thoughts on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting on the source review to be completed; I'll try to read through again tonight. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like the source reviewer, I'm not a huge fan of how much Hahn's autobiography is used, but it's mainly used to cover detail in his early life that the sources focused on his career wouldn't cover as well. Leaning support. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm, Have your leanings reached an actual support yet? Or are you still deliberating? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Hog Farm Talk 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass

[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]

Having finally gone through the rest of the citations, here are some more comments:

Summary: Everything in the References list are books held by academic libraries or articles in academic journals. Everything in the "notes" section looks reliable and primary sources are used appropriately, with the exceptions noted in individual comments above. There are a lot of works from Hahn's lifetime by people in his life, which makes me wary, but I'm willing to accept the reasoning you stated above in reply to one of my earlier comments on that topic. There certainly is a wide breadth of sources included here. With the exception of a few cases addressed in my above comments, the citations are consistently formatted. This article represents a lot of work and I can appreciate it. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dugan Murphy, have your queries been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking in! There are a number of unaddressed comments. One of them is about the Hahn Meitner Strassmann May 1937 citation and another about Defence News. I also have a standing question about who publishes www.friedhofguide.de (trying to establish its reliability), which might be made moot if Hawkeye7 decides to replace that source with one of the scholarly print sources, as per the discussion above. Another standing question regards "the major newspapers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland". All of my other comments have been been satisfactorily addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have moved the Sime reference to make the source of the quotation clearer.
  2. The print sources on Hahn did not give me the burial place. I have added another reference, from a brochure put out by the City of Göttingen.
  3. I changed the text to read: "The Max Planck Society published the following obituary notice"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you also replaced the primary newspaper citations for the obituary quote with an academic source that supports the same quote. I see no other issues keeping this source review from passing. Thanks for your work on improving this article! I have my own FAC nomination that is still in need of reviews. If you are able to take a look, I would appreciate the input. You'll find that nomination here. Thanks in advance! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:

More to come tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, my next set of comments:
That's all from me. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support, all the issues I had raised have been addressed. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship

[edit]

Had a read of Lise Meitner last week; found it most illuminating. Very nice article this too. A few points (as always, suggestions not demands):

@AirshipJungleman29: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

[edit]

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]

Source review

[edit]

For clarification, I am looking at this copy of the article for my source review. My comments are below:

  • Nintendo Life should be linked in Citation 4. Even though it is a redirect, it would be helpful for readers. I'd also encourage you to link IGN Italia in Citation 6 rather than separating the website out by only linking IGN as the redirect would be more beneficial to readers.
Done
Changed as suggested
  • Destructoid is not linked in Citation 21 even though it seems that the website/publisher is linked in every citation, such as Metacritic being linked in both Citations 24 and 25. Destructoid should be linked in Citation 21 to keep everything consistent with the formatting.
Done
  • Titles for non-English citations need a translation. I am seeing this with Citations 1, 3, 6, 8, and 26, but all of the citations should be double-checked to make sure that this is fully addressed.
Translated all the titles I think
Apologies for not being clearer with this one. The original title should be included alongside a translation. You would use the |trans-title= parameter in the citation for that. Just to be clear, the citation should have the original non-English title alongside the English translation (i.e. it should not be a replacement of one for the other). Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful to link European Spanish in the relevant citations. It may just be me, but I have never heard of this phrasing before, and while I obviously get it from context, it may be helpful for readers to have some avenue to look into it further.
Done
You can disregard this one as I do not think such linking works with how the template is set up. Aoba47 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the "Sequel" subsection briefly cover the reviews/critical consensus for the sequel?
There sadly isn't a critical consensus on the sequel (no review scores for OpenCritic or Metacritic) so although numerous websites report on the existence of the sequel, I sadly wasn't able to summarize a critical consensus
That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not required for a FAC/FA, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches in the future. It seems like most of the citations are archived, but I am bringing this up as Citation 34 is not.
Will do that real quick
  • Citation 3 shows for me a publication date of March 14, 2021 rather than March 15, 2021. I know that sometimes depending on where the person accesses a site, the publication date can vary by a day or so. Could you double-check this one for me?
That looks right, fixed
  • The "Reception" box in the "Reception" section should list IGN Italia to be more specific and clarify that this review and score were not done by the main IGN website. This should also be clarified in the prose as well (and it should be consistently IGN Italia with IGN Italy removed).
Done
  • For the final paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would match the Kotaku and Nintendo Life citations to the appropriate sentences rather than lumping them together at the end. Nintendo Life should also be linked on the first instance in the prose.
Done
  • All of the citations are reliable and high-quality and in my opinion, they are appropriate for a potential FA on a video game. I used WP:VG/RS to double-check things and I did not notice any issues.
  • I did a brief spot-check to make sure the information is supported in the citations. Citation 2 is being used to support a part on "Night Terrors", but I do not see that phrase in the article. I do see a discussion on a similar mechanic known as "Dark Rooms". Is that what is being referenced?
Yeah I think that was a mistake on my part, I must have confused Dark Rooms with another minigame in Help Wanted with similar mechanics called Night Terrors. Fixed.
  • Citation 14 is being used to support a part on the delay in the game's release, but I do not see that discussed in the actual source. I see that citation talks about the April 2019 release, but I do not see any mention of a delay unless I am missing it.
Missed that too. I rephrased it to say that it was planned for release in April, but was initially launched in May. Should I look for another source to confirm the delay if possible?
The current wording should be fine. It is pretty clear that some sort of delay took place as the announced release date did not end up happening. You could look for another source to add the "delay" wording back in the article, but I do not think it is really necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this review is helpful and best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thanks for the review. A few replies above. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I have left a few comments above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47 follow-up to the above. Added the translated title parameters. Again, thanks for the review! Fathoms Below (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. I have a quick side question, but does anything from this game tie into the next one (i.e. Five Nights at Freddy's: Security Breach)? Again, this question is more so for me as I am curious and does not affect my review at all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not much ties into the next game. Although the plot of all the games and books is loosely connected, the most Help Wanted ties into Security Breach (without getting into excessive detail) is the teaser at the end with the Christmas tree farm and building that is under construction. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have added some alt text @Nikkimaria. Anything else needed? Thanks, Fathoms Below (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for the image review. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe

[edit]

Forthcoming JOEBRO64 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]
lead
  • that unlock collectable objects ==> "that unlock collectible objects" ("collectible" is preferred in American English)
Done
  • studio's adaptation, and decided remove the comma
Done
  • as first released on May 28, 2019 for Windows through Oculus Rift add a comma after "2019" per MOS:COMMA
Done
gameplay
  • to obtain collectable objects ==> "to obtain collectible objects"
Done
plot
  • In an attempt to improve their image, Fazbear Entertainment ==> "In an attempt to improve its image, Fazbear Entertainment". In American English "its" is more standard for singular entities like a company.
Done
  • urban legends, before cutting remove the comma
Done
  • Following the release of the non-VR versions of the game, a door in a final ==> "Following the release of the non-VR versions of the game, a door at the final"
Done
development and release
  • be replaced afterwards ==> "be replaced afterward"
Done
  • released on October 23, 2020 and additional add a comma after "2020"
Done
reception
  • Wool Studios on November 20, 2023 announced the game's release for PlayStation VR2 on December 14, 2023 and disclosed add a comma after both of the dates.
Done

That's all I got @Fathoms Below:. Nice work on the article. 750h+ 08:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again 750h+, I believe that I have addressed your comments. Fathoms Below (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. 750h+ 00:47, 6 November 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]

PM - I seem to be awash in projects, so for now I'm wiggling out of this one—my apology. Pendright (talk) 23:20, 29 October 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?
Presumably the sailor's conduct and the appearance of the ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Zablaće (Šabac) or Zablaće (Čačak), whichever one the source is referring to?
It's neither, both those villages are landlocked ones in Serbia. This is a different place, a village on the coast of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "so took the": "so he took the"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "join NDH navy": "join the NDH navy"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the biblio, link to Norman Friedman and Velimir Terzić?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add 44888337 as the JSTOR ID for Vego 1982?
I'm not a huge fan of adding extra identifiers, the task is to enable verification, not provide every possible option to access it. Unless the MoS has changed and it is now mandatory, I'll stick to one I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
See my response above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for taking a look, Matarisvan. See what you think of my responses above. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding my support, will do spot checks soon. Matarisvan (talk) 06:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67, I will not be doing the spot checks since Jo-Jo is already doing a source review. I would suggest you get a review from @Nigel Ish, who's a subject matter expert on ships. Matarisvan (talk) 15:07, 7 November 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]

Peacemaker67, any progress on the reviews above and below? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Crisco 1492

[edit]
  • They were the first small Austro-Hungarian Navy boats to use turbines, - Previous sentence had "Austro-Hungarian Navy", which may be misunderstood as "They". Perhaps "The 250t class"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 11 May 1917, 93 F, 96 F and 78 T, accompanied by the Huszár-class destroyer Csikós, unsuccessfully pursued the British submarine HMS H1 after the submarine had stalked 78 T off Pola, missing her with two torpedoes. - Feels like this could be simplified. Perhaps "after the submarine had fired two torpedoes at 78 T"?
Have had a crack at simplifying, see what you think now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bojana river - As a proper noun, shouldn't this be Bojana River? Same with Brijuni islands and Istrian peninsula
Done. Not sure how that happened. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I - Question... I thought World War I was preferred in American English, with First World War preferred in British English.
It's written in Australian English, and we don't mind (both are used). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the navy was formed, she and the other seven 250t-class boats were the only modern sea-going vessels in the KM - Would "were its only modern sea-going vessels" work better?
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It really isn't consistent in Australia, the government style guide says only to use it when ambiguity is created by its absence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bay of Kotor - You referred to it as Bocche earlier. Why the shift?
Change of usage over time. Generally the Italian usage was most common in WWI, but in Yugoslav times, it was referred to as the Bay of Kotor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose is quite tight. Well done! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Chris. Sorry about the delay. See what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "second-line escort duties". What does "second-line" mean here? This needs explaining.
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kraljevska Mornarica, KM". Not "Kraljevska Mornarica (KM)"?
Well, it's already in parens, and the semicolon associates them sufficiently, IMHO. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New torpedo tubes of the same size". Presumably the same as the old ones but this should be clarified.
Correct, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accompanied the light cruiser Dalmacija, the submarine tender Hvar and the submarines Hrabri and Nebojša". New KM ships? As you say above that originally there were only eight ships in the KM navy you should clarify.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the second paragraph of WWII confusing. Šibenik Command was presumably a naval command of the NDH, so why should it need to be evacuated and why did Italy capture the boats of its Fascist ally?
It is the KM Šibenik Command (added). The Italians did not approve of the NDH having a navy, and the Germans acquiesced in this until the Italians surrendered in September 1943. Do you think I need to explain this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but T6 was captured by the Italians along with the other boats of the division". Maybe "but the Italians opposed NDH having a navy and they captured the boats of the division including T6". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of what this is? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Dudley. See what you think of my responses. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Source formatting seems consistent. 978-953-366-036-9 throws an ISBN error. Is there a logic behind using Google Books for some sources, OCLC and ISBN for others? None of the sources seem to be inappropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 2 November 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]
buidhe and UndercoverClassicist, Here's a map that might work as an addition or replacement to address the concerns raised above. Its based on the [[this map|unused map]] buidhe mentioned above that has conquered areas colored by date, such as UC suggested (if I'm understanding colored waves correctly). It has the Soviet army pockets, whose placement is based the two West Point maps (one used in this article) on the Eastern Front (both linked in the map description). It varies from the base map in that some of the schematic advance lines were adjusted to make the formation of the pockets more clear, and it has some minor cosmetic changes. I think it helps cover the bases implied in the above discussion:
  • It highlights the Soviet army pockets, which play a major role in this article, whereas they are somewhat hidden in the West Point map.
  • Almost all the schematic arrows correspond to an actual line of advance, but avoid all the military designations, which aren't germane to the article.
  • This map extends beyond August, going to the Battle of Moscow in December.
  • It shows the later pockets, such as Kiev, Vyazma, and Bryansk.
This is just a suggestion on an issue already discussed. If it doesn't serve the article's needs, its construction was an interesting way to think a bit more deeply about the article. Wtfiv (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a great piece of work: certainly looks clear and that it would do the job well, though I'm not really qualified to pronounce as to its accuracy or whether it fits the purpose needed in this article: I will leave that to buidhe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks wftiv! Your map looks great :) (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it was useful! Since you used it, I rebuilt the entire map as an .svg, making it more consistent, easier to edit, and more scaleable. Wtfiv (talk) 16:32, 3 November 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 [12]. 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]

  • "The first 200,000 Soviet prisoners of war were deported to Germany in July and August 1941". The first 200,000 to be captured or the first 200,000 to be deported?

That's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus

[edit]

I was negatively surprised some minor (but I believe DUE) content was removed since I added it last year. I've readded it and I was immediately reverted by Buidhe. Discussion (started by me few minutes ago) ongoing at artcle's talk: (Talk:German_atrocities_committed_against_Soviet_prisoners_of_war#Relevance_of_the_mention_of_German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war); I'll update this when it is finished, but from my perspective, the article is not comprehensive (and not neutral per WP:DUE) without mentioning this topic in at least a sentence or two (and I am flabbergasted that even a see also mention that was present before was removed...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources aren't about the article topic so they don't show wp:due. That is why the content has been removed multiple times. If the article is supposed to include allied soldiers fighting alongside the Soviet army (it doesn't), it is cherry picking to shoe horn in polish soldiers without mentioning those from Czechoslovakia and other countries. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Buidhe I fail to see the relevance, or at least the pressing importance, of this information to this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild The article should briefly mention that Germans committed similar atrocities to other groups of POWs, and link to relevant articles. To me, this seems quite relevant in the context of comprehensive coverage. In addition, we should also (briefly) mention that Soviet themselves committed similar atrocities on POWs they captured (Germans and others), although right now we don't seem to have a relevant article to link to (I'll try to remedy this shortly). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Remedied: Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II and added as a 'see also' to the nominated article. Wonder if this will also be removed? Ideally, of course, this should be incorporated into the article in a relevant place as a blue link, as it is an obvious topic. I will also note that the nominated article is linked from that article as well as from the mentioned Polish article, and nobody is suggesting to remove those links, as the topics are obviously closely related and should be linked from corresponding articles. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is discussed in various sources. For example, it is misleading to discuss the fate of Jewish Red Army soldiers without noting that the same fate befell (often, earlier) Jewish Polish Army soldiers. See ex. Shmuel Krakowski, "The Fate of the Jewish POWs of the Soviet and Polish Armies," in The Shoah and the War, ed. Asher Cohen, Yehoyakim Cochavi, and Yoav Gelber (New York: Peter Lang, 1992), 217–30. Krakowski's work was called, btw, "groundbreaking work on Soviet-Jewish prisoners of war" ([13]) - I am surprised it is not cited at all. Linked article by Polian could also be used to expand the article; I think it needs a section dedicated to the Jewish Soviet POWs. This is how it is done in the German_atrocities_committed_against_Polish_prisoners_of_war#Fate_of_the_Jewish_POWs. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Gog and Buidhe above, I don't think there should be a detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in this article: it is about German atrocities against Soviet prisoners of war. The article certainly doesn't claim, imply or even allow the reading that the Germans only committed atrocities against Soviet PoWs: detailed discussion of the Germans' treatment of e.g. American, Belgian or Polish PoWs would not be WP:DUE except where it is clearly relevant to the Soviet story. For example, at one point the article and its sources use the relatively good treatment of prisoners taken in the Fall of France to demonstrate that the Germans' treatment of Soviet PoWs cannot simply be explained through incompetence or impoverishment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist FYI there is no detailed treatment of Polish PoWs in the article. After discussion on talk, the mention has been further reduced to short two sentences, and it is primarily used to demonstrate that Soviet POWs were treated much more harshly then Poles (I've just added a precise estimate to back up an imprecise claim made by an article). What puzzles me is Buidhe's repeated insistence of removing even the blue link to a relevant article (i.e. German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war). Please take a look at the current version and discussion on article's talk. One sentence and a single link is hardly a "detailed treatment"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit: It looks like I may have to withdraw the FAC because in my opinion the content added fails the FA criteria (specifically 1c, 1d, and 4) as there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war. Unless User:UndercoverClassicist, User:Gog the Mild, or others wish to weigh in on the article talk page, Piotrus is claiming that the content he added has consensus and needs to be kept. (t · c) buidhe 02:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Krakowski's source is not a HQRS, nor is one of the sources that Piotrus cited. (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree on them not being HQRS. Krakowski's work has been influential and should be mentioned, at least in historiography; without that I don't think 1c would be met. If his claims have been replaced by more modern research, we don't need to cite him, but we should mention his work in the context of bridging Holocaust and POW discourse. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Regarding the other source you recently criticized, Piotrowski, while I also disagree on him not being HQRS, as I said elsewhere, it is not necessary and can be removed, go ahead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPS. Copying from another discussion: "Oh, and on 1c, you should consult Polish and Soviet/Russian historiography on this topic. [2] for example ("The article concerns the motif and theme of Soviet prisoners of war in Russian literature"), [3] ("Crime, Politics, Humanitarism. Tragedy of the Soviet Captives on the Polish Land during the World War II") seem quite relevant, for example. I expect 'Legacy and historiography' section could be expanded much more than its current three short paragraphs with German, Russian and Polish studies." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a lot more that could be cited on legacy from the sources I cited, however, I think the article already goes into the right amount of detail.
    Jewish POWs were a tiny percentage of the total. They are already discussed adequately, to discuss them any more would probably be disproportionate, leaving aside HQRS issues. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am not opposing based on that, since to some degree this is just a matter of structuring content, and not comprehensivity (well-researchedness...) I find is strange that we (I...) could find room to have a section on Jewish POWs in the articles on Polish POWs, but that cannot be done here. IMHO having a section dedicated to discussion of Soviet Jewish POWs would be a good idea and due, and supported by RS. This topic has been covered in dedicated academic articles and likely needs its own subarticle. In addition to Krakowski: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the Polish POWs who were targeted by "atrocities", a large percentage were Jewish so it makes sense that the other article would lend significant coverage to it. Of the Soviet POWs that were mistreated, only a tiny percentage were Jewish. The subject is already adequately covered in the "selective killings" section. It may be a notable subject for its own article, as are other subjects related to this one, such as Soviet prisoners of war in Nazi concentration camps (there is an entire book on this)... (t · c) buidhe 03:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PPPS. " there is no reliable source that connects the added content to the issue of Soviet prisoners of war". This is not correct. First, I did not add the mention of Polish POWs; I just added a clarification and a blue link to the content already present there, added presumably by Buidhe and cited to a source that makes exactly this connection (Gerlach 2016:165). That source states “The treatment and death rates of Polish and Soviet POW differed in the extreme, although in ‘racial’ terms there was not much of a difference between them"; and our article stated that "Polish prisoners of war were considered racially similar to Soviet prisoners, but their conditions differed greatly and death rate was an order of magnitude lower". All that was added was a precise estimate (similar to the precise estimate already present in the article for Italian POWs) and a short sentence (~15 words) mentioning that Germans also committed atrocities against Polish POWs and linking to a dedicated article; that sentence contains a further estimate of Polish fatalities, serving to clarify and reinforce the previously imprecise (but roughly correct) claim of "magnitudes". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2-3 percent figure is already in Gerlach and if you think including it is so important, I could be persuaded on that. I just don't find the added content about Polish prisoners helpful or informative. War crimes were also committed against some Allied prisoners of different nationalities (US, UK, France, etc.), but the overall point that these were exceptions continues to to be true. I also think it is misleading to include this sentence about Polish prisoners but not cover other Allied nationalities, as it might lead the reader to conclude that more atrocities were committed against Polish prisoners when it was not necessarily the case. Indeed, after Soviet and Italian prisoners, it was not Poles but Yugoslav nationals who faced the worst treatment and highest death rates. Yet another reason not to shoehorn in content about Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per discussion on talk, I've rewritten the sentence to remove the focus on Polish POWs. It now refers to Allied POWs. I fully agree that the magnitude of crimes and treatment of Soviet POWs was different; but I think we need to briefly mention that (as you did) and link to other related articles which contain detailed information. I'd support adding information that Yugoslav nationals were the third group instead, it seems relevant - do we have any article covering their situation that we could link to? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the issue above (about Polish POWs) is hopefully being resolved through discussions on talk (and the article is stable), I remain concerned about whether this article is comprehensive. As I noted above, the legacy section is rather short. I have added a sentence and ref, as well as a link, to Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war (the title is not very clear - this is about Soviet repressions against the Soviet survivors of German camps, i.e. the very group discussed here), a highly relevant topic that was totally absent (despite one sentence of the legacy covering a related debate in the later years). The mentioned topic of Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II is still just a generic see also at the end of the article, although a while ago Buidhe mentioned that "it could be linked from the text". A week has passed since, and no link from the text to this has been made (is there even a relevant part of the text?). I have noticed some sources discuss the relation between German and Soviet treatments of POWs; a very good source is [19] (a paper about comparative treatment of POWs in WW2, including the ones discussed here). It mentions a number of interesting facts that seem to be absent from our article, such as how Red Cross and other organizations were denied entry to German and Soviet camps for their respective prisoners, and how information about large numbers of prisoners in those countries were suppressed by those who feared that this may lead to more humane treatment due the fear of revenge. Another interesting fact mentioned by MacKenzie (but not in our article) is that Canaris argued for more humane treatment of Russian POWs (using the same logic), to no avail. IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the topic of how German treatment of Soviet POWs was on some level similar, and on others, different, to the Soviet treatment of German POWs should merit its own paragraph: I would strongly disagree here. When we're talking about atrocities, crimes against humanity etc, such comparisons serve as whataboutism and have the effect of minimising or excusing the atrocity at hand. This article should be about its title: other, related topics, can be linked in See Also. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The literature, or at least some of it, discusses the relation of those topics. That merits more than just a see also. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Buidhe keeps edit warring, removing all changes by those she disagrees with, up to and including a see also section (that is needed for a GA; I believe a see also should be converted into a link in text for a FA). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I proposed another compromise version (this time with no link to Polish POWs, as a problematic sentence with racial comparison was removed after a discussion on talk, thank you @Dreamcatcher25). But links to the two other articles IMHO should be in article body (those two are Soviet repressions against former prisoners of war and Soviet atrocities committed against prisoners of war during World War II). Right now the link to the former has been removed even from see also. I started a new discussion on talk about it; everyone is welcome there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist Btw, the article already cites: Edele, Mark (2016). "Take (No) Prisoners! The Red Army and German POWs, 1941–1943". The Journal of Modern History. 88 (2): 342–379. I'll note that Edele even has an entire section on comparisons, where he writes "there are thus both similarities and differences between the way the Red Army and the Wehrmacht treated their POWs". Comparing those two topics is hardly whataboutism, this is done in the reliable sources, and at length (for example, one of the pertinent dimensions is to what degree the brutal treatment of POWs on the Eastern front was because of the concept of revenge). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wtfiv

[edit]

It's good to see an article on an this: As you mentioned, western coverage of the suffering and atrocities that Russian soldiers suffered at the hands of the Nazi regimes seems sparse. This carefully written article fills that gap.

You've been going through a rigorous review process already, but I wanted to provide suggestions too, waiting until my Featured Article Candidate had cleared. Most of my comments and observations are structural and stylistic as much of the content has been addressed.

Note: I've provided alternate examples illustrating the points I made on the this talk page. They're not meant as suggested rewrites, but just samples that hopefully clarify the points made in the review below.

Background
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider changing to terrorize to "terrorizing" to stay parallel with preceding gerund "looting".
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider putting The vast majority...invasion in the first paragraph, which is about the resources and effort dedicated to the war. Maybe a clause at the end of the first sentence "..., devoting the vast majority of their military manpower and materiel." This would keep focus of the second paragraph on the ideology.
      • Then begin something like "The invasion was carried out....
    • Is the "with" in with Ukranians needed? The sentence is a list, the other elements following the commas don't use a preposition. Perhaps reword colon followed by list: "ranked according to a racial hierarchy: Soviet Germans...at the top, Ukrainians in the middle, Russians toward...lowest." This also has the advantage that it doesn't lead to an initial misreading(quickly corrected) that Soviet Germans, Balts and Muslims are leading the categorization effort.
  • Trying to separate the ideological from the pragmatic decisions would create the false impression that some were ideologically motivated while others were pragmatic. For example, the military decision to invade the Soviet union was heavily based on anti communist ideological factors. The decision to shoot Jews and communists was because of the belief that this would curb resistance to the invasion. That said, these paragraphs were separated for length reasons, there may be a better way to organize them. (t · c) buidhe 18:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested an alternative minor edit of these three paragraphs that keeps all the ideas and paragraphing but thematically organizes them, but addresses the points made. It doesn't remove any of the points nor include major rewrites, except the racial hierarchy sentence, was slightly modified. (If you think it is an improvement, I kept the citations in place to make using it easier with a cut and paste. Of course, if you like the original organization better, that works too. The changes are fairly minor.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
    • This paragraph is about food supply. Consider moving ...suspicion of Jews...defeat to Paragraph 2, as that is the ideology paragraph. It seems an edited version of this would go well before The Nazis believed...conspiracy. This would put the two aspects: The Jews being blamed for German defeat and the perception of a Jewish concpiracy together as an ideological whole, with its focuse on race prejudice.
    • Would making the second half of the first sentence in para 3 and recognition of the need..., somewhat modified, be a better start for paragraph 3, as the focus of this paragraph is control of the food supply.
  • Side by side of current and alternative example for all three paragraphs provided here. (All three provided to illustrate that suggested changes are interlinked across paragraphs.)
    The way you reworked it comes together. In particular, think the new order you created for the paragraph works well to emphasize the article's point. The way you put the ending provides the rationale for seeing what is coming in the following sections as an atrocity. Wtfiv (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • The last sentence states that there was controversy about the treatment of prisoners, but only Moltke favored the law (assuming the law refers both to the Hague and Geneva conventions?) If there was no other advocate for following the law, it's unclear what other sources of controversy may be. It's particularly unclear because in the previous sentence, it stated that no one objected to a war of extermination. So a reader might see this: There was no objection, there was controversy, only Moltke- who favored the law- was the source of controversy. Consider rewording. My understanding is that the military went along with the policy, and it sounds like Moltke was the exception. But if something else is meant, I think it needs clarification.
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider reworking this paragraph a bit. Current order seems to mix issues: .(a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) little planning by Germans and many prisoners captured, (c) less captured than expected (d) Still disagreement on controversy, (e) treatment of prisoners in France 40 cited that its not just logistics.
    • Suggested order: (a) Controversy- logistics vs. ideology. (b) evidence against it being just logistics- intentional lack of planning for prisoners, less than expected captured, ability to care for France 40 prisoners. (d) Sums to evidence in favor of ideology. Here's more details.
      • Consider reworking to put the ideas of two sentences Anti-Bolshevisim, antisemitism...labor and There is still disagreement...labor reserve together, as they are addressing the lead point of this paragraph. The details on planning and number of prisoners would seem to go better as they are addressing the controversy.
      • Related to the previous point. The last sentence in Paragraph 3 of Background implies that the overall starvation was due to the German policy on food supplies. It seems the paragraph should open with food supply or logistics, as it has been established in the narrative. Consider something like. "The regime's demands for food...contributed to the mass death of prisoners, but anti-Bolshevisim...are often cited as the main reason."
      • Consider ending the paragraph with the marshalled evidence- lack of planning, less prisoners, treatment of Western European prisoners- and an overall conclusion for ideological evidence.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
      • (Minor suggestion) Does Kay's name have to intrude in the narrative here? Aren't there more than one historian who state that supply and logistics cannot explain the mass deaths that could be cited. Three lines of evidence are given.
        • I definitely do not think this can be said in wiki voice, because there are others (especially Hartmann) who argue that the logistical situation was fundamentally different due to the lack of railways, roads and other infrastructure in the Soviet Union. (t · c) buidhe 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Sounds good. (Read Hartmann's arguments.) Thanks for the reply to my minor comment, which was more of an indirect query. Wtfiv (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Minor suggestion) Consider deleting military setbacks. The original numbers were based on optimistic planning, which rarely bears out. Many prisoners, such as at Kiev, were captured opportunistically in situations not initially anticipated in the first plans.
    • (Comment only) I see why security and labor needs are mentioned here, but it is a bit awkward because these concepts were not introduced early and just pop up here. They are addressed later, but their introduction assumes a reader is already aware of German labor needs and partisan security issues. I'm not sure much can be done about this.
Capture
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reorganizing paragraph.
      • Currently it is organized as such: (a) high ratio of capture in 1941 that declines but remains lower than German, (b) Russians capture in encirclement, (c) Number of soviet soldiers decline after 1941. This starts by comparing 1941 capture rates, then describes overall capture rates with caveat that they declined, then gives way they were captured, then repeats that rates fell after 1941. Combining would merge points about decline, starting with 1941 and then explaining the change in capture rates later in the war.
      • Consider: starting (a) By mid-December 1941...surrounded, (b) "Three or four Soviet...killed" as the encirclements explain the high capture rate, (c) Ratio declines after the Battle of Moscow, but (d) remains higher than the German side.
      • (Minor comment) Consider reducing mention of 1941 in the paragraph, where it show up three times.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider deleting the sentence The behavior of Soviet soldiers...defect. Does this tell us something unique about Soviet soldiers? Isn't this true for soldiers in any army anywhere? If this is deleted, consider beginning the following sentence with "Soviet soldiers opposition to their government...defections., which"
  • Paragraph 3
    • Consider reorganizing paragraph
      • Currently two sentences of front-line troops (also whose troops need mentioned, the focus has been on Soviets for this section.) are separated by interlude on camps: (a) Soviets captured by frontline (b) sent to collection point (c) transit camp (d) transit camp closed (e) permanent camp (f) frontline takes their clothes, (g) wounded sometimes got care.
      • Consider starting: "Soviet soldiers in encirclements were usually captured by Axis front-line troops, who took them to a collection point. Sometimes, the prisoners were stripped of their winter clothing..." This would result in (a) Capture by frontline troops (b) Discussion of collection point to transit camp and permanent camp. (c) treatment of the wounded and sick.
    • (Minor comment) Consider rewording final sentence. "Most often" already implies "sometime", so why not just state: "Most often wounded and sick Red Army soldiers did not receive medical care."

Summary executions

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider moving the final sentence The German military...points right after first sentence. The first sentence gives numbers, this sentence qualifies those numbers, as they weren't recorded. It also allows the paragraph to end with the idea that the shootings escalated violence.
  • Paragraph 2
    • On the first read, I found this paragraph a bit confusing.
      • Current structure: (a) Germans order encircled, captured Soviets to turn themselves in. (b) Prisoners not taken in these circumstance (c) Some soviet soldiers executed as partisans. (d) Some Soviet soldiers evade capture. This structure feels like it is almost contradicting itself because it deals with two issues, prisoners ordered to turn themselves in and soldiers evading capture. It can be read that the German orders weren't successful as few turned themselves in, yet soldiers were shot as partisans, some evaded capture even though in the paragraph they aren't being captured by asked to turn themselves in.
      • Consider how this rearrangement sounds: (a) Soldiers shot as partisans. (b) Soldiers ordered to turn themselves in. (c) Few did.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
        • (a) Consider a variation of last sentence as first, topic sentence: "Thousands or ten of thousands ...as partisans"
        • (b) Followed by a merge of the last clause of sentence two with sentence one: "To prevent the growth...movement, the Supreme Command...(OKH)...ordered Red Army soldiers overtaken to present themselves...execution.".
        • (c) The third sentence Despite the order...circumstances strikes me as confusing. "Despite the order" implies few soldiers turned themselves in, "More often than not" implies soldiers were were more likely to turn themselves in, "circumstances" is plural, but the situation- being overtaken- is singular, prisoners is the subject-but the actual subject is bypassed soldiers who were ordered to become prisoners, but usually refused. Consider reworking this. Here's one suggestion: merging this with the last clause of the last sentence to something like: Despite this order, few soldiers turned themselves in; some evaded capture and returned to their families."
  • Paragraph 3
    • consider deleting as expected, isn't it implied? Remove the comma after expected as the following is not an independent clause.
    • Consider editing the section of female combatants to make it a bit clearer and to follow more seamlessly.
      • At first read, the lead "although" on the sentence on female soldiers initially reads as a qualification of the previous point on commissars, but it's a new topic.
      • Here's where the section may need clarity. It seems to read like this: (a) OKH says they defy gender expectation so treat them as prisoners of war. (b)other orders- whose?- called for them to be shot on sight. (c) Some units did not execute female combatants, but most died. Here's the issue I see: Most units shouldn't have based on the OKH directive, but some may have taken their own initiative unless "other orders" came from a higher level than OKH. This needs clarification.
      • (in Germany not needed, as there were camps in other countries like Poland).
      • Here's a possible suggestion addressing these points: "The OKH ordered female combatants in the Soviet army be treated as prisoners of war; but these female soldiers, who defied German gender expectations, were often shot on sight. few survived to reach prisoner-of-war camps."
Prisoner-of-war-camps
[edit]

Paragraph 1- No comments

Death marches

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reordering structure.
      • Current structure: (a) no rail cars (b) death marches, being shot and escaping (c) rail transport in open cattle wagons (d) additional death marches (e) total killed.
      • Here are the issues I see: The paragraph starts assuming the reader knows the topic and talks about train transport not being usually available, the marches, then back to train transport using open cattle cars when earlier it said train transport usually wasn't done, then it returns to death marches.
      • Consider (a) Start with description of the death marches, which is the topic. Maybe mention there were additional ones (b) Note that rail transportation wasn't usually available but when it was it was in open cattle cars that killed 20%. (c) total killed.
      • consider deleting typically on foot...areas, as "death march" implies "on foot"
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.

Housing conditions

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider reordering structure for clarity.
      • Here's the current structure I see: (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Germans systematically roll out housing (c) through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (c) poor housing and cold cause mass deaths (d) mass death eases situation. The idea that housing and barracks were systematically rolled out implies to the reader that housing was well done, but this is then contradicted in the following sentences that show it is inadequate.
      • Suggested reordering. (a) lack of facilities and starvation (b) Poor housing and cold cause of mass death: through winter, soldiers in open, unheated rooms, or burrows (d) Germans systematically roll out housing housing, but inadequate (e) math death eases situation. (f) death toll. This would start with the statements of the causes and the experience of Russian soldiers, then address the inadequacy of the German response that was only solved by mass death.
      • Side by side of current and alternative example linked here.
  • Paragraph 2
    • one minor suggestion: consider replacing "the" with "recaptured" in escape, the prisoners...camp as the previous sentence refers to prisoners that successfully made it to Switzerland.

Hunger and mass deaths

  • No comments

Release

  • No comments

Selective killings

  • Paragraph 1- No comments
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider this reordering. Follow Those unable...die. with Disabled soldiers...approached. End with "Sometimes mass executions were conducted without a clear rationale." This has the strength of putting "unable to work" and "disabled" together, allowing unstated method of execution to be more easily inferred from the preceding "unable". It also ends the paragraph on the idea that many of the mass executions were senseless.
  • Paragraph 3
    • Consider swapping the order of these sentences: As the war progressed...executions and After March 1944...escape this would put the Mauthausen killing next to the other camp systems, and make the issue of curtailment a kind of final statement before the tally statement.
    • Consider rewording After March 1944...escape. If the prisoners escaped, how were they killed? If they escaped, what does an attempted escape have to do with them. So based on context, I'd suggest one of the two rewordings: "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers recaptured after an attempted mass escape in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen." or "Around 5,000 Soviet officers and non-commissioned officers implicated in a mass escape attempt in March 1944 were killed at Mauthausen.", depending on whether only the escapees were killed or everyone suspected of taking part in the escape.
Auxiliaries in German service
[edit]
  • No comments
Forced Labor
[edit]

In the Soviet Union

  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider detaching and others died from the sentence Many prisoners ran away... and shifting it to the next sentence by semi-colon or colon to the following sentence, which illustrates the modes of death of forced-laborers.

Transfer to Nazi concentration camps

No comment

Deportation elsewhere

  • Paragraph 1- No comment
  • Paragraph 2
    • Consider deleting the "any" from any significant improvement. Then consider shortening Not all prisoners....disease to "Prisoners remained vulnerable to malnutrition and disease." The reason for these suggestions is as mentioned, real improvement is politically impossible. Thus, there's no reason to talk about benefits, which according to the previous sentence were nil.
    • (Comment) The clause at the end of the last sentence where many died seems to raise unneeded questions. Norway and the Channel Islands were relatively low conflict zones. Did they die by starvation working at these locations, were they executed by the Germans, the population, or Allied occupation forces? Maybe its best to just remove the clause?
Public perception
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Consider moving According to Secrity Service...reason. right after the first paragraph. The sentence ends for this reason", but the preceding sentence mentions Holocaust ignorance and the murder of prisoners first. Moving the sentence would make the paragraph progression clearer: (a) Soviets portrayed as monsters, (b) Many Germans wanted them killed because of this (c) Russians were being murdered early on.
    • Can the sentence Although many Germans claimed ignorance...deported be reworked? It seems out of context here. I do think a link to the German alleged ignorance of the Holocaust is important to put in this article, it doesn't seem to go here. The topic of the paragraph is the dehumanization and approved destruction of Soviet prisoners.
    • This sentence begins with mention of Holocaust denial, which is not a topic here, and follows up with the claim that many Soviet prisoners died before German Jews had been deported. This sentence would be more contextually appropriate if it were the last in the paragraph, and the clause Although...war, is deleted.
    • (Additional comment) If the above suggestion makes sense. I'm not sure I'd want to lose the Claimed German ignorance of the holocaust link. Could it go elsewhere in the article, or reworked so that it makes more contextual sense?
      • (later thought- brainstorming) Perhaps a final sentence to the effect that "Just as much of the German population claimed ignorance of the holocaust, they also claimed to be unaware of the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war." would work? Though something like this would need a citation.
  • Paragraph 2
    • This is fine as is, but consider rewording the first sentence to begin "Soviet propaganda ...as early as July 1941." This would make a cleaner contrast with the structure of the proceeding paragraph: Nazi propaganda and Soviet propaganda both being their own initial topic. As written, the initial flow, makes the reader think they are reading a continuation of the previous paragraph until they arrive at "Soviet propaganda" at the end.
End of the war
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
    • Maybe the redundancy is a good thing in an article of this length, but weren't the deaths caused by late death marches already covered in Death marches? Could the information be consolidated? (Personally, I think removing the late death marches from Death marches and leaving it here.
  • Paragraphs 2, 3, & 4- No comments
Death toll
[edit]

No comments

  • (observation) Deaths in Norway is mentioned here where it seems to make more sense than in the end of forced labor, which put Norway together with the Channel islands. This seems to support that the clause where many died at the very end of Force labor isn't needed.
Legacy
[edit]

No comments

I'm done for now. This article represents an incredible amount of work. After having combed through this article, I very much appreciate the service it is doing in raising the awareness of further atrocities during WWII. Wtfiv (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, what's the state of play re responding to wtfiv's comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still trying to find time to do the needed prose improvement (t · c) buidhe 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Biruitorul

[edit]

From what I can see, this is a great article on a neglected topic. Nice variety of recent, quality sources, good use of images, clear layout. If I see any issues as I continue to work through the text, I will note them, but at a first pass, this looks like a worthy FAC candidate. — Biruitorul Talk 06:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One afterthought, given an ongoing controversy: given its contextual relevance, I’d like to see a brief mention of German atrocities committed against Polish prisoners of war retained here. — Biruitorul Talk 07:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates&oldid=1256249285"