Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Bernard Hinault[edit]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Bernard Hinault, five-time winner of the Tour de France and one of the most prolific athletes in the history of his discipline. The article passed GA in March. I nominated it for FA in April, but not much interest in reviewing it meant that it failed. I am now re-admitting it, hoping for more participation. I am pinging Brianboulton and Giants2008, the only two people to chip in last time around. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – I supported at the first FAC and don't see any reason to change my mind now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'm going to comment this time. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation[edit]

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Go Vacation is a personal favorite of mine. Despite its mixed reviews, I find it to be a quite enjoyable game; in it, you get to explore several colorful resorts filled with several minigammes (of wildly varying quality I might add). You're also able to decorate a villa Animal Crossing style, but I never really spent much time doing that. It also got a pretty low-effort Switch port lately, which actualy got rid of the sword fighting minigame, one of my favorites. I personally started editing this article in June 2018, and its taken up most of my time on Wikipedia. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Three quick passing comments: See WP:LQ and sort out the placement of closing quote marks in line with the guidelines (there are too may ." that should be ".) And the date formats are mixed - they should be consistent. Finally, there are too many SHOUTY CAPS in the refs section. I'll see if I have time to do a full review shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Going to start working on that stuff now. Thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the date formating issues, and I think I got all the logical quotation stuff done. I'M NOT SURE WHERE YOUR SEEING THE "SHOUTY" CAPS THOUGH, I CAN'T FIND THEM ANYWHERE. I SEE NO SCREAMING IN THE ARTICLE OR ON THIS PAGE WHATSOEVER. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
See FNs 22, 28, 29 and 31 – there may be others too. - SchroCat (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Done- I wasn't aware that was a policy (could you link the relevant one?). Also, what does "FN" stand for? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The guideline is at MOS:ALLCAPS. "FN" is footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, sorry if my signature changes a lot on this page- I've begun experimenting with changing it. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The 14th-century battle in which Edward III, leading an Anglo-Welsh army across northern France, brought the much larger French army under Philip VI to battle. Famously the French suffered a humiliating defeat, largely due to the English use of longbows. A contemporary described the hand-to-hand combat which ensued as "murderous, without pity, cruel, and very horrible". I have done quite a bit of work on this over the last couple of months, and, I think, consulted most of the up to date sources. No doubt it is as usual riddled with flawed prose, MoS breaches and fails to be readily comprehensible; I would be grateful if you could point out the specifics of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest elaborating on the caption of the battle map to indicate what the various designs mean
  • File:English_gun_used_at_Crecy.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Battle_of_Crécy,_26_August_1346.png
  • File:Lazzaro_Tavarone-Balestrieri_genovesi.jpg should include the original date and author if known. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Another splendid instalment in this continuing series. A few minor points on the prose – nothing of any great consequence:

  • Lead
    • "and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus" – from the main text I gather that the second "they" means the French, but that is by no means clear here.
Tweaked. Any better.
Perfect, me judice Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "for over two centuries" – I mention this with some diffidence, as there is no logical rule that I can see for the convention – some might say superstition – that this should be "more than two centuries". I adhere to the convention myself (Froissart and I were at school together, and my use of language may be rather old-fashioned) and I mention it here only for you to accept or reject as you think fit, here and at "over 100 French towns", "over 700 vessels", "Over 5,000 French soldiers", "over 500 men-at-arms", and "over 2,200 heraldic coats" later in the article.
Article is now Froissart-compliant.
  • Background
  • "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal" – we've been here before. Whether it was a succor punch or an all day succor you mean "succour".
Changed
  • Prelude
  • "Bethune" – no aigu?
Aigued.
  • "River Somme" – duplicate blue link.
Second mention unlinked.
  • Opposing forces
  • "The English army mainly comprised English and Welsh soldiers, along with some allied Breton and Flemish troops and a few German mercenaries." – You've told us more or less the same thing already.
Oops. Thank you. First iteration removed.
  • "These numbers have been described as unrealistic and exaggerated by historians" – I imagine the historians were doing the describing rather than the exaggerating, but that isn't what this says.
"exaggerated by unrealistic historians"? No? How about "as exaggerated and unrealistic by historians"?
That would do, but you might even change passive to active and say that historians describe the numbers and u and e. Just a thought. Tim riley talk 20:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I have gone with "These numbers are described by historians as exaggerated and unrealistic"
  • "the major trading city of Genoa " – this is the third mention of Genoa. The description as a major trading centre might be better at the first mention.
Ah. Yes. Done.
  • "This made it difficult for the French to outflank them" – I'm not clear who the "them" is: the left/right flanks or the whole English army? Or perhaps that amounts to the same thing?
"them" refers to both, ie the two flanks referred to in the previous sentence. Would it be clearer if I semi-coloned the two sentences?
  • "Having decisively defeated a large French detachment two days before, morale was high." – Dangling participle. Morale didn't defeat the French.
Is my change sufficient to undangle it?
  • "the French van" – as you have linked terms that seem to me arguably common enough not to need linking (sacking, knights, mercenaries, chronicle) I think you might consider linking "van". I don't suppose many of your readers will find themselves with a mental picture of a Citroën, but even so...
Every one of those is a term which I have been specifically asked to link in previous reviews (of other articles). "Van" expanded to 'vanguard' and added to the list
  • "vanguard" – showing my ignorance, but is this different from the van? If so another blue link wouldn't hurt, if one can be found.
Slightly rephrased to avoid a possible misreading - thanks for making me look hard at this.
  • "...Philip, or because too many of the large number of French knights kept pressing forward and the battle commenced against Philip's wishes. Philip's ..." – rather a lot of Philips here. Perhaps make the second or third "his"?
The second swapped out. I think that it reads OK with the two remaining.
  • Battle
  • "their sacred battle banner, the oriflamme" – is "sacred" used in a figurative sense or was it somehow consecrated to sanctity by the church?
Good question. As in repeatedly described as sacred in several RSs. To pick one not used in the article, see pp 15-16 of this. Sounds religious to me. Why?
  • "No prisoners would be taken" – not even King Edward, if they got hold of him? Was this normal? Cf the statement at ref 123.
A contemporary: "it was not lawful for anyone, on penalty of death, to take any prisoners"; a modern historian: "The unfurling of the Oriflamme was taken by the English as a sign that a legal state of guerre mortelle (a war to the death) was in force; under such a state of war, it was legitimate to take no prisoners." No if's, no but's. At Poitiers, a decade later, one of three chroniclers who go into in detail recorded that the French king made a specific exemption for the Black Prince. (The other two state that no prisoners were to be taken.) There are, so far as I am aware no sources, contemporary or modern, that suggest any exceptions were ordered at Crecy.
I have added a "after the battle" to "the next day" to clarify any apparent contradiction.
  • "a range of about 80 metres (260 ft)." – metric before imperial here but t'other way round earlier.
I was going with the original sources, but as the odd one out is "approximately", I think that I can tweak it.
  • "had two horses killed from underneath him" – the "from" seems a bit odd.
It is a common way of describing this, and the phraseology of the (1998) source. But changed as you suggest.
  • "although it is unclear as to why – the "as to" strikes me as superfluous.
True. Removed.

That's my meagre haul of quibbles. I've found this article as enjoyable to review as its predecessors. Tim riley talk 14:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your usual close reading and insightful criticisms Tim. Your points all addressed. See what you think. I am pleased that you enjoyed it: hopefully you could smell the sweat of the horses; hear the twang of the bowstrings. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Parinda[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

My first tryst with a featured article. It is a comprehensive and well written account of one of the most important and significant Indian film. Constructive feedback's are welcomed. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash[edit]

None really. I support this since my comments were addressed in the PR. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Kailash. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that never was, one of seven commemoratives to be vetoed by presidents. This one is interesting not only for a distant relationship to the Kennedy assassination through Clay Shaw, but because it was pushed by Eric P. Newman, long lived and giving numismatist and author who left money to help preserve numismatic knowledge at a time when coin collecting is not as popular as it once was.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support – I can manage precisely one quibble: I think, but am not quite sure enough to change it myself, that in "Ryan mentioned a observance" the "a" should be "an". Happy to support. Clear, pithy, as well illustrated as I imagine is possible, and well and widely referenced. Tim riley talk 14:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Littlemore Priory scandals[edit]

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

A pathological prioress, negligent nuns, a blundering bishop and unchaste chaplains; it rather says it all about Littlemore Priory that the only character that comes out the story looking even mildly positive was—in a career first and last—Cardinal Wolsey. Many thanks for looking in, please to comment. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 19:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Lead
    • "the image of the Catholic Church in England" – there wasn't any other church in England in Wolsey's day surely?
    • "Pension" – a blue link really needed for this everyday word?
  • Atwater investigates, 1517
    • "intending for her daughter to make a good marriage" – the "for" seems unneeded here.
    • "rooves" – I boggled at this, but I find the OED admits it. All the same, "roofs" is the usual form.
    • "They also as protested their decrepit clothing" – should "as protested" be "protested about" or some such? Makes no sense as it is.
    • "the nuns lacked basic needs" – I don't think they lacked the needs: they probably lacked the necessities
    • "Wells to be distributed among Wells's relatives" – the duplication of the name could be avoided with a pronoun
    • " priory's silver plate" – you link to tableware. Is that right? Would the plate not have been for ecclesiastical purposes?
    • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress" – should there be a name or pronoun where the en-dash is? And if this Spear is the same person mentioned in the second para of the section she was plural then rather than singular, as here.
    • "Spear suggested" – past tense, as opposed to present elsewhere
  • Aftermath
    • What is "a humanism Cardinal College"?
    • "and for the building of which, therefore" – either the "and" or the "therefore" isn't wanted, I think.
    • "a pension of £6 £13 4d" – a year?
    • "It illustrates, she suggests ..." – the conclusion attributed to Power seems odd. If I correctly interpret the sentence it would be more accurate as "...that although the decadent institutions...", with the "but" later in the sentence omitted.
  • Notes
    • 2. – bishop' instructions – "bishop's instructions"?
    • 6. – omissions – I think you probably mean "emissions"

That’s all from me. Tim riley talk 17:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim riley; I've addressed your points and thank you for them—mostly silly mistakes, apologies for putting you through them, I end up re-reading the thing so often I don't see wood for trees I think—but can I ask you to clarify your point#14 ("it illustrates, she suggests", etc)? I can't quite get the gist of what you're asking. More apologies if I'm missing the bleeding obvious! ~~
It's a matter of clarity. I think the sentence gets lost midway: "...but it clearly had" – what is it? There isn't a singular noun to which it could plausibly refer. Now I look again I think just deleting the "it" would do the trick, and restore both syntax and clarity. All the same, I think it would be clearer still if you turned it round: It illustrates, she suggests, that although Thomas Cromwell exaggerated the case there was clearly some basis in recent history for the allegations of decadent institutions and scurrilous behaviour that he used as justification for the wholesale dissolution of the monasteries of 1536–39. But I certainly don't press the point if you disagree. Tim riley talk 21:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I see what you mean Tim, apologies for density. That wording's good enough for me, so I've 1/2"ed it. I'd welcome you checking that everything's to your satisfaction, of course. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Happy to support now. Tim riley talk 14:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • Do we know why Horde initially visited the priory?
    • Not really, but E. Power does hint at a sort of reason, which we ca draw out from; and I've done so.
  • "rooves" is, if not incorrect, then definitely an unusual spelling: I would use "roofs" simply because it is so much more familiar!
    • Absolutely. See Tim r. above; great minds think alike. I don't know what possessed me.
  • "Spear agrees with – on the irresponsibility of the prioress": from context, I guess Spear is agreeing with Logan?
    • Acrtually with Power, but my prose was poor enough to not make that crystal clear; hopefully now clarified.
  • "were apostatised as a result": apostatised is wikilinked towards the end of the article; the wikilink should be up here (and you might consider glossing it in text too)
    • Moved; can you suggest a gloss?
  • "Wells complained that even though it is two years since Juliana Wynter had had a baby". Tense problems: "even though it had been". And I would write "had given birth" in order to avoid "had had".
    • Check.
  • "his new humanism Cardinal College": "humanist"?
    • Corrected.
  • "and for the building of which, therefore, he needed funds": at least one of "and" or "therefore" is superfluous here; you might even cut both.
    • Both gone (one already gone due to T.r. again!)
  • "suppress several decayed monasteries": "decayed" implies to me that the physical structure of the monasteries was the problem; I assume that in fact Wolsey was concerned with moral decline?
    • You're dead right, and I'm not invested particularly in its use; bit it is the word used frequently in the sources for this particular application.
  • "its lands were given over new college": "over to the new college"?
    • D'oh.
  • "his efforts mirror and predate the attempted reforms": strange phrasing.
    • How about the miuch tighter "...Atwater's efforts in this direction anticipated..."?
  • Note 2 confuses me: "the rubric to the Littlemore visitation contains none of the references to modesty or shamefastness which usually appear when sexual transgression is at issue" appears to be used to support that there was anxiety about lesbian sex at Littlemore!?
    • Indeed! It is actually saying two things—"yes but no" kind of thing"—to make a single point, so I've clarified that Atwater might have thought there was funny business going on, but a historian thinks otherwise.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • All great points, Caeciliusinhorto; I think I've addressed them? (Exept the gloss, which is pending but not forgotten!) And of course, as ever, if you think of anything else—especially if you can find me another image ;) !—you'd be very welcome. Thanks again! ——SerialNumber54129 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Definite improvements! A few more comments on a second read through:

  • "Other essential outbuildings": we weren't really talking about "essential outbuildings" previously, unless we are considering the priory an outbuilding! "Some essential outbuildings"?
  • "with no companion other than a young child from a nearby village": the "with a young child bit" is striking – are we to infer that it was her daughter?
  • "even at the elevation": I think that elevation (liturgy) is the target you are looking for?

(Re. images: there's probably room for an image of Wolsey in §Aftermath? As I know from my current effort at FAC, not all articles are naturally bountiful in images!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Caeciliusinhorto, appreciate the suggestions. Went with just "Essential outbuildings were..." most succinct? And of course, you're right about the elevation of the host (rather than "500 ft above sea-level"!). Bloody good idea about Wolsey, and as a bonus, that one of Sampson Strong's shows the college in the background which increases relevancy further.
Interesting point about the child, and that might be the implication, although the chronology is hazy. *WP:MEGA-OR alert* She told the bishop that her daughter had died a few years earlier so no, not her—although a great idea—but taking it a step further, could we surmise that she was suffering from a form of empty nest syndrome? Her daughter had died, and she was living through someone else's from the village? Completely hypothetical; but a sad possibility nevertheless, I think. What say you? Unfortunately [/WP:OR] there's nothing in any source that discusses her child. ——SerialNumber54129 10:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
An excellent image of Wolsey! Now there's a man who wasn't following the Benedictine prohibition on eating meat! (Or, indeed, as I recall, the priestly requirement for celibacy!)
About the child: if the sources don't discuss it, they don't discuss it. Now, if you were writing a scholarly article on the scandals I would be suggesting that you dig into that, because it is interesting. Was she lying about the death of her daughter? Was she trying to overcome the grief from her daughter's death? Was there some other reason the nuns were concerned about it? As you say, though, there's nowhere to go at present without tearing up WP:OR...
Sources used generally look reliable: there are a few pretty dated sources, especially King, Arrowsmith, and VCH, but these seem to be generally used to support relatively uncontroversial facts, and sometimes in articles like this you do need to go back to older sources. I did raise my eyebrows slightly at Flora Fraser (and the claim she is being used to support looks like a time to cite the primary source if I ever saw one!) but no serious concerns about the sources from my point of view.
I don't have enough knowledge of the scholarship to properly judge comprehensiveness, but there's nothing obviously missing from this layman's point of view. I haven't checked the image licensing thoroughly but the painting is obviously out of copyright and the photograph is CC licensed, so looks fine to me.
Overall, I'm willing to support promotion. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto some very nuanced points indeed! You're probably right about Fraser, and I'll see if I can dig it out of the Visitations. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Sampson_Strong's_Wolsey_portrait_in_Christ_Church.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thakns for that Nikkimaria, much appreciated as ever. ——SerialNumber54129 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas White (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the daughter of Australia's second Prime Minister, became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government. Tks to those who took part in the article's MilHist A-Class Review last year, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Casting an eye over the recent additions to the list of FA candidates I spotted "Thomas White (Australian politician)" and thought "Hmm, I wonder who that's by?" I was not wrong, I see, and this contribution is well up to the Rose standard. A few points on the prose, none of which affect my support:

  • First World War section – given the heading, it might be smoother to make "the First World War" in the opening line just "the war". I don't press the point.
    • I guess I prefer to write paragraphs that can be read without the heading...
  • "at St John's Church of England in Toorak" – I quite see that it was a C of E church, but I don't think it quite works to elide "St John's Church of England church". Loyal son of the C of E though I am, I'd be inclined to make this just "at St John's Church, Toorak". But again, I don't press the point.
    • I tend to agree with you but the source renders it this way and I think we'd need to explain it was C of E somewhere...
  • "but lost to the sitting Labor member, James Fenton, by just over 9,000 votes" – it could be helpful to readers unfamiliar with the Australian electoral system of the time to say whether a 9,000 majority was a landslide, a narrow squeak or something in between.
    • The sources don't editorialise on the result so I think all I could offer is to recast it with the totals for White and his opponent, i.e. 19,000 to 28,000, and let the reader work it out.
      • Probably not worth the extra words. Consider the suggestion withdrawn. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Denied pre-selection as a Nationalist" – I struggle with this. Is it that the party declined to adopt him as a candidate (as we would say in Britain)?
    • Interesting, I thought pre-selection and de-selection were British terms -- your suggestion is probably more universal anyway though, so no prob.
  • "personal animosity for Menzies" – the nittiest of picks, but I think one has an animosity against, rather than for, someone. Perfectly prepared to be told I'm wrong so far as AusEng is concerned.
    • How about "animosity towards"?

Nothing there of any great moment. Happy to support this enjoyably readable article about an interesting person. Seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk

Thanks as always for your comments and support, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm entirely content with the replies above. Nothing else to add. Tim riley talk 12:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from PM[edit]

This article is in fine shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR back in April last year, and could find precious little to quibble about then. I have a few comments:

  • Pre-WWI, AFAIK the part-time Army was the Citizen Forces, not the CMF, although anything prior to the 1903 Defence Act is a bit iffy in terms of terminology, as I think the colonial laws still prevailed
    • Hmm, looking at the sources for the first mention, the ADB uses Citizen Military Forces but the Prahran Telegraph says Citizen Forces, so I guess I could adopt the latter... What's your advice for subsequent mentions of CMF though, as the ADB continues with it?
  • the NAA file citations would benefit from a page number, eg fn 4
    • God, how'd I forget that...
  • when Basra is first mentioned, there is some assumed knowledge about where that is
    • I can add the waterway it's on per Stephens and Cutlack.
  • following on from my comments at ACR, in respect to his election results, could they be rendered in percentage terms of the votes cast instead of raw vote numbers, as we don't know the sizes of the electorates, and don't know if 12,000 votes (for example) was a lot or a little?
    • If I may refer my honorable friend to the reply I made to Mr Riley earlier... rather than percentages, newspaper reports at this time seem to focus on the victor's majority, as well as the bare figures for each candidate, so I'd be happy to substitute the latter for what we have now and let the reader work out the decisiveness of the wins.
  • for Victorian Society for Crippled Children and Adults link Yooralla
    • Tks, will do.
  • his ADB entry states several things that would bear a mention, including his maiden speech about the AWM, his support of censorship, his support for the New Guard, his almost-resignation over conscription, that he was a dedicated protectionist, this should be mentioned, I think, as it was strong thread in early 20th century Australian politics. Also his identification with ex-serviceman's causes.
    • Okay, will have a look...
  • the first para of Second World War and later parliamentary career could do with a chronological approach to his postings, as we learn of three positions, then get details of each one. I would suggest mentioning each in turn, along with the details of each one.
    • Ditto...
  • perhaps say when he returned to Australia from the UKHC job, as his death in Melbourne is rather sudden
    • Okay.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Thomas_Walter_White_1942_(AWM_011735).JPG: if this was taken by the British official photographer, why would it be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Second Fitna[edit]

Nominator(s): AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an early inter-Muslim civil war that ensued after the death of the first Umayyad caliph Muawiyah I in 680 CE. It was a highly complicated and multi-faceted affair, that left a lasting impact on later Muslim governments and deepened sectarian divide. The core issue of the dispute was "who should rule the caliphate". The article is comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, and is thoroughly referenced with high-quality sources. An informal peer-review resulted in great improvement in the structure and accuracy of the article, while prose was improved recently by a GOCE contributor. All comments, suggestions, and criticism are welcome. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 07:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, except for two maps, where alt wouldn't add anything unique. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 19:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. Some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Second Fitna heavily influenced the later development of Islamic history in a variety of ways." Needs source.
This is just, sort of, a summary of what follows in the section, which is referenced. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Syria remained under Umayyad control." Likewise. All paragraphs should end in citations.
As above. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it would still be encouraged in both cases, though. The average reader can't know whether it is just a summary or not by just reading the sentences. And if there is any doubt, the default should be to add a source. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Removed the one above, as it may sound like synthesis. This one is plain fact in view of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why does this[1] image have a large white border? Should be cropped out.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Quraysh (a powerful grouping of Meccan clans, to which Muhammad and all caliphs belonged)" All caliphs? The Ottoman caliphs were hardly of that clan, for example? Or do you mean until that point?
Until then. Although Qurayshi caliphs ruled at-least until the fall of the Abbasids, here first three are meant. Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "All the above killed in action Umayyad leaders killed by the pro-Alid leader Mukhtar al-Thaqafi during his reign in Iraq" Is this supposed to be one sentence? Reads odd.
Removed, is discussed in the article body anyway. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bernard Lewis notes" You present other writers, should be consistent.
Sorry I don't understand this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Introduce the writers; in other cases, you say "Historian Fred Donner", for example. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Muawiyah moved to settle the issue in his lifetime by designating his son Yazid as his successor.[6] With no precedence in Islamic history, hereditary succession aroused opposition." and " `In 676, Muawiyah announced his plans to nominate Yazid.[8] This was met with some resistance from different quarters as the nomination was considered the corruption of the caliphate into monarchy." seem repetitive, could the sentences perhaps be merged?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Battles fought during the civil war" Which of them? Perhaps best to just specify first or second fitna.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • More terms and names could be linked in image captions.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Alid, Hejaz, Messiah, and Kufa are not linked in the article body. Also, the term Alid could be explained.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Syrian army headed for Mecca" Might be confusing for most readers, why not just be consistent and call them or similar? If not, you might want to explain the Syrian angle further, because the rulers weren't Syrian as such after all.
Changed to Yazid's army .AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "had fought the Umayyads and the Syrians during the First Fitna" Similar to above, you haven't explained who "the Syrians" were.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "and Iraq and Egypt came under his fold" The and and reads awkwardly. How about "which brought Iraq and Egypt under his fold", "with Iraq and Egypt subsequently coming under his fold", or similar, to avoid repetition?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Pro-Zubayrd" Missing i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "allied with the Kharijites" Duplinked.
Duplink removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "—a rebel faction opposed to the Umayyads and the Alids who had emerged during the First Fitna—" They should be presented at first mention, which is much earlier in the article.
There they are mentioned in the due context. Further elaboration that they were opposed to Umayyads isn't necessary at that point, as the focus is upon their desertion of Ali. Here (i.e. at this second mention) it serves to recall who they were and to add that they were also opposed to Umayyads. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia. They began destabilizing his rule." Why two fragmentary sentences? Could make more sense as "A group of Kharijites went to Basra, the rest to central Arabia, and began destabilizing his rule."
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Tawwabin now came out in the open and called on the people to revenge Husayn's death" Explain what Tawwabin is.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a significant of number of whom" Of is not needed here.
Removed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You are inconsistent in whether ibn is capitalised or not. You seem to only capitalise it when not spelling out a full name, but shouldn't it be consistent? What do the sources do?
I used to write it as "ibn", but a reviewer pointed out (correctly) in my previous FAC that sources capaitalize Ibn when giving short name. See for example here. Same is for the rest of the sources. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Rabi'a's opponents Mudar" Which are what? The article linked gives little explanation.
The linked articles are really bad and need to be improved. Added some context here. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "while situation in Hadharamaut" The situation.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "under Sufyanids" The?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Zubayrdis" Misplaced i.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Qaysis proved invincible again" A bit too hyperbolic.
Changed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "from the Karijites" Missing h.
Fixed. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The fall of Mukhtar meant there were now only two belligerents in the war—the Umayyads and the Zubayrids" But seems the Kharijites were still active too? In fact, it is unclear in the article what they wanted from their continued fight. And shouldn't they have a column in the infobox?
They weren't a faction for the control of the state like the other three factions. They would control sparesely populated areas and then and raid and harass cities and towns. They had no workable framework on how the state should be governed and run, and they often would fight among themselves, depose and kill their leaders on a regular basis and disintegrate into further factions. That's why historians don't consider them a real party in the quest for leadership. I will add a footnote on this. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 14:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll support once the footnote is added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "by the Abbasid Revolution in 750" Link them a first mention.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Arabic coinage replaced that of the Byzantine and Persia" Persian?
Sorry, don't get this one. Why Persian? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so shouldn't it be "Byzantines"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "of Mahdi who was to appear in future" The Mahdi and the future?
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "hen he defeated Zubayrids" The.
Done. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Brooklyn_Museum_-_Battle_of_Karbala_-_Abbas_Al-Musavi_-_cropped.jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Don't know, but I think Brooklyn Museum description can be trusted. Their page says "No known copyright restrictions". AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The image currently has a tag stating the author died at least 70 years ago. If we can't confirm that, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
It stated "and if not then due to lack of notice or renewal." Anyway, changed to pd-us-no notice.AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 17:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Silver_dirham_of_Abd_Allah_ibn_al-Zubayr_690-91.jpg needs an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. Weird thing is that pd-art-3d didn't generate the text that is displayed on template page. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Early history of Gowa and Talloq[edit]

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) and Masjawad99 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the early history of Gowa and Talloq, a pair of kingdoms which were to be one of strongest powers in pre-colonial Indonesia. The article was initially written and passed to GA by Karaeng Matoaya, but he hasn't been active since. Recently, Masjawad99 and myself tried to expand and improve it further. We nominated it for FA but after a few responses (all responded to and none seems negative) it was closed for inactivity (see archive1). Hopefully we'll be able to get more feedback now. HaEr48 (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mimihitam[edit]

  • I think the scope of "Early history of Gowa and Talloq" would have to be defined more clearly in the beginning of the article rather than in the "Aftermath". Who made the periodisation of early, middle, or late history of Gowa and Talloq? What separates the early period from latter periods? Is it because it was a pre-Islamic period, or is it because it was the time when Gowa was rising significantly? It would be helpful if you could clarify this in the article.
  • Since Gowa would be Islamised after this period, could you perhaps clarify the (animistic?) belief that they had during this "early period"? Maybe it could be described in the "Background" section.
  • "the veneration of the divine origins of nobility and the influential role of the bissu priesthood remained powerful obstacles for Islamization" --> isn't the bissu part of the Bugis culture?
    • Bissu also existed in pre-Islamic Makassar society according to the source cited (btw, I fixed the pages, it's pp. 117-119, not pp. 142-144). Or at least a similar concept; Ahmad Sewang (2005, pp. 152, 176) lists daeng ta alakaya as a Makassarese synonym for bissu (but even the term bissu is unmarked, which means that it also exists in the Makassarese language). Masjawad99💬 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I feel like "with the king's power felt from Minahasa to Selayar" needs to be elaborated further. In the body, it is written that "Gowa was thus able to vanquish a staggering number of polities throughout the island of Sulawesi, from the northern Minahasa Peninsula to Selayar Island off the southern coast." The word "vanquish" implies that Gowa once conquered Minahasa and Selayar, which might not be accurate based on the sources.
  • I heard that the Gowa managed to control Sumbawa at some point. Was it during this early period?
    • This was in the later period, during the reign of Karaeng Matoaya, and perhaps after his conversion to Islam. Masjawad99💬 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

That's it for now. I would like to thank you in advance. Mimihitam (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost There (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m nominating this article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and was quite close, in my opinion, to passing the last nomination, which stalled due to lack of discussion. This has waited the customary two weeks and I’m excited to finish the job hopefully!

This is the first studio album from MercyMe, a Christian rock band, and was released back in 2001. It got highly positive reviews from critics, mainly praising the lyrical content of the album. Although the first single flopped and initial sales were poor, its second single, "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to adult contemporary, top 40, adult top 40, and country radio in 2003 and 2004. The album was a mainstay on the Christian charts for years and peaked at number one in September 2003 - two years after its release. It has now been certified triple platinum, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and the single is also triple platinum, the best-selling Christian song ever. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

HMS Ramillies (07)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramillies was completed after the Battle of Jutland and only played a minor role in World War I. She supported Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and during the Greco-Turkish War from 1919–1922. After the Italians joined the war in 1940, she escorted convoys to Malta and supported the raid on Taranto that crippled the Italian battlefleet. Ramillies was transferred to the Indian Ocean a few months before the Japanese joined the war. During the invasion of Madagascar in 1942 she was torpedoed by a Japanese midget submarine. In 1944 the ship bombarded German positions during the landings in Normandy and in the South of France. She was placed in reserve in early 1945 and scrapped in 1945. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and Parsecboy and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. We'd like reviewers to look for any bits of AmEnglish that might be found as well as any unlinked or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it at GAN then re-read it at Milhist ACR and couldn't see anything to quibble about. I have a few minor points:

  • in the lead, suggest "They ships were developments"
  • also in the lead, suggest "She also saw limited involvement in the Black Sea in 1920 during the Franco-British intervention in the Russian Civil War." as the current formulation makes it seem the Russian Civil War was in the Black Sea in 1920
  • suggest "rescinded the decision forto use coal"
  • suggest turning lk=on to link kW when first converted
  • the upper range of the conning tower armour differs between the body and infobox?
  • suggest "In addition the aft torpedo tubes on both sides were removed"
    • The reader already knows that the torpedo tubes were mounted on the broadside.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • could you say that she was the nth British ship to be named Ramillies? I think this sort of detail is appealing and shows continuity.
  • link dry dock
  • suggest splitting the change of captains and inserting the second one for Smith into the narrative at the appropriate point
    • I'm not seeing this, where more exactly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Captain Aubrey Smith is mentioned out of chronological order. I suggest inserting his assumption of command after the Constantinople sentence to make his connection to the Georgia mission clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • do we know when they were attached to the Med Fleet?
    • Not to the day, but it was in early 1920.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • link ship commissioning for decommissioned at first mention
  • suggest "en route that lasted"
  • suggest "The unit was established in December, with the squadron attached to Force F"→"The squadron was established in December and was attached to Force F"
  • perhaps mention that Addu Atoll is in the Maldives?
  • perhaps mention that Mombasa is in Kenya?
  • "providing heavy fire support to the forces"
  • "three German torpedo boats" but then they are described as destroyers. I know they were treated as interchangeable by the Germans, but consistency would be better here
  • suggest "her bombardment ability no longer necessaryrequired"

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful and thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
All done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats: Ref 52 requires pp. not p.
  • Quality and reliability: No issues

Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks, Brian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • The two battleships opened fire at around 5:30 on the morning of the invasion, 6 June By MOS:TIME "5:30" should be "05:30".
    • Fixed
  • sisters were transferred to the Mediterranean Fleet in August 1927 Remove 1927 here.
    • Done
  • a fleet review for the king at Portland Was this really the King here? If so please replace "king" with the capitalised "King".
    • Done
  • Following its conclusion, she was sent to Alexandria by way of Gibraltar Maybe add Egypte here?
    • Good idea
  • she was transferred to Aden, Yemen, as part of the search This is a little bit debatable here. Maybe remove Yemen with the Aden Protectorate because Yemen had only the northern part of modern-day Yemen at that time.
  • visited the ship on 16 August in Hvalfjörður, Iceland Link Iceland here with the Kingdom of Iceland's article.
    • Done
  • the artist chose to crown the sculpture with a 6-metre (19 ft 8 in) model of Ramillies Metric units as primary units here? Maybe switch the units here?
    • Good catch
  • they shelled the heavy coastal guns on the Mandrier peninsula Please capitalise peninsula here.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as always! Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey BB I just added one extra comment I reckon this my last comment here. Could you please address this one? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed I can - thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. The article just passed a MilHist ACR and is in good shape. Regardless, I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This article is in great shape, and I really had to nitpick at Milhist ACR to find anything. A couple of minor things:

  • link displacement at first mention (in the Design section), rather than later
  • you could turn lk=on to link kW in the body and infobox

That's all I have. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that all of my noms have such easy fixes! Thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

  • Both images are appropriately licenced.
  • Alt text?
    • I never bother with alt text as there's serious disagreement about how much detail is necessary and/or appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Then we may have a problem. The MoS, in MOS:ACCIM, states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users." No ifs nor buts. I would, obviously, be happy to be pointed towards an escape hatch. I understand that there is disagreement as just what should be in the alt text and am prepared to give considerable latitude. But I don't see how I can sign the article off as meeting the MoS when it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: This discussion might be informative. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Very interesting. Bottom line, as I see it: the MoS says what it says; this article doesn't comply with it. My opinion and those of the editors contributing to the discussion are irrelevant to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The template for the infobox doesn't allow for alt text. I added one for the diagram.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
That's irritating, but I suppose can't be helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "It also decided to move the forward turret back 7 feet 8 inches (2.3 m) because it thought that the ship might be bow-heavy, and revised the armament to four 12-inch (305 mm) guns" "revised" → 'revise'.
  • "All together these changes" "All together" → 'Altogether'.
  • "and could depress to −5° and could traverse 270°." "and could ... and could"?
  • Note 1: "All dates used in this article are New Style" Why the upper case N and S?
    • The template for displaying old and new style dates capitalizes the abbreviations for them, so I just perpetuated it.
Consistency is good, but the template is not used in this article, so why not go with the MoS and lower case them?
  • "but she was not fully ready for service until 1894" Do we know when in 1894 she was fully ready? Or what was lacking when she joined the fleet on 17 June 1893?
    • Annoyingly no.
  • "prevented an attempt by Captain Koland" The gentleman has not been formally introduced.
    • And I can't even find out his first name or anything else about him. Which probably means that he didn't make flag rank.
I meant: is he the captain of the Dvenadsat Apostolov? If so, could this be mentioned somewhere.
  • "The Naval Technical Committee proposed" "both proposals were rejected by the Naval Technical Committee" Not a big deal, but it reads oddly that the Naval Technical Committee were rejecting their own proposal.
    • Reworked. I was confusing several different proposals that weren't actually simultaneous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "This was initially approved by the Navy Minister, Admiral Ivan Grigorovich in June 1909, but this was later reversed." Optional: Delete the second "this".
  • "she was used on various harbor duties" "on" → 'for'.
  • "while reportedly serving as a mine storage hulk" Does "reportedly" serve any purpose?
    • That's the language used by my source.
Damn. A fine point of prose wrecked by an inconvenient source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Two follow up comments for your attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. I think that things are clearer now. See if you agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Another cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Uncited content: see final sentence of first paragraph in "History" section
  • Formats: "Arbazov" in ref 6 appears to be a spelling error
  • Quality and reliability: no issues

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Always something, isn't there? Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Parsecboy[edit]

I reviewed this at the Milhist ACR and my concerns were address there. One little nitpick:

  • A couple of dupe links have crept in since the A-class review.

Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I do have some comments here.

  • Dvenadsat Apostolov (Russian: Двенадцать Апостолов—"Twelve Apostles") Unlink Russian here because of common term.
  • in exchange for an additional 75 long tons (76 t) in displacement Link tonnes here.
  • had six Siemens dynamos with a total output of 540 kilowatts (720 hp) Shoudln't horsepower be here the primary unit?
    • I usually see generator/dynamo output in kW.
  • Interesting, I'll take this one.
  • Germans in Sevastopol in May 1918 and handed over to the Allies in December 1918 Unlink Allies here.
  • by both sides during the Russian Civil War Unlink Russian Civil War here.
  • but was abandoned by the White Russians when they evacuated Unlink White Russians here.
  • Hey Sturm you forgot to unlink the second "Russian Civil War". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You're right; my eyes skimmed right over your comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good in my view. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Project Excalibur[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a rather strange event in the history of the cold war.

It involves Edward Teller, Ronald Reagan, nuclear bombs and freaking lasers. If that were not enough, it's also filled with leaking top secrets, railroading people, lies, and is the basis for one of the major steps on LLNL's long downward spiral in the eyes of Washington.

The article went through a lengthy (due largely to my workload) but relatively uncontentious milhist-A-class review. I draw attention to the threads on the talk page, make of them what you will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham[edit]

Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The English architect Frank Matcham was the UK's most famous theatre designer during the late-Victorian/early Edwardian period, and was responsible for the design of nearly 200 theatres up and down the country. Sadly, the 1960s turned a lot of his theatres into rubble and dust and now only a handful survive, mostly in London. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of his death, so I've decided to bring his article up to scratch to pay homage to his architectural genius. It's received an excellent peer review and I'm now opening it up here for future FA consideration. CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Iridescent[edit]

Sources and images not checked; this is the version reviewed.

Support from Gerda[edit]

Per the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat[edit]

I had my say in the peer review and it's been strengthened since then, from what I can see. Nice work, and great to see you back at FAC. I hope the trolls don't cause another break. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the support. I hope so to, but all the time people go on about infoboxes (little do they know of our conversation a few weeks ago about this very subject and my siding towards putting an infobox here. Oh well!) only time will tell. CassiantoTalk 13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a big supporter of the addition made since my support: it adds a lot to the article and to a reader's understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Very happy to support now. This article meets the FA criteria in my view, and is an important addition to the online information about one of Britain's most loved architects. Mention Matcham to a theatre- or opera-goer and watch their faces light up. Thank you, Cass, for doing him justice, and in good time for his anniversary too! Tim riley talk 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1[edit]

Marker from me also. Will comment this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

One immediate, minor thought. The lead opening calls him an "English theatrical architect and designer". Should this be a "theatre architect", rather than a "theatrical" one? Tim will know. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Ha, thanks, now amended. CassiantoTalk 08:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Theatrical architect" seemed OK to me (though so, I hasten to add, does "theatre architect"). Possibly a generational thing. Adjectival job-titles were more the thing when I was young, e.g. "musical director", which is now almost always "music director". Tim riley talk 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
They both seem ok to me too, but actually saying them makes "theatre architect" seem the more correct of the two. CassiantoTalk 08:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer "theatre architect". I think the Blessed One could rightly be termed a "theatrical architect" - Lady Bute's bedroom at Castell Coch has been described as looking like a scene from an Aladdin pantomime! - but theatres were one of the few architectural types he didn't try. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I see the plaque at the London Coliseum calls him a "theatre architect". KJP1 (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Already adjusted. CassiantoTalk 22:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sorry - this is going to come in dribs and drabs.

Lead
  • "and the redesigns and refurbishments of a further 80" - should these be singular, "redesign and refurbishment"?
  • "the architect's personal archives that the he was "a man of remarkable vigour..." - stray "the".
Early life
  • "Matcham was born in Newton Abbot, Devon, in 1854" - give the birth date for completeness?
Entry into the family business
  • The title threw me a little. It wasn't his family's business, but rather his wife's. Perhaps, "Entry into the Robinson family business"?
  • "because of them, the Elephant and Castle Theatre project had to be increased by six months" - "extended"?
  • "for the audience to view the entertainment more freely" - wasn't quite sure what was meant here. "for the audience to gain/have better views of the entertainment"?
Work under the Revills
  • "The Royalty took just four weeks to complete and was largely inexpensive" - "largely inexpensive" reads a little oddly to me. "Relatively inexpensive", "comparatively cheap"?
  • "two things that helped enhance his reputation"- "factors"?
  • "According to the biographer Michael Sell, Matcham's relationship with Elliston" - should this be "Revill", Elliston being the focus of the paragraph above?
    • No, it's certainly Elliston...William J Revill is mentioned in the above paragraph, towards the end.
Moss Empires and Oswald Stoll
  • The first two para.s are duplicate, I think a cut-paste error.
    • I think I caught this yesterday.
  • "Matcham rushed together a secondary, more cheaper design of the Empire's façade" - don't think the "more" is necessary.
Other works
  • "and included the building of a number of shopping arcades to accompany the existing Thorntons Arcade, which was completed in 1878" - perhaps, "which included the building of a number of shopping arcades to accompany the existing Thorntons Arcade, completed in 1878"?
  • "At the same time to his work with the County Arcade, he designed the Empire Palace, for Moss, which was located further down Briggate,[72] and 49–51 Vicar Lane; 2–24 King Edward Street and 115–120, Brigatte, which consist of shops and offices" - perhaps, "At the same time as his work on the County Arcade, he designed the Empire Palace, for Moss, which was located further down Briggate, and 49–51 Vicar Lane; 2–24 King Edward Street and 115–120, Brigatte, which consisted of shops and offices"?
  • "Either way, Mercer Walker considered the project to be completely out of character for Matcham who had previously displayed such energy and enthusiasm for all his designs" - Not quite getting this. It seems to be implying that his characteristic energy and enthusiasm was absent from the Leeds designs, but the text above doesn't seem to say this. Is something missing?
  • I don't think it was a secret that MW was more of a fan of Matcham's theatres than he was of his random wanders into civvy street. I happen to disagree, of course. CassiantoTalk 22:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Retirement and death
  • "Matcham was also working alongside Crewe" - have we met Crewe previously? If so, I've forgotten where.
  • "Chancellor retired and moved to the English countryside" - is "English" necessary?
  • "Briggs held the business in a dormant state until after the war when the business was sold to a property agency in Covent Garden" - replace the second "business" with "it" to avoid duplication?
Legacy
  • "and has been open to much speculation" - "and has been the subject of much speculation"?
  • "and the remodelling and restorations of 58 others" - superfluous "s"?
  • "From the start of the 1900s Bertie Crewe" - here we meet Crewe again, with a link (see above). Should he be introduced, and linked, earlier?
  • "he describes the former as being more suave compared to Matcham" - this reads a little oddly to me. "suaver/more sophisticated than Matcham"?
  • "a blue plaque at the site of his London home, 10 Haslemere Road, Hornsey" - in the para. above, Matcham's doing am dram at his London home in Dollis Avenue. Was Hornsey his last London home, or the London home in which he resided the longest?
  • To confirm either would be speculative with sources giving no indication as to the longevity of his stay in either house. I've adjusted it slightly to take out the insinuation that this was their only London home. CassiantoTalk 22:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Notes
  • -Note 1 "Charles's desire to capitalise from the increase in tourism" - "capitalise on" or "benefit from"?
  • -Note 2 - "The Bridgemans were also neighbours to the Matcham's in Union Street, Torquay" - don't think the apostrophe is needed?
  • -Note 9 - "In Victorian England, theatrical architects were not taken seriously in architectural circles and were often looked upon as being the lesser of a kind" - Not quite getting "the lesser of a kind". Perhaps, "theatre architects were not taken seriously in architectural circles and were often looked upon as being of inferior status"?
  • KJP1, all carried out, unless where I've replied. Thank you for the quotes; The Everyman quote from Pevsner I've not incorporated as that was for something else. The ones I've crossed out have been included. Please check to confirm if you're happy with this. Thanks again for a great set of comments. CassiantoTalk 21:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Pevsner - some possibly useful gleanings
Work under the Revills
  • Kings Theatre, Southsea - "In Albert Road, the splendid King's Theatre of 1906-7 by Frank Matcham, restored in 2007-9 by Tim Ronald Architects. Prominent hexagonal tower with Ionic columns and lion finials around a broad spire-like top crowned by a cupola with a replica statue of Aurora. (sounds like a wedding cake!) The interior is charming and richly detailed, making full use of the tight space. Plaster figures and mouldings in Matcham's full-blown Baroque." {O'Brien/Bailey/Lloyd/Pevsner, Hampshire: South, 2018, Yale, pp=531-532}
Matcham & Co.
  • Everyman Theatre, Cheltenham - "the Everyman Theatre of 1891 by the theatre specialist Frank Matcham. Its brick façade was mostly rebuilt c. 1986 but the splendidly sugary Rococo interior, with two slightly curved galleries, is unaltered, probably the earliest by Matcham to survive complete". {Verey/Brooks, Gloucestershire 2: The Vale and the Forest of Dean, 2002, Yale, p=264}
Moss Empires and Oswald Stoll
  • London Coliseum - Appreciate you may think it's too much but Pevsner has some good stuff: the colossal cost, £250,000, "box-to-box telephones" and "changing rooms so that evening dress could be donned 'on site'". {Bradley/Pevsner, London 6: Westminster, 2003, Yale, p=386}
  • Hackney Empire - ditto the "splendidly confident" Hackney Empire, "among the best-surviving Edwardian variety theatres". {Cherry/Pevsner, London 4: North, 2002, Yale, p=496}
Other works
  • Tower Circus - "When it opened it was the largest and most elaborate theatre of its type in England, providing a permanent setting for a circus not available in any other resort."
  • Tower Ballroom - "What a room. The palette is rich cream, gold and brown. The proscenium is framed by glorious turret-like boxes topped with onion domes, while the top is crowned by enormous figures representing the Three Graces. The Wurlitzer organ faces a backdrop of a romantic seaside scene (wholly unlike Blackpool)." Both - {Hartwell/Pevsner, Lancashire: North, 2009, p=143} This one might make rather a good quote box? KJP1 (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Any others you'd particularly like me to check out? KJP1 (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Some other critics
  • "The most consistent and prolific architect of the later music halls was Frank Matcham. His buildings, mostly in the provinces and the suburbs of London, equal or exceed in splendour the metropolitan theatres and opera houses." {Roger Dixon/Stefan Muthesius, Victorian Architecture, 1985, Thames and Hudson, p=93}
  • "The extraordinary concoctions of Frank Matcham such as the Belfast Grand Opera House of 1895 and the Empire at Hackney of 1900, both weirdly festive in a somewhat vulgarly overblown manner that incorporates debased motifs from many sources." {James Stevens Curl, Victorian Architecture, David & Charles, 1990, p=254}
  • "With his two pupils, W. G. R. Sprague and Bertie Crewe, Matcham was the most successful of the late Victorian and Edwardian Theatre architects". {Alastair Service, Edwardian Architecture, Thames and Hudson, 1977, p=205}
Sources
  • Matcham's Revills by Michael Sell - just a thought, and MoS is not my forte, but any reason why this isn't listed in the Sources?
  • It's kind of a book within a book - a huge chapter and one not by Wilmore, hence the combined credit. CassiantoTalk 21:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Refs[edit]

Cassianto - I'm afraid I've used sfn for so long, I've forgotten how to do it any other way. I've therefore listed them as I'd put them, and hopefully it'll be a fairly easy job to refactor them to match your approach. Didn't know whether you'll need the "Other critics", but I've given them anyway. Give me a shout if there are issues. KJP1 (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Bradley, Simon; Pevsner, Nikolaus (2003). London 6: Westminster. The Buildings Of England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09595-1.
  • Cherry, Bridget; Pevsner, Nikolaus (2002). London 4: North. The Buildings Of England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09653-8.
  • Curl, James Stevens (1990). Victorian Architecture. Newton Abbot, Devon: David & Charles. ISBN 978-0-715-39144-0.
  • Dixon, Roger; Muthesius, Stefan (1985). Victorian Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-20160-2.
  • Hartwell, Clare; Pevsner, Nikolaus (2009). Lancashire: North. The Buildings Of England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12667-9.
  • O'Brien, Charles; Bailey, Bruce; Pevsner, Nikolaus; Lloyd, David W. (2018). Hampshire: South. The Buildings Of England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-22503-7.
  • Service, Alastair (1977). Edwardian Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 978-0-500-20155-8.
  • Verey, David; Brooks, Alan (2002). Gloucestershire 2: The Vale and the Forest of Dean. The Buildings Of England. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-09733-7.

Image review by Nikkimaria[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Alt text added to all images
  • File:Frank_Matcham_by_Langfier.jpg: what is the first known publication of this image?
    • Nikkimaria, this is where I got the image from; it credits the photographer as being Langfier and the caption reads "Architect of the new building". Looking at the unedited copy at the link clearly shows it was cut from a publication, therefore it was published. The caption "architect of the new building" indicates that it was published prior to 1920 (Matcham's death) as he couldn't possibly be serving as the architect of a building thereafter. Matcham was born in 1854 and the photo is that of a mature man, not young and not aged. Matcham was 65 when he died in 1920 and had retired, certainly before 1914. Commons hosts a category of Langfier photos and the National Portrait Gallery has quite a few too. CassiantoTalk 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Same with *File:Gaiety1.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NM, I'll get onto these. There will be a few more, not yet on there. CassiantoTalk 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Both are now sorted, Nikkimaria. Please confirm if these are now okay. Thanks again for the review. CassiantoTalk 21:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 4: Publisher details required
    • Blitzed, not needed.
  • Ref 29: I don't think there is a "University of Scotland"; the source is University of Glasgow
    • Switched. What was I thinking!
  • Ref 33: page reference required. Do we have any further details for this publication?
    • Checked on British Newspaper Archive, now added
  • Refs 58 and 60 appear to be identical
    • Not only were the refs identical, so was the bloody paragraph! Deleted.
  • Ref 71: hyphen in number range should be ndash
    • Done.
  • Ref 90: page reference required
    • Since added
  • Bibliography, Barron 2010: "Oxon" is not a place – WorldCat gives London & New York as publisher location
    • Changed
  • Earl 2008: For this ISBN, WorldCat gives publication year as 2005, and location as "Princes Risborough"
    • Changed both
  • Kilburn 2002: WorldCat gives year as 2004
    • Changed
  • ISBN mix-up: You have transposed the ISBNs for the Mercer-Walker and Wilmore books
    • Swapped over
  • Quality and reliability: Overall the sources meet the requirements for quality and reliability as per the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

    • Many thanks for this, Brian, much obliged. CassiantoTalk 20:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Mercury Seven[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Mercury Seven astronauts, who were selected in 1959. As late as 1998, they were the most famous astronauts, but they have been eclipsed in recent years by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Still, they include the first American in in space, the first in orbit, the first to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, and the first to hit a golf ball on the Moon. One even flew on the space shuttle, nearly forty years after being selected as an astronaut. This article was previously nominated as a Featured List, but was not promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support: I have only trivialities to mention, and none that stop a support at this point:

  • "group of seven astronauts for Project Mercury announced" - reads really strangely. Perhaps "a group of seven pilots selected to crew the Project Mercury space capsules" or something to that effect?
    Split into two sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "and went on to become a U.S. senator" - I'm not sure this is a detail for the lede, and it splits out the next statement, which definitely is.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "which carried Laika, a Soviet space dog" - well, really, just a dog. Perhaps "the first of several dogs launched by the Soviets"
    Special dogs with their own article and TV series! Just calling Laika a dog would create an Easter egg, so leaving it as is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA" - just previous to this it is suggested NACA is already merged. Perhaps some re-arrangement would be useful in this para? Or some additional dates like the formation or funding of MISS?
    Two things happening concurrently. Swapped the two sentences around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "desirable brand.[77] The Mercury astronauts" - para break?
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "o flew first.[20][83] In August 1959" - maybe here too?
    Not here; keeps the publicity in one paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "As additional groups of astronauts" - I think a section break here would be useful
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "privileges" basis.[85] The Mercury" - para here
    Spliyt-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "time to it.[88] Training was always" - and here.
    Split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's it! Easy to read, and very informative and entertaining. A fantastic article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is an unusual one. It was intended as a list, but there was a lot to say about them as a group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Carpenter & Stoever 2003: publisher location missing
  • O'Leary 1971: publisher and location missing
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear comprehensive, and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Added location and publisher to these references. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Adding this so I do not forget to review. Kees08 (Talk) 07:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame's inaugural class was the Mercury Seven. I suppose they had an advantage, since the hall of fame was created by the Mercury 7 Foundation. Would be good if we could add whatever we can find on the Mercury 7 foundation, and add in information on the U.S. Astronaut Hall of Fame (the first class, has a lot of Mercury 7 memorabilia, etc). I just added a couple citations to Grissom's article in case you want to copy/paste them in here. Kees08 (Talk) 07:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

It might be a precursor to the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, I am not sure. Kees08 (Talk) 07:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
It is. Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Masked booby[edit]

Nominator(s): Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about another sulid. I reckon it is as comprehensive and easy to read as I can make it. Lemme know what ta fix and I will fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, I see a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
removed - apart from two that lead to different sections on another page - flight feather. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a photo of a bird in flight should always be shown, for identification purposes. A selection here:[2]
Choice limited. I've added a low resolution picture of an adult. This is high res and clearly shows underwing but is a juvenile.
How about this[3] free one on Flickr? Maybe the flying image could be placed under description (it could be at upper left with the juveniles lower right), now it seems to clash with the tasmani photo under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks good. I will look at getting it from flickr to commons tomorrow. Had a busy day and need to sleep added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise, though you do show an egg (in shadow and foreshortened perspective), this image might be a good addition to show the characteristics of the egg better:[4]
was trying to be economical with images, as there are alot with different aspects to show. agree this one is clearer, but is the article too image-heavy....will look tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree articles shouldn't be galleries. But I always feel that if we have good images, we should always show the eggs as clear as possible, and the bird both as it looks on the ground and in flight (then Wikipedia can work as a visual field guide too). But I can also see that the current image with both a chick and an egg could serve to do this, though the egg is not very clear. There are no images in the last chunk of the article though, so I imagined the egg could be right aligned by sentence "Although two eggs are often laid" (or it could be placed where the current chick image is, which would then be moved down). FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I made a vertical gallery of sorts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the tiny Tasman booby needs to be a separate article, unlike all the other subspecies? Could easily be covered fully here, it seems to only contain some info on its taxonomic history. It sseperation seems to simply be a remnant from back when the fossils were thought to belong to a distinct species, but there seems to be no justification for separation now.
I agree - I had intended to make this change. Tasman booby now a redirect. Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with this too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Show cladogram?
Not sure it adds terribly much, and we are at a premium of image-space with lots of useful images Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I won't push this issue further, but cladograms can usually create more room for images though, see for example Echo parakeet or Cuban macaw. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah ok, I was thinking of it in an image box, but your way is good when we have lots of images. So done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "A genetic study using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA" Date, authors?
Year added. I avoid adding authors unless they are notable. Aa77zz (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The adult is almost wholly bright white with a dark face mask." and "The bare skin around the face, throat and lores is black". seems to describe the same feature in different ways, could it be consolidated?
Rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Backward-pointing serrations line the mandibles." I assume this refers to both the upper and lower jaws? Mandible only refers to the lower jaw, though.
It seems that ornithologists use mandible for both the maxilla and the mandible. The cited source has "upper and lower mandibles". The wiki article Beak#Mandibles also has "upper mandible". What do you suggest? Aa77zz (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If it's common jargon, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The iris is yellow except for the subspecies S. d. tasmani where the iris is dark brown." Why not "it is" at second "the iris", instead of repetition?
Fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The image you use of the juvenile does not show the collar on the neck well, and is unsharp, how about one of these?[5][6]
Swapped image - much better Aa77zz (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't show a breeding colony in the section, how about this?[7]
nice find. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How are the subspecies distinguished? Size only?
as far as I can tell yes, bar tasmani s iris colour. Will double check on this.
hbw claims the bare parts of the 4 ssp differ and gives descriptions: eg dactylatra has yellow-orange legs, personata has "drab olive to bluish grey (sometimes blackish)" legs.
Description of the ssp differences now added. Pitman & Jehl 1998 also tabulate the bare part colours in their Table 3 Aa77zz (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You mention a synonym was based on a blue face, yet no blue faces are mentioned under description? Is it because there is variation, or because the same mask pattern can be described in both ways?
I believe that the latter is correct - the source, Marchant & Higgins (HANZAB), uses both black and blue-black. I've added blue-black to the article. Looking at photos on the internet the skin appears black rather than blue-black. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You give binomials for some animals mentioned in the latter part of the article, but not for related boobies in the beginning of the article. Could be consolidated.
Binomials added in the Taxonomy section and one removed later. Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "of the United States,, with single" Double comma.
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "though the island fauna's regeneration after the removal of feral animals" Considering the preceding text (#with devegetation by feral animals creating open ground"), I'd assume you mean flora?
oops yes changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "nests have been destroyed by green sea turtles" How and why?
looks like they just trash booby nests inadvertently as they pass through and dig their own nests. Clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "It may be that overfishing of tuna might adversely" Is the might needed when you already said it may be?
might deleted Aa77zz (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "negatively impacted on breeding on Christmas Island" Is the first on needed?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Where usually 1500 pairs nested, zero young were observed" Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just say no young?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The masked booby is a spectacular diver, plunging vertically or near-vertically from heights of anywhere from 12 to 100 m (40 to 330 ft)—but more commonly 15 to 35 m (50 to 115 ft)—above the water into the ocean at high speed, to depths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft)." Is this solely to feed? If it is, that could be explicitly stated, if not, it seems it would belong with the text directly under the behaviour header, which is about flight.
Yes it is solely to feed, which I thought was implied by its location under 'feeding'.clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fish, particularly flying fish... form the bulk of its diet," is followed by "various species of flying fish", which seems needlessly repetitive. You could make it less so by listing the flying fish species, or somehow consolidating the sentences otherwise.
listed species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "that school near the surface" Only stated in the intro.
removed that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The feeding section says "The masked booby is a spectacular diver", but the intro says "These birds are plunge divers and spectacular fishers" Could it be consolidated?
Yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Masked boobies form monogamous relationships, many of which remain together over multiple breeding seasons." Not sure if a relationship can "remain together", is "together" needed here?
Sentence rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "he paces slowly with its neck and bill" Seems odd you go from "he" to "its" instead of "his". You also say his elsewhere.
Changed to his Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a bird flings their head vigorously" Its?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "as the none is actually used in adorning" Redundant the?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "At birth, the chicks are about" Are animals that hatch form eggs usually said to be born? Wouldn't something like "after hatching" or some such be more appropriate?
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "24 years 9.9 months later" 24 years and?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The longest distance travelled is 3,152 km (1,959 mi); a bird tagged at Raine Island in December 1981 was found picked up and released at Phillip Island in December 1986." Why is this under breeding? Seems it would fit better at the beginning of the behaviour section.
I had intended to make the section Breeding and lifespan to accommodate this, but forgot. However, the behaviour section is so stubby it can go there fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also about the above sentence, it would help convey the distance if you stated where these islands are located.
context added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Dimensions of the egg?
Added Aa77zz (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks very nice to me now, last minor point is that flying fish should be linked at first mention instead of second in the feeding section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
oops fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your support and your thorough review. Aa77zz (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Verifiabilty:
  • Check link in ref 26. I am getting "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead"
removed url - doi gives access to article Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 51: unable to connect to this site
link-rot - it worked last week but is now dead. I'll try to find a replacement Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Replaced with a cite to a different source Aa77zz (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 57: This links to a search site; can you explain how I could use this site to verify the multiple information found in the second paragraph of the "Behaviour" section?
now linked to result of search Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: Link does not go to the stated page.
link gave wrong page when I first tried - but now works correctly. I'm puzzled. Aa77zz (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • General: some of the page ranges are very extensive, and create serious problems for verification, e.g. ref 2, 83–103; ref 16, 174–220; ref 25, 35–57; ref 46, 257–84; ref 51, 169–92; ref 61, 148–67; ref 66, 2–23.
ref 2 fixed, ref 16 is used 5 times - pages supporting the 5 statements are 174 (first), 186-186 (second), 194-197 (fourth and fifth), the third one I can't find but I didn't add that. Will look at the other one. Checking others and musing on how best to implement the pages identified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved Ref 16 (Dorward 1962) to Sources and cited using sfn. (Cas - you added the third cite to ref 16 with this edit when you switched from HANZAB to Dorward. Both were correct - HANZAB cites Dorward (where the info is on p.179)) Aa77zz (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats : no issues
  • Quality and reliability: Overall, the sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the standards requitred by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • ALT text missing for all images
alts all added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • All images are appropriately licensed with links to sources where necessary
  • Some of the captions could use a bit of expanding for context, e.g. the infobox image (is it a male or female?), and the chick (where was it taken?)
captions expanded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not too sure about the caption on the tasmani breeding pair; I think it would work better as a complete sentence (perhaps A breeding pair of subspecies tasmani and their chick, Norfolk Island). Note that Norfolk Island should probably be linked in the caption and the first instance in the body. SounderBruce 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
tweaked as suggested. thanks for review Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, though I would like to see ALT text on the map (describing the general extent). SounderBruce 06:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Here are some initial comments. I'm tired and when I'm tired I miss stuff so I'll finish the rest of it tomorrow.
  • "Nesting takes place in colonies, generally on islands and atolls far from mainland and close to deep water required for foraging." I might have put a "the" before "mainland" and before "deep", but it might be an ENGVAR thing.
yes to the first, but no to the second ("the deep water" sounds really weird to me...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The French naturalist René-Primevère Lesson was a member of the crew on the French corvette La Coquille captained by Louis Isidore Duperrey on its voyage around the world undertaken between August 1822 and March 1825.[2] " I might cut one of the "French", possibly the first instance.
I removed the second, as we've been introducing names with their nationalities and callings consistently, and instead hoping the bluelink for the boat (and hte captain) will explain the voyage Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The American Ornithological Union followed in their 17th supplement to their checklist in 1920." I would change the first "their" to "the".--Wehwalt (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hartlaub described this taxon in 1859 from Maydh Island off the coast of Somalia near Maydh." The latter part of the sentence seems a bit awkward.
Dammit, why couldn't they have been more creative with the naming....tried this, is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, large prehistoric specimens known from the former and Norfolk Island were classified as a separate species," If by "the former" you mean Lord Howe Island I would just say it.
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " as well waters off the coast of Spain.[43]" Should there be an "as" before "waters"? I started to add one then got concerned it might be ENGVAR.
not ENGVAR but mistake. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "was found picked up and released at Phillip Island (off Norfolk Island) in December 1986.[57]" Are both "found" and "picked up" needed?
no - tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "parasitizing" Is this correct or should it be "parasitizing"?
changed to brit spelling - though in Oz we do brit spelling + "ize" most of the time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other argasid ticks Ornithodoros capensis and the ixodid tick Amblyomma loculosum have also been recorded as parasites," I would think "ticks" should be "tick" (with the opening words adjusted to fit) but maybe not.
yes - I rejigged this bit a bit to make it flow smoother Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. I made some direct edits you might want to review. All else looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
your changes are fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Support Well done. Another one for the birds.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Brothers Poem[edit]

Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a poem by the ancient Greek poet Sappho, discovered in 2014. It is the most recently-discovered of Sappho's poems, one of the best-preserved, and generated considerable excitement when it was first published both in academia and in the press. I got this article almost ready for nomination towards the end of 2017, but then spent 18 months mostly away from wikipedia; having returned and given it a final polish I believe it's ready to be put through the FAC wringer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

  • you over use the word "poem".
  • The narrative direction is not well explained
  • I have high hopes for this page Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ceoil: thanks for your comments (and edits!) You have me bang to rights on the overuse of(( "poem"; I have trimmed a few, but still count 38 instances of "poem" or "poems", plus 21 of "Brothers Poem", in the body text. Will have another run through and see what I can do about the problem...
    • In re. the narrative, does this edit help at all? I hope so! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes much clearer, thanks. Will have another read shortly. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • as well as the language used - not very elegant (given the article is about a poem)
  • It is presented as speech - ditto; maybe first person narrative or something
    • Will think on this; I think the fact that it is direct speech is important and "first person narrative" does not fully convey this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, a tough one. I assume the sources have already resolved this problem (hint hint). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
        • What about this? The two issues I had with your attempt were (a) "verse", which can mean both "poem" and "stanza" and struck me as unnecessarily ambiguous (yes, it should be clear from context, but it's easier not to give readers the problem at all!) and (b) "unnamed voice": voices don't have names: people do! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • criticises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return safely - I'd use a more dramatic word than "criticises" (google is your friend) - "repeating" maybe just "claiming", you could probably drop "safely"...and from where? So far we have no context. The word "safety" is repeated in the next sentence.
    • Re. "repeating": there has been some discussion of how exactly θρυλεω, the verb in question, ought to be translated; the fact that it is repetitive is a key part, however (it's a rare verb, but there are two poetic uses in Athenian drama: in Knights, Aristophanes uses it to describe someone who spends all night rehearsing their speech for a court case; in Euripides' Electra, Electra talks of every morning listing her grievances against her stepfather Aegisthus). The fact that the interlocutor has claimed that Charaxus will return is not, I think, the issue; it's that she keeps going on about it.
    • Re. where C. is returning from: we don't know. Possibly it was established earlier in the poem. Testimonia have him as a wine-trader and visiting Egypt, so he may be coming back from a trading voyage and/or Egypt, but those testimonies don't necessarily derive from the Brother's Poem, so that isn't certain. I have put a parenthetical note to that effect in the lead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Regardless, this is not apparent, so you, at least, need to try and establish the when who and where, before you get into the main focus of the page, ie the what (fragments etc). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Does this edit solve this problem, or are you still not happy with this? (and in re "criticizes", how do you feel about "chastises" as an alternative?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • She then switches her focus. The "verse then switches focus" (not so sure how firmly you have established attribution by this stage).
  • Received rather than attracted academic and popular attention. Maybe be aware of flowery language from some types of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning support, but it still needs work. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The speaker chastises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return (possibly from a trading voyage, as later sources say that he was a wine-trader), instead maintaining that his safety is in the hands of the gods and offering to pray to Hera for his return. Huh? "repeating" who? But mostly, this makes no sense as written. Do you mean that only by praying to Hera, he has any chance of returning? Is this a fatalism thing? I see this is much better explained in the article body.
    • *Spinning hourglass symbol* Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I am not entirely sure what your objection is here. What is wrong with "repeating"? It's a perfectly good way of expressing "saying over and over again". And I mean that praying to Hera is the only thing that the characters in the poem can do to improve C's chances of returning. I don't see any implication that only by praying does he have any chance of returning. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead the addressee should send her to pray to Hera for Charaxos' safe return - who is "her"? Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The speaker. I think this is fairly clear, but if you can find another wording which doesn't repeat "the speaker" for the third time in as many sentences I'm happy to consider it. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 'appear to have been either about the family and religious or cultic practices, or about passion and love.[49] The Brothers Poem is instead focused on her family - "about the family"..."is instead focused on her family". The first statement contradicts the second. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The most impressive was that containing the Brothers Poem, which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink,[1] a piece of a critical edition of Book - I don't understand this. The most impressive poem on the fragment "which survives on P. Sapph. Obbink" - survives? Who/what/when is P. Sapph. Obbink? Clf re "impressive", ie complete vs. its literary credentials. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • P.Sapph.Obbink is the papyrus fragment with the Brothers Poem on; the other papyri are known as P.GC. inv.105 frr.1-4. The point of this sentence is that the most impressive of the papyri is the piece with the Brothers Poem on – it isn't a comment on the poem itself. Tried to clarify. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The question of whether, and to what extent the speaker can be identified with Sappho' - the article doesnt really explain the "to what extent" part in this section, presenting the question as simply binary.
    • "To what extent" was I think meant to cover Bär's argument for the speaker as Sappho's poetic persona, but I agree it doesn't really add anything. Cut. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The classical historian Anton Bierl argues that Sappho's offer to pray to Hera is contrasted with a masculine ideology in which the pursuit of wealth is the solution to the family's problems, and therefore suggests a male relative of Sappho as the addressee Not well explained.
    • You are right: this does seem somewhat obscure! I need to re-read Bierl and see if I can come up with a better way of summarising his views... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
      • In simple english pls! Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lardinois sees the argument that Sappho's mother could have gone to pray to Hera for her son's safe return herself, and therefore it does not make sense for her to send Sappho to do so on her behalf, as the strongest against the thesis that the addressee is Sappho's mother, arguing on this basis for a male addressee. Drop 'safe', 'to do so' and 'on this basis'. Again all this, the cause and effect, is very unclear as written. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I object to The Daily Beast being used to cite this type of article, on any grounds. Its journalists cannot possibly have any expertise, and will have only summarized other sources. Surely we can find better secondary sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Regardless of the Daily Beast's general reputation, James Romm is a professor of classics and a former Guggenheim Fellow: he absolutely does have expertise. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Human fortunes are changeable ("fair winds swiftly follow harsh gales"[2]): I know this is cited, but that makes it more worrisome - whose voice is this. Ceoil (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes, as you no doubt suspect this is still in the speaker's voice. Could be clearer... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I cant support this. The more i look, the more fundamental problems I find. Needs a top to bottom c/e from an expert. Oppose Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • "Charaxos to Larichos, who she hopes" Shouldn't that be whom?
  • "whether Charaxos and Larichos are the historical or fictional brothers of Sappho" This could be clearer, I think.
    • I will have a think about how best to clarify this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear more about the papyrus fragments. Do we have no idea of where Robinson got them from?
    • A little, yes. I didn't want to get into too much of the minuitae of their provenance, but happy to add more detail if you think necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd like to hear more, personally, but maybe that's just me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Added a little more on the papyrus before it was turned into cartonnage. Unless there is more on the history of the papyri in the 2011 Christies catalogue, or in a paper from 1961 by David Willis (neither of which I have easy access to) I think I have summarised everything that it thus far known about the papyri. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Great! What's the Willis paper? I could see if I have access? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
            • W.H. Willis, "The New Collection of Papyri at the University of Mississippi". Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology, Oslo 1959. pp.381-392. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "though the Brothers Song was included in at least some Hellenistic editions of Sappho" Presumably now lost? Or have these been discovered in the last few years? I'm puzzled.
    • Ah, yes, this is puzzling to the lay (by which I mean "not me") reader... The papyrus we have was written in the Roman period, but it's a copy of the Alexandrian edition, which was compiled in the Hellenistic period. (My understanding of papyrology doesn't stretch to knowing why it is universally agreed that this is the case, but it certainly is, and if necessary I can cite several authorities on the point). I shall try to clarify in the article... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this will be controversial, but would it not make sense to include the poem itself? Both in the Greek and in English? Or is the worry that the English translations will be in copyright?
    • I haven't because all of the English translations are (AFAIK) in copyright, I do not have good enough Greek to produce a CC translation, and I assume most of our readers will just be lost at 20 lines of Aeolic Greek. Arguably Rayor/Lardinois' translation could be fair use, but per the no free equivalent criterion, Wikipedia's policy requires that not only no free equivalent is available, but even could be created. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes; agreed. Better to leave it out. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "The first two surviving" is unreferenced.
  • "Most scholars agree that the addressee is some concerned friend or relative of Charaxos, many selecting Sappho's mother as the most likely option" Does your source identify that most and many scholars say these things?
    • It identifies some of the "many", who I have now added; it doesn't specifically identify the "most", though the only scholar to have seriously suggested anyone else that comes to mind is Anja Bettenworth, who suggests C's nurse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:BADITALICS, you shouldn't italicise anything in Greek script.
    • Unitalicised θρυλεω twice; I think this is all? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "This is not universally agreed upon" takes it for granted that the speaker is Sappho; previously, this was an open question.
  • I didn't know the word testimonium, and a few dictionaries suggest that it's not a common word. Wiktionary doesn't even list it as an English word. Could I suggest using something more reader friendly?
    • Replaced. Testimonium is the term of art used in classics, but for the general reader "source"/"ancient source" does just as good a job. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "in fact Sappho's actual brothers" Do we need in fact and actual?
    • Cut "in fact" – does seem a little superfluous!
  • " The Brothers Poem seems to have been part of a series about Sappho's brothers,[49] though David Gribble disagrees with this conclusion." Then perhaps we should attribute the view that it seems to be part of a series to (a) particular author(s)?
    • You are absolutely right; I have expanded on what the point of contention is here. Hopefully clear Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "have dealt with Charaxos or Doricha" You are yet to introduce Doricha, so this is jarring.
    • This is explained in a footnote: Doricha is Charaxos' lover, who Herodotus calls Rhodopis. It's a little confusing – I will try to find a better way to explain it in the text! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "just as Sappho hopes in the third stanza of the Brothers Poem that Charaxos" Again, are you presupposing the identity of the speaker?
  • " most authors accept that the Brother's Poem is missing at least one stanza" Again, does your source specify most authors?
    • Bär himself says that the "fragment hypothesis" is generally held; Swift (the most recent author to publish on the poem) takes the hypothesis as read, and does not cite Bär at all. I admittedly cannot immediately find an author post-Bär who specifically says that most authors agree with the fragment hypothesis... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery" Are you missing some words here?
    • I am not, and I'm not even sure what is confusing here: can you elaborate?
      • I think it's the lack of a subject for that final be, but the tense switch also jars. "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery." How about "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even that, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, it was a forgery." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:P.Sapph.Obbink.jpg: I'm struggling with the PD claim here. Is the thought that the papyrus itself is not under copyright, so a scan of it can't be either? If so, you'll need a different PD tag, and probably a crop to just the papyrus.
    • That was the logic, yes. Happy to crop the ruler out. Do you have a suggestion as to a more appropriate PD tag? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Athenaeus isn't in the bibliography.
  • Ferrari is in the bibliography, but isn't cited.
  • A lot of items in the bibliography seem incomplete.
    • Do you have any examples? Possibly I've spent so much time staring at the bibliography that I'm seeing what I think ought be there, but I'm not seeing anything obvious! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah, seen some. A bot had added page-ranges and dois for some journal articles but not all. Damn thing. Added further page ranges and dois; a few journal articles do not seem to have dois so not added there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a really great article, and a really great topic for an FA. I hop this review goes well. And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Started to reply to your specific comments inline. Some of them are going to take a little more thinking about than others... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for your thorough review! I believe I have now dealt with all of your issues, with two exceptions:
  1. Regarding the commons tag for the P. Sapph. Obbink image, I am not sure what the best tag would be. Do you think that simply wrapping the current PD tag in c:Template:PD-Art is sufficient, or do you object to c:Template:PD-old-auto-1996 for some reason? If so, do you have a suggestion of a more appropriate tag?
    How about c:Template:PD-old-100-expired with c:Template-PD-scan?
  2. I haven't yet added an entry for Athenaeus to the bibliography. I have not referred to a particular edition of A, but there is a recent Loeb I could cite in the bibliography. Alternatively I could refer to Campbell's Loeb edition of Sappho & Alcaeus, which includes the line in Greek and English. Or I could add a biblio entry reading simply: "Athenaeus, Δειπνοσοφισταί [The Scholars at Dinner]", but that seems unhelpful: it doesn't add any new information onto that included in the footnote! Or I could simply cut the footnote entirely: the fact that he says such a thing is supported by the ref to Bär at the end of the sentence. Do you have any thoughts on which would be best? (I note that for my other references to the testimonia, I have not added a footnote at all: probably if it is worth doing it is worth doing consistently!)
    I agree with your point abut consistency. Perhaps removing it altogether would be best. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Do let me know if there's anything else you still are not happy with or think that I have missed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Bär: You should probably use 'single quotes' for the quotes within quotes. Same for Gribble and Papadimitropoulos.
  • I would recommend including page ranges for chapters in edited collections, but it's probably not a problem if you don't.
    • I don't have a strong preference either way, so I've added this on the grounds that more bibliographic information cannot possibly hurt Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent.
  • Childers: Again, I recommend the use of single quotes; do you have a volume and issue number?
    • Dug up vol. and issue numbers; don't know how I missed them when preparing this for FAC (I looked!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you take a look at Liberman? I had some trouble working out what it was that was being cited. The Obbink paper, too; I'm surprised by the italics!
  • If you don't have DOIs, perhaps links to online versions would help? Unless there are no online versions; an archived abstract, perhaps?
    • There are JSTOR versions for the two Obbink ZPE papers; and Childers appears to be available online. For Neri, it looks like the choice is between the abstract on the journal's website, or the paper on academia.edu. I've included the academia.edu version, as it conveniently gives the whole article, but I can't work out a way to archive that... Do say if you think the abstract would be a better target! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neri: You should use the language= parameter.
  • Do you need to provide both access dates and archive dates? I'd recommend only the latter, but be consistent.
    • Removed all access dates: I think everything that needs an archive date has an archive date. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of your chapter/article names are in Title Case, but a few are in sentence case. Either's fine, but consistency would be good.
    • I think all are now in title case, excepting Neri, because I believe Italian does not use title case ever. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All sources appropriately scholarly; the ones that aren't scholarly are being used to show popular attention. No spotchecks done, not view on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. My (minor) quibbles were attended to at the peer review, and it has been a pleasure to revisit the article after quite a gap. As far as a layman – this one, at any rate – can tell, it is comprehensive, and it is an excellent read, clear, balanced, and devoid of jargon. I have seen more lavishly illustrated articles, but the three pictures we have are all ad rem. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! Your peer review was much appreciated, and your kind words there did a lot to persuade me that FAC might not be as terrifying as I had previously thought! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by RL0919[edit]

I reviewed this for GA back in 2016 and am glad to see it has made its way here. Setting this placeholder so I can comment this weekend, but from an initial scan it looks pretty good. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are my notes. A general theme is that it is important to realize that many will read articles like this with relatively limited background about the subject. The more people, places, and things that get mentioned without explanation, the more cognitive burden they accumulate: who/what is this? will I need to remember them later? etc. Wikilinks can help with this, but often a descriptive word or two can alleviate the problem even more easily, especially when there is no WP article to link.

  • "chastises the addressee for repeating": The word "repeating" by itself could mean "saying something over and over" or "repeating what someone else has said". Something like "repeatedly saying" would clear up the ambiguity. (Same for the similar phrasing in the body text.)
  • "According to James Romm": As Ceoil's initial reaction above indicates, an obvious question is who is James Romm, and upon seeing the linked source, the presumed answer will be "a journalist for the Daily Beast". There's no WP article to link, so something like "According to classics professor James Romm" would resolve the problem. (I haven't listed each instance where a named person has an immediate citation to their own writing, but assume readers will think this person must be a scholar or journalist according to the nature of the source. Where that isn't the case, as with Romm, a description would be helpful.)
  • "part of David Moore Robinson's collection": This time there is a link, but "part of archaeologist David Moore Robinson's collection" would explain sufficiently for the vast majority without needing to bother with a click.
  • "and draws comparision to Lycambes and his daughters, from the poetry of Archilochus, and generally considered fictionalised": This wording is awkward because there doesn't seem to be verb leading to "and generally considered fictionalised". How about "and draws comparison to the poems of Archilochus about Lycambes and his daughters, who are generally considered fictionalised"?
  • "from the first book of the Alexandrian edition – i.e. those poems in Sapphic stanzas – ": A rare case where I think you may have over-explained. You already provided a note saying that the first book contains the poems in Sapphic stanzas, so it seems unnecessary to interrupt the sentence here to say it again. If needed you could link the same footnote a second time.
  • Sometimes you write "i.e.", other times you write out "that is" in English. This should be consistent. (My preference is for "that is" but consistency matters more.)

I went ahead and added several wikilinks and made some edits. Happy to explain them individually if you have concerns about any of my changes. --RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Haukur[edit]

  • Great to see such detailed work on Sappho. And I love all the redlinks - so much still to be done!
  • Licensing on the head image is an interesting question. Was the poem 'published' in the ancient world in the relevant sense for copyright law? If not, maybe 'PD-US-unpublished' is the more appropriate license?
  • Haukur (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    "Anja Bettenworth has argued" - could we cite Bettenworth herself on this rather than going through Kurke? Haukur (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    "The Reception of Sappho’s Brothers Poem in Rome" by Llewelyn Morgan is an interesting piece which attempts to tie the text to Horace. Could this be used? Haukur (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    Another plausible article, from 2018, is “Charaxus Arrived with a Full Ship!” The Poetics of Welcome in Sappho's Brothers Song and the Charaxus Song Cycle by Peter A. O'Connell. Haukur (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer[edit]

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a third run at FA for this article. Their were supports and an oppose leading to a no-consensus to promote. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I also requested via the WP:GOCE for copy-editing and it was successful. I believe this article is ready for round three.

Note: Notifying @Aoba47:, @FunkMonk:, and @Popcornduff: as they were involved in the second FA run. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I supported last time for the content, and the edits since appear to have been an improvement on the word-smithing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally stay out of FAC reviews these days, but since I've been asked to comment directly... I will say that the plot summary is far too long. This is for a 25-minute episode and it's almost 500 words long - Wikipedia's max plot length for feature films is 700 words, and according to WP:TVPLOT episode summaries should be 400 words max (though imo this episode requires far less). You have information about film parodies in the plot summary - film parodies are nothing to do with plot - a plot is just a sequence of story events.
Now that I'm thinking about this... I have a foggy memory of rewriting this plot section at some point to get it to a more sensible length - did someone else oppose it? I don't remember. Popcornduff (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I shortened the plot to 398 words. The trivial information and parody sentences are removed. @Kees08: also opposed. Kees, I have satisfied the CE requests. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kees08[edit]

At a glance it looks a lot better; I will give it a look maybe this weekend. Quick suggestion; I just uploaded two Aldrin photos from 1996, which is relatively close to the 1994 taping date. Maybe use one of those, in addition to or to replace the image of him from 1969? Your call. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I am not sure. Doesn't seem right to have other people in the background when the picture is focused on Buzz. Also, this episode is about Buzz's astronaut career and the current photo shows that. Any opinions? AmericanAir88(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought about that, figured it might be weird since he is talking to people. I think it looks okay though, I tried cropping one of them: File:Aldrin at STELLAR Program (ARC-1969-AC96-0232-52) (cropped).jpg. Is that better? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: That would be better. Make sure there is alt text. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Need to cite production code in the infobox (unless there is a policy I am unaware of)

That's all I have. Prose reads great now. It looked like you wanted me to do the Aldrin photo switch, so I went ahead and made the change. If you preferred the other photo for any reason, feel free to use it instead, I meant it as a suggestion only. Let me know about the one comment above. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Photo looks great. As for the code cite, I have honestly never really seen it cited. The code is mentioned in all of the external links as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I double checked others that have passed and you are right. Supporting. Kees08 (Talk) 16:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I continue my support from the previous FAC. My comments have been addressed during the last two FACs, and thank you again to AmericanAir88 for putting up with all of my suggestions. My only nitpick is the placement of the The Simpsons: Tapped Out sentence in the "Reception" section since it is not really a critical review. Maybe putting it at the end of the last paragraph of the "Broadcast and release" section would be better? It is a rather small thing though so it does not stand in the way of my support. Good luck with the nomination this time around. I am glad that you are still trying with this one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

Carlos Baeza directed "Deep Space Homer", and it is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin. - the subject shifts oddly in this sentence. Can be remedied by "Directed by Carlos Baeza, "Deep Space Homer" is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin."

Other than that, nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Done. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Older nominations[edit]

Fred Keenor[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Fred Keenor, a Welsh international footballer and captain of the only team from outside England to win the FA Cup. He played over 500 times for Cardiff City in a 19-year spell and also represented Wales over 30 times. The article has been given the once over by a member of the WP:GOCE and I received some great comments at a recent peer review that ironed out a lot of issues. Pinging @The Rambling Man: from the recent review. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Super Mario All-Stars[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Itsa me, a-Mario!" This is about a personal favorite of mine. Super Mario All-Stars is a video game compilation Nintendo released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in 1993. It's got the four classic Super Mario games released in the 1980s, which are known for helping shape the video game industry we know today. I grew up playing the Wii version, so I've got a big soft spot for it (even considering how bad the Wii version was...). Well-written, well-sourced, open for review. JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lee Vilenski[edit]

Hi TheJoebro64, great article. Here's a few things I saw:

  • Is the Japanese footnote neccesary? I'm not sure on the policy on this, but just a check.
  • "They are faithful recreations that adapt the games' original premises" - not really neutral language for the lede.
    • I think this is neutral; it's discussing how the games are more or less identical to the NES originals. It's not in a hyperbolic or promotional context. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " avoiding obstacles, and finding secrets" - Is secrets something that could be understood outside of a gaming article? Perhaps "secret areas".
    • Done, but I think "finding secrets" should be pretty easy for a video game neophyte to understand. Everyone and their mother knows what it means to find a secret. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the dates neccesary? The articles are linked in prose.
    • I think it's worth noting for context, and I've never had a problem with it at previous GANs and FACs. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewers lauded Super Mario All-Stars as a must-have representing - Is "must-have" a term actually used in the reviews? Seems like it needs a [according to whom?] tag.
    • It's used in the reception section. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Critics also disagreed as to which game was best - Weird sentence, I'm sure prose goes into depth, but odd just to have this hanging in the lede like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • How is it weird? I think leaving it here is fine and actually encourages the reader to read the rest of the article. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Abryn[edit]

I quite like this article. I have a few sources that are not present (unless I missed them). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abyrn: thank you for these sources. I will implement them in the article later today. JOEBRO64 18:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Abryn: whoops JOEBRO64 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Abryn: been a bit since Friday haha. I've added the G4 and ONM reviews; I didn't add the History of Mario article since it didn't really have anything that's not in the article or the top 20 Wii games list since it's only about a sentence of commentary and I feel like anywhere I put it would break the flow of the section. JOEBRO64 22:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I only played the original NES versions, but interesting to read this nonetheless, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The image layout could be improved; to prevent the double image from clashing with the Development title below, it could be right aligned. Then, as is recommended by the MOS, the Miyamoto photo could be left aligned so that his head is turned towards the text rather than away from it.
    • Done. Changed the direction of the double image to horizontal, and replaced the Miyamoto headshot with a better one. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Much better I think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Nintendo Magazine System and Official Nintendo Magazine link to the same article, and are therefore duplinks.
    • Silly me, fixed JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the footnotes need citations.
    • Done. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Does that Wii booklet mentioned have any usable additional info?
    • Sadly, no. The reviews are spot-on when they say that the one-sentence developer comments are vague and meaningless. There is a section on All-Stars, but all the comments are about The Lost Levels for whatever reason, and they're not really substantial. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: thank you for taking a look! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 17:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "to an SNES cartridge" A SNES cartridge?
    • Good catch, fixed JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I still see two instances of "an SNES". Looks good otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I've fixed both of them. JOEBRO64 16:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "released at that point" Until that point?
  • "as Satoru Iwata said" Present him, as you do with other people mentioned.
    • Done, not sure why I didn't do this earlier JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nintendo Power held a" Explain this is a magazine.
    • Done. JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I first found it puzzling that you didn't cover the initial release under the releases section, but then I saw it was called re-releases. I still wonder if it would be best to keep all the release info in one section? Release isn't really part of development anyway. Either that, or call the development section "development and release".
    • I've gone with the latter. I experimented putting the release information in the rereleases section, but chose not to because it looked a bit odd to have two short paragraphs in separate sections instead of a decent sized one in one, and the titling information seemed to come out of nowhere if they were split. JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. But if more sources can be found, as requested below, it would of course just be an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by AmericanAir88[edit]

Will add soon, but this is a very well written article. All citations, images, and links look great and I was a big fan of this game. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Could you elaborate a little more on why the A.V. Club gave it an F? Its such an unusual rating compared to the rest.
    • I've actually removed it from the box because it looks like the site removed the grade, and the archived version doesn't show it. Nonetheless, I've added a bit to prose to show why. JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How were the sales of the second printing?
    • Sources don't say. AFAIK the comp actually hasn't been out of print since the second printing, to the point that it was branded under the "Nintendo Selects" line a year or two ago (sources don't mention that either, unfortunately.) JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the refs are out of order. Ex ([45][46][47][29][51]). It should be ([29][45][46][47][51]).
    • Fixed. JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some redirects lead to broken section anchors.
  • "Reviewers thought it was a must-have—representing the SNES at its finest[6][32]—and would occupy players for hours, if not days." - Awkward sentence.
    • Revised to "Reviewers thought it was a must-have that represented the SNES library at its finest, ..." JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

AmericanAir88(talk) 18:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@AmericanAir88, thank you for reviewing! Responded above JOEBRO64 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88[edit]

  • Hi! Article seems pretty good overall, but I'm a little concerned that this Japanese game compilation is being presented from a specifically Anglo-American perspective, even at the expense of factual accuracy. For example, we take Nintendo Power at their word that the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 was an "innovation" of the game, while in Japan it was nothing new; conversely, the American Super Mario Bros. 2 had apparently been released ten months earlier in Japan as Super Mario Bros. USA, which I imagine, being released on a defunct system two years after the release of that system's successor, made it even more obscure than the Japanese Super Mario Bros. 2 -- a true FA-class article should probably include some discussion of the fact that while in the US it was almost all audiences' first look at the original Super Mario Bros. 2, in Japan it was probably most audiences' first look at the American Super Mario Bros. 2.
Also, Japanese Wikipedia says that a 2005 retrospective review in Famitsu gave the compilation 32/40; we can probably just copy that over and assume the offline, 14-year-old source they cite says what they say it does and just translate what they attribute to that, but I'm not sure one Japanese review would be enough. There's also an opinion it attributes to Family Computer Magazine but cites to Play Station Magazine (!?), so I'm not sure if we can use that without doing some digging. It would be one thing if it were an article on a piece of American media that had a notable following in Japan that none of en.wiki's readership was aware of or cared about, but with a Japanese property I really think at least some lip service should be paid to its reputation in its home country.
On a largely unrelated note, I'm not sure about the tone of some sections: Each game now includes the option to save progress reads like it was written at the time, when the original releases were "old" (or "then") and this compilation was "new" (or "now"). This one's not "make or break", but I'm curious why this decision was made -- we do generally write about these media in the present tense, but not as though they were new in contrast to their then-relatively-recent predecessors.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, This one's not "make or break" was a slip. None of the above is "make or break" (i.e., "I oppose promotion of this article to FA status unless my demands are met"). It's just some things to think about, if other editors think it's important enough to latch onto, or want to amend the article to accommodate this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: hey, thanks for taking a look. I see what you mean by the article being a bit Anglo-American centric. I've added clarification in places (e.g. background on The Lost Levels, clarification it was new for an American audience) and added the Famitsu review. I added a notable point from what I could make from an automated translation (wasn't Google, don't worry). As for the other reference provided in the Japanese article, Family Computer Magazine was a real publication that ran from 1985 to 1998 (the one in question must've been one of the final issues), but I don't see any actual commentary, just scores. Template:Video game reviews says we should only list publications in the review box if they're incorporated in prose, so since we don't have actual commentary I'm afraid it won't really add much to the article. For the American SMB2—it actually wasn't a new game to Japan. The American SMB2 is just a re-skin of the 1987 game Doki Doki Panic, and AFAIK it was pretty well-known even before it was rereleased as Super Mario USA. Legends of Localization has translations of Famitsu's reviews for both versions, and each reviewer acknowledged that it was the same game.
I'm currently scouting for more JP sources. I'll ping you if I dig up more. Also, I reworded the save line a bit—on the lookout for more instances where the wording could be improved. JOEBRO64 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

  • Images: Images are all appropriately licensed and tagged, free one is OTRS vetted. I do have some NFCC crt. 3/8 concerns with regards to File:Smb2 comparison.png and File:SMAllstarspic.jpg. There's not much there in the non free rationale I think that supports two full images versus a more minimal presentation (for example, doing a split screen comparison as I did with File:ZeldaLA-DX comparison.png.) The graphics are commented upon, but only in generalities or features that aren't really demonstrated in the screenshots (the parallaxing backgrounds.)

I will have other comments as I review the article more thoroughly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Note to @WP:FAC coordinators: I just wanted to let you know that I will be away for the next week and will not have internet access, and will therefore be unable to edit Wikipedia. If new comments are added while I am gone, I will address them when I get back. JOEBRO64 20:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

2018 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 2018. Joker Mark Williams won the event, fifteen years since his last world title, in a season after possibly retiring from the game. An alround memorable tournament, and crazy story.

The previous nomination had issues regarding MOS:FLAG, which should now be suitible, regardless of thoughts on the matter. Let me know if there are issues on the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging previous FAC commentors: @The Rambling Man, CitroenLover, Pawnkingthree, Tvx1, SMcCandlish, and Giants2008: - I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't have any issue with the page now due to the FLAG issue being resolved as far as I can see. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Same here. It was unfortunate that the earlier discussion got derailed by someone who wouldn't listen; I think at least four of us were raising the same flags-related concern.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support above? Can I take this as a support, or is there there anything else that you'd like to note? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
SMcCandlish - can I get a clear support as per above on this? Thanks for your time looking at this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Same for CitroenLover. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I am curious, new to the topic, and the article. I didn't participate in round 1 and will look with fresh eyes. Comments as I read:

Lead

  • I suggest to first say what this tournament is, and then speak about the sponsor and the ALT name. It's prominent enough in the infobox ;)
Moved later in lede
  • "had been held"? - "was held"?
Fixed
  • "second world title in 2003 and prior to the beginning of the season" - this seems to need at least a comma, better untangling in 2 sentences.
Not really my strongsuit... Is this an oxford comma situation? No idea, I think I've changed this correctly.
No idea about comma rulez, but when I read "world title in 2003 and prior", and connect the "prior" to 2003, something needs to be done ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, this lead is focused on the winner, and I wonder if there might be more aspects worthy of summary.
I'd love there to have been some sort of reception to critique, but there's not much to source.

Overview

  • This might be called "Background", no?
Other FAs, such as the Boat race ones use Overview
  • "The sport originated by players from the United Kingdom, and later players from Europe and the Commonwealth." - "originate" and "later" seem a contradiction, - perhaps new verb for the "later"?
We are talking quite a long time before it being played much out of the UK. Any ideas on a word?
  • "Southeast Asia, such as in China, Thailand and Hong Kong" - reads as if explaining Southeast Asia, while I guess it should be where it is predominantly played?
I didn't want to use specifically in those locations. But maybe specifically is the correct word?
  • The name of Hendrie comes as a surprise, perhaps mention first why? (... most successful)
Reworded.
  • why "previous year" instead of plain 2017?
Done.

Format

  • link "seeded"?
done
  • may be my math: wasn't Selby one of the 16?
He was. However, the tournament doesn't always work this way. If the defending champion isn't in the top 16, they still qualify for the event as the top seed, and the next 15 players (1-15 in the world rankings) qualify as 2-16. As Selby was already #1, it's irrelevant, and thus why it's stated that way.

Participants

  • I may be the only one, and know about linking only once after the lead, but would like to have links to all players here, even if linked before. It's awkward to have to look above if curious here.
I know, but I don't make the rules. I feel like adding the extra links would go against consensus.
  • the last line about youngest and oldest made me curious to know lowest and highest age of those who qualified ;)
It's in the paragraph above this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

More to come. Interesting, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your comments! I'll respond above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for explanations and changes, all resolved to here. More later which may be tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

One more general: it is welcome that every image comes with an ALT text, describing what it shows in short to someone who can't see it. I also recommend to repeat links in image captions, - some readers will look there first.

Prize fund

  • "prize money for this year", - call me boring but I'd prefer "prize money for 2018"
Sure. Makes more sense to me
  • conversion?
Convert into what? WP:CURRENCY reads "Conversions of less-familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies – such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling." No need if already in pound.

Qualifying

  • Can we avoid two sentences in a row beginning "There were"?
Reworded

Century breaks

  • What does that mean at all? Link for us ignorants?
It is linked in the prose above, but I could see why it's confusing. Century breaks are scoring 100+ in one go, basically. I've linked.

Coverage

  • As you mentioned: surprising that there wasn't more coverage.
Yeah. Would be great. The info from the few pundits there are are covered in the tournament summary, sadly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps some could be here also, where someone coming from the TOC might go. --GA

Excellent tables! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. ALT texts for images? One more: Is 2018 World Snooker Championship a name? Then it should head the infobox. Or is it 2018 world snooker championship? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Updated. Missed that one. Each image already has alttext, but I've linked players. In terms of reception, all anyone really says is "this person played well", "this person played badly", etc. Not really much on how the event as a whole went. Changed the infobox. It should totally say 2018. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Support fine article. You may want to ask the former FAC participants if they could do the same, and clearly mark that, - make it easier for the coordinator. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, London[edit]

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is more interesting than it sounds, and takes in everything from the invention of chocolate milk, to the Boston Tea Party, to the religious significance of olives in the Church of England. The two botanical ceilings of London's Natural History Museum are one of the unheralded treasures of 19th-century art. They're also very hard to describe, let alone illustrate; the nature of their design means that there's no point from which the entire extent of the main ceiling is visible at once, their use of reflective materials mean they (intentionally) appear different from different angles and in different lighting, and they're too high off the ground and too fragile to photograph in detail without the use of specialist climbing robots. (Not to mention that from most vantage points, they're obscured by the skeleton of a dead blue whale.) To add to this, the records of its design and construction are lost, so we're not entirely sure how they were created and what everything depicted is actually supposed to represent. The Natural History Museum spent most of the 20th century loathed by architectural historians, so there hasn't been as much written about the ceilings as you might expect, but over the last 20 years or so they've started to get the attention they deserve. As far as I am aware, this article summarises everything of significance that's been written about them.

To pre-empt a few queries; no, I can't find a source for the exact dimensions of them, even in The Gilded Canopy which goes into obsessive levels of detail. (Because they're not flat, ceilings are hard to measure; Sistine Chapel ceiling also omits the dimensions.) On a first read, the initial sections appear to be full of non sequiturs, but those are background either as to why individual plants were chosen to be illustrated, or why Owen and Waterhouse came to build such an improbably large and fancy structure in the first place. For the larger of the two halls, I use "Central Hall" throughout, as that's the name it was know by for almost all its existence; it's officially "Hintze Hall" following a large donation from Michael Hintze, but aside from those occasions on which the NHM are contractually obliged to do so I doubt anyone has ever actually called it that. A number of the books cited are published by the NHM, but I wouldn't consider the usual WP:SPS issues to come into play; when it comes to the history of English botanical illustration the NHM and Kew are the only significant publishers, and it's not as if they have anything to gain from self-promotion in this case (nobody visits a natural history museum to look at the design of the ceiling). ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Victoria[edit]

Iridescent, you never fail to astound. This is amazing and I'm tempted to simply stamp it with an enthusiastic support but suppose I should do my due diligence, read from top to bottom, and nitpick to death, though I'm not sure I have the energy. Anyway, will put it on my watchlist and try to get back with some sort of criticism. If not, you and the coords are free to ignore this comment. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
No, nitpick it all you can; this was written in dribs and drabs over a period of more than a year, and it's entirely possible that either my train of thought shifted midway, or something that seemed obvious to me won't seem obvious to anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image and source review[edit]

Well, that's a cornucopia of images; and there I thought one could not exceed the galleries in Parinacota (volcano).

It sees like all images are in good places. ALT text seems fine as well. WRT the references I didn't run any spotcheck, but they seem to be adequately formatted and reliable to me. I take the bibliography are the top-notch sources on the matter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The photographs of the ceiling and building won't be either PD-old or fall under FoP; they're copyright to whoever took them, and duly licenced as such. (Bridgeman Corel is a US case and doesn't apply in the UK.) FoP doesn't come into play here; that's the clause under which it's permitted to publish a photograph of a work that's still in copyright provided it's on permanent public display, but all the works here are long-since in the public domain. Regarding File:Hans Sloane by Stephen Slaughter, 1736, National Portrait Gallery, London.JPG, while it's clearly not "own work" as claimed by the uploader I'm not going to lose sleep over the exact tag Commons uses, as Stephen Slaughter died in 1765 so is not about to turn up complaining we're violating his copyrights. (That image is primarily there to break up a large block of text, and anything else from commons:Category:Hans Sloane can substitute for it if it's an issue.) File:Richard-owen2.jpg is a reproduction of an 1878 (i.e., definitely public domain) portrait in the National Portrait Gallery; in the wake of previous unpleasantness I'm extremely reluctant to upload anything directly from the NPG website. (There are lots of portraits of Owen, but I wanted to use this one as it shows him at the time the ceiling was painted; most portraits of him date from his period of greatest fame as the leading opponent to Darwin around the time of the 1860 Oxford evolution debate, and show a much younger man.) ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the question about the ceiling tile copyright was because such a photo can have two copyrights, that of the tile painter and that of the photographer; the current file descriptions say that the photographer have licensed the file in a Wikipedia-acceptable way but there is nothing about any (now lapsed) copyrights on the tile. The other issues are also more technicalities about how the license(s) are stated, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to get into attributing the panels in the individual image descriptions, as we really don't know much about who designed them. We know Charles Lea did the physical painting and we're fairly confident Waterhouse was primarily responsible for choosing the designs, but the records are lost; whether the designs were created by Waterhouse or by one or more of the British Museum's botanists, whether Owen was involved in their creation and selection or purely Waterhouse, whether they were original designs or ripped off from existing botanical illustrations, and what technique Lea actually used (e.g. whether he climbed the scaffolding and painted directly, or whether he painted at ground level and then carried them up) are all matters of speculation. In a Wikipedia article we can say Records do not survive of how the plants to be represented were chosen and who created the initial designs. Knapp & Press (2005) believe that it was almost certainly Waterhouse himself, likely working from specimens in the museum's botanical collections, while William T. Stearn, writing in 1980, believes that the illustrations were chosen by botanist William Carruthers, who at the time was the museum's Keeper of Botany. To create the painted panels from the initial cartoons, Waterhouse commissioned Manchester artist Charles James Lea of Best & Lea, with whom he had already worked on Pilmore Hall in Hurworth-on-Tees. Waterhouse provided Lea with a selection of botanical drawings, and requested that Lea "select and prepare drawings of fruits and flowers most suitable and gild same in the upper panels of the roof"; it is not recorded who drew the cartoons for the paintings, or how the species were chosen. How the panels were painted is not recorded, but it is likely Lea painted directly onto the ceiling from the scaffolding., but that's not something that fits easily into the {{Technique}} and {{Creator}} templates on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
We can probably safely assume that the designs are all public domain due to age, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
In Commons-ese, the ceilings would fall under PD-old-assumed as we can't specify the creators with certainty; the architectural elements such as the ceiling arches, girders and sculptures would be PD-old-70 as those we can definitely attribute to Waterhouse and he's definitely dead. The whale could theoretically be subject to copyright if the NHM tried to claim (a) that their re-hanging of the skeleton in 2016 constituted a new "work of artistic craftsmanship" and (b) that because they may at some point decide to take it down again, it's not "permanently situated in premises open to the public", but if they seriously tried to claim that a 130-year-old dead animal constitutes intellectual property they'd be laughed out of court. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, commons:Template:PD-old-assumed it is for the ceilings. Regarding the skeleton, I recall a Commons discussion commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted? about whether reconstructed skeletons might be copyrighted; but that was for reconstructions, a copyright claim on a natural skeleton with no modification would probably be questionable even under sweat of the brow. Especially if the modifications were done 130 years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, do you have any thoughts on these? (The images aren't problematic—nobody's disputing that the paintings are out of copyright and all the photographers who took the derivative works have correctly CC BY-SA licensed them—but it's just a matter of whether and how they need to be re-tagged on Commons.) ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the whale would have copyright protection. I'd definitely throw some kind of PD due to expiration template on Hans_Sloane_by_Stephen_Slaughter,_1736,_National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.JPG, a US PD tag on the 2D images that don't have one, and a PD-old-assumed tag on the tile images that don't yet have one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm certain the whale won't have copyright protection; the issue with dinosaurs was that since we don't know for sure how they looked, original thought was going into arranging their skeletons for display, but no originality goes into displaying a skeleton in its normal configuration. Unless anyone suggests otherwise in the next couple of days, I'll paste a piece of explanatory text onto the tile images, as I don't think Commons has templates for this situation. I assume we're all in agreement that none of the images are actually problematic. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Aye, I don't think any of the images is a problem, but I think that there might actually be a template for this: commons:Template:Licensed-PD where one can put in both a license for the photos and one to describe the tile copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Good find, I'll use that. ‑ Iridescent 09:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. I think that's all of them; the only ones on which I haven't fixed the licensing are a couple uploaded by John Cummings when he was Wikipedian in Residence at the NHM, as the museum are obviously not going to contest those and there may be contractural reasons the specific tags used were chosen. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. This is a tremendous article. Only two minor points on the prose, neither of which affects my support.

  • in the third para of the Background section something has gone awry with the possessive apostrophe in "the museums's holdings".
  • in the Deterioration, restoration and conservation section: "erecting the scaffolding was additionaly difficult to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic..." – there is a typo, but on top of that I don’t think the sentence reads well. I always hesitate to suggest adding extra words, but I think perhaps this would read better as "erecting the scaffolding was additionally difficult because of the need to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic" or some such.

That's all from me. The article meets the FA criteria in my view. It is a splendid read, well and widely referenced, gorgeously illustrated and seems to my inexpert eye to be comprehensive. I enjoyed this and will be looking at the building anew next time I'm there. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, both fixed. If you're in the area, I do recommend taking the time to have a look at the ceilings—there's generally a long queue of school parties at the main entrance, but if one goes in the side entrance in Exhibition Road (the former Geological Museum) and walks straight ahead rather than following the escalator onto which they try to direct you, after passing a slightly disturbing exhibit of preserved avian body parts you'll emerge into Mary Anning's fossil collection which in turn leads directly into the Central Hall. The building itself is architecturally interesting anyway, as the combination of piecemeal development over 14 decades and its highly visible site makes it something of a museum of prevailing architectural fashions, but on that more later if and when I get around to it. ‑ Iridescent 15:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SC[edit]

Lead
  • "Designed by the museum's architect Alfred Waterhouse and painted by the artist Charles James Lea, they consist of 162 panels in the Central Hall, 108 of which depict plants considered significant to the history of the museum, to the British Empire or the museum's visitors and the remainder of which are highly stylised decorative botanical paintings, and of 36 panels in the North Hall, 18 of which depict a variety of plants growing in the British Isles." That's a mammoth sentence that carries a lot of information; it could be broken in two for ease of reading.
    (replying inline even though I know it annoys the delegates) Split, although I'm not entirely happy with the result as it means the word "ceiling" appearing five times in one paragraph
    (That's fine: I prefer it like this). You could make the last sentence "Painted directly onto plaster, they also make use of gilding for visual effect." It trims one away and still holds together?
    I'm reluctant, as that way it's not clear that Lea climbed up the scaffolding and painted directly onto the roof, rather than just painting the individual panels on the ground and climbing up there to attach them. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Natural History collections": As it's not a proper noun, shouldn't it be lower case (as you do in the last words of the same sentence and in a lower down section)?
    Technically it should be in uppercase as a proper name (officially the British Museum (Natural History) but nobody ever included the prefix), but I agree it's too confusing to use uppercase for the name and lowercase for the collections. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Background
  • "free time in Jamaica he indulged his passion": which he? Monck was the last name mentioned
    Fixed ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Plans for a Natural History building
  • The section title: "a Natural History building". Again, are we sure of the capitalisation on this? The first sentence talks of "the natural history department"
    In this context, the uppercase needs to stay even though it's confusing. The BM had four natural history departments, which together were moved to the Natural History building. (Although it's always informally been called "the Natural History Museum", officially it was just the Natural History building of the British Museum until it gained independence in 1992.) ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    That's fine, as long as you're consistent (I haven't checked if you are or not) - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "(Only nine of the British Museum's 50 trustees...)": I'm never a fan of full sentences in brackets: perhaps as a footnote instead? And technically it should be nine and fifty, or 9 and 50.
    "Fifty" written in full. I don't particularly like sentences in parentheses, but I think this is a reasonable exception; otherwise, a reasonable reader will assume "the trustees of the museum approved Owen's proposal" means there was broad support for the building plan, not that only 18% of the trustees supported the plan but it passed on a technicality. I'm reluctant to relegate it to the already crowded footnotes where most readers won't see it.
  • Seventy whales: I don't think this needs to be bracketed at all
    This was initially a footnote, but I thought it gave a good general idea of the scale of the building without going into dry dimensions so moved it up into the text. To me, without the brackets it seems a little disjointed—the other possibility, attaching it to the previous sentence, would make that sentence too long. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Alfred Waterhouse image – possibly move to the left, so he's looking "into" the article?
    That would mean having to alternate images left/right—you can't just have one image on the left and all the others on the right—and alternating images on a page with so much complex markup and indenting would make it unreadable. I've never really understood that "portraits should face the text" thing, which I've never seen or heard anywhere other Wikipedia and has always struck me as a WP:SNODGRASS rule. ‑ Iridescent 16:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Done to the start of the "Main ceiling" section. This is very readable and interesting stuff. – SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Replied on a couple - none of my comments so far have been the "you must" type, more along the lines of suggestions. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Continuing...

North Hall
  • We have a large, luscious image of the central hall's ceiling centred in the age, but the North Hall has an equally luscious image in a smaller and side-lined position. Could this get the same treatment as the central hall image – comme ça?
    It could, but the North Hall section isn't really all that interesting. The golden ceiling of the Central Hall is a vast artwork representing the final flowering (sic) of creationism as a mainstream science, when botanical illustration was still considered a branch of theology and representing the Works of God deserved just as much respect as representing the Family of God; the North Hall ceiling is a fairly dull addendum that wouldn't look out of place in a provincial Wetherspoons. Plus (and more pertinently) we only have one photo that shows the whole of the North ceiling, and that's a poor-quality snapshot I took on my phone which probably wouldn't stand up to magnification. (Because it's now the canteen, the North Hall isn't easy to photograph; for the Central Hall you can lean off the balconies and get a clear line of sight, but photographing the North Hall means lying on the floor like a drunk with your camera pointed upwards, surrounded by people eating their lunch.) ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm tempted to strike my support and force you pop down there and do just that! Next time I'm in the area I'll see if I can get another image for you. - SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

That's it from me. A lovely article - I wish we had space or allowance for more and larger images, given the beauty of the things. Nothing to stop me going to Support on this now. Cheer - SchroCat (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks… as per my reply to Tim above, I do recommend popping in if you're ever passing by; the museum itself isn't really up to much compared to its neighbours, but the building is an artwork in its own right. ‑ Iridescent 19:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cassianto[edit]

Claiming my place. Reading through now. CassiantoTalk 18:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I will say from the off, ref 175: The date is in the American format, while all the others are BrEng. Consistency is key and while they should all be formatted the same way, BrEng has the edge, it being a British building. CassiantoTalk 18:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    Good catch; for some of the entries on the individual plants I used the references from the existing articles on the plants—there didn't seem a great deal of point tracking down new references for such trivial things as "hazelnuts come from hazel trees". ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Background

*"Irish physician Hans Sloane..." -- BrEng does favour the definite article before names, and so do I, but it may fall towards personal choice.

  • You've struck this but I'll reply anyway in case anyone else raises it—in this case I don't think the article is appropriate, as "The Irish physician" makes it sound like he was the only doctor in Ireland. ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "With the British Museum now established numerous other collectors began to donate and bequeath items to the museum's collections, which were further swelled by large quantities of exhibits brought to England in 1771 by the first voyage of James Cook, by a large collection of Egyptian antiquities (including the Rosetta Stone) ceded by the French in the Capitulation of Alexandria, by the 1816 purchase of the Elgin Marbles by the British government who in turn passed them to the museum, and by the 1820 bequest of the vast botanical collections of Joseph Banks." -- That is a hell of a sentence and I found myself tailing off and having to re-read it a few times. There's also, in my opinion, a heavy use of "by the". Too many for comfortable reading.
    I did it that way intentionally to try to give the reader an impression of the constant influx of stuff pouring in. It's splittable if you think it's problematic. Basically, it boils down to "they had a lot of random stuff dumped on them in quick succession which was too important to give away or hide in storerooms, but which they didn't have space to display". ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other collectors continued to sell, donate or bequeath their collections to the museum, and by this time..." -- By which time? We mention several year ranges above and then in the next sentence, we skip back to 1809.
    Clarified; it was 1807 that they decided there wasn't enough space, but they didn't do anything about acquiring more space leading to the 1808–09 bonfires. ‑ Iridescent 19:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plans for a Natural History building

  • "...in 1856 the natural history department was split into separate departments of botany, zoology, mineralogy and geology departments" -- thrice repetition of "department(s)".
    Fixed, good catch ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "...was unhappy with the museum containing botanical specimens at all" -- redundant use of "at all".
    I'm not sure about this. It's not unusual for a natural history museum to contain some plants even if it focuses on animals, in the same way that back before the Geological Museum and the Natural History Museum merged the NHM still had some mineral specimens on display. Owen initially wanted a specific Museum of Stuffed Animals with no botanical specimens whatsoever, which would have been a fairly unusual arrangement. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Waterhouse's buildings

  • "...although expensive to build, this was resistant to the acid rain" -- this? "It" sounds better if your meaning the building. Unless you're talking about the terracotta, in which case "this" could be used.
    It's the terracotta facing that's being referred to here; the theory was that although terracotta picks up dirt more easily than brick it doesn't erode, so no matter how bad London's pollution got the building could just be hosed down and the decorative carvings would appear good-as-new. He was ultimately proved right; the terracotta animals are still pristine. ‑ Iridescent 19:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Central Hall

  • Sorry, I may have missed it, but is there a reason why the Central Hall is being spoken of in the past tense?
    I've reworded the opening of this paragraph to start Central Hall was to be…, to hopefully make it clearer. At this point it hadn't yet been built; we're talking about Waterhouse's original plans which Ayrton was trying to veto. ‑ Iridescent 20:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Main ceiling

  • "...or to the museum itself.[73] Each block of three columns depicts a different species, but all have a broadly similar design.[73] The central column in the lowest row depicts the trunk or stalk of the plant in question, while the panels on either side and the three panels of the row above depict the branches of the plant spreading from the lower central panel.[73]" -- Is there a need to keep citing the same reference after every sentence? This continues throughout the article, but in other areas, such as the smaller sections, you use just one.
    I'm inclined to keep the separate references here, as this section (about the composition of the main panels) is the aspect on which it's most likely someone will publish another book; plus, "all have a broadly similar design" is the kind of thing that sounds like it could be my own opinion so I ideally want to make is clear this is a referenced fact. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

North Hall

  • "The display was not successful..." -- Orwell would argue that it is better to use one word rather than two, so "unsuccessful" would perhaps be better.
    No problem, done ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Stopping for now. I'm much enjoying this. CassiantoTalk 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 9[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the more forgotten of the Apollo missions, but still an important stepping stone on the way to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Driveby query by Support from Iridescent[edit]

Driveby query—I'll review this properly when I get the chance—but NASA public relations could not argue the names were inappropriate puzzles me and will presumably puzzle other readers, and ought to be clarified; why couldn't the PR department have ordered them to use Liberty and Opportunity or some such as the callsigns for the modules, if they weren't happy with their multi-billion-dollar program being called Gumdrop? ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The source says basically what we put, plus the additional information that PR weren't overly impressed with the choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, we can only go with what the sources say—it just seems odd that NASA PR didn't intervene given how closely the US space program was micromanaged. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Another source, Deke! (page 225-226), says "Nine would also be the first mission in years in which spacecraft had names instead of numbers. You needed them for radio communications when the command module and lunar module were separated. The command module was going to be Gumdrop and the lunar module was going to be Spider. NASA public relations people like Julian Scheer hated the names; I guess they weren't dignified enough. But the crew had picked them."
Moonshot (pages 227-228) says "Because two spacecraft were involved, to avoid radio call-sign confusion NASA allowed the astronauts to name their ships, lifting a ban imposed after Gus Grissom had tagged his gemini capsule Molly Brown. Some officials were not too pleased with the names selected by the Apollo 9 team, considered them not worthy of this noble effort. Assessing the shapes of the two vehicles, the astronauts named the lunar module Spider and the cone-shaped command module Gumdrop."
Two Sides to the Moon (pages 233-234) says "For some time there had been people in the astronaut corps pushing for us to be allowed to give our spacecraft names. 'No names, only mission number designations,' NASA had said. They gave no particular reason. At times, I think, they just lost sight of the human dimension of the program. But when it came to Apollo 9 we had two spacecraft, the Lunar Module and the Command Module. To communicate between the two, we had to have separate call signs. During training we had nicknamed the Lunar Module "Spider" because of its spindly legs and Spider became its call sign. The Command Module had arrived at the Cape on the back of a truck, wrapped up like candy in light blue Cellophane, earning it the call sign Gumdrop. When the media got wind of these call signs they adopted them as names for the two spacecraft. Bowing to the inevitable, NASA allowed all Apollo crews after us to name their spacecraft. The crew of Apollo 10 used Snoopy and Charlie Brown. After that NASA got a little more esoteric, insisting that the names bear more relation to the missions, hence the use of Columbia and Eagle for Apollo 11's historic mission. But there we were: Gumdrop and Spider. Five days into the mission and the time had come to fly the two vehicles separately."
Based on that wall of text, I removed Young from the list of who named Gemini 3 (it was in reference to Grissom's previous spacecraft sinking in the ocean and a play called The Unsinkable Molly Brown, which I think I should add since readers probably do not know...?). It also matches the Moonshot source. I changed up the wording, since I suspect the PR department did argue and just happened to lose the argument. What we do know is that they did not like the name, so I rephrased to "Personnel in NASA public relations thought the names were too informal, but the call signs ultimately gained official sanction." Addressing the original point brought up by the reviewer, NASA did tighten their rules on naming starting with Apollo 11. I could go either way on keeping that in there, as it is only tangentially relevant, but I think it helps the narrative and any confusion over permission. Do the two of you agree with my edits, and do you think I should add in the bit about the Unsinkable Molly Brown? I think it is confusing to the average reader why Molly Brown would cause NASA to stop allowing astronauts name their spacecraft for a long period of time. Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Molly Brown may remain in the public consciousness as she is depicted in the film Titanic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I am one of the three people on Earth that has not seen that movie yet. It should be fine as-is then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, proper review. This is the version on which I'm commenting; no image or source checks conducted. I'm assuming all the technical detail is correct as sentences like Efficiency was increased in the S-II second stage with uprated J-2 engines, and through a closed-loop propellant utilization system rather than Apollo 8's open-loop system make my brain hurt.

  • Pet peeve and I'm not sure what (or if) the MOS says about it; as with many abbreviations (including FAC), of a LM jars with me when skim-reading as my brain tries to autocorrect it to "an LM". This is certainly not something over which I'd oppose, but maybe reword to avoid it even if it means saying "lunar module" in full; I'm sure Wikipedia won't fall apart if an article included an extra nine characters.
    • Technically it is in four spots, so 36 characters! I will leave it to Wehwalt to come to a decision on it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I've gone to "an" in the one case where I felt I could not smooth it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose I'm sorry; I've tried to be a good collaborator and go along with the Wikipedia style consensus deprecating the capitalizations classically used in the Apollo program for over 50 years, but this is too much when today's style consensus overturns something like this. The Apollo Command Module page explains (in the lead sentence and the Design phase subsection of History) that the lunar module was historically called by the pronouncable acronym LEM which was later shortened to LM, but everyone developed the habit of continuing to pronounce LM as "lem". Thus "a LM" ("a lem") is what in fact everybody said fifty years ago. (Or would you like to go and change that page too?) Changing it now, encouraging people to pronounce "an L M" amounts to original research, contradicting established practice. My apologies to everyone born too late to remember the original, or from outside the US. Please change it back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I added a note explaining the pronunciation on it (I thought we had it in other FA articles but I struggled to find any instances). I changed it back to 'a LM'. Admittedly, even though I know it is pronounced LEM I still read it as LM each time I see it. I could see arguments for it both ways; hopefully this is a good enough compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I admit also to hearing it as "el-em" in my head and also don't hear the previous program as "Geminee". Well, guess I don't have The Right Stuff. Is all this satisfactory, JustinTime55?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks. (As for the pronunciation of "Gemini", there's apparently ambiguous usage in different regions of the US. I too always herd "Gemin-eye" in all the public media. The astronauts apparently favored "Gemi-nee", especially Gus Grissom. I remember when I was younger, hearing a tape from the Gemini 4 EVA when Gus was struggling to get Jim McDivitt to tell Ed White to stop the EVA. I thought it sounded like he was saying "Jimmy-por, get back in!" which of course made no sense. He was just slurring "Geminee 4" real fast.) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Glad you're happy with it, would you mind striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If at all possible try to avoid starting a sentence with "But"; I'm not sure if the MOS explicitly bans it, but it Just Looks Wrong.
    • It was not needed in the one sentence I saw it in; removed. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • their planned February 21 mission, which [Grissom's crew] named Apollo 1—our Apollo 1 article says this as well, but neither here nor there does who named it actually seem to be sourced (unless Scott & Leonov, pp. 193–195. serves as the source for the entire sentence). In either case, given that the first Gemini flight was Gemini 1 the convention had obviously been established by then.
    • Hooooo boy. At some point, I had seen so many different stories about it I wanted to document it on my userpage. Unfortunately I stopped working on Apollo 1 stuff around then, so still do not have a clear answer, but User:Kees08/Apollo 1 has a source that says they were referring to themselves as the Apollo 1 crew (I think before it was officially named that..but not sure). Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      We could simply say, "to be called Apollo 1", which avoids the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      I believe the statement is accurate as written; I updated my userpage linked above recently to show more examples of how it was named. Kees08 (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Extreme pedantry alert: re the first Apollo crewed mission to go into space would be Apollo 7, was Apollo 7 not the first Apollo crewed mission, period?
    • Technically Apollo 1 was, but did not make it to space. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • John F. Kennedy's goal of people walking on the Moon and returning safely to Earth seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment case; readers can surely assume that Kennedy's goal wasn't for people to walk on the Moon and die on re-entry?
    • There was a bit of discussion at the A-class review of Apollo 11 regarding how much we should emphasize the 'safely to Earth' bit. Looks like we ended up leaving it in five places (once was the intro). I suppose that essay could apply, but for whatever reason 'safely to Earth' was heavily emphasized during the Space Race, so we should probably keep it here. It was even mentioned by Nixon when he was talking to them on the Moon! If you have strong feelings one way or another let me know, but I would be inclined to keep it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I've always taken the "safe return" to exclude the early scenarios where someone would be landed on the Moon and maybe they'd get him an ascent rocket later. Just soft landing someone on the Moon without worrying about getting him home is a less complex thing, and Kennedy's goal was more than that, to bring the person home safely, meaning you need the two-stage LM among other things which complicated the task. So yes, I would leave it in as an integral part of it, though it is sometimes overlooked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I can understand not linking Chicago but linking Neptune, New Jersey, but in that case do we really need to link San Antonio, Texas?
  • McDivitt's crew was among the best trained ever to fly—is this within the Apollo program or within the space program generally, and is it still considered the case or were they just the best-trained crew up to that point?
    • Wehwalt: I think unless other sources say the same thing (they might!) we should include a caveat, something like 'according to Burgess and French'. I will see what I can find in other sources tonight. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've done something with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Same issue about "stand-up EVA" as I raised on Scott's biography; the general readers who will see this article if it's TFA will likely have no clue what it means, and assume it means "standing on the lunar surface". (The article is also inconsistent between "stand-up" and "standup".)
    • Good catch for both; made them all stand-up and added the note explaining what it is. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On the same note, we have During his stand-up EVA, Scott did not wear a PLSS but EVA hasn't been mentioned up to this point.
    • Did you mean extravehicular activity had not been defined properly? I just added that into the article. Kees08 (Talk) 01:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The astronauts slept well, but complained of being woken by non-English transmissions, possibly in Chinese—I appreciate the sources may not exist, but with the benefit of hindsight have we any idea what was going on here? Were the Chinese intentionally trying to sabotage the mission, or was NASA accidentally using the same frequency as Radio Shanghai?
    • I can find no other source that mentions this; the closest I got was that they were awoken that night due to a hydrogen system alarm. Do either of you have access to NYT? I would love to be able to read the article. I am inclined to remove it at this point, but will not until I can see what the NYT article says. Kees08 (Talk) 02:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I can send it to you but you have to send me an email first through the system as I can't send an attachment through the system. It says as follows "They complained, however, of some strange radio noises awakening them during the night when they passed over Southeast Asia. They had apparently picked up a flight control tower, perhaps in the war zone of Vietnam. (paragraph) 'Seems like we were going over some station that was transmitting from a tower clearing people to land,' Colonel Scott said, adding "and the first couple sounded somewhat like Chinese.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, with that I was able to find it in the transcript (around page 76, PDF page 78. At work now so will look at it after. Kees08 (Talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find anything about the cause of this, all I see is that they turned off their radio overnight to prevent it from waking them again. Not sure if we should include that or not. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's basically color, if you know what I mean. Material to interest the reader in what is necessarily a rather dry article about one of the most obscure Apollo missions, if not the most. I don't think we need say they turned off the radio the next night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Re NASA officials predicted that Spider would remain in orbit for 18 years, given that it actually re-entered 11 years later, have we any idea why their prediction was so far out?
    • Hrm....I have JSTOR access but for some reason the cited article will not load for me. What does load is Drew Ex Machina and Apollo by the Numbers (page 57), which both say it was expected to be in orbit for five years and that it stayed in orbit longer than predicted (with no reasoning specified). Wehwalt, do you have access to the journal that says 18 years? I will keep perusing sources to see if other numbers pop up... Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Further evidence that five years was the prediction, page 7-3 of the mission report says "The final orbit for the ascent stage was 3760.9 by 126.6 miles, with a lifetime of 5 years." I am inclined to change it unless Wehwalt has any conflicting evidence (including the journal I cannot seem to open). Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I was mistaken. It actually says "Officials predict the ascent stage will not reenter earth's atmosphere for 19 years." I've modified it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all minor queries and "this isn't entirely clear to me" issues rather than anything problematic (under normal circumstances I'd just put them on the talk page, but I'll list them here to avoid other reviewers having to repeat them), and I have no issue with supporting regardless of whether they're addressed. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Seems like each image is in a reasonable space and also reasonably licensed (File:Apollo 9 Command Module.jpg and [13] resemble each other, but the latter is slightly cropped compared to the former, so not likely its origin). No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you, but looking at their other uploads, the dates are reasonably far apart that they may have visited all those museums, and none of the others match Alamy stock photos. Additionally, Tineye says 'first found' for the Commons photo Oct 20, 2012, and the Alamy photo on Dec 19, 2017. I just realized I misread what you wrote, and you thought the Commons file was the original. My last point was going to be the cropping issue, but I see you already raised that. So we are in agreeance! Thanks for the review; I have been considering swapping a couple of photos and if I do I will give you a ping to re-review them. Also, I will be adding alt-text throughout the nomination as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for changing some, but we swapped out three photos (listed below). Let me know if you need anything changed with the new photos (I still need to add alts). Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute! I didn't catch that you replaced the image of the crew training for AS-258 (in CSM-101) with what is obviously a later one, probably in the spacecraft they flew in (CSM-104). That picture was deliberately added because it drives home the point that McDivitt's crew started their training before the Apollo 1 fire. It makes a difference, because even the Block II spacecraft didn't have the anti-fire fixes made after the fire, and they were going to fly in a older version of the spacesuit without the anti-fire fixes (notice the blue color). I would really like this picture swapped back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I was going back and forth on that when I was deciding, for those reasons. The reason I went with the one in the article now is because I wanted a photo that showcased the 'blue gumdrop'. I think what I might do is revert the picture as you suggested, and then replace File:AS09-20-3104 (21315590814).jpg with this gumdrop photo. We lose the interior shot of the capsule, but I think illustrating both the names is encyclopedia-ly important to the article. Thoughts? Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 20:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Move the one of the CM interior to later in the article, maybe in place of the CM on the carrier? I mean, we have the shot of the CM in the museum right after that, we can spare the carrier shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the carrier photo made more sense chronologically, but it does not really matter, so I made the switch you suggested. Kees08 (Talk) 06:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe put back the carrier photo, and put the one of the CM interior in place of the one showing the LM on the S-IVB? That one isn't so wonderful at thumbnail size.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by SchroCat[edit]

  • Support. I had my say at PR, and a further review now shows the article has been strengthened even further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Verifiability
  • Ref 5: I don't understand the attribution to "Jonathan McDowell" ("Jonathan's Space Pages"). The source is a wall of figures from http://planet4589.org/space/log/satcat.txt. What information from the infobox is this source confirming?
    • Since the apogee, perigee, inclination, and period change over time, a single point in time is selected for orbital parameters, known as the epoch. In this case, on March 5, 1969, the parameters are as described in the infobox, but a different date would yield different parameters. To use the page, use ctrl+F with the COSPAR ID (1969-018A). The three numbers below it (204 x 497 x 33.83) are the perigee, apogee, and inclination (in km, km, and degrees, respectively). The 91.55 minute period is the far right column. Let me know if you need anything else on this, hope that helps. Kees08 (Talk) 05:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, that's clear! I still don't understand why the site is attributed to McDowell, but... Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Links
  • Bibliography: Brooks et al 1979: the main link does not seem to be working ("unable to connect")
    • To here? Works on my machine, let me know if you meant a different link Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Format issues:
  • Ref 16: template error
  • Ref 33: "p. 3-2" is a little confusing – looks like a p. range, but isn't; it's how the report is paginated, unfortunately. Same issue on other Mission Report citations, but I suspect that little can be done.
    • Is what it is, unfortunately. Kees08 (Talk) 05:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ref 80: space missing between pages nos
  • Quality and reliability:
  • Ref 54: What makes "Jonathan's Space Report" a high quality, reliable source per FA criteria?
    • Well, besides the owner's good taste in definitions for the boundary of space, he gets cited in the media, like Space.com and The New York Times for example. I bolstered one of his citations with a book citation, but I prefer his more-exact definition of SEVA so I would like to keep it. For the orbital parameters in the infobox, I can use his space report or NSSDC, I do not have a preference. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise ref 97: "Heavens-Above"?
    • That falls under the 'I think it is because it is an often used free satellite tracker but I do not have an actual good reason' category. So I switched it up with n2yo.com, which in their terms of use say n2yo.com is a website providing mainly satellite tracking Services. Thousands of objects can be tracked in real time. The software used for tracking is using mainly space surveillance data provided by "Space Track", a website consisting of a partial catalog of observations collected by the US Space Surveillance Network, operated by US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC). AFSPC does not make any warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the data provided and does not endorse any product or service that utilizes its data. n2yo.com is an authorized redistributor and the license is renewed annually. In special circumstances for a few satellites the traking data ("keplerian elements") are derived from public sources (monitoring or visual observation). Which means they use data from the US Air Force Space Command. Kees08 (Talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I believe I attempted to address all your points above. Thanks for the review, let me know your responses. Kees08 (Talk) 05:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - a couple of minor quibbles...

  • , its major purposes were to qualify the LM for lunar orbit operations and to show that it and the CSM could separate and move well apart, before rendezvousing and docking again - "purposes" reads oddly here..."aims"? "accomplishments"? - also "qualify" seems an odd verb to choose.
  • Apollo 9 was deemed an unqualified success - this sentence strikes me as redundant and possibly labouring the point as the next sentence says the same thing (as a quote)
Thanks, Cas. I think I've gotten those. Let us know what you think. I've piped "qualify", the article on flight qualify won't be at FAC anytime soon but it will do until something better comes along.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow, I did not know that use of the verb. the link is good. All good now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review ask support.

Comments by Praemonitus[edit]

Overall it looks to be FA quality. I just have a couple of minor quibbles:

  • "The next task was to demonstrate that two docked spacecraft could be maneuvered by one engine." Was the SM SPS engine used for this? It seems likely, but is unclear.
Yes, the SPS. I will add it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The article could use a good quality illustration showing the stack formed by the CM/SM docked with the LM. Is it possible to add something like this?
I don't know where such a photo could be taken from. The astronauts could not have done so, since they did not go away from the stack to a place where they could. Kees08, any thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
An illustration isn't a photo. Praemonitus (talk)

Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good point. Let me look through the Apollo 9 press kit and mission report and see what I can find.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Such a drawing certainly exists, and is currently in the Apollo 13 article. The CSM/LM configuration is fairly generic and is not labeled as exclusive to Apollo 13. Why not use that? JustinTime55 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
It's better than the one in the Apollo 9 press kit which is fairly crude by later standards. So I'll import it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Odaenathus[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Odaenathus, king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people. I tried to give him the article he deserves, and I hope reviewers will enjoy this read. The article is already GA, and was copy-edited by the very helpful Gog the Mild.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Odenaethus_bust.jpg: source link is dead - I found an available archive link but it gives a different licensing from the current tag
Seems it might have originally been non-commercial (which is not allowed). Or do you remember if it was the current licence back when you found it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I found the current location of the image[14], seems to be free, no? The licence and link just have to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I was a beginner when I uploaded it years ago, and did not know that non-commercial not allowed. But for now, I updated the tag and the link and all should be fine
  • File:Bas_relief_nagsh-e-rostam_al.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done
  • File:Hairan_I.jpg: I am not sure why the given tag was applied, please explain
I got the image from a journal published in 1937. This volume's copyrights were not renewed in the US after 1963. I was introduced to this trick by FunkMonk during the nomination of Cleopatra Selene of Syria (see here [15]), which led to the upload of this image
  • File:Antoninian_Vaballathus_Augustus.jpg: source link is dead, should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done (and link replaced)
  • File:Dynt2.png: what is the source of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Done

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. Is it all satisfying now?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. In case the second bust image has to be deleted, we're lucky we got that second one from Copenhagen... FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I will be working on this very soon
  • Zenobia is duplinked in pretty close proximity. I think I once linked the duplink tool, but here it is again:[16]
  • The names of various persons and places could be linked in the image captions.
  • Any reason why this image[17] is not used?
  • There seem to be some much more recent European depictions[18][19] of Odaenathus (and Zenobia) which could maybe be fun to show under legacy?
  • Link Palmyrene Kingdom in the intro, or would that just be a redirect to Palmyrene Empire?
  • I think you told me once the busts are identical, perhaps state if that's the case?
Alright FunkMonk, sorry for taking so long. I eliminated the duplinks and linked the names in captions. When it come to the more recent European depictions, Im not sure they can be used here, because it was the fame of Zenobia that led to their creation, not the legacy of Odaenathus. The king's appearance in those paintings is solely related to him being her husband. However, I will research the topic and if any more recent European depictions were made for Odaenathus himself for his deeds, then I will integrate this into the article. The link to a Palmyrene kingdom will just take you to the Palmyrene Empire. Now, the main reason why I took so long, was because you mentioned the busts. I decided that I needed to understand more about this topic, so I spent the last three five days traveling to different libraries and getting my hands on sources that address the topic. I found much, and photocopied many pages and Im using them now to create a new article about the portraits of Odaenathus. What I discovered is that it is more probable that the portraits shown in the article now do not represent Odaenathus. Those portraits have many parallels in Palmyra, and are really not special. However, the only special busts, one shows the subject wearing a tiara (like the son of Odaenathus) and the other showing the subject wearing a diadem (like that of the Seleucid kings) are the most likely depictions of Odaenathus. No other busts shows a diadem or a tiara; those were signs of eastern and Hellenistic monarchical power. Plus, we know from the portrait of Hairan (Herodianus) wearing the tiara that this object was the crown of Palmyra. According to modern research, those two busts are the only 90% certainty depictions of Odaenathus. The bad news is: we have no free photos. I have no idea why it was decided by Wiki that non-commercial use is not accepted. The photo of the bust with the tiara is the only evidence we have. It is an old photo, and the statue itself was discovered in 1939 and it is now lost. Meaning that we will never have any other photo of it. IFPO were nice enough to release their archive for free, but non-commercial use, and the photo of the tiara bust (the tiara is broken but you can notice a hole in the bust where the tiara would have been inserted) exist in this archive this link and this (photo of the upper part of the bust showing the opening for inserting the rest of the tiara). Therefore, it is important that we get the photo one way or another!
Interesting, You think that info is too much to incorporate into the article? And how about this image?[20] As for non-commercial, I have no idea how it was decided, but I think it's due to the "used for any purpose" statement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks to Wiki not so bright rule, we cant have the only photo of the bust that most likely depict Odaenathus. I had to remove the photo of the infobox and replace it with a more likely depiction that is not very clear. I incorporated the info to the article and used the image you noted
  • "and 'Ôden in Aramaic" But isn't Palmyrene a form of Aramaic? Which would mean that 'Ôden is in some specific other kind of Aramaic?
Guess the author is referring to imperial or standard Aramaic. Palmyrene is an Aramaic language, but it evolved enough to be called its own language, so some words can have a different pronunciation in Palmyrene. The source itself does not specify this (guess the author is expecting the readers to automatically understand this, and thats a common feature in academic texts where the authors think that all their readers are specialists in the field)
  • "the name of his father, Hairan" and "Hairan could also be of Aramaic etymology". I think this could be stated more ambiguously than saying one thing in the text and another in the note. I think the note should be consolidated into the main text, so it doesnø't seem like you are contradicting yourself.
I deleted that note. Stonemann and Powers are historians but not linguists. Specialists tend to support the Arabic etymology
  • "No images of Odaenathus have been discovered" Rather no definite images? If there are several that could be him, we can't say no images?
fixed
  • "thus, he cannot be a son of Hairan son of Odaenathus (I).[17][41] Therefore, it is certain that King Odaenathus is the builder of the tomb" Why is this present tense, when the preceding text is oast tense?
fixed
  • "and Hairan son of Maliko son of Nasor (left)" I think you could mention in the caption that it may be a relation of Odaenathus, to establish why the image is relevant?
done
  • Is there any speculation of why Odaenathus was chosen for his ranks?
I wrote one
  • There is no mention of Odaenathus in the Edessa section, could he somehow be placed in context within that section? Or maybe that entire section should just be shortened a lot and merged with the text at the beginning of rise?
The section of Edessa is a very important background. Readers need it to understand what will come next. I also cant merge it in the rise section because chronologically, Edessa was the last event before Odaenathus declared himself king. But since you noted this, I removed the section and merged it with reign. This way, the declaration of Odaenathus as king can be connected with the events that happened before
I think it works much better now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "while Balista was captured and executed by the King in autumn 261" Until this point, it seemed like Balista and Odaenathus were allies? Why was Balista killed? Or does "the king" not refer to Odaenathus?
Allies? more like waiting to see what will happen. Once it became clear the coup is failing, Odaenathus choose the side of the emperor and attacked Emessa
Much clearer now, but "when it became clear that Gallienus will eventually win" should be past tense (would)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • Regarding "the King", I think King should only be a capitalised when part of the name? Such as King Odaenathus?
changed
  • "derived from the Aramaic root" duplink since it is already inked in the first section?
Weird, I used the duplink tool several times and did not show me this
I think sometimes it doesn't recognise them if the other link is a redirect rather than a direct link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "two inscriptions in Palmyrene dialect" Palmyrene link should be moved to first section instead.
changed
  • "destroyed the Jewish city of Nehardea" Link Jewish?
changed
done
  • "and freeing Edessa and Carrhae" Is it perhaps biased to say they were "freed"?
changed
  • "rowned his son Herodianus (Hairan I)" He should be linked at first mention in the article body.
He is. In the section Odaenathus I
I see, was searching for "Herodianus". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Since King of Kings is discussed here, I might note it is currently nominated for GA... May benefit from the look of an expert.
  • There seems to be little to no mention of Zenobia from during Odaenathus' lifetime? Had she no significance until he died?
Yes, she was just a stay at home wife according to actual evidence (the Augustan History makes her a partner in campaign command.....) but this is discussed in her own article
Seems it could warrant at least a footnote here then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Footnote added at the first mention of Zenobia's exploits
  • "to face an influx of Germanic riders attacking Anatolia" Anything to link?
linked
  • "the story is neglected by most scholars" Or ignored?
changed
  • I don't understand why you have two different bulleted lists repeating much of the same information before and after "Instigators and motives theories". Why not consolidate the two?
I couldnt. Maybe a man named also Odaenathus killed the king according to Syncellus, but what was the motive? should I add the sentense: "according to Syncellus, the king was killed by a man named Odaenathus" to every motive paragraph? Same goes for every assassin mentioned. Thats why its best to list the names of the men who might have done it first, and the people who supported those men second.
  • "meaning that Odaenathus' eldest son and co-king was Hairan Herodianus" What is meant by this? Now it reads like that was his entire name, though the preceding text implies it is the same name in two languages?
Yes, it was common that an upper class Palmyrene have a local and Greek name
  • A lot of terms in the burial section could be linked, such as Mummification, inhumation, sepulchral, architrave.
Done
  • "that Maeonius was proclaimed emperor for a brief period" Emperor of what? And if Palmyra, how come a different title than Odaenathus had?
In the Ruler of the East section, under the bulleted Imperator totius orientis paragraph (last one), I mention that it is the Augustan history that claimed that Odaenathus was proclaimed Augustus (Emperor). Hence, since the account of Maeonius is from that source, the title used is that of an emperor
  • "two Persian tigers" reading this, I would think it refers to a population of tigers from Persia, but the image caption says "he Persians who are depicted as tigers". Could this be consolidated? And how is it known they represent Persians?
Just the hypothesis of Gawlikowski because the only tigers known to the Palmyrenes were the Caspian tigers. I re-wrote it a little to make it clearer
Interesting, by the way, that tiger population is now extinct, so perhaps say "once common". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • Shoudn't the tiger image be listed in the paragraph that discusses his depictions?
It is more important for the legacy section since it is connected to the proposed hero cult. In any case, like all other depiction, it is not certain that the man depicted is Odaenathus
I meant more just a mention, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I didnt get it the first time. I think its better not to list every possible representation. I am collecting every possible depiction in the new article about this topic in my sandbox talk page
  • "hence, Odaenathus merely retook abandoned city" Cities?
fixed
  • "Septimius Odainat, romanized as Odaenathus" Shouldn't the title of the article be shown first?
Is it better now?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "largely at the mercy of the Persians" Links to the modern country of Iran, is that appropriate?
changed
  • "Odaenathus attacked the remaining usurper and quelled the rebellion. He was rewarded with many exceptional titles by the Emperor" Not sure if I missed something, but I didn't understand this from reading the article body itself? It could probably be made clearer.
Done
  • Support - another important Syria history article down, looking forward to what you'll present next. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Looks good!

Sorry for the late reply Jens Lallensack, but your note about the bust and FunkMonk's note about the same topic made it important that I expand on the topic, which is what I was doing for the past few days (see here)
  • "Odaenathus" is the Greek transcription of the King's name – the intro says its latinized?
I meant romanization. I blame my sometimes clumsy English. Fixed
  • his name, 'Dynt, the name of his father, Hairan, and that of his grandfather, Wahb-Allat, are Arabic, – above it was stated that it was Palmyrene
The name 'Dynt is the Palmyrene version of an Arabic name. Its like today in the west Salah al-Din is Saladin. We can call this the English version of an Arabic name (while the man himself was a Kurd)
  • SE (Seleucid year)) – is it possible to get rid of the double bracket?
It annoys me as well, but I could'nt come up with a solution. We need to indicate what SE means as most readers will not understand it
  • Image caption: Odenaethus' bust from the museum of Palmyra – It was stated in the text that the attribution of any busts to Odaenaethus is far from sure. Maybe indicate this ambiguity in the caption.
fixed
  • In two image captions you use the spelling Odenaethus, is that a typo?
fixed
  • Bilingual inscriptions from Palmyra record the title of the Palmyrene ruler as ras in Palmyrene – This confuses a bit as it seems to be in contradiction with the preceding sentence. Only in the next sentence it becomes clear – a bit to late, it disrupts reading flow.
  • Section "Ras of Palmyra" – shouldn't most of the content under "Rise" also fall under this heading, as it is about the Ras?
  • the Palmyrenes might have elected Odaenathus to defend the city. – Shouldn't this be discussed together with and its incursions which affected Palmyrene trade,combined with the weakness of the Roman Empire, were probably the reasons behind the Palmyrene council's decision to elect a lord for the city in order for him to lead a strengthened army? These very similar sentences are completely separated.
I have re-organized the rise section, so I hope it looks better now. Sometimes you cant keep simple reading flow when discussing an ambiguous topic. I cant move most of the content under "rise" to "ras". The former section discusses the circumstances for the creation of the title while the latter discusses what Odaenathus did as a bearer of the title.
  • after Philip the Arab – I would add "Emperor Philip the Arab", to help readers like me that are unfamiliar with the less famous Roman emperors.
fixed
  • to occupy the area; while – I would not use ";" together with "while" here. Either the one or the other.
fixed
  • Odaenathuss – Should it be with apostrophe?
fixed
  • After this year, a governor, Septimius Worod, was appointed for the city of Palmyra – was this a roman governor?
Palmyrene appointed by Odaenathus. Fixed
  • The evidence for the second campaign is meager; Zosimus is the only one to mention it specifically. A passage in the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle is interpreted by Hartmann as an indication of a second offensive. – So this Sibylline was written by Zosimus? Not entirely clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Zosimus did not write the the Sibylline which is introduced in the Administration and royal image section. Zosimus mentioned the campaign clearly. But in the Sibylline, a collection of "prophecies" obviously written after the events it prophesized and probably by an anonymous Syrian writer serving Odaenathus, there is a "prophecy" that Hartmann intrepreted as indicating the second capmaign

LouisAragon[edit]

A great article Attar. This is my second or third review, so go easy on me ;-))

Thanks for taking the time Louis
  • "Mlk Mlk DY MDNH" (Western Aramaic)" -- Did any other rulers of Palmyra/Syria hold this title?
Not as far as I know (well, aside from his successor Vaballathus)
If its only attested for two rulers, it might be valuable to explain/mention this full title in the body of the article. For example "Mlk Mlk" is already mentioned separately, but "DY MDNH" is not as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
It existed in note 19, but I wrote it in the main text now)
  • "By 263, Odaenathus was in effective control of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Anatolia's eastern region." -- When I click on Mesopotamia, it shows "Upper Mesopotamia". Did Odenaethus take all of Mesopotamia (including Sasanian-ruled Mesopotamia) or just the Roman-held parts?
Only Roman Mesopotamia. I made it clear
  • In the first alinea of the body, you mention several foreign names/words (including Palmyrene, Arabic and Aramaic) without using italics. In the rest of the article, you do use italics however for all foreign languages.
Thats difficult. Where to use it and where not? Should we use Italics for Zonaras? or every mention of Hairan? but those are the forms used in English. Odaenathus itself is not an English name, should we use italics?. What do you think Gog
Note: I used Italics now for Palmyrene names (Italics are not used for proper)
  • "Byzantine historians of the sixth century, such as Procopius, referred to him as "king of the Saracens", meaning of the Arabs." -- Suggestion: add a link to "Byzantine".
linked

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "The tribes attacking Anatolia were probably the Heruli who built ships to cross the Black Sea in 267 and ravaged the coasts of Bithynia and Pontus, besieging Heraclea Pontica." -- Suggest adding a link to "Pontus"; either Pontus (region) or Bithynia and Pontus. If you're going to choose the latter, please remove the link to Bithynia (Captain Obvious, I know).
linked
  • Support - Read the article two more times but couldn't really find anything. This article is extremely well referenced and written in full compliance with the FA criteria. A superb piece of work. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

1999 FIFA Women's World Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The eighth Women's World Cup kicks off next week in France, but twenty years ago, the tournament was played before massive crowds in the United States that launched women's soccer into the national mainstream. I overhauled and expanded this article a few weeks ago and think it is worthy of FA status, pending small touches here and there. I'm hoping to have the entry make it to TFA in time for the 2019 final or the 20th anniversary of its final, both of which fall in early July. Cheers and go USWNT! SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Here's a first batch from the early part of the article; I'll read the rest later.

  • Venues: We say in the lead that the 1996 Olympics led to a level of expected demand that caused the usage of football stadiums, but this section doesn't really back that up in any way. It just says that the 1996 tournament was successful. We shouldn't have content in the lead that isn't repeated in the body, so this should probably be added in this section.
    • Fixed.
  • Qualification: I take it that the two berths allocated to North America included the U.S., even though they didn't have to play in the qualifier? That's the only way the second-place North American finisher could wind up in a playoff.
    • The 2003 tournament had the same allocation (2.5 for CONCACAF) prior to the change of hosts, so I assume that this was the case for 1999 as well. I'll have to tweak the wording and order to make this clearer.
  • Media and marketing: I'd remove the "also" before "cross-promoted", since that's basically a duplication of "and" right before it.
    • Fixed.
  • Group B: Was this meant to exclude the quotation marks around Group of death, which had them earlier in the article? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, and fixed. Thanks for the first round of comments, looking forward to the second (after my flight). SounderBruce 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Final: "and witnessed by an estimated audience of 17.9 million television viewers in the United States, which peaked at 40 million." If the 17.9 million figure is an average, that should probably be stated to avoid confusion. Otherwise it gets confusing with the two different numbers.
    • Fixed.
  • If memory serves me right, there was some controversy over Scurry taking an early start on the penalty she saved. It's not something worth dwelling on here, but do you think it's worth a sentence in the final summary?
    • I'm saving that for the article on the final, since it hasn't had the same cultural impact as Chastain's celebration or the team's achievement.
      • Seems like this was raised by another reviewer below. If they're all right with excluding it, then I will be as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Giants2008: I have added a short sentence about the controversy, since it doesn't seem like it would be that big of a deal in retrospect. SounderBruce 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Television ratings for the tournament were especially high". This should probably clarify that it refers specifically to the U.S., unless the sources say something about other countries.
    • Done.
  • The 17.9 million viewers figure is repeated here. If you want to keep this, I'd suggest a rewording t something like "—the 17.9 million U.S. viewers was the largest audience...".
    • Fixed and dropped the extra link to 2015 while we're at it.
  • We should have a link available for the 2000 Olympic tournament, which would be a nice little addition.
    • It is already linked twice in the Qualification and Quarter-finals sections.
  • I see the full Major League Soccer name given in several places, here and earlier in the article. Would it be worth abbreviating it after first usage, as is done for the WUSA?
    • I don't think abbreviating it would be worth the hassle, since it's only used a handful of times and the full name isn't a mouthful like WUSA's.
  • "and ended with a victory for Germany while the United States finished in third place." The American finish was already mentioned earlier in the section and probably doesn't need to be repeated here. If you want to keep the sentence length about the same, you could mention something about the final, which was competitive IIRC.
    • Done.
  • Statistics: Is the award called the Golden Boot or the Golden Shoe? I see both in the article. And was there an assist tiebreaker for the award?
    • Fixed.
  • Purely optional, but a link for ref 13 is available here if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Would rather keep it unlinked, since I think that version differs from the printed version I sourced the fact from.
    • Thanks for the comments. I believe that I have addressed your concerns; sorry about the delay—I have only just finished unpacking. SounderBruce 05:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Courtesy ping because I forgot how the template works. SounderBruce 02:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Support – After the fixes here and elsewhere, I'm satisfied that this article meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thought Comment I don't know if this would look better but maybe have the group reviews above the table instead of below it. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I experimented with this earlier and decided that having two different template sections next to each other was awkward and less desirable. SounderBruce 05:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

  • I was surprised to see no England at the world cup, considering they finished third in 2015, then I saw 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA), and it was the most confusing article I've seen. Regardless, here's a few things I saw.
    • I'd like a little more background on the competition. It's only been held twice before this time, so it's quite important in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That would belong in the main FIFA Women's World Cup article, but I did add a sentence to the Host selection sentence.
    • It took place in the United States at eight venues across the country from 19 June to 10 July 1999 -> The world cup was held in eight venues across the United States from 19 June until 10 July 1999. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Reordered the sentence in a different way.
    • Could host selection and venues be under the same supersection, of "Host", or "Location"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd rather keep them separated, since the host selection process was a full year before the venue bidding.
    • Is the large space in the Qualification section needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Just a quirk of the formatting used there, so I have removed it.
    • It was televised live by ESPN during the halftime of an exhibition match between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. - Was this broadcast anywhere else? Eurosport, BBC, etc? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I only have access to a handful of non-U.S./Canadian sources, and they don't really have any coverage of the draw, let alone broadcast information.
    • The match officials section seems a bit weird. Are they all notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • It is pretty standard for football tournament entries to include a list, which I have supplemented with some appropriate prose (since this was the first time an all-female roster was used).
        • I was thinking more WP:REDLINK. Are they all notable referees? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Generally, top-level football referees are notable enough for their own articles, but their quality is usually limited by the lack of secondary sources. I managed to scrape together a good amount for Im Eun-ju, but others might be harder. SounderBruce 03:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The top seven quarter-finalists also qualified for the 2000 Summer Olympics alongside hosts Australia, who were eliminated in the group stage.[23][117] Russia were the only quarter-finalists to not qualify for the Olympics, having the worst goal difference of the four losing teams.[118] - Why was the Olympics qualifiers the same as the world cup quarters? The wording doesn't quite make sense, as the goal difference of Sweden is actually worse (+3 in group, lost by 2 in quarter = +1 plays +7 -2=5.) I would assume this means that Russia had the worst result in the quarter-finals only (IE, they lost by 2, and didn't score.) Was there any information on what would have happened in case of a tie? 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The qualification was decided by the following order of tie-breakers (according to FIFA): goal difference in the QF (Russia and Sweden were tied at -2 GD), then goals scored (Sweden scored once, Russia did not), then group stage performance (points, goal difference, goals scored), and finally Fair Play rankings and a draw of lots. I have rewritten that section to include these tie-breakers and make things clearer with a new source.
    • Are Awards not part of statistics? Similar to 2002 FIFA World Cup? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I prefer to have them separated.
      • @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for your comments. I believe I have answered all of your questions about the tournament, though the decisions of FIFA in the 1990s and 2000s usually cannot be explained. As for England not qualifying, European teams usually qualified by placing first in their group (after seeding and a draw) and the rest were just left out; the qualification article does need some cleanup, especially with coloring of teams. SounderBruce 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
        • The bit about England is confusing, as they somehow finished bottom of their group, but still got a playoff? Unless I'm reading that wrong. I'll likely support this, however I'd still like more of a background to the event. As much as detail should be on the main tournament, the article should be broad enough to be readable on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
            • @Lee Vilenski: I have added a paragraph of background information on the tournament's origins, and will come back to refine it a bit more later. SounderBruce 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sportsfan77777[edit]

Lead

  • FIFA needs to be spelled out as Fédération Internationale de Football Association somewhere in the lead (probably the first paragraph)
    • Few, if any, tournament articles actually spell out the full name of FIFA in the lead. I don't think it's necessary, but I am adding a link to the article.
  • "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in a penalty shootout after a scoreless draw, with the winning penalty scored by Brandi Chastain in the fifth round."
    • This is the "noun plus -ing" problem.
    • It's not a scoreless draw if it ended in a penalty shootout.
    • Also, I think it's worth mentioning Chastain's moment in the lead.
    • Lastly, I think the outcome should go first before the attendance record.
    • I suggest for the whole paragraph: "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in the final in a penalty shootout. After the match remained scoreless through extra time, Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty to give the United States their second FIFA Women's World Cup title. The image of Brandi Chastain celebrating the winning penalty was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and became one of the defining images of women's sports in the United States. The final was played at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California and set an international record for most spectators to watch a women's sporting event with an attendance of 90,185. Overall, Chinese forward Sun Wen and Brazilian forward Sissi were the joint top goalscorers of the tournament, with seven goals each."
      • I'd rather have the attendance record first and would rather not have a sentence about Chastain's celebration (as it is not absolutely vital for the lead). The still-standing attendance record is more important in the context of this tournament's long-term legacy.
  • "and played for three seasons before folding" ===>>> "and operated for three seasons before folding"
    • It operated for longer, in a business and planning sense, so I've just dropped the "for".
  • "after China withdrew" ===>>> "after China withdrew as hosts"
    • Omitted because it's a detail that doesn't have important relevance to this tournament.
  • "playing in smaller venues and unable to repeat as world champions." ===>>> "playing in smaller venues and were unable to repeat as world champions."
    • Half done.

Host selection

  • The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 tournament in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's World Cup. ===>>> The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's tournament.
  • The tournament had been hosted previously by China in 1991. ===>>> China had hosted the first edition in 1991. (passive voice)
  • Sweden hosted the 1995 tournament whose games were played under the Women's World Cup name in small venues to little media attention. ===>>> The next edition hosted by Sweden was the first to be played under the Women's World Cup. Matches were held in small venues and attracted little media attention.
    • I'm not fond of breaking things up even further, since I wanted this to only be a single, short sentence in the first place.
  • the same day that the 2002 men's World Cup ===>>> the same day that the 2002 men's tournament
    • It's important to have a distinction between the women's and men's editions and also use their official names.

Venues

  • Eight venues were used for the tournament, located in Chicago, on the East Coast, and on the West Coast. ===>>> Eight venues were used for the tournament: three on the East Coast, four on the West Coast, and one in Chicago.
    • Done.
  • limited to a single time zone <<=== missing a period at the end.
    • Fixed.
  • announced on 19 November 1997, including five large American football venues ===>>> announced on 19 November 1997 and included five large American football venues
    • Not done. I think it's best to leave it as is.
  • 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup
    • Not done. Again, distinction is important.
  • The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, reprising its role from the 1984 Summer Olympics and 1994 World Cup. ===>>> The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, the same venue that hosted the final at the 1984 Summer Olympics and the 1994 World Cup.
    • Not done, but I did make it clearer that the venue was the final venue for both of the previous tournaments.

Participating teams and officials

  • between the second-place finishers in North and South American tournaments. ===>>> between the second-place finishers in the North and South American tournaments.
    • Fixed.
  • between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. ===>>> between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars at the stadium.
    • Fixed.
  • The highest-ranked teams, China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A. ===>>> The highest-ranked teams of China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A.
    • Not done, as I don't think "of" is a proper transition.
  • because the placement of non-seeded Brazil ===>>> because of the placement of non-seeded Brazil
    • Re-did that sentence anyway.
  • The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel, working in groups during matches and training. ===>>> The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel. They worked in groups during matches and training.
    • Half done by switching the order and preventing the creation of a sentence fragment.
  • referees being unfamiliar with working in front of large crowds. ===>>> referees being inexperienced with working in front of large crowds.
    • Done.
  • FIFA stated that it had been a successful trial of all-female referees ===>>> FIFA stated that the trial of all-female referees had been successful
    • Done.
  • I don't think the referees need to be red-linked.
    • Each referee is notable to have their own article (albeit most end up as stubs, like the players). Since some referees have valid links, it would be distracting and inconsistent to de-link those that do not yet have one.

Preparations

  • 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup (twice)
    • Not done.
  • 26 were live broadcasts ===>>> Of these, 26 were live broadcasts
    • Done.

Group stage

  • The sixteen participating teams were organized into four groups, labelled A to D <<<=== "labeled" not "labelled" in American English (or is it not American English?)
    • Fixed.
  • The following day at the Rose Bowl, North Korea lost 2–1 to Nigeria after conceding a goal to Rita Nwadike in the 79th minute shortly after finding an equalizer to compensate for an earlier goal from Mercy Akide, who assisted Nwadike. <<<=== Break this up into two sentences.
    • Shortened.
  • preserved potential qualification for all four teams in the group ===>>> preserved all four teams's chances to advance into the knockout stage.
    • Partially done.
  • Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup, having clinched a place with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage. ===>>> Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage.
    • Partially done.
  • Olympics semi-finalist Brazil ===>>> Olympic semi-finalist Brazil,
    • Fixed.
  • which began with a 1–1 tie in the first ten minutes of the match. ===>>> which began tied 1–1 after ten minutes of the match.
    • Partially done.
  • unable to force a save from German goalkeeper Silke Rottenberg until the 89th minute ===>>> unable to prdouce a shot on goal until the 89th minute
    • A save and a shot on goal don't necessarily happen at the same time.
  • The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, but the match was tied at 3–3 by a last-minute header from substitute forward Maycon in stoppage time. ===>>> The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, before substitute forward Maycon tied the match at 3–3 on a last-minute header in stoppage time.
    • Partially done.
  • Norway scored five more goals in the second half, equaling the goals conceded by Canada during their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament. ===>>> Norway scored five more goals in the second half to match their goal tally against Canada from their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament.
    • Partially done.
  • the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn, who had assisted on Isozaki's own goal. ===>>> the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn. Lehn had also assisted on Isozaki's own goal.
    • Partially done.
  • The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray to beat Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana, who had made 11 saves during the match to keep her team level despite the red card. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. ===>>> The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana made 11 saves to keep her team in the match despite the red card.
    • Reordered the sentence in a different manner.
  • Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning stoppage time ===>>> Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning of stoppage time
    • Done.
  • which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history ===>>> which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history as of 2015
    • Doesn't need to be given an "as of" and can be updated appropriately when the time comes.
  • Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong, but Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas. ===>>> Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong. Nonetheless, Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas.
    • Partially done.

Knockout stage

  • China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute, while the Russians did not manage a shot towards goal until the 91st minute. ===>>> China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute. The Russians did not manage a shot on goal until the 91st minute.
    • The new sentence would be too short on its own.
  • Sweden received a consolation goal ===>>> Sweden score a consolation goal
    • Done.
  • but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from a shot by Tiffeny Milbrett ===>>> but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from Tiffeny Milbrett
    • Done.
  • The Olympics qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match, followed by goals scored in the quarter-final and group stage performance. ===>>> The Olympic qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match followed by goals scored in the quarter-final.
    • Doesn't make sense to drop the group stage tie-breaker, which is part of the listed sequence (even if it went unused).
  • Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, but the latter had scored in its defeat and Russia were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics. ===>>> Although Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, Russia was ranked lower since they did not in their defeat and were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics.
    • The last part of your suggestion doesn't make much sense and omits the most important detail (that Sweden scored).
  • Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but their shots were saved by goalkeeper Maravilha to preserve a shutout. ===>>> Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but goalkeeper Maravilha saved all of their shots to preserve a shutout.
    • Not done.
  • Pretinha missed her penalty, but the remaining five taken by her teammates were all scored ===>>> Although Pretinha missed the opening penalty for Brazil, her teammates scored all of the next five.
    • Not done.
  • Did Brazil or Norway go first in the shootout?
    • It seems that Brazil did.
  • The match was scoreless after regulation time, with several attempts at the goal made by the hosts, and moved into extra time. <<<=== You could elaborate on this a little. How many shots on goal did each team have? Or state that neither team had any good chances if that was the case.
    • Not mentioned in the citations.
  • but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie, which persisted until the end of extra time. ===>>> but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie until the end of extra time.
    • Done.
  • You could mention that Scurry's save was controversial for her appearing to leave her line too early. See this article from the New York Times.
    • As I said above and in the peer review, that is best left to the entry on the final. We're aiming for summary style here.

Aftermath and legacy

  • 2014 men's World Cup ===>>> 2014 World Cup final. (I presume it's the final?)
    • No, it was a group stage match and it doesn't need to be elaborated on further (as that belongs in the final entry).
  • They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway and won three subsequent gold medals. ===>>> They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway. (The same team was not part of the 2004, etc. Olympic gold medals).
    • Kept the gold medals and added a transition to clarify things.
  • The United States finished third at the next two editions of the Women's World Cup before returning to the finals twice in the 2010s: losing to Japan in 2011 and defeating them in 2015 to take home their third World Cup title. ===>>> The United States did not win another World Cup title until 2015 when they defeated Japan in the final. They had finished third at the next two editions and were runners-up to Japan in 2011.
    • Done in a different way.
  • which was established after the 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> which was established after the 1994 men's tournament in the United States
    • Again, not done.
  • The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded, while another professional league was founded in 2007 and folded after three seasons. ===>>> The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded. Another professional league was founded in 2007 and also folded after three seasons. The National Women's Soccer League was launched in 2012 and has continued to operate as of 2019.
    • Added a mention NWSL, but I don't like having more sentence fragments to deal with.

Awards

  • Chinese striker Sun Wen was awarded the Golden Ball and shared the Golden Shoe with Brazilian forward Sissi, having tied her with seven goals and three assists. <<<=== They had the same number of goals and assists? It's not so clear the way it is written.
    • Cleared it up and split the sentence.
  • The first two sentences here are out of order. First should be the three Balls. Then, should be the three Shoes.
    • Generally, it would make more sense to have the MVP award come before scoring awards.
  • The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999, including seven players from China and five from the United States. ===>>> The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999. It included seven players from China and five from the United States.
    • Not done, as the new sentence would be too short and its content is too dependent on the existing sentence.

Overall

  • The content looks very thorough, except for the Scurry controversy that is missing.
  • The prose is pretty good, but there are some run-on sentences. Most of the comments above just point those out or are other small grammatical things.
  • I didn't put specific reasons for a lot of the comments/edits, but I'm happy to discuss them. (Hopefully, most of the reasons are obvious.)
  • Will support once the majority of the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I'll work on the match sections in a day or two, but I have had to reject quite a few of your suggestions for the reasons I gave above. Please let know if there are any problems. SounderBruce 04:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Sportsfan77777: That should be about it. I tweaked many of your suggestions to fit the style and flow a bit better. SounderBruce 02:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @SounderBruce: I was WP:BOLD and made a bunch of small changes. Feel free to take a look at those. One last comment: How about going with "men's 1994 World Cup" instead of "1994 men's World Cup"? I don't like inserting "men's" in the middle since the year is a part of the official name. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Sportsfan77777: The current format is more consistent with the women's tournament's name, and it also matches the press and book sources I have used (and seems to be an informal style preferred by sportswriters). I'll be making small tweaks to your changes (which are all very good spots) at halftime of this match. SounderBruce 19:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kosack[edit]

Hi SounderBruce, meant to get here sooner but was unable too until now.

Lead

  • Could link match officials to Assistant referee (association football).
    • Done.
  • "which ended after Brandi Chastain scored in the fifth round", could we split this into a separate sentence perhaps and include that China missed an effort? Something along the lines of "Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty in the fifth round after China missed their third spot kick"?
    • Added a mention of Liu.

Background

  • "the 1st FIFA World Championship for Women's Football for the M&M's Cup until retroactively given the World Cup moniker, was a success", was considered a success perhaps, just to avoid making it sound like its us saying it was.
    • Fixed.

Venues

  • RFK Memorial Stadium, Jack Kent Cooke Stadium and Civic Stadium are redirects, pipe the links to avoid these.
    • Given that the names for the latter two could easily change in the near future due to their nature as corporate-sponsored venues, I don't think it's necessary to pipe (and MOS:NOPIPE also applies).
  • Link friendly to Exhibition match.
    • Done.
  • "In addition to the large football stadiums" + "including converting football locker rooms", I'm assuming these are referring to American football? I'd include the full name in each of these to avoid any possible confusion. The locker room sentence might not even need the football reference unless there were other types of locker rooms there?
    • Done for consistency. For the locker room, Gillette Stadium actually divided one NFL locker room in half to accommodate two teams, since they needed four locker rooms to handle the four teams each matchday while preserving the soccer locker rooms for the MLS teams.

Group B

  • In the opening Sissi is listed as a forward but here she is listed as a midfielder?
    • She was positioned as a midfielder during the tournament but played most of her career as a forward, so I'll have to correct all uses of forward.

Group C

  • "were both caused by Hiromi Isozaki", were both conceded perhaps?
    • Sounds good.

Group D

  • "Olympics runners-up China" > Olympic?
    • Fixed.
  • "Forward Jin Yan scored the equalizer for China in the 17th minute and broke through in the 69th minute with a goal by Liu Ailing to win 2–1." Does this sentence work? Seems to change subject from Jin Yan to China midway through if you see what I mean?
    • Fixed.
  • "Alicia Ferguson was sent off for a tackle in the second minute", foul instead of tackle perhaps?
    • Fixed.

Quarter-finals

  • Helge Risse is linked in the group stage section, no need to repeat the link here.
    • Fixed.
  • "Germany retook the lead in stoppage time just before half-time", bit of a round about way of saying it, maybe just "in first half stoppage time.."?
    • Fixed.
  • "Defender Joy Fawcett's header off a corner kick in 66th minute proved to be", there's a word missing here.
    • Fixed.
  • The Sissi forward/midfielder issue is repeated here at the end of the third paragraph.
    • Fixed per above.

Semi-finals

  • "Liu added a second goal herself in the 51st minute", given that she scored the one prior to this I don't think herself is needed here.
    • Fixed.

Final

  • "were able to convert theirs and force sudden-death rounds", I'm a bit confused by this. If China missed their third penalty and the US scored every one of theirs, how would the shootout have gone to sudden death rounds?
    • Whoops, got it mixed up with another detail. Replaced with the score.

That's all I've got I think. Kosack (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for picking this up for review once again. I have implemented all but one of your suggestions. SounderBruce 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, nice work. I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

All images are in good places and have so-so ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything specific I need to improve with my ALT descriptions? I didn't want to get too detailed and repetitive with the stadiums, but should I have described their shapes? SounderBruce 04:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Fundamentally ALT text should describe what an image is; if an image is merely decorative it does not need ALT text, if it illustrates a certain thing in the context of the article that thing should be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

  • Spotchecks

I carried out a series of spotchecks for verifiability etc, and these were generally OK. I found one issue:

  • Ref 6: supports text: "The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's World Cup". This information is not given in the cited source.
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the extrnal links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 49: Name of newspaper missing from reference
  • Ref 139, for consistency, you should add publisher location
  • Quality and reliability: No issues – heavily reliant on press coverage, but acceptable in an article such as this.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Fixed both formatting issues, and will work on finding a new citation for Ref 6's supporting text. The bid was announced in that month, but most of the coverage then were just blurbs at the end of briefs, so there's not much to go by. SounderBruce 06:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Brianboulton: Found a small mention of the date and connection to the 1994 World Cup in another book source. SounderBruce 20:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

SMS Hannover[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another German battleship article (and the last of the Kaiser's battleships to grace FAC), this one had a fairly length career, seeing action during World War I at the Battle of Jutland, serving with the postwar navy as one of the few ships allowed under the Versailles treaty, then being used in weapons tests in the late 1930s, before ultimately being scrapped in the mid-1940s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

I'll do this one tomorrow or Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Here we've the last one of the Deutschland family. :)

  • Link long tons.
    • Done
  • Link knots.
    • Done
  • Hannover was laid down on 7 November 1904 Remove 1904.
    • Done
  • This sentence She displaced 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons) at full loading uses only long tons but this sentence capacity of up to 1,540 metric tons (1,520 long tons; 1,700 short tons) of coal uses both short and long tons.
    • Fixed
  • stopped in Ponta Delgada in the Azores from 23 July to 1 August Add Portugal after "Azores".
    • Done
  • Link Kiel.
    • Done
  • The ship won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) Link Kaiser.
    • Done
  • 1914 began as previous years had, with squadron training. Try to avoid using a nummer at the start of a sentence.
    • Fixed
  • At midnight on 4 August, the United Kingdom declared war on Germany Link United Kingdom with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's article and Germany with the German Empire's article.
    • Done
  • Link World War I.
    • Done
  • Link nautical mile.
    • Done
  • Under orders from Wilhelm II to avoid battle if victory Link the Kaiser here.
    • Done
  • during the operation to bombard Yarmouth and Lowestoft on 24–25 April.[14][13] Suggest to switch the citations here.
    • Good catch
  • 11 November 1918, Germany entered into the armistice with the Western Allies Remove 1918.
    • Done
  • Link Spain with the Restoration (Spain)'s article.
    • Done
  • Link France with the French Third Republic's article.
    • Done

Infobox

  • "22.20 m (72 ft 10 in)" the extra nought in the metre is unnecessary.
    • Removed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Jutland diagram
    • Good idea
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • See if what I added is useful - I'm not particularly sure about the maps. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Possibly give the full title for Hore and for Hildebrand et al?
    • You've worn me down ;)
  • Further reading: The full title is Warship 2014; could you add the names of the editors.
    • Added

The sources used are all solidly reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt[edit]

Thank you for another good one: Let's see:

Lead

  • 2 links in a row in the first sentence, and 2 times "slightly" in the second.
    • My interpretation of WP:SEAOFBLUE is two links in a row is OK but three is a problem
  • "After Jutland" - it wasn't immediately clear (to me) that the battle was meant. I wonder how that is pronounced, btw. Hannover is so nicely German ;)
    • Switched "After the battle..."

Peacetime

  • Link Kiel and Wilhemshaven?
    • Wilhelmshaven is already linked earlier and CPA already got me on Kiel ;)
  • "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - a bit awkward, as the article is already in the award name, somewhat like the The Beatles. I wouldn't capitalise "Shooting Prize, and why not translate Kaiser's? - "the emperor's shooting prize"?
    • I used the German for the award with the idea of emphasizing that it was a significant thing, and Kaiser is routinely used in English.

Postwar service

  • Palma, Majorca, Cartagena, and Vigo - that looks like 4 ports at a glance
    • Tweaked to make clearer what Majorca is.

Nice job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. Still think the prize shouldn't have a "the", but no reason not to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link guard ship, 8-point turn point,
    • Done
  • A few too many "she"s in the last paragraph of the lede. Mix it up with a Hannover or two
    • Done
  • Do we know what kind of mods were made to improve their underwater protection?
    • No, unfortunately - I would suspect it was rather limited, as apart from bulging there isn't a whole lot one can do to completed ships (especially in the span of a month or two)
  • night march back ships marching?
    • Two by two, hurrah, hurrah ;)
  • the Hessen ?
    • Fixed
  • armored cruiser HMS Black Prince; Black Prince was quickly destroyed awkward
    • Fixed
  • forced to heel out of line never seen heel used in this context. Suggest "fell" out of line.
    • Done
  • Do the sources tell us what mods were made to make her suitable as a guard ship?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Hildebrand et. al. don't say, unfortunately. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns starting in the 11th century and continuing to a point that in time that is a matter of debate for historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • For both the Latin/Byzantine and Teutonic Order maps, suggest duplicating the legend in the caption
  • Painting titles are generally italicized
  • File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg: first source link is dead
  • File:Friedrich_II._mit_Sultan_al-Kamil.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Akra1291.jpg, File:La_Rendición_de_Granada_-_Pradilla.jpg
  • File:Deutscher_Orden_in_Europa_1300.png: possible to translate the description?
  • File:"Галицькі_хоругви_у_Грюнвальдскій_битві_15_липня_1410_року".jpg: do not see that licensing at given source
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: why is this believed to be PD in Syria? Also source link is dead
  • File:Ice-battle.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[edit]

Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:

  • The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
    • @Jens Lallensack:—Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Thinking on this @Jens Lallensack:—the info is inportant but take your point. What about if I summarise where the background is, and add a section lower titled something like 'Cause'? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Sounds good to me! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
            • Green tickY@Jens Lallensack: how does the Background section look to you now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
              • Opinion was split further due to a lack of dialogue leading to differences of custom and this resulted in the Christian Church to splitting along Latin/Orthodox lines – a convoluted sentence, perhaps rewrite more concisely, and mention the term schism?
                • Green tickY—Reworded but didn't metion Schism to keep this simple as you suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • This status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes, particularly the Seljuqs. – link Seljuqs (as first mention), also state when this migration happened.
              • Egypt had been ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969. – Needs more explanation; it does not become clear that Egypt was conquered by the Seljuqs. I would add more background on the Seljuqs (e.g., when did they conquer Egypt)
                • Green tickY—THis isn't background or cause—it is covered in detail in the 11th century section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • I think the succession of information is not ideal yet in the background section. You are talking about the Christian world first, then about the Seljuqs, then about Christians (the Byzantine Empire) again.
              • There is still redundancy between the background and the new "causes" section.
              • Maybe it makes sense to have the "causes" section as a subsection of "background" (or as a major section just after the "background")?
              • --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
    • I've gone through the article and tried to do this for everyone who is simply named, or only identified by an epitet, adding "count", "king", and such to give better clarity on why someone mattered in the time. Some figures were harder than others and I chose identifies like "French Noble" or "Franciscan Friar" to help identify them. I'm pretty sure I got everyone. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
    • I think the point is that there was a level of religious intolerance in Latin Christianity, not sure the drawing the reasons out adds much value to this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
    • I'm going to try and work on this later. I'm familiar with the Crusades, but not so much that I know everyone involved by name and was confused more than once as the article went on. Additionally, some figures don't seem to be named at all (The sultan of Baghdad and the Abbasid Caliph are both mentioned but not named) and someone might need to help with that. Lord0fHats (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
  • Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
  • In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
  • Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
  • However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
    • Green tickY—I have removed the sentence as this seems superfluous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
  • to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
  • You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
    • Green tickY—No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

minor points:

  • The Western chronicles present the First Crusade as surprising and unexpected event – "a" missing?
  • The resultingGregorian Reform – space missing
  • They were joined by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I of Jerusalem – But I guess Baldwin I didn't had this name ("of Jerusalem") at this point already, before the Crusade?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard Nevell[edit]

In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Good idea, will edit in before review completes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod[edit]

If I look at this later, will I find my unaddressed comments from the last FAC have been addressed? I'd also hope we can hear from @Adam Bishop: and @Ealdgyth:. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Pings don't work unless they're part of a signed comment initially so @Ealdgyth: @Adam Bishop:. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
In part, probably, the article doesn't really get much attention these days including a peer review with no comments, so it really needs constructive feedback from someone who understands. There is more on the Crusader States and the root causes, histiography is tighter etc. There may be gaps that you can call out on that can be fixed as part of the FAR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been following along but I haven't had a chance to make any meaningful comments...to be honest I find that the topic is actually too huge for Wikipedia to deal with properly. But I don't want to be too pessimistic, so I'll try to find some time to look it over in depth! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, @Adam Bishop:—your comment made me smile, I think you might be right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish[edit]

Well, I don't think there is anything outstanding on this FAC at the moment—apart from the points made by @Jens Lallensack: on the complexity of names and the points from @Richard Nevell:. I will pick this up after there is further comment in one hit. I am off to Puglia now, so I won't be responding for a couple of weeks. Hopefully there will be loads then and we can crack on with getting this done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: No rush as far as I'm concerned - have a good trip! Richard Nevell (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Style (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?). The previous FAC gained two supports, no oppose, and detailed media and source reviews, but failed to pass the line. Hope it will attract more interest this time :), (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If possible I would love to have this article reviewed by one of the coordinators; could @Ian Rose: kindly take a look at it, given that you may have had some time examining the article in the previous FAC? Thank you so much, (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am uncertain on how Sargent's quote ("familiar tropes of Western romance") is used in the article. The sentence says that Sargent connects these tropes with the lyrics of this particular song, and I do not see that. Here is the sentence in full from the source (Dating back to her earliest records, Taylor Swift’s songs have navigated the familiar tropes of Western romance: Romeo and Juliet, cheerleader versus geek, the shy girl who falls for the rebellious boy, Prince Charming and his white horse.). Sargent seems completely focused on Swift's previous releases in this sentence, and I feel that the connection being drawn to this song is not accurate.
  • Sargent follows up that ""Style" is perhaps one last look at the version of Swift who sees herself in broadly drawn characters", which, I assume, implies that this song is the only song in which Swift appears to long for fairytale-like relationships with beautiful boys on the "shapeshifting" 1989. He does follow up "But "Style" also seems like a distilled look at a future version of Taylor Swift", in terms of musical direction.
  • Thank you for the clarification. I must have missed that connection so apologies for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think "white people" needs to be in quotes.
  • I don't include quotation marks in the Composition section because readers can already understand they're just interpretations. In the reception section, however, I put them in quotes because if there are no quotation marks, that the song talks about beauty standards of white people can be misunderstood as a fact, which is not
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is some criticism of the song in the body of the article, but the lead only mentions the positive reviews. The reception of the song as a whole was definitely positive, but I think it may be helpful to add a small bit in the lead to address some of the criticisms.
  • I think publications like Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, and PopMatters should be in italics. They are presented that way in their respective Wikipedia articles. I would look through the article to double-check this as it is something easy to miss.
  • Done; although I am reluctant to italicize non-print publications. But as long as the consensus is to italicize, I'm okay with it
  • I can understand that. I would also be interested to see what other people say on this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In the video English actor Dominic Sherwood plays Swift's love interest), I believe there should be a comma between "video" and "English".
  • Oof a glitch. Done
  • I would add the year that Billionaire Ransom was released. I would also add the year for Mulholland Drive.
  • Done
  • Why is the title for Reference 15 in all italics? I am assuming that it is a formatting error.
  • The title format is autogenerated by {{Cite AV media}}. I tried to look for {{Cite AV}} but it is a redirect to the former template. Will figure out some way to fix this.

Great work with the article. I also commented on the previous FAC, and I hope there is more activity with this go-around. It would be cool to have this featured on the front page on the day that her next album is released. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the input, they're very helpful as always. Will try to spear some time looking through your FAC if time permits :) (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the clarifications on certain points and apologies for certain parts where I was confused. Do not feel obligated to look at my FAC as I understand that we all have limited time. I still greatly enjoyed reading through the article, and hopefully more people will review it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

I did a comprehensive sources review during the previous FAC, and the various issues I raised were resolved. There are no other issues I wish to raise in this current FAC. Concerning the italicization of the title in ref 15, mentioned above, this is a function of the "cite AV" template used. The title could easily be de-italicized, if it matters. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Media review[edit]

Commencing shortly. Kees08 (Talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My previous review still stands, so the media review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by Ojorojo[edit]

Updated as per Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here, change as needed). The biggest difference is the addition of |studio=. Much like "Records" in |label=, "Studio" should be dropped for space considerations and since the parameter already includes it. Also, the use of "small" in infoboxes is discouraged, because it may cause WP:ACCESS problems (see MOS:SMALLTEXT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I see you have adjusted the infobox; any more concern regarding the prose or format? (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have little experience with FAs, so I usually confine my comments to the infoboxes. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Committing to reviewing this so it does not get archived again; will review sometime this weekend probably. Kees08 (Talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Was it only released to radio in the US and Italy? We should say whatever secondary RS's say, I think, unless there is a standard for music articles.
  • There are Billboard sources reporting the release and confirming that it was a single; I don't see any source outside the US (except for the Italy radio source) indicate the single release. For music articles, though, when a song is sent to radio it is qualified as a single (per WikiProject Songs guideline) (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • These sentences in different sections are pretty similar, are both needed? Kornhaber and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen remarked that the "classic" beauty in the lyrics mostly applies to white people. and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen lauded the song's musical styles, but criticized its theme of conventional beauty standards of "white people" as a cliché that blemishes Swift's "girl-next-door likability" on the album.
  • The former serves as an interpretation of the lyrics, while the latter provides a more critical viewpoint of that interpretation. By that saying I think they're both needed. (talk)

I think that is all I have; the article is well-written. Kees08 (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate that, (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review following requests from the nominator... Having read and copyedited up to and including Music and lyrics, I don't see major issues at this stage. The prose seems reasonable, the quotes are attributed, the tone is neutral -- just one query:

  • serviced the song to US radio stations -- have to admit I'm not familiar with "serviced" in this context, can we just say "released the song", or even "made the song available"?
  • Altered to "released", which is easier to understand (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, I mainly just wanted to get a feel for the article's quality and so far it's positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking time reviewing this! (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Jastrebarsko concentration camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II, part of the genocidal policies of that regime towards Serb people living in the puppet state. Records are incomplete, but at least 450, but perhaps as many as three times that number of children died at the camp in its short history from July to October 1942, mainly from malnutrition, neglect and illness. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans in August 1942, which prompted its closure a couple of months later, with the remaining children largely farmed out to sympathetic families, although some of those that were briefly liberated were later rounded up and killed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ustaše_symbol.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7[edit]

  • I would recommend finding URL links for all the sources, in order to enable a review and check of the wording.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are reliable sources, but I want to be sure that sentences in the article do not say something, while a source says otherwise. Also, Ref. No. 1 has "Fumić 2011, pp. 52–55". These are four pages. It should be more specific. Two pages tops.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There will not be preview-accessible links to all the sources. The page range is completely fine, I've used wider page ranges in many FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If you used a wide page range before, then you have problematic FAs. Help:References and page numbers: per the verifiability policy, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." By your logic, one can simply add ten pages as one source and expect from the reader to search for specific claims. But that is not the way it goes. Precise claims should have precise page numbers.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see what your problem is. Instead of an ambit claim for links to all sources and a demand for more precise citations, perhaps you could indicate where your concerns lie. What statement is it that you are questioning? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that fn 1 from Fumić includes a page (p. 54) consisting entirely of photographs and their captions. I could change it to pp. 52–53 & 55, but that seems unnecessarily pedantic. I have summarised different elements of two and a bit pages of text into a large para, which is quite reasonable in my opinion. If you have specific queries, I can provide quotes in the original Serbo-Croat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CITEPAGE. You need specific page numbers for each specific claim in the article. Meaning, instead of a broad "pp. 52–55", you should break the pages into "pp. 52–53", "pp. 53–54", etc.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not a huge page range (two and a bit pages), and I say breaking it down to two-page citations is unnecessary. I ask again, what are the specific claims you are concerned about? Perhaps if we start with the para cited to fn 1? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
At your insistence, I am currently breaking it down and citing more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, have had a crack at tightening the citations up, also discovered The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany published last year, which contains a bit about the camp, corroborating some of the material from local sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Much better now. The issue is resolved now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me know if you see anything else that needs addressing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Note that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has very few edits to WP:FAC in their entire history, and that was not a source review: [21]. Suggest taking their "insistence" with a large grain of salt—if at all. Cheers, 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:8827:7142:6445:EB5C (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"Disease and deaths" section says: "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children". How did they took advantage? What did they do specifically? Can you elaborate this a bit?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the article is fairly well written, considering the amount of available reliable sources at this time, stable and reasonably professional, I support its inclusion in the FA list.
P.S. Just a quick question, outside the review process. Yesterday, I clicked the Croatian Wikipedia page of this article. Curiously, it has an "Accuracy disputed" tag on it. Then I went to its talk page. On it, the admin of Croatian Wikipedia claims it is a "falsification from the communist times" and provides two links to websites that claim it was not a concentration camp, just an orphanage or children's home. I'm just curious: how would you respond to his statements?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The Croatian Wikipedia has some really serious problems, see Croatian Wikipedia for sourced information about this issue, also this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Anyway, I support that this article should be promoted to a Featured article, but hey, since I have so few edits at FA reviews, who cares about my opinion, right? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Carabinieri[edit]

Very interesting (and horrifying) article. I did a little copyediting. Please make sure I didn't mess anything and revert anything you feel doesn't improve the prose. I agree that there's nothing wrong with summarizing several pages of a source at a time.

  • The body of the article dives into the topic rather abruptly. I think a little background infomation would be helpful. You could describe the social and military situation in 1942, what the NDH and the Ustase were, and tell readers about their policies and actions towards Serbs. The government's relationship with the Catholic church could also be of interest, considering nuns' involvement in the camp.
  • "The decision to establish the camp was taken due to the large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up during genocidal anti-Serb massacres conducted by the forces of the Ustaše-led government of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) since April 1941.[1] Children had also been taken during anti-Partisan operations conducted by German, NDH and collaborationist forces between April 1941 and June 1942, such as the Kozara Offensive" Were the massacres and anti-partisan campaigns really distinct events? My understanding was that German anti-partisan operations in the Balkans were incredibly brutal and involved a lot of massacres. Also, who were the "collaborationist forces"? I thought the Ustase were the Nazi collaborators in Croatia.
  • What happened first was a series of massacres and other racial and religious persecution mainly of Serbs by the Ustaše, this resulted in an uprising, which the NDH forces responded to, soon assisted by the Axis occupation troops and collaborators. During counter-insurgency operations, more massacres and other persecution occurred. Chetniks collaborated with the NDH and Axis troops against the Partisans, for example during the Kozara Offensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section is confusing to me. First, I would consider renaming it to "Arrivals" or something like that, because this sounds like a section about the way an album was received. The section starts by describing the children's arrival at the camp. Then, it talks about where they came from and where they were placed in the camp, but this is already partly discussed in other parts of the article. So, I think this information should be moved, since the section then goes back to describing the arrival.
  • "He personally feared a nun, Sister Mercedes, but all the children feared Pulherija" Is this really relevant?
  • "In response, the Croatian Red Cross and some locals" In response to what exactly?
  • "Tatjana Marinić [sh] (1897–1966)" I don't think inline interwiki are particularly helpful and would suggest removing this one, but I understand they are somewhat common. You don't give birth and death years for anyone else.
  • "Monthly mortality figures were" Apparently, the numbers are disputed, but they are presented as if they were true.
  • "One source states that 1,500 children died in the camp" What source?
  • Fumic is the main source for this article. Unfortunately, I can't read Serbo-Croatian (surprise!). Based on the publisher, this doesn't look like an academic source and as far as I can tell based on a quick search it doesn't appear to be cited in the literature on this topic. Could you talk about what kind of source it is and why it should be considered reliable? --Carabinieri (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fumić is published by the national peak body that represents former Partisans (SABA RH), which has published many books about WWII in Yugoslavia, including unit and formation histories, and has run conferences about controversial aspects of Croatia's wartime history. I have found them to be reliable and consistent with other sources where they overlap, if a little biased towards the Partisan point of view. Fumić himself is a former president of SABA RH, and holds a Master of Science degree. This is such an obscure subject that there isn't much academic work in which Fumić could potentially be cited. Most other sources that mention this camp do so in passing, not in the detail of Fumić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • For someone not conversant with Yugoslavia during WWII the first sentence of the main article seems to take a lot for granted. How about something like 'In April 1942, during WWII, Germany led the Axis conquest of Yugoslavia. Much of the country was occupied and the rump state of the Independent State of Croatia was created under a collaborationist Ustaše-led government. Ustaše forces embarked on a series of genocidal anti-Serb massacres. During these large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up. Children had also been taken to ...' Just a quick thought, but IMO, more "scene setting" is definitely needed. (See what you think about this: I will probably want to make a similar point about the lead once this is settled.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good, on the whole. A couple of thoughts:
  • "expelled large numbers of Serbs from the NDH,[4] and also murdered large numbers of them." "large numbers ... large numbers ..."
  • "resulting in the conclusion that it was genocidal in both intent and in practical terms". In the previous sentence it says "the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe" so this seems a bit of a redundant duplication.
  • "...the most brutal and bloody puppet regime in Axis-dominated Europe". Isn't this kind of contentious wording? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch: "Puffery is an example of positively loaded language; negatively loaded language should be avoided just as much". Based on what info can we say that this was "the most brutal" and the "bloodiest" puppet regime, in the entire WWII? Who claims this? Who holds the 2nd and 3rd place? I would say that just using "brutal and bloody", without superlatives, sounds much more encyclopedic.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramet says "The NDH regime was the most brutal and sanguinary satellite regime in the Axis sphere of influence during the Second World War" sanguinary≈bloody. Ramet is a highly respected scholar on WWII in Yugoslavia, and from what I know about the NDH, I think the description is entirely justified. I've attributed it to Ramet in-text. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO a sentence or so of background needs inserting into the lead.
  • "Those children that had not been killed" "that" → 'who'.
  • "representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross began to place" Comma after "Cross".
  • "The buildings earmarked to accommodate the children were Dvorac Erdödy – a former castle that had been a children's home before the war, the nearby Franciscan monastery" Either the comma should be a dash, or the dash should be a comma.
  • "and the former Italian barracks and stables" Were these established by the Italians pre or post April 1941? Were the buildings purpose built by the Italians?
  • They would have been established post-April 1941, when the NDH was split into German and Italian spheres of influence/occupation. As far as who built them, it is not in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a chief Ustaše ideologist and high-ranking NDH official" Optional: "chief" → 'senior'.
  • "The staff otherwise consisted of members of the Ustaše Youth and female Ustaše." Optional: Something like 'members' on the end of the sentence?
  • "while a third, consisting of another 850 children were transported" Comma after "children".
  • "The last group arrived at the nearby village" Suggest "The last" → 'A final'. Currently "The last" reads as if you are referring to the group which arrived on 5 August.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Part 2[edit]
  • "stated that she was dragged away from her mother at the sub-camp and they were packed tightly into railway wagons for the journey" You start with the singular "she" and "her" and then switch to "they" and "were". Similarly in the next sentence, where "they" are not identified.
  • "The healthy and stronger children" According to the previous paragraph there were no or few "healthy" children. Suggest 'healthier'.
  • "The former castle comprised the camp "hospital" and accommodated about 300 children, and another 250 girls were housed in the nearby former Italian barracks" I don't see that this merits the connective "and". Suggest two separate sentences. And why is this not in the previous paragraph, as that covers where different groups were housed?
  • "the floor covered with straw" Just checking that you mean this, and not 'the straw-covered floor'?
  • "did show love and attention to the children" Suggestion only: "love" → 'affection'. (Or 'demonstrate affection and pay attention'?)
  • "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children" This isn't too clear to me. Could you be more specific?
  • As I said to another reviewer, "The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "all the children that could walk" "that" → 'who'.
  • "the Bosanska Krajina" The definite article reads a little oddly. You sure?
  • Note a: "The figures stated by Fumić add up to 449" "stated" → 'given'.