Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
![]() Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating[edit]
Commenting, etc[edit]
|
Nominations
[edit]- Nominator(s): — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
At the turn of the century, Phil Elverum of the Microphones released the folk album It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water. Although frequently overlooked in the following years (overshadowed by its younger sibling), the album still received critical acclaim, going on to be "widely regarded as [an] indie pop classic" and inspire "weirdo singer/songwriter[s]" everywhere. Thanks to @Gen. Quon: for mentorship on this nomination. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support I worked with PerfectSoundWhatever to punch up the article prior to this nom, and I think it's in a solid spot. The references are good, the prose (imho) reads nicely, and the topic is comprehensive without being unnecessarily exhaustive.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 00:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
750h
[edit]Will review. 750h+ 14:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Just before Christmas in 2016, dozens of people in the Russian city of Irkutsk woke up to discover that they could no longer see. Others never woke at all.
It quickly became clear that these people were suffering from methanol poisoning after drinking a contaminated batch of unregulated surrogate alcohol. In the end, 74 people died—a toll that the Associated Press called "unprecedented in its scale"—and the Russian government took a few actions to try to prevent it from happening again.
I wrote the original draft of this article in 2016 after I read this New York Times article. I successfully nominated it for ITN in the same month and GA in mid-2017. I'm looking forward to any comments you might share. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Sodium
[edit]- Shouldn't the first section be named something like "Background"
- Done
- Nikishin,
thea vodka historian -- Also define a "vodka historian", that's not a phrase most people associate with a profession"The" is meant to refer to the earlier mention of Nikishin. I adopted that phrasing from news articles because I liked how it split the difference between repeating full names and professions vs. hoping people remembered the first reference.Would refactoring "vodka historian" as "historian of vodka" make things more clear?- I ended up cutting one of the two quotes after I wrote the answer above, so I struck that part. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure about the fact that the concept of methanol poisoning is defined in the article after two or three references to methanol poisoning itself.
- I struggled with this one. I definitely see where you're coming from, but the background section is discussing the issues related to alcoholism and surrogate alcohols in Russia—not necessarily methanol poisoning. I did remove one sentence that improperly conflated the two, and I'm open to removing the rest of the info given about alcohol poisoning. That's different from methanol poisoning and may be confusing to readers in this context.
- The two alcohols are similar in many respects and cannot readily be distinguished, and their contents differed from the labels on the bottles, which indicated that they contained ethanol. An investigation later revealed that the methanol was usually used in the local production of windshield washer fluid, known locally as antifreeze. I'm confused here, were the bottles mislabelled or was it that windshield washer fluid was used because it was cheaper (as you mention in paragraphs before) ?
- Both. The bad batch was placed into the standard bath oil bottles, which were labeled as containing ethanol.
- Who conducted said investigation ?
- Fixed. It was the government.
- A picture of ethanol v/s methanol bottles would drive the point home for the first paragraph of the "Events" section
If I'm understanding this ask correctly, we unfortunately don't have freely licensed photos of these bottles. That's why I used {{external media}} near the top. The ethanol and methanol bottles were the same per above.Never mind. I assume you mean a photo of ethanol vs. methanol to drive home how similar they are. There isn't anything on Commons in one photo, but I've reached out to WP:CHEMISTRY.- A member there has offered to get a picture of the two substances side-by-side. Thanks for the idea, Sohom Datta! Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- drinking too much non-fraudulent ethanol-based bath oil Whether or not this incident was caused by actual fraud is explicitly never addressed in the article, I would advise you to figure that out and tweak the wording of this sentence or add more context accordingly.
- Fixed. This was a really good flag, and I can't believe I didn't see this myself!
- Of the remainder, a problem in attempting to treat them was that fomepizole, a methanol antidote, is not certified for use in Russia and is therefore not available in the country's hospitals. This sentence feels stilted
- Fixed, I hope.
Overall,the victims included teachers, nurses, and drivers; The New York Times described the majority as holding "steady if low-paying jobs".- Fixed.
- What is "counterfeit oil" in About 500 liters (130 U.S. gal) of remaining counterfeit oil were seized from the underground facility where it had been produced, does it refer to the methanol laced oil or the bath oil which turned into vodka in general ?
- The former. I hope this is now fixed; I discovered that I had read the reference wrong and that the 500 liters were seized from local shops in addition to authorities discovering the underground facility.
- Hello Sohom Datta and thanks so much for giving this a read. I've left comments inline above. Ed [talk] [OMT] 14:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review from Nikkimaria
[edit]- Suggest scaling up the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done and thanks, Nikkimaria. I'd thought I'd done so before but typo'd the |upright=. I also updated the map to one from the same place but better sourcing. It's explicitly CC BY 4.0. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
[edit]- Instead of "the Associated Press news agency" statement, we should have our own Wikipedia statement on whether this was the biggest mass poisoning in (Russia). THough it could be used as a reference.
I have not seen a reference that compares mass poisonings in Russia, unfortunately, and for methanol specifically List of methanol poisoning incidents#Russia only shows several other incidents from 2021 and 2023. The full quote is: "Poisonings caused by cheap surrogate alcohol are a regular occurrence, but the Irkutsk case was unprecedented in its scale." I've expanded the lead and better clarified what the quote is referring to?- Never mind. Thanks to the Russian Wikipedia, I've now added that this was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history. Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could explain that "Боярышник" means hawthorn.
- Done.
- A quote from Alexander Nikishin should probably be reworded in Wikipedia voice.
- Done.
- 4 deaths → four deaths MOS:NUM
- Done.
- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Thank you—I really appreciate the thorough review and time you spent reading the article. I've responded inline above. I also would love to confirm with you that this newly added/tweaked sentence is accurate: "The human body breaks down methanol into formaldehyde and formic acid, both of which act as nerve toxins and damage the optic nerve." 'Nerve toxins' is the phrase used by DW, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't being used improperly. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
[edit]- The number of affected people could go in the lead.
- Done.
According to early reports on 19 December, a total of 57 people were hospitalized
- Is this the earliest known point at which people fell ill? It's not entirely clear over what kind of time span the poisonings unfolded.- Thanks for pushing me on this. Previously, all the sources I'd seen didn't give an exact date... or so I thought, as this journal article did give a start date. I've added it.
In the immediate aftermath of the poisoning, a state of emergency was declared.
- Who declared the state of emergency? Was it municipal authorities, the Siberian regional government, or a higher power? That would eliminate the passive voice, too. I would also include the date.- It was the mayor of Irkutsk! Good catch.
- The article defines Rospotrebnadzor as the federal consumer rights protection agency in both the Background section and the Aftermath section. The latter definition can probably be removed!
- I'm split on this. There's a big gap between mention #1 and #2, and I don't like to assume that readers go through articles in order from top to bottom.
Overall, a solid article! — Penitentes (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Penitentes: Thanks so much for the review! I'm glad you enjoyed the article. I've responded to your comments inline. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from BorgQueen
[edit]It was the worst mass poisoning by surrogate alcohol in Russia's post-Soviet history,
– By worst, don't you mean deadliest? BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a little-known song by Taylor Swift, who is an indie artist. Any and all comments would be much appreciated :) Ippantekina (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
John Silva Meehan was the fourth Librarian of Congress, serving for the three decades prior to the Civil War. The library was a pretty low-key institution at this time; only under Librarian Spofford did it truly become a "national library", and Meehan has received a fair bit of criticism for not getting the ball rolling on this beforehand. Prior to his librarian service, he had a brief and ultimately unsuccessful career as a partisan newspaper editor. I hope this is an enjoyable read to you all! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
HF
[edit]I'll review this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 20:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- "he moved to Burlington, New Jersey to work as a printer " - while I disagree with it strongly, MOS:GEOCOMMA is part of the manual of style, so there should be a comma after New Jersey
- Oops, fixed. - G
- "Watterston was later described as having been a "librarian of one side of the aisle"" - by whom? The extent to which this quote can be taken at face value depends on if this is the conclusion of a modern historian, or if this is another Duff Green commentary
- Added attribution. - G
- "wished to hire an assistant editor at a significant lower rate than what he had agreed for Meehan" - while yes, this is true, I would argue that the use of "significant" here consitutes a form of original research, as we're only given the rates of $1,200 and $800.
- Removed the word significant.
- Our article on the City of Washington Gazette attributes the renaming to the United States' Telegraph to Meehan, but this renaming is never directly addressed in this article - can a simple statement that Meehan changed the name be sourced?
- Done. - G
- Is the correct spelling "Wharton" or "Warton" for his son's middle name? It looks like Nappo uses "Warton", but McDonough uses "Wharton"
- I've found a contemporary source that uses Wharton, so switching to that.
- McDonough states on page 12 that Meehan had a "reputation as a careful and precise businessman" and that he was thus asked to be the bookkeeper for several unrelated thimgs - is this worth mentioning alongside the Johnston quote?
- Ooh, great idea! Since this was describing his contemporary reputation, I incorporated it into a paragraph further up into the article. - G
That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 22:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: Okay! I think that's about everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Silva_meehan.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:James_Alfred_Pearce,_standing.jpg, File:Library_of_Congress_1853_(cropped).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Silva_meehan.jpg - 1904, added.
- Cannot find any evidence of the latter two being published. Corrected licensing. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
NØ
[edit]Not a subject matter expert so I am just focusing on prose.
- "After the firm moved to Washington, D.C., in early 1822, Meehan begun editing and publishing the Baptist weekly newspaper The Columbian Star." - Should this not be "began" instead?
- Good catch, fixed. - G
- "He attended school in New York, and later entered work as a printer." - There's a WP:CINS issue here which could be fixed by removing the comma.
- Fixed. - G
- Would a link to Baptists somewhere be overlinking?
- Found a spot! - G
- "He would leave the paper himself six months later, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing." - nitpicky on my part but is this a better way to put it?: "Six months later, he would leave the paper himself, seeking to separate the Star from his entry into political writing."
- I think so, fixed. - G
- "Meehan diligently produced various "want lists" based on earlier catalogs." - It might be a good idea to have a reference directly present at the end of this sentence since there's a quote.
- Added. - G
- There are no major problems with the article from the areas that I analyzed it. Along with the prose, I also checked the alt texts and they look good and succinct. Good work!--NØ 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaranoFan: Thank you very much! Made fixes as requested. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I support the nomination on prose.--NØ 05:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. These are my initial comments:
- So there are several mentions of "Librarian of Congress" that do not conform with MOS:JOBTITLES. Instances of this I could find are:
- "the fourth Librarian of Congress" -> "the fourth librarian of Congress".
- "the Librarian of Congress since 1815" -> "the librarian of Congress since 1815".
- "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as Librarian." -> "Senator James Pearce served as Meehan's partner and ally for much of his tenure as librarian."
- "from the Joint Committee to the Librarian of Congress" -> "from the Joint Committee to the librarian of Congress"
- "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new Librarian of Congress troubled Meehan." -> "Rumors that the newly-elected Franklin Pierce had appointed a new librarian of Congress troubled Meehan."
- "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as librarian" -> "asking that Meehan be allowed to continue his role as Librarian"
- "Meehan additionally served as the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Baptist Columbian College." -> "Meehan additionally served as the secretary of the board of trustees of the Baptist Columbian College."
- Done. - G
- Names with initials should have non-breaking spaces between the initials as per MOS:INITIALS. E.g. "C. H. Wharton Meehan" should be "C. H. Wharton Meehan", "E. B. Stelle" should be "E. B. Stelle", and "G. P. A. Healy" should be "G. P. A. Healy" instead (look at the wikitext).
- Fixed. - G
- "remained unimplemented" -> "were not implemented".
- Fixed. - G
- Does Librarian of Congress need to be linked twice in the lead?
- Fixed. - G
- There is a citation error with one of the journals.
- Fixed. - G
- There is an inconsistency between "U.S. Navy Agent" and "US" in the infobox.
- Fixed. - G
- Baptist can be linked in the lead.
- Done. - G
- "In January 1815, he returned to New York" -> "In January 1815, Meehan returned to New York".
- Fixed. - G
- "In Philadelphia, he partnered" -> "In Philadelphia, Meehan partnered"
- Fixed. - G
- "and the Luminary was shifted to a monthly publication." What was it before that?
- Five times a year; added. - G
- "The two also served as the chief editors" -> "The two served as the chief editors".
- Fixed. - G
- "Rev. James D. Knowles." Does rev stand for reverend? If so, can it be written out in full: "Reverend James D. Knowles".
- Done. -G
Steelkamp (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Steelkamp: Okay! I think that's all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Hurricane Cindy, the first of several hurricanes to hit the United States during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Cindy caused a fair amount of damage, including to the Atlanta Motor Speedway from a tornado, as well as the largest power outage for Entergy, the energy company responsible for Louisiana/Mississippi region. Of course, this whole area would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina just a month and a half later. As a weird bit of foreshadowing, there were five parishes in Louisiana that were declared disaster areas on August 23... the same day that Hurricane Katrina formed. Cindy wasn't all that bad compared to the later storms, but it was still significant enough to warrant having an article.
Thanks to edits from Zzzs (talk · contribs) has helped make sure that the article is well-polished, so I'd like to invite that user to co-nominate this article for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just wanted to comment that I accept the invitation. ZZZ'S 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- Done --ZZZ'S 20:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Hurricane_Cindy_2005-07-05.jpg: source link is dead.
- Repaired --ZZZ'S 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto File:Cindy_damage_at_Atlanta_Motor_Speedway.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Repaired --ZZZ'S 22:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Dylan620
[edit]Great to see another tropical cyclone at FAC! I have an active FLC on similar subject matter, so it only feels appropriate to review this. Ping me if I haven't added anything to this space within the next week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
BP!
[edit]I kinda figured it out I'd review this since I possibly need more detailed review somehow for my FAC also.
Upon first glance. Note: I'm not expert this topic, including its source reliability.
- Be consistent to the referencing. For example there was citation like "[15][1]", it should be arranged properly.
- Pls bundle the referencing also if it was cited already 4 or more sources. It looks like you ended up ref bombing it.
More to come 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I have an ill-disguised soft spot for Ove Jørgensen. He is (barely) remembered among Homeric scholars as the originator of Jørgensen's law, an early and astute observation about narration in the Odyssey which in many ways set the stage for the modern fascination with narratology in the Homeric poems. After throwing an almighty strop in response to being left out of an academic society, Jørgensen left classical academia with a single publication to his name, and spent the rest of his career as a cantankerous if apparently beloved Classics teacher, an acerbic commentator on ballet and an erudite editor of Dickens. From an article-writing perspective, working on Jørgensen was a rewarding opportunity to bring together a few different threads of scholarship -- he is known for the early part of his career among classicists, for the later part among ballet historians, and throughout by scholars of his lifelong friends Carl Nielsen and Anne Marie Carl-Nielsen, but I think this is probably the first biography to pull together all those different threads of interest in him into a single picture. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Isadora_Duncan_-_first_fairy.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1896, in Baker's Art Gallery -- I've added the link to the Ur-source, at the NY Public Library, here to the Commons page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that Baker's Gallery is this place, founded in Columbus in the 1860s. The NYPL's catalogue states that the photograph was published c. 1896 -- admittedly, the distinction between "produced" and "published" may well be a matter of the metadata that their system allows rather than of copyright law. Part of me wants to take a strict verifiability, not truth position and say that a reliable source (the NYPL) has said it was published in 1896, so that's enough for us -- otherwise, we could use PD-because and explain that the NYPL have identified the image as being in the public domain in the United States? UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but exhibition doesn't typically meet the legal definition of "published", at least in the US. (Do we know if Baker's is American or something else?) Was there any other publication that we know of prior to the digitization by NYPL? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can’t see it as anything other than ‘this is where we got it from’ - at the very least, it surely means that Bakers exhibited it with the photographer unknown or uncredited? Alternatively, if we say that we don't have good evidence of its first publication (so, it's unpublished by anyone who would have the right to "publish" it in a copyright sense, which doesn't include the NYPL), it's pre 1904, so pd-US-unpublished would cover it anyway. The NYPL page states that they believe it to be PD in the US. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hm, that site credits Baker's as the photographer? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think that last option would be neatest. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The language field is inconsistently used for non-English sources. Would you like a photo of his grave site? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes please on the photograph — done on the sources,I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
FM
[edit]- This is well outside my area of expertise, but it's short and it's about a countryman of mine, so I'll have a look once someone more, uh, classically trained has reviewed it. Don't hesitate to ask if you need someone to look over or translate something from potential Danish sources. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi FM -- thank you for this, very much obliged. For now, could I ask two questions/favours? Firstly, I've included here just about everything I could find that mentions J. at any length: if you can do a cursory look and find anything else written in Danish, could you point me towards it? Secondly, if you know your way around IPA or pronunciation guides, I think one would be very helpful, but I don't really have the Danish expertise to make one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[1] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[2], this American article seems to mention him[3], and this Danish museum article[4] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even if the IPA is correct, you should not use {{respell}} anyway, since policy forbids its use in approximating languages other than English per WP:RESPELLNOT.
- @FunkMonk: Can you confirm vowel length and lack of stød? ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- OK - got the "new golden age", the Udvalgte Skrifter forward is coming though the wonderful folks at RX (got a request there for the Dagbladet Information article too, but it requires a Danish or at least Scandinavian institutional login), and J's 1911 article is in there. The Calhoun article is used at length in Jørgensen's law (as C. was really the first to properly codify the "law" and outline its various caveats and exceptions): it might come back when I have a go at expanding the treatment of the law here. I've had a go at adding pronunciation -- please tweak if you can (I used this website to check that the IPA transcription sounded how I thought) UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- All wonderful -- thank you. Will work my way through it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I didn't realise it was the same source. That page lists some sources in its bibliography: "Peter P. Rohde i Information 10.11.1950", an article in the Danish paper Dagbladet Information, and "Thure Hastrup i O. J.: Udv. skr., 1971 7–19", which appears to maybe be the foreword to "Udvalgte Skrifter" which you have in the bibliography, and then the last source listed. "Papirer i Kgl. bibl." are papers in the Danish Royal Library. The two first texts should be findable, perhaps with the help of WP:RX? Googling a bit, this journal has some Danish articles by Jørgensen[2], this American article seems to mention him[3], and this Danish museum article[4] states that the period where Jørgensen and other significant figures associated with Carl Nielsen has been described as a "new golden age in Danish spiritual (or intellectual) life". As for pronunciation, when I just type in "Ove Jørgensen pronunciation Danish" in Google, an accurate sound clip is playable straight from the search engine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I used the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi heavily, and I think it's currently the only real biography, apart from this one, in print in any language. Could you give an English approximation of the pronunciation -- I can probably work it into close-enough IPA, or use it as a respell? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did a search earlier, and the most comprehensive account I could find was in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi.[1] At a glance, the Wikipedia article already seems to cover most of the ground, but I'll give it a closer look when I read the article and see if there's anything that could be added. According to some results, the 2005 text "Den (over)levende tradition / The (Sur)viving Tradition" by Karen Vedel covers Jørgensen, but I can't find it. Don't know much about IPA, unfortunately, but I know how the name is pronounced, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
ThaesOfereode
[edit]Feels like a topic I can throw my hat in on. Plus, a named law? Count me in. I hope the below is helpful, though it is a hair nitpicky, admittedly (maybe... this is my first FAR). Pretty much everything below can be challenged; I know the difficulty of trying to write about someone notable with glaring gaps in their life's story.
- Thank you for the review -- I am hardly in a position to complain about nit-picking, and the more careful eyes that the article can have over it, the better. Replies below: all very wise and pertinent comments, though I think some of the infelicities you've identified are artefacts of the subject matter as much as of its presentation here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad I've been helpful so far. Below, I've responded to what I think needed comment or further revision (assume anything not addressed is good to go, addressed elsewhere, or awaiting other action). You'll note that I ask "Can we get a quote from XYZ?" quite a lot; don't feel like each instance needs to be fulfilled. I think just one or two from the suggestions will add something positive to the overall quality of the article, help to contextualize and/or explain critical elements of the piece. I might place slight primacy on contextualizing the Nielsen–Jørgensen relationship better with an appropriate quote from Nielsen's diary, but I will leave it up to you to decide if there is anything worth taking from it. Again, nothing in here is show stopping and if the below are not actionable, I'm still happy to support in its current condition. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
A few notes on prose to start.
- and of Jørgensen's wife – Seems like a WP:POSA thing to add; if he had been born out of wedlock in 1870s Denmark, that would be worth mentioning. Still, if you think this should stand, I think his wife is better than simply "Jørgensen's wife".
- Yes, I think you're right -- think it's now better formulated as his wife, Louise née Wellmann.
- an accompanied them to Constantinople – Why? Were they doing something of note there? I'm not sure traveling with someone of note necessarily needs to make it into the details of his life.
- Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image isn't (demonstrably) PD, unfortunately: we can use a crop from it as the infobox image, but per WP:NFCC that use needs to be "minimal", so including Nielsen there would be legally dubious (as well as potentially confusing), and using the image again as mere illustration would not really be compatible with the FUR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't realize this was fair use. That's my bad entirely for not checking. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The image isn't (demonstrably) PD, unfortunately: we can use a crop from it as the infobox image, but per WP:NFCC that use needs to be "minimal", so including Nielsen there would be legally dubious (as well as potentially confusing), and using the image again as mere illustration would not really be compatible with the FUR. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that it's important to establish the origins of their relationship. Consider adding a crop of the image from the infobox with Nielsen; it might be nice to have a photo of them together given Nielsen's overall importance in the article. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sightseeing, particularly ancient monuments -- one assumes J. acted as guide. I've added a link to N's diary on the latter point. I'm struggling to find the duration of the trip (from memory, it was about a month). I'd agree that it's not the most exciting detail, but I think it helps to establish J's relationship with the Carl Nielsens as developing quickly and as more than simple acquaintance (in the original of the infobox image, N. is sitting immediately to J's right). I think he went to Athens with him as well, but couldn't get enough of the diary to be sure (User:FunkMonk may have more luck?) See the point below too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary. – I think this needs more context. Is this a lot? How long were they in Constantinople? I would strongly consider the precise dates, if the information exists. If they were in Constantinople together for an appreciable amount of time, it makes sense that Nielsen would reference Jørgensen a lot. Sixty-three mentions on a week's trip is a lot, but sixty-three mentions in a year is hardly noteworthy.
- It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
- The bits of the diary to which I have access don't have anything suitable, unfortunately, but agreed that this would be a good addition if someone who does have more of them can find it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. I suspected this would be the case, but I had to at least advocate for it. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any chance that you (or FM) can add an excerpt from the diary? I know you've called it a pretty terse document, but something from Nielsen's diary that contextualizes Jørgensen's (certainly) vast knowledge about the area would be excellent. Equally as good – if not better – would be a quote that explains how they met, why/how they decided to take this trip in particular, etc., which would really help to set their relationship more comfortably in the article.
- It's throughout the whole diary: I don't have context as to how often he mentions other people, but the point is that they were more than passing acquaintances. See above -- Nielsen is really the only true constant across the two halves of J's life, and is indeed the relationship between N. and J. is a not insubstantial part of what makes J. "notable", in the sense of being of interest to scholars -- on a rough count, somewhere not far south of half of the sources that write about him do so as a friend and correspondent of Nielsen. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this article, Jørgensen observed that Homeric characters typically use generic terms, particularly θεός (theos, 'a god'), δαίμων (a daimon) and Ζεύς (Zeus), to refer to the action of gods, whereas the narrator and the gods themselves always name the specific gods responsible.
- to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
- Plural actions, but not "the" gods, I don't think -- works fine with the implied contrast being "the actions of gods" vs "the actions of mortals". "Gods" doesn't always need a the in front of it, though it often has one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think either works fine. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Plural actions, but not "the" gods, I don't think -- works fine with the implied contrast being "the actions of gods" vs "the actions of mortals". "Gods" doesn't always need a the in front of it, though it often has one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not a classicist, but it's not clear at all why or how Zeus (a specific god) is used to refer to the actions of the gods in general. Is there a way Homer differentiates between the actions of "zeus" vs the actions of "Zeus"?
- It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you have a look at the Jørgensen's law article, you'll see the best I could do on this -- unfortunately, it has to end up pretty chunky, as Jørgensen doesn't seem to have been interested in formulating it as a "law", rather than making observations on a specific part of the Odyssey. Honestly, I think that would be an undue use of space in this biographical article, though there might well be room to expand our coverage of the law in this one, and I think it has value where it is in the law's article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neat as hell. I think we might consider a way of conveying that to the audience. Can we splice in a quote from Jørgensen's work on it? Might add some nice detail into Jørgensen's writing style and his contemporary insight. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the characters, not the narrators -- the idea is that a character might say e.g. "Zeus gave me good fortune, and I won the fight", but mean that as a general idea that they had divine assistance, rather than specifically singling out Zeus as opposed to e.g. Athena, Hera, etc. There are one or two specific cases where this is broken (some discussed in the relevant article) -- in the Iliad, for example, Achilles sounds as though he's about to do it in Book 1, where he complains to his goddess mother Thetis that Zeus doesn't give him the respect that he deserves, but then goes on to make absolutely clear that he is talking specifically about the king of the gods (perhaps underlining his self-importance and perhaps arrogance?) In the Odyssey, Odysseus describes how Zeus sent a thunderbolt to sink his ship, after he angered the god of the sun -- again, here he's very obviously talking about Zeus specifically, but he does then explain himself by saying that he heard this account from the goddess Calypso later on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- to refer to the action of gods → to refer to the actions of the gods, right?
- Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others, including Nielsen, were invited. – Comma bomb here. Consider Although most members were qualified as doctors of philosophy, others – including Nielsen – were invited.
- Absolutely -- done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 1916, working alongside the chemist S. P. L. Sørensen, Jørgensen completed and published Sophus's unfinished manuscript of Development History of the Chemical Concept of Acid until 1830. – Did Jørgensen only work on the manuscript in 1916 or was it just published in 1916 but had been worked on in previous years?
- Fair point -- cut "working". UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jørgensen became an authority on ballet – How? Did he have background? Did he just write a bunch of stuff that others liked?
- It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
- Bizarre! Do you have any dates for articles he wrote in that magazine? It would be worth noting that he was writing ballet articles while he was still a professor, for example. As with his law, it would be cool to get insight on his view of ballet in his own words if the articles are accessible. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- He never was a professor (or "even" a PhD, which became a problem for him). His ballet articles, as far as I can tell, begin in 1905, the year he withdrew from academia (though he did write at least one review article of a classical work later, in 1911), but it would be WP:SYNTH to explicitly say that he only started his interest in ballet after/because of his falling-out with the classical establishment. It might be possible to pull a germane quote from one of those articles: I'll have a look. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to have come out of nowhere! This is admittedly the biggest problem in writing this article -- with (exactly) one exception, all of the biographical accounts of J. are either by classicists, in which case they stop just before he gets into ballet, or by ballet scholars, in which case they start just afterwards -- nobody has really attempted to write the story of how he got into it. He seems to have been a generally cultured and erudite man, given his multiple expertise in classical poetry, English novels and ballet, but I don't think we have the sources to specifically say where his interest came from. He doesn't seem to have had a formal job, but did write a couple of articles in Tilskueren, which seems to have been a reasonably prominent magazine.
- He condemned the Art Nouveau– – Not sure what this endash is doing here.
- "Art Nouveau" is a two-word adjective, so per MOS:DASH the (suspended, here) hyphen gets "upgraded" to an endash. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- TIL. Critique withdrawn. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Art Nouveau" is a two-word adjective, so per MOS:DASH the (suspended, here) hyphen gets "upgraded" to an endash. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- calling it "quasi-philosophical experiments". → calling them "quasi-philosophical experiments"., right?
- No: the antecedent is style (compare "UC's article is little more than incoherent ramblings"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- No: the antecedent is style (compare "UC's article is little more than incoherent ramblings"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "standard analysis of ... the rules that govern human speech about the gods" – Probably non-actionable, but is there anything in the MOS about the use of [...] with the brackets vs. without?
- Without, I think, per MOS:...? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The MOS linked seems to indicate the brackets are necessary; without the brackets, they should only be used to indicate the speech trailing off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page has Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text. As I read that, it means that square brackets are a) optional and b) used when there's a trail-off ellipsis in the same quoted material -- that is, one added by the author and one by the editor. As that doesn't apply here, I think we should keep as is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, "may" seems to indicate it's optional. Works for me. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That page has Square brackets may be placed around an ellipsis that indicates omitted text to distinguish it from an ellipsis that is part of the quoted text. As I read that, it means that square brackets are a) optional and b) used when there's a trail-off ellipsis in the same quoted material -- that is, one added by the author and one by the editor. As that doesn't apply here, I think we should keep as is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The MOS linked seems to indicate the brackets are necessary; without the brackets, they should only be used to indicate the speech trailing off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Without, I think, per MOS:...? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
A few notes on content.
- I think, given that Jørgensen's main claim to fame is the eponymous law, I think maybe it deserves an expansion from its current (body) size of one short paragraph. In particular, I think it would be good to describe how Jørgensen originally formulated/supported his thesis and compare his work with modern scholarship (as in, Jørgensen's original formulation has stood the test of time or modern scholarship has departed from the original formulation in XYZ ways). Although, I suspect scholarship on how Jørgensen formulated the law may be scant.
- It is -- I might come back to this. The basic thrust is that J. had the basic insight, but didn't really attempt to codify it into a solid "law" or to attempt to phrase it in rigorous terms, so later scholars have done that work and applied the "Jørgensen's law" label to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jørgensen's relationship with Carl Nielsen seems... out of place. I can tell that there is something that called you to repeatedly mention this friendship (and I imagine it is worth adding), but I find it difficult to connect it to the content. In "Later career" it's a little clear that Jørgensen had some impact on his marriage, but is there anything that says that they influenced each other's professional work? They traveled to Constantinople together; are there any episodes from that trip (or any other) that show a working relationship? Even a brief vignette would help to make the mention of the friendship feel more at home in the article.
- I'm not sure, but maybe FunkMonk's digging will show something. Nielsen is pretty laconic in the part of his diary I can find, just saying that they saw "everything of importance", including some Byzantine mosaics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, here's hoping. It's an unfortunate thing about these documents that they never say the one thing you're hoping they will. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, but maybe FunkMonk's digging will show something. Nielsen is pretty laconic in the part of his diary I can find, just saying that they saw "everything of importance", including some Byzantine mosaics. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- A similar thing can be said about the jump from classicist to ballet expert, but I admit there have been weirder jumps with less in the way of information about how A got to B. If any information exists on the topic – acknowledging that that may be a big "if" – it would be undeniably helpful to the reader.
- I think it was just a big jump -- see above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Overall, this is an article in good condition, with hardly any issues in the way of prose. My main concern now is that there are parts which feel disjointed and do not convey importance to the reader well, but I suspect they can be easily remedied or the scholarship is simply non-existent/inaccessible. I suspect Danish-language skill may be a reasonable bottleneck here, but hopefully FunkMonk can assist should you find anything. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
- "of Jørgensen's wife, Louise Wellmann" jars a little bit. Maybe "of Louise (nee Wellmann)" would suffice?
- Yup; fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the philologist Anders Bjørn Drachmann": worth linking philologist, as it's an uncommon term?
- Done: might create a future sea of blue, but we can deal with that when it comes up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Carl Nielsen mentions him sixty-three times in his diary": This is a potentially useful fact, but with no frame of reference it's a bit lost. Is that a lot? Were the mentions positive? Over how long were these spread, etc. Maybe only half a sentence is all that's needed to give it a bit more relevance, but it just looks like a bit of trivia as it stands.
- See ThaesOfereode's review above -- the point is well made, but we don't have the sources to do any of that, at least as far as I can find. I do think it's got some relevance, and it's not as if we're overloaded with biographical detail: when we've got comparatively little information about someone, I think we do need to drop our standards slightly and include things we might drop out of a fuller account of their life. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was his love of ballet a lifelong thing? It sort of appears part way through the Later career section with no indication of an origin
- Again, see ThaesOfereode's review -- at the moment, I don't have the means to answer that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was the Wanscher lecture connected to ballet at all? It doesn't seem to fit here, being sandwiched between two parts of Duncan
- I don't think so, but again the sources are very scant, so I couldn't honestly tell you much about what Wanscher actually spoke about. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's relatively short, but I guess if his notability is limited to the eponymous law and his writing on ballet, then that's to be expected, although I was surprised reading of his 1950 death and realising that he lived, presumably in Copenhagen, under Nazi occupation. Was 1930 (the publication of Dickens) the last notable thing about his life until his death? either way, this is, as always, beautifully written and something that made me genuinely interested in someone I've never heard of before, so thank you for that. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, as ever -- you have the nail on the head, and I'm sure there are some very interesting stories to tell about the last two decades of his life. Unfortunately, the sources are truly scanty indeed -- almost none of them are interested in him for his own sake, and only really discuss him in relation to his classical scholarship, his ballet writings or his relationship with the Carl Nielsens. It might be that we can come up with some more, but at the moment I've not been able to, and none of it features in the one real biography of him that I believe exists outside Wikipedia. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. - SchroCat (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Generalissima Looks like you just need a source review.
- I assume the "Search 'Ove Jørgensen' stuff refers to Google Books usage (since they have yet to perfect ctrl-f technology for physical books)? If so, might be good to provide the Google Books links in the bibliography.
- It's because they're eBooks -- I'll put the Google Books links in where I can find them, though most have only a very limited preview available. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Refs are generally laid out and formatted consistently. Good use of columns, and good job navigating a Danish-language source corpus.
- Burke's Peerage is missing a location.
- I've treated it as a journal, as it releases a new one every year and doesn't have an identifiable single author, and so given it an ISSN rather than an ISBN -- we don't generally give locations for journals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, fair point then. - G Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Locations are not needed for publishers who have the name of the location in their title (See WP:CS1); so you don't need them for Oxford UP, Leuven UP, or Stockholm University.
- Only source that seemed potentially suspicious were Burke's Peerage and Weltzer, but they're used appropriately and sparingly.
- Looking through academic databases for Ove Jørgensen seems to reveal the exact set of sources you used, so it's safe to say you've done your due dilligence squeezing out whatever you can here.
@UndercoverClassicist: Beyond the minor scruples on formatting, seems like we're pretty much good to go here. Let me know when you've fixed up that stuff. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Generalissima -- work in progress on the Google Books links; the rest sorted or replied. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: I think I've now got URLs for all that I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist That looks good to me! Support on source review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: I think I've now got URLs for all that I can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This is the first FAC about a dromaeosaurid (or "raptor") dinosaur in more than a decade, and this particular genus has recently become (in)famous as antagonist in a recent Jurassic World movie. Because their portrayal in that film is atrociously inaccurate, improving this article will hopefully set the record straight. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- No date for Currie and Varricchio?
- Added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- No publisher location for Allison and Bottjer?
- Looks like this has been added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "that lived during the Late Cretaceous of what is now Alberta, Canada". "of" → 'in'?
- Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "restrain struggling prey while dismembering it with the mouth". "it" → 'them'?
- Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "indicate it survived later as well" doesn't really work for me. Why not just say 'indicate it survived for over 2 million years'?
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It lived alongside a variety of dinosaurs". 1. Why single out dinosaurs? 2. "it is not known for certain if any of the animals from the Horsethief Member directly coexisted with it" seems to indicate that the lead is stronger than warrented.
- "the fossil collector Wayne Marshall". Was this his occupation, or a hobby?
- The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 'the part-time fossil collector'?
- Went with that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- 'the part-time fossil collector'?
- The sources state he collected fossils while being employed in other fields, so that seems to be the case, but not sure how to source it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "about 1 cm (0.39 in)". Looks a bit false precision to me.
- "serrations per 1 mm (0.039 in)." Similarly, and elsewhere.
- "from the Latin words atroci". Foreign language words (which are not proper nouns) should be in lang templates, not just italicised.
- "rather than that the snout was shortened." I feel that 'rather than because the snout was shortened' makes for an easier read.
- Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead: "in the teeth being almost all the same size"; main article: "the teeth have different sizes but the same form".
- " the clarity of the interrelationships recovered in their phylogenetic analyses." I "recovered" the best word to use here?
- "in a clade more derived than Saurornitholestinae". I don't think that a non-specialist audience will understand this.
- "but included more taxa which had been described in the interim." Maybe 'but included additional taxa which had been described in the interim'?
- "contains data for a wide number of coelurosaurian taxa". What is a "wide number"?
- "Atrociraptor has been consistently recovered as a member of Saurornitholestinae." I think you need to define "recovered" somewhere, or use a different expression.
- "and does not have a generally agreed-upon answer." I am (very) unsure what the question is that is unanswered.
- "then they may have been recent immigrants". More recent than what?
- "This hypothesis is supported by the possibility". Can a hypothesis be supported by a possibility. Optional: is there a better way of phrasing this?
- "ranged from using the claws for slashing or climbing up prey larger than themselves." If you use "ranged from" the options should be separated by 'to', not "or".
- "a shift from using the feet instead of the hands for restraining prey". I'm confused. Should "from" be 'to'?
- Horseshoe Canyon Formation, no links?
- It's linked in the intro and at first mention in the article body (discovery). Want one more further down? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Iss "the Horsethief Member" the same as the Horsethief Sandstone?
- A Cynical Idealist is probably best at determining this. If that's the case, then alternative title should at least redirect, or become the new title of that article. Or it should perhaps be merged into the formation's article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a different unit, they are not the same. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a much wider geographic and temporal distribution than initially suggested." Suggested by whom, when and what was the suggestion?
- "corresponds to "poorly-drained" sediments rich with organic material. The sediments of the Horsetheif Member are composed primarily of coal, shales, sandstones, and mudstones. These sediments are rich with organic materials, which reflect a highly saturated environment". "... rich with organic material ... rich with organic materials ..."
- Caption: "Several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where the first Atrociraptor specimen was found". Do you mean 'Several dinosaurs are known from the Horsethief Member of ..." or 'Conjectural reconstructions of several dinosaurs known from the Horsethief Member of ...'?
- Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should we go with "hypothetical", as was mainly thrown around at the talk page last time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the unexplained "tooth-taxon" is a bit much for a non-specialist reader.
- "The absence of these fossils from the older members does not necessarily mean that these taxa did not exist at that time, and may simply be reflective of the fossil bias which makes the preservation of small-bodied animals less likely." Is fine. "Remains of smaller animals are also common in the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. " Is fine. When the former is immediately followed by the latter, the word "also" reads oddly.
That's it from me. Another fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made the changes you suggested to the "Classification" and "Paleoecology" sections. Word choice was refined, repetition of phrases was removed, and technical language (recovered, derived, tooth-taxon, etc) has been removed or explained. As mentioned above, the "Horsethief Member" of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (in Alberta) is unrelated to the "Horsethief Sandstone" (in Montana). "Horsethief" seems to just be a common name for landforms in western North America.
- Thank you for your input. @FunkMonk wrote the remainder of the article and I'll leave the changes you suggested to those other sections to their discretion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
HF
[edit]I'll try to review this sometime ovver the next week. Hog Farm Talk 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping me when Gog's concerns have been addressed, and I'll start my review then. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Quick drive-by comment
[edit]The generic name is derived from the Latin words atroci, which means "savage", and raptor, "robber"
. For atroci read atrox. By convention when referring to Latin nouns or adjectives as words, we use the nominative singular form, which is how they are listed in modern dictionaries. Choliamb (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- We're aware, problem is that the source (the original description) says "Etymology: "Atroci" is a Latin word meaning savage, whereas "raptor" is Latin for robber". No other sources about this animal gives a detailed etymology, so the question is how far we can veer off the source without going into WP:OR and WP:synth territory. Since the source seems to translate the component words with the form they appear in the name, it doesn't seem to be inaccurate as such, just unconventional. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Gog: The generic name is derived from atrox. The uninflected stem of the adjective atrox is atroc-, and for that reason atroc(i)- is the form used when attaching suffixes and forming compounds: cf. the Latin derivatives atrocitas and atrociter, or the English derivatives atrocious and atrocity. All of these are ultimately derived from atrox (check any etymological dictionary). For comparison, you can see the same pattern in the generic name of another therapod, Ornithomimus, the first part of which is derived from ὄρνις (ornis), the Greek word for bird. The uninflected stem of the noun ornis is ornith-, and for that reason ornith(o)- is the form that we use when creating compound words like Ornithomimus or Ornithopoda or ornithology. The WP articles for all of these words correctly state that they are derived from ornis, not ornitho-, because ornitho- has no independent existence; it is simply a form of ornis. The relationship between atrox and atroci- is exactly the same. Compounds begining with ornitho- are derived from ornis; compounds beginning with atroci- are derived from atrox.
- FunkMonk: Yes, I see your problem. If the source makes this mistake, and no other source gives the correct form, then I suppose your hands are tied by WP policy. A pity, but there it is. In any case, I've made my comment, so I'll be moving on now. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[5]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and changed the word, using the site linked in the first comment as citation, though I'm not sure if it's formatted correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a personal opinion on this, apart from the OR/synth concern. But if everyone here agrees it's not a case of that (even my co-nominator made the change at one point[5]), we'll change it. We'll begin fixing the other listed issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just popping back in because I thought of an even closer parallel: Velociraptor, which is derived from velox, not from veloci. Like atroci-, veloci- is just a form of velox and has no independent existence. These two adjectives, atrox and velox, follow exactly the same pattern, both in ancient Latin and in the modern Latin binomials derived from ancient roots. Choliamb (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also think that we should change to atrox, and I personally do not see any WP:synth issue here; a statement that the name is derived from atrox is covered by the source, as there is no other way to interpret it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- And the generic name is not derived from atrox, so it would be misleading to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Jens
[edit]- Only few comments from me, since I've already done the GA review.
- Now that we have a skeletal diagram, maybe we can produce an additional figure out of that: Crop out the head, and add labels of all the terms mentioned in the text? It would be so much more factual and more helpful than the Dromaeosaurus skull. Happy to help out with that if needed.
- Comparing with the published figures, I'm not sure it matches 100% to be used directly. But I'll tag the artist, Mettiina, about a closer skull only version. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because of this inclination, the tooth enamel at the base of the teeth is also inclined, whereas in Saurornitholestes, Dromaeosaurus, and other relatives where the teeth are oriented more vertically, the enamel is almost perpendicular to the longitudinal axes of the teeth – I am still not quite sure what this means. The enamel is the outer layer of the tooth, so if the tooth is inclined at any given point, the tooth must have the same inclination at that point. I do not really see what this adds, and you already discuss tooth inclination in great depth, so I would suggest to just remove this sentence, it is a bit too much imo.
- A 2011 study by the palaeontologist Denver W. Fowler and colleagues found these ideas unlikely – You clearly give preference to this particular hypothesis while discarding the others. Do we have any secondary source that states that this hypothesis is now the favoured one? Or is this hypothesis of particular relevance for this genus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a much newer source on the topic [6], which also suggest a function of the claw in restraining smaller prey. So it indeed looks like this is now the favoured hypothesis, but that newer study should be incorporated I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The current text probably goes too much into that one paper, will see if I can make a more general rewrite reflecting more views more equally. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about an interesting aspect of the 1982 Falklands War. While nuclear weapons were obviously not used, the British warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the country's nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. However, the British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it has emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her. Historians and international relations experts have also discussed why Argentina decided to invade British territory despite the UK being nuclear power and the broader implications of this.
I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted in May. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected, leading to a wide ranging article. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. I have since further expanded and copy edited the article and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Falklands,_Campaign,_(Distances_to_bases)_1982.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Repulse_(S23)_in_the_Firth_of_Clyde_c1979.jpg
- Fixed both Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Prime_Minister_Margaret_Thatcher.jpg is quite grainy - is there no better alternative? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's the best photo we have of her in 1982. There are some better photos for 1981 and 1983, but they're not significantly better. Thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]Very much enjoying the article, as I expected I would given the nominator. Three general pointers so far:
- I think the lead currently errs too much towards brevity rather than completeness -- remember that we should be content for readers to stop at the end of it and have picked up as much information as we really need to give them.
- Similarly, I think the prose is just slightly too simplistic in places -- it's very clear, but occasionally it almost reads like an introductory school-book that pulls some punches on detail and general polish.
- If we can quickly and easily give a piece of information that answers a reader's question, even if it's not strictly relevant (e.g. "who was that person? When did that happen?"), I think we should. Footnotes might help here, if you feel that the flow would be unduly interrupted.
I hope this is helpful. As ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and I'm very happy to disagree on matters of taste (which is most of this review) without any prejudice.
- The first sentence (sorry to start so early!) could do with a bit of thought. I don't really like "even though" as WP:WEASEL: most pilots never seriously consider using their ejection seat, even if they have one in the aircraft. Secondly, the word "initially" is slippery -- it could mean anything from "when they were built, years earlier" to "in the opening stages of the conflict".
- I've simplified this sentence and moved the material on the depth bombs to later in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: titles in apposition like this, for politicians, are very American: BrE prefers the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister.
- That's interesting: Australia follows the US usage then. Tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The head of the British military: that was the Queen -- I think we mean the professional head, and I would give his title and name him as Terence Lewin. I'm surprised that we don't get the views (either here or later, except on a related issue) of any other military people -- did Woodward ever express a view, for example, or any of the ships' commanders?
- Tweaked. None of the sources discuss the views of other military commanders involved in the war other than the commander of the nuclear missile submarine that was alleged to have been deployed to be able to attack Argentina. I recently read Woodward's memoirs from cover to cover and he doesn't note this issue at all, despite providing a very detailed account of his forces operations. I suspect that this is the result of the secrecy around the deployment of British nuclear weapons. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It has been alleged that a British ballistic missile submarine was sent to the South Atlantic to potentially attack Argentina. This has been denied by senior British government figures as well as the commander of the submarine in question: can we therefore name it as Resolution -- and be clearer that this was reported at the time, rather than just post facto?
- The British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina's invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982 due to the commitments the British government had made to not use these weapons.: Hm -- can we know the cause and effect here for sure -- is it impossible that the Argentines considered the British commitment to be unreliable, but also that (e. g.) the missiles wouldn't work, they would be able to intercept them, it was worth the risk, etc etc? Later, we suggest that they were more reassured that the superpowers would stop the British from launching nuclear weapons, which implies that they didn't think Britain's commitment meant all that much.
- I've tweaked the wording here. The sources all agree that the Argentines weren't at all worried about this issue. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good change -- it was the 1–1 link between the two statements, rather than each of them individually, that was the issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Falkland Islands is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean and a British Overseas Territory. There has been a long-running sovereignty dispute over the islands between Argentina and the British government. : as it's now over forty years later, I would couch this in 1982 terms. Put another way, if the dispute gets settled tomorrow, we shouldn't have to change this sentence.
- Given that the dispute is still ongoing and the war didn't resolve it, I think that this wording is OK. It also helps to explain the post-war squabbling over whether the UK had stationed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. If the dispute is ever resolved, I'd be happy to update this! Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- My issue is that, when you think about it, this material isn't actually relevant. It isn't important to what happened in 1982 that the Falklands are a BOT in 2024, or that there has been a long-running dispute in 2024 -- it matters what the status of that dispute was in 1982. I think we'd be on safer ground to talk about some of the key developments in Anglo-Argentine relations and the Falklands dispute in the decades preceding the war. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've tweaked the wording a bit here. The history of the dispute isn't really relevant to this article: what I think is significant is to briefly indicate that there was a long running dispute (to help explain to readers why such an unlikely and now somewhat little known war took place) and that the dispute continues given it's relevant to the section of the article covering developments since the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The British government decided to liberate the Falklands: consider retake as more neutral (from the Argentine perspective, they were de-liberating them).
- This campaign was very risky for the British and required the deployment of substantial military forces at a great distance from the UK.: a bit woolly, I think -- we probably should have said how far the Falklands were from the UK earlier, so "a great distance" is both vague and, in an ideal world, unnecessary. Similarly, "substantial military forces" -- by 2024 British standards, yes, but by almost anyone else's it was a pretty small operation, at least initially. Aren't military campaigns inherently risky, especially for the people taking part? Do we mean militarily risky (they might have lost) or politically? I think there's something here, but it would be worth recouching it in terms of what made this campaign more risky than others.
- I've tweaked the wording here to make it clearer: in short, the British forces weren't significantly superior to the Argentine forces, especially due to the distance the operation was conducted from the UK. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This made the UK the third country to deploy these weapons: after...? I know it's not particularly relevant, but if we're going to make readers ask the question, it seems fair to answer it given that we can do so very quickly.
- I've added that this was after the US and USSR. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines were equipped with 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme.: a total of 100 or 100 each? MOS:FIGURES would like "four" in figures for consistency.
- 135 warheads in total. I've tweaked the wording here to hopefully clarify this. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the American-owned warheads were assigned to British Army units in Germany.: I think a very brief comment on the British Army of the Rhine and what it was doing in Germany would be useful here.
- That seems outside the article's scope to be honest, but I've adjusted the wording to be clearer. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it would hurt to explain that they were intended to be used against the Warsaw Pact in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe (or at least to deter that from happening), but not a major issue -- the current framing works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was legal for the UK to deploy nuclear weapons to other locations in the South Atlantic Ocean.: from my very limited reading on this topic, it's a tricky question as to whether a given breach of a treaty is technically illegal. Suggest "it would not have breached the treaty...".
- Nuclear powered ships: hyphenate as a compound modifier.
- Done. Thank you for these detailed and thoughtful comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
A few more:
- the strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons which had developed due to their devastating effects - often labelled the "nuclear taboo: MOS:DASH -- use either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash here.
- recapture the islands by force: is there any other way to recapture some islands?
- Yes, the British could have blockaded them or similar to force the Argentinians to give them up. For instance, the British seriously considered landing troops on an isolated part of West Falkland and building a military airfield instead of attacking the main Argentine forces on East Falkland as part of a strategy to sustain a blockade and intensify diplomatic pressure on Argentina. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sir Michael Quinlan, who had noted in a 2013 BBC interview that Thatcher had told him after the war...: MOS:SAID: noted endorses the factual accuracy of this, which we can't do -- stated or similar needed.
- 'surveillance rounds' or 'training rounds'. The 'surveillance rounds' : MOS:' is unclear on scare quotes, but generally doesn't like them. Suggest munitions termed "surveillance rounds" or "training rounds", which sits better with that guideline and MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
- While some of the nuclear depth bombs could have been offloaded from warships at Portsmouth, this could not be done covertly: why would it need to be done covertly -- anything more than the obvious not wanting to tell the enemy what you're doing?
- It was due to the British policy of not disclosing the whereabouts of nuclear weapons - the next para notes that this was a significant consideration at the time. I've added some material earlier in the article on this to help provide context. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- concerns among some senior Royal Navy officers: a little bit weasel-y -- can we be more precise as to who and how many, or is this all "I heard that some admirals were unhappy"? Might not be much we can do here.
- Freedman states that these concerns were held by "some admirals" but isn't more specific I'm afraid. I've tweaked the wording to be slightly more specific. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the issue was raised in Parliament, the government would have confirmed that nuclear weapons would not be used but not comment on whether the warships were carrying them.: suggest decided to confirm or similar -- we can't know for sure that they would have followed through with the plan.
- This reflects the wording in the source that "there would be an unequivocal affirmation that nuclear weapons would not be used in the present context" if it was raised in Parliament. I've tweaked the wording a bit here. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- a proposal made by Foreign Secretary Francis Pym: outside journalism, more usual in BrE was "the Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym".
- I think we should indicate the publisher of Proceedings in the citation (the US Naval Institute). Is it ever cited as Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
- The United States Naval Institute Proceedings began in 1874 as The Papers and Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, though "Papers and Proceedings" shortened to "Proceedings" by 1879. Some early issues were titled "The Record of the United States Naval Institute" even as the volumes containing them had "Proceedings" in the title instead. The title permuted to "United States Naval Institute Proceedings" in 1907. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As Hawkeye7 notes, it's usually referred to as just Proceedings. I've added the publisher details. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I read Hawkeye's comment as suggesting the opposite course of action -- it might be referred to in the field as Proceedings, but its actual title is United States Naval Institute Proceedings, and we should use that. In my own line of study, we have plenty of arcane journal abbreviations: open up any classical journal and you'll see BMCR, Arch. Eph., TPhS and so on, but per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:MTAU we spell them out in full so that they are accessible to readers outside the discipline. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have a lot of use here of the British official history of the war. I wouldn't go so far as to call that unreliable, but it's definitely not fully independent. Is there anything we can do to corroborate it from other work?
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- [7] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know that's a blog, but I would definitely still take caution here -- it's good that we're not talking about works that are explicitly censored, but if the British government is choosing who writes the book and (indirectly) the sources to which they have access, we can't call the work fully independent. That doesn't mean we should throw it out altogether when it's known to be a good work of scholarship, but I would be looking for corroborating sources where possible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I already have checked every available reference, many of which cite Freedman. Hennessy and Jinks re-assessed some matters that Freedman considered and ended up largely agreeing with him (Hennessy is an expert on British nuclear weapons policies and deployments). The main discrepancy I found is in relation to Thatcher's possible actions as covered in the last two paras of the 'During the war' section, where I've sought to explain the different views and conclusions. These differences are largely due to Sir Michael Quinlan's revelations after the official history was published. The Argentinian Government also has a different interpretation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco from Freedman and other historians, and I've also sought to cover this. The 'British nuclear weapons policies' section is also an example of where I've provided accounts by different historians on an issue Freedman has covered. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- [7] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
[edit]Placeholder. Please ping ping me once UC starts to run out of steam. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Hi Nick-D, my comments:
- Add archive URLs for
Refs #2, #5, #11, #23, #28, #30, #49-50, #52, #54, #61; Freedman 1989, Iacono 2022, Polmar 2007? Or you could just run the IA bot and it will archive all these for you. The sites hosting these sources will never go down in all probability, but their URLs may change and prudence never hurts anyways.
- Link to Hans M. Kristensen in the biblio, and David Leigh & Ian Cobain in the refs as done for other authors?
- Will be doing spotchecks tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hawkeye7
[edit]I think what you have done with this article is awe-inspiring! I note that 5% of the content has been added this month. A few comments:
- "Prior to the Falklands War the British government had also provided a commitment not to use its nuclear weapons against countries that did not possess these weapons." My understanding is that the UK gave an undertaking that it "will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT" or "in material breach of the NPT" (emphasis mine). Argentina had not signed the NPT. Consider adding that it did not do so until 1995. The reader might infer too much into the fact that Argentina did not have nuclear weapons; at the time, but there was grave concern about Argentina's nuclear weapons program. [8]
- This is covered by the second para of the 'Pre-war' section. The sources note that while technically Argentina wasn't a non-nuclear power the UK treated it as such. I've added some extra material on Argentina; the sources don't note that the British had any concern over its nuclear program during the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reader might also infer that this was some solemn undertaking by the UK government, but it modified it in 1990 in response to the threat of chemical and biological weapons from Iraq, so the current stance is that "Security assurances extended to other countries by the UK are now subject to review 'if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary". [9]
- The article covers what the relevant British policy was at the time of the war. I've added material to the lead on the relevant international norms (it's striking that the Cold War era British military didn't even consider using these weapons). Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Change the single quotes around "nuclear taboo" to double quotes?
- "conventional British forces could not be deployed at such a distance from the UK". There was a tiny garrison and an ice patrol vessel on station. Suggest "sufficient conventional forces to recapture the islands by force".
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment from Noswall59
[edit]Just a very quick comment as I don't have time to review this in full. The article (very interesting!) mentions Thatcher's purported views on using nuclear weapons in the war, citing Hennessy and Jinks (2016) and Quinlan's interview (2013). Have you checked Charles Moore's biography of Thatcher? I think volume 1 looked at the Falklands War. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC).
- That's a good suggestion - I'll see if I can find a copy. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Somewhere in a room in Seattle Center is a large map of the world, festooned with yellow pins. They tell the story of how a Seattle indie music station turned into a national, even international, audio institution. KEXP-FM (or KEXP, as you'll see it anywhere that isn't pedantic about call sign suffixes) started as KCMU-FM, the 10-watt campus radio station of the University of Washington, in 1972, but it was in the right place at the right time to become one of the standard-bearers for alternative music in a city that broke artists like Kurt Cobain and Soundgarden. After a turbulent early 1990s that included a listener boycott, the university's decision to split management from its public radio station and put it under the computing department, of all places, served as a critical technological catalyst for what it became later after partnering with the Experience Music Project in 2001: an independently owned and operated powerhouse with FM signals in Seattle and San Francisco, studios in Seattle that are a regular stop for touring acts and double as a community space, a massive streaming fanbase (of which I am now a part as a direct result of this project), and a prominent feature of the indie media landscape.
While I have brought five television stations to FA, this is a massive moment for radio station coverage on the English Wikipedia, as there has not been a new FA in radio stations (some 25,000-plus titles in total) since WINC (AM) in 2014. A significant thanks goes out to Maiacosis, who wrote about 15 percent of this page including programming descriptions and provided some of the images used in this article. I also appreciate Lee Vilenski for his 2022 GA review and the Phoenix Suns's gnarly blowout in Game 7 of the 2022 Western Conference semifinals for spurring me to distract myself with a major writing project. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:KEXP_logo_(black_on_orange).svg is confusing me. The source field says orange was added to match the Instagram picture, but the Instagram picture has orange on the bars, not the background; none of the versions linked have an orange background. Is this actually a version used by them, or did we make it up? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Odd indeed. They don't use a hard background with it, but that is their brand orange. I decided to strip the orange and leave a skin invert class to satisfy the original concern about darkmode visibility, Nikkimaria. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]- "... the station began to grow into one with an international listener base ...": suggest "... began to acquire an ...".
- Done
- "began formulating a plan to create a second UW station, one that would be run by students": suggest shortening to "began planning to create a second UW station that would be run by students".
- Done
- "Noonan had come from San Francisco, where he was aware of other college stations": do you mean that there were multiple student-run radio stations in San Francisco?
- Yes. The original quote is, “There were student activities and protests and all these things going on, and none of that information was getting to the students; it just wasn’t being processed. The only thing the UW had was The Daily, and I had worked at some stations back in California that were interviewing people from the Black Panthers; people who were very active in movements back in those days,” he says. “I felt that the students needed an outlet, a voice.”
- "While there were so few listeners in 1975 that UW administrators ordered a programming overhaul, by 1981, the station was starting to become more adventurous musically". The use of "while" implies there's a logical connection between the two halves of the sentence, but there doesn't appear to be -- "so few listeners" is not in opposition to "adventurous musically" in any way. And the only example of adventurousness given is airing new wave music; this doesn't seem an adventurous thing to do in 1981, when, if my memory is not leading me astray, New Wave was a major (and mainstream) commercial force. I was in the UK at the time, though -- maybe it meant something different in the US? In the UK it meant bands like Elvis Costello and Talking Heads. From some comments further down the article about KJET dropping their alternative music format it seems you're using New Wave to mean alternative but that would not have been the nomenclature back then.
- This gets gnarly. The New Wave label was contemporary for the period, for sure (some of the stuff I went back and was able to make into public clippings emphasizes this). It seems new wave evolved into alternative? I could use guidance here.
- "KZAM ... changed due to low ratings": I think this means that KZAM dropped New Wave music but I think it should be clearer.
- Reworded for clarity
- Suggest dropping the sentence "A power boost also came" and starting a new paragraph at that point instead.
- Done
- "... the beginning of stereo broadcasts for the first time ...": "beginning" is redundant with "for the first time".
- Done
- "commercial competition in the form of KJET which had adopted the format in 1982": I don't know what "the format" refers to here.
- Clarified
- "foundation of Sub Pop": suggest "foundation of record label Sub Pop".
- Done
- "Through the UW": is this normal usage for UW? One would never use "the" in this sort of construction with UT, say, or UCLA. There are more instances of "the UW" later in the article.
- It's all over their website. There is no specific entry for it, but there are lots of sentences on the UW brand guide with it: It shows that the UW is authoritative, intentional and thoughtful, referring specifically to the UW.
- "it remains on KEXP's schedule" needs an "as of".
- Done
- "two shows hosted by black DJs were added to daytime slots that were exclusively held by Richards, Cheryl Waters, and Kevin Cole": suggest "had been held", if I have the intended meaning correct. What does "exclusively" mean?
- Tried to reword.
- Re the analysis by Tableau Software, giving the "broadened" statement first is a bit confusing -- I assume the station broadened its mix in response to the analysis? In which case reversing the order of the clauses would be easier on the reader.
- Done.
- You might consider an internal link from the first text mention of the Gathering Space to the section about it lower in the article.
- Done.
- "The live room holds special significance as it serves as the backdrop for the station's video podcasts". What would be lost if this were shortened to "The live room serves as the backdrop for ..."?
- Nothing at all. (This is the section Maiacosis contributed)
- What is a "correlating fluid simulation"?
- What are "activated festoon lights"?
- Reworded this area to be a little less...dense.
- "The Gathering Space has always included a coffee shop early since its inception". Triply redundant; how about "The Gathering Space has included a coffee shop since its inception"?
- Done
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Should have responded to everything. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [10] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good find. I think that does it. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie Outright missed "formulating" — my eyes glazed over. I found a source [10] (not linked in article; shadow library) and added it as a footnote. It hints at how nebulous format labeling really was for this. You'll also see "new music" in the early years. The term alternative had not come into use in 1981–82 for this music. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did you mean to keep "formulating" or just miss it? Other than that everything looks good except for the New Wave/alternate genre name issue. I am sure I will be supporting, but I'd like to see that sorted out first. Perhaps try posting at one of the music WikiProjects -- I think WP:ALBUMS is pretty well attended. What can you actually tell from your sources? Do they make it clear that the format hasn't changed in decades and also that it was called New Wave once (and I think it needs the caps) and alternative now? If we're going to connect dots across decades where the sources uses different names we need to be able to prove that they are the same thing. Or could we do something that simply reflects the sources such as (and of course I'm making this up): "histories of the station comment that it hasn't changed its format for X years, though it now describes it as alternative rock, instead of New Wave, as it was known in the early 1980s". Or whatever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Neutralhomer
[edit]- As the editor on the WINC (AM) article, I'd be remiss if I didn't give my 2 cents to this FAC, which will finally add a second FAC to the WPRS project.
- "By 1992, ten years after becoming listener-supported, KCMU's budget had grown from $20,000 to $180,000. In addition to the two technical improvements in the 1980s, it had added more paid staffers and listeners." Would it be possible to add a "in 2024 dollars" part to the budget line? I've seen it done on other articles, kinda connects it to today.
- Added as a footnote.
- I noticed that there isn't anything mentioned about KEXP being the official "soundtrack" station for the Seattle Kraken. A couple sources for that.
- Already there, last paragraph, "Move to Seattle Center".
- Just a minor quibble, in the Championing the "Seattle sound" section, I don't see anything about Alice in Chains. Is there anything that you or Maiacosis could find on them and KEXP to tie it all together with the rest of the Seattle grunge bands? Yes, I am an AiC fan. :)
- I did a special search and did not come up with anything.
- Other than that, I see no real issues. It'll be good to finally have another article on the list with WINC. :) I pass the torch. Good work to all involved. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Neutralhomer: Responded to all pending issues. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apologizes on the slow reply, work got in the way. No worries on the Alice in Chains one. That wasn't a real requirement for me, just a something I'd like to have seen. :) Beyond that, all changes made, this has my full Support - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review by Generalissima
[edit]As I used to live right next to KEXP, I feel an obligation to look over the sources here.
- Sources look consistently formatted.
- There's not a title for ref. 31 (Sexton, Paul; Tilli, Robbert (May 31, 1997)), causing a CS1 error.
- Before I go do a spot check, I wanted to note that there is a 2020 academic source on KEXP: Brick, Mortar, and Screen: Networked Digital Media, Popular Music, and the Reinvention of the Public Radio Station by Christopher Cwynar. https://doi.org/10.1080/19376529.2020.1738438. I would advise incorporating this into the article, as a specialist academic article is just about the best thing to incorporate into a subject like this to ensure that coverage is truly comprehensive. This would probably require a shortened footnote style of some sort for ease of use.
Let me know when you've gotten the Cwynar source incorporated in, Sammi Brie, and I'll do a source review of the rest. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima Journals do not normally factor into my work, but KEXP is not a normal project. There were some promising tangents in this one, and I added not one but three references off of that. I only cited Cwynar three times, so I didn't feel the need to dip into an sfn (like I did with Bridge at WBPX-TV). Also fixed a source I failed to clip and the missed title on the very recently added Sexton/Tilli source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the unlikely winner of the 1986 World Snooker Championship, who was known for his carefree attacking play and his shoes. After a largely unsuccessful year as champion, he reached the final again in 1987. He did win further, lesser, titles as a professional and retired in 2005. A survivor of seven heart attacks, he is still playing on the seniors snooker circuit. Thanks in advance for your improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Due to lack of participation so far, I'm pinging HurricaneHiggins, Rodney Baggins, Amakuru, Sammi Brie and SchroCat (as contributors to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Pulman/archive1) to see if they would like to comments here. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Is no image of the subject available? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria I've searched, but not found any free images. I don't think there is any argument for a fair use image. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about... an almost forgotten election for an almost forgotten office. Yet interesting both for the winner, the former viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, and for the fact that the two runners up actually tied in the next election, and an obscure means of breaking the tie had to be invoked. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- Lead images are quite small and difficult to see
- I've replaced the image of Ashtown with a portrait shot which may help here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Bird_notes_and_news_(1912)_(14562015579).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
- I've added some and tried to find an individual photographer without luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Baron_Ashtown.jpeg: per the UK tag, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was. Ditto File:Lord_Farnham.jpeg.
- Done and also for the new Ashtown image.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Llewee comments and support
[edit]Hello Wehwalt, I am going to make a few suggestions for this nomination.--Llewee (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Background
- A brief explanation of what a United Kingdom peer was and how it was a separate category from a Irish peer would be useful in the background section. I think a brief explanation of what the house of Lords is might be helpful as well.
- I've added something along those lines, at least drawing the distinction between UK peers and Irish peers.
- "This made it inconvenient for Irish peers to vote, and some did not." - Was this because they felt uncomfortable swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state or just for practical reasons?
- It was inconvenient for practical reasons. Most IRPs were Unionist and had no objection to swearing an oath to the British crown. It was just inconvenient for practical reasons. There were cases of Irish JPs traveling to England and in one case to Saint Petersburg to administer the oath in the contested 1825 IRP election.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Elections for Irish representative peers lapsed..." — What does this paragraph about events after 1922 have to do with an election in 1908? If it is going to included at all I would suggest moving it to aftermath.
- I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok that's understandable--Llewee (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is part of the background to explain why IRPs disappeared. I work from the assumption that anyone chancing on this article will never have heard of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Candidates and campaign
- "threw himself off a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel" — this sounds like an oddly flippant tone to me, maybe just say "jumped off a..."
- Changed to "jumped".
- "who had been suffering from illness, was killed immediately" — I would suggest taking out the clause about an illness, bluntly I don't think that much matters when you have fallen out of a high window. Also "died" probably works better than "killed" in this instance.
- Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
- Fatally injured should be fine. The grammar of that sentence feels quite awkward, could it be reorganised so his illness is introduced first and then his death. (e.g Francis Browne, 4th Baron Kilmaine, an Irish representative peer since 1890, was mentally unwell. On 9 November 1907, he jumped from a fourth-storey balcony at his Paris hotel and was fatally injured.--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The newspapers were circumspect in discussing his illness, the one I'm using for a source says he was suffering from insomnia. Let's just stick to the bare essential that he had died.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suicide is a touchy subject on Wikipedia; even though he is long dead, I would rather put in information that explains the action. He was definitely having issues; they had set someone to watch him, which he evaded. How about "fatally injured"?
- "Writs were subsequently issued in the election for a successor as representative peer" — Shouldn't "in the" be "for an"?
- It could go either way but "for an election for a successor" sounds kinda odd.
- "(who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" — Did that mean he couldn't be a contender?
- Since he had a seat for life, there was no point in his running. The press made a mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "(the last ever to be created)" — I'm not sure this is particularly relevant but if it is going to be included then clarify "before Irish independence in 1922".
- Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, that is fine--Llewee (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Since the Irish peerage still exits even if IRPs no longer do, it would still be possible for one to be created. Therefore, if I said before 1922, that begs the question of after.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "appropriate title as he took up his position as viceroy" — Clarify (possibly in a footnote) that peers were given the title of Lord which was prestigious.
- I've added a source to stress he did not want to go to India as Mr Curzon. It doesn't actually say that it is a prestigious title but perhaps it is close enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "he found that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons" — I think this could worded more bluntly "he was too unwell to campaign for reelection to the commons"
- I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's understandable. It just struck me as slightly odd that he was well enough to be a Peer but not well enough to be an MP.--Llewee (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, perhaps 'felt' instead of "found"? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. Curzon certainly lived a very active remaining 17 years of his life, during which time he came close to being prime minister. I'd rather not rephrase in that way. He had back trouble and he was certainly devastated by the recent death of his wife Mary, but I haven't been able to identify a physical ailment.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "considered it undesirable that a recent viceroy fight for a parliamentary seat" — Why was this?
- He considered it undignified that a former high representative of the King-Emperor scrap for votes. I've added something.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- " the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this, and soon after, resigned. The new prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, also refused Curzon a United Kingdom peerage" — Why did these prime ministers oppose him receiving a peerage?
- Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you could just say (perhaps in a footnote) that he was from a different party and disagreed with the government on India policy.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because Curzon differed on Indian policy with the Secretary of State for India, William St John Brodrick, which led to his resignation as Viceroy, and Brodrick put the kibosh on the peerage with both Edward and Balfour. When Curzon appealed to the new PM, Campbell-Bannerman, citing precedent that an honour for the returning viceroy was not a political matter (Balfour [and Curzon] was a Conservative and a Unionist and C-B was a Liberal), C-B hemmed and hawed made vague promises but eventually said there was opposition in his party to doing it and he wasn't going to. Curzon got his earldom in the Coronation Honours of 1911, after the deaths of both Edward and C-B. All of which is too much detail in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life." — This is a bit non-neutral, maybe just say "support his campaign".
- It's not being said with Wikipedia's voice but as a paraphrase of what Curzon wrote.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "with considerable satisfaction" — this sounds odd to me, maybe say "with approval"
- I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It feels like a slightly quaint term to me, but it's not a major issue.--Llewee (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to stick as close to the source as possible. It says "In Unionist circles here the candidature of Lord Curzon as a representative peer for Ireland is regarded with the highest satisfaction". I don't think approval is the same thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Curzon was opposed for the seat" — I think it would be clearer to say "some opposed Curzon's candidacy".
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "They therefore saw no reason to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime to accommodate an Englishman." — I think a more neutral way of wording this would be "They felt this would in effect reduce the Irish representation in Westminster for the rest of Curzon's lifetime."
- I don't know about feeling it, it would. Curzon wasn't Irish and normally the IRPs were elected from among Irish residents. I've rephrased somewhat, look it over.
- "He had a contentious relationship with his Irish tenantry" — I feel more information could be added here, why was there a boycott against him?
- Added.
- "but considered Curzon's candidacy hard on peers" — I think changing "hard" to "unfair" would sound more formal.
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "wrote to three candidates, including Curzon," — Weren't there only three candidates in the race?
- Lord de Vesci apparently had some designs on the seat. He got the 1909 vacancy, he might have been one of the three. We don't know what was meant.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "since his "happy release from that country", he had ceased to vote" — perhaps add a footnote say he had left Ireland in X year to take up Y position or wherever he'd gone
- I assume he sold his Irish lands, but what he meant would be rather speculative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "for Irish representative peer" — Shouldn't it be "peers" rather than "peer"?
- Yes. Good point.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "in the political wilderness" — this could be worded more bluntly (e.g out of politics)
- " The Kerry News reported that the former prime minister, Lord Palmerston..." — I'm not sure what this sentence has got to do with the election.
- Palmerston (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston) was an Irish peer who had a seat in the House of Commons. The point of the discussion was that Palmerston seems to have feared that the Torys would elect him a representative peer and send him against his will to the House of Lords, and so did not claim the right to vote for representative peer following the argument that was used against Curzon that you had to be have claimed and had upheld the right to vote for IRP in order to be elected an IRP. Of course that argument did not prevail against Curzon. Possibly Palmerston was taking no chances.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Election
- "like the one later that year in November" — This clause referencing another election which isn't the focus of the page isn't really necessary.
- Since that election involved two of the candidates from this one, its worth noting that it still attracted a considerable turnout even without Curzon's participation.
- "The Irish Times was confident that Curzon would be seated, but stated that..." — I'd say change "but" to "while" because the quote doesn't contradict the first part.
- There's sort of an implicit contradiction, because the clause is meant to say that even if Curzon was not seated, he will still have received a considerable honour. But I've changed to "and".
- "though it required that the peers voting in an election for Irish representative peers have claimed a right to vote" — change "have" to "had"
- I think "had" is correct. I could be persuaded otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Aftermath
- "has the distinction of being" — change this to "was"
- Was is ambiguous. The books are now closed on the IRPs and Curzon was the only one ever elected who did not live in Ireland, but if I said "was", the reader might wonder if that was true as of 1908 or is that still true. I've changed to "is".
- I'm not going to get back to this until Friday or possibly the weekend. I just answered the ones I felt I could easily answer. The rest will follow--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done now. Proceeding to deal with Gog's, then the IR.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Llewee, are we good?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Llewee, I've added that footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, Ok it seems good to go--Llewee (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "Background", first sentence: You don't give, nor is it possible to calculate, the size of the electorate. It can be implied from "A total of 134 ballots were sent to eligible peers" in the next section, but IMO it would be helpful to explicitly state it at the end of this paragraph.
- Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords". Something like 'to fill a vacancy among the 28 Irish representative peers at that time elected to the British House of Lords from there ranks by the 134 Irish peers' might help a reader to grasp more rapidly what this is about.
- Included. It's Irish peers eligible to vote. Remember Curzon was not at the time eligible to vote.
- "and that Ashtown had gained the most votes among those so eligible." I read this as Ashtown gaining the most votes among those eligible to vote. Is it possible to rephrase to clarify?.
- I tried to avoid a repetition, but I've spelt it out.
- " but Farnham was chosen to fill the next vacancy." Perhaps add '... also in 1908'?
- "one house of the British Parliament". It seems confusing to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom as the British Parliament. Given that Britain can be considered a component of the state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland it seems an unnecessary complication.
- "signed by two Lords Temporal". Why the upper-case initial letters?
- No idea. Done.
- "Lord Chancellor would instruct the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to have the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper conduct an election". Similarly.
- Ditto.
- "returnable 20 January 1908" → 'returnable by 20 January 1908'?
- No. The writ is returnable, not the ballots. I'm pretty sure that's the proper legal language
- "who had actually been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905". I am not sure that "actually" adds anything. Perhaps just delete, or replace with 'already'?
- " He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created), to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy", Perhaps ' He had accepted an Irish peerage (the last ever to be created) in 1898, to give him the title of "Baron Curzon" or "Lord Curzon" as he took up his position as viceroy'?
- Link commoner.
- "including replacing local labourers with Scottish replacement". Is it possible to avoid using "replacing" and "replacement" within six words?
- "though this could not be proved." Perhaps 'though this was never proved'?
- "The M. P. for Liverpool Scotland". Assuming this is written in UKvar, member of parliament is abbreviated to MP.
- "The January 1908 election, like the one later that year in November, attracted a high turnout from the voters." Is the number of votes cast known?
- No.
Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I haven't specifically replied, I've just gone ahead and done it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
SC Interesting article – I'd quite forgotten the constitutional position regarding Irish peer elections. Just a couple of very small points from me:
- The Malcomson quote refers to the "conservative party": I think—in line with MOS:CONFORM—this should be "Conservative Party"
- "Lentaigne traveled to London": I think it likely he travelled to London
I hope these help. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from KJP1
[edit]Wehwalt - hope you are keeping well. And what a wonderfully obscure topic (see below)! Some comments/suggestions from me.
- Lead
- Given the topic's obscurity - I doubt one reader in a thousand will have heard of the Irish Representative Peers (IRPs)! - I think the lead needs a brief explanation of the wider context. I accept that you have it in Background, and that there is a link, but I think a short para. in the Lead, probably the second, could explain; their creation - the Acts of Union; their purpose - Irish representation in the UK Parliament after the abolition of the Irish Parliament; and their, oddly small, constituency - fewer than 150 electing 28. I think the third and fourth para.s could be combined to allow for a new second to cover this.
- "Curzon, despite a minimal connection with Ireland" - that "minimal" connection being....? I assume it's his Irish peerage, given that he'd never set foot in Ireland, and didn't own land there. You mention the peerage in the next sentence. I wonder if the nature of the minimal connection could be made explicit. Perhaps something like - "Curzon contested the election as a means of returning to parliament after being denied a United Kingdom peerage by the prime minister, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. His connection to Ireland was minimal; born in Derbyshire, the eldest son of an English peer, he held no land in Ireland and his association was limited to the Irish peerage he had been granted in 1898 on his appointment as Viceroy of India. This slender connection sparked opposition, and his late entry into the race also worked against him. Moreover, he had never asked the House of Lords to affirm his right to vote in Irish representative peer elections, a requirement for participation as a voter, which led some to argue that he was ineligible to stand as a candidate."
- Background
- "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as representative peer" - "nor would promotion to a peerage of the United Kingdom end his tenure as a representative peer"?
- "Each of the eligible voters would receive a ballot in duplicate by post with a space for the name of the peer whom the voter desired to elect. The ballot was to be signed" - do the sources say what they did with the second copy? Keep it?
- "the voter's seal affixed, and returned to the Crown Office in Dublin" - link seal and Crown Office?
- "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peer" - "the right to vote in elections for Irish representative peers"?
- "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer, Lord Kilmorey, who died in 1961," - perhaps just, "following the death of the last surviving Irish representative peer Lord Kilmorey in 1961,"?
- Candidates and campaign
- "Ivo Bligh, 8th Earl of Darnley (who had already been elected an Irish representative peer in 1905)" - I don't follow this. As Darnley was already an IRP, and, as you explain above, only death or dishonour terminated this, how was he again eligible? Were the press just wrong? The first source explains why he wasn't in the Lords as an English peer, which is fine, but he was as an IRP from 1905, so why would he be eligible twice?
- "...Curzon to be given an earldom, the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, opposed this" - given that this was unusual, going against the general precedent, and that the king specifically asked for it to happen, I wonder whether a brief explanation as to why Balfour opposed an earldom would be helpful, perhaps in a footnote. Kenneth Young covers it quite extensively in his Balfour. In essence, Balfour was concerned over the timing, following on from Curzon's resignation and his publicly-expressed opposition to government policy; "it would never do so to time this public recognition of his services as to suggest that it was in the remotest degree connected to his action in the Curzon-Kitchener dispute. In that dispute he was in the wrong. It would be absurd to take a step which would be universally interpreted as meaning I believed him to be in the right." (Balfour to Lord Knollys 7 October 1905) (Young, p=242).
- "he felt that his health would not permit him to seek a return to the Commons, and that King Edward VII considered that it marred the dignity of the viceregal office" - I'm not sure what the second that is doing?
- "asked that the voters look with favour on the only way he could see to re-enter public life" - perhaps, "asked that the voters look with favour on his candidacy as the only route by which he could re-enter public life"?
- "The Manchester Guardian thought it appropriate that Curzon had been backed by Abercorn and Londonderry" - is "appropriate" quite right here? The Guardian is being sarcastic and I wonder whether something like "telling" would better convey that?
- "because Curzon was the heir to a British title, and when he inherited that title, he would not vacate his place as Irish representative peer. They therefore did not want to diminish the Irish representation in Westminster during Curzon's lifetime." - would something like this be a little simpler?, "because Curzon, as heir to a British title, would retain his status as an Irish representative peer on his succession, thereby diminishing Irish representation at Westminster."?
- "the explosion of a crude bomb" - I appreciate the source does talk of a "crude" bomb, but am not sure what it adds. It's presumably something like "makeshift"?
- "few if any were Irish nationalists, which 80 percent of Irish constituencies were represented by" - aside from the placing of the preposition, I don't think one would expect many Irish peers at this time to be nationalists. But of Home Rulers, there were a few, David Cannadine suggests at most half a dozen. {The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy p=533}. I wonder if something like this would be a bit clearer, "and very few supported Home Rule for Ireland, the official position of the Irish Parliamentary Party which held over 80 percent of the Irish constituencies."?
- Election
- "like the 2nd duke of Abercorn" - it may be that the source has it, and I think MoS suggests it, but the lower-case d looks odd, especially for a specific Duke.
- Aftermath
- "were placed in an ordinary goblet" - to me, it looks like a wine glass and you use "glass" above. Would "wine glass" do? The blue-link for goblet is rather ecclesiastical.
Hope these are of some use. Obviously, they are mainly suggestions, which can be considered and enacted, or ignored, as you think fit. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review - PASS
[edit]- Just wondering why News Letter and Freeman's Journal have places of publication, but the other newspapers don't – is there a reason?
- Yes, since there is no description of the location in the name, and these are relatively obscure Irish journals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- For Anson, I'm not sure you need to have that it's in the UK – none of the other sources have a country.
- It's not part of the criteria (and I don't take it into account), but it may be worth archiving the websites? (You have for one, but not the others)
- I'm not adept at it, and would prefer that other people with bots do it.
- SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The Siege of Baghdad shook the world. The end of the Abbasid Caliphate, the zenith of the Mongol conquests, the foundation of a new empire in the Middle East. Legends sprang up around the siege, and it became a byword for wanton destruction—but was it?
This article passed a GA nomination from sawyer777 earlier this year, and I now bring its nomination to FAC. If successful, it will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]I'll have a look at this. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 02:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Background
Could Persia be linked in the lead and body?- Done.
- What variety of English is being used? I see "utilised" rather than "utilized", but "centers" rather than "centres" and "vassalize" rather than "vassalise".
- Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
- I take it you are using Oxford spelling. "centers" and "epicenter" still need to be changed to "centres" and "epicentre".
- Should be standardised to BrE now, which allows both -ise and -ize in many cases, I believe.
"...in the words of Justin Marozzi." How about "...in the words of English historian Justin Marozzi." to tell the readers who he is."In that year Chormaqan..." Suggest to add a comma: "In that year, Chormaqan..."- Done both.
"Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was extremely leisurely by Mongol standards." Suggest to change to "Hulegu's progress from Karakorum was slow by Mongol standards." Leisurely feels too imprecise. It wasn't literally leisurely was it?- Yes, it was. done in a relaxed way, without hurrying. There was feasting, hunting, diplomatic negotations, more banquets, etc. It took almost three years to travel from Mongolia to Persia, a journey which could have been made in a number of months.
19 November." Can a year be added to that date?- Added.
"...while Gerdkuh held out for fifteen years, only falling in 1271." Is this part relevant to the siege of Baghdad, seeing as it take place over a decade after the event.- Moved into the nearby note. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Baghdad campaign
"...and so he refused." Suggest changing to "...so he refused."- I think that works less well.
"...meaning Baghdad was in a difficult position..." Suggest changing to "...placing Baghdad in a difficult position..."- Adjusted.
"...who had been occupied with troubles to the northwest." What kind of troubles?- Defined.
"...this was just "provocative bluster"..." Who is saying this quote. I don't think this should be stated in Wikipedia's voice.- Rephrased.
"The assault on Baghdad's flood-weakened walls..." I think the flood-weakened walls should be mentioned in the above paragraph at "the walls were in disrepair".- Moved.
"According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, an Armenian historian..." Suggest changing to "According to Kirakos Gandzaketsi, a 13th-century Armenian historian..."- Good idea.
Legacy
- No comments.
Those are all my comments for now. Steelkamp (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, Steelkamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've struck though the comments that have been addressed. There is one left which I think you have missed. I would like to do a second read-through of the whole article before deciding to support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]My comments:
- In the lead, "prince" does not need to be linked, doing so is creating SEAOFBLUE.
- Adjusted.
- "near to": remove the "to" from both instances in the article?
- Done
- "Assassins": add a apostrophe after since we have a possessive noun, or change to just "Assassin"?
- Added an apostrophe; the Assassins were never referred to in the singular.
- "ordered him put to death": rephrase to "ordered him to be put to death"? Though former may be grammatically correct, latter flows much better.
- I disagree; I find the latter excessively wordy.
- "were still quite delusional": Is this per the sources? Otherwise, "delusional" seems too strong a word for Wiki since we have to be neutral. Atwood 2004 uses "unrealistic" which is quite better.
- I think "delusional" is somwhat tame—al-Musta'sim has been described by sources as "pathologically avaricious", "in a state of mental imbecility", "extremely reckless", "weak, vain, incompetent and cowardly", and "utterly lumpen and uncontrolled".
- "Seljuk, Georgian, and Armenian vassals": link "Georgian" to Kingdom of Georgia, since we haven't linked to it in the article at all even though we have the corresponding categories?
- Done.
- "disrespectful behaviour towards Hulegu's envoys": Any details which can be added to the article?
- Added a phrase.
- "Baiju returned to the vanguard at Irbil": Our last mention of Baiju says he had rejoined Hulegu at Hamadan. Where was he in the interim between Hamadan and Irbil, was he not with the main army?
- Yes, he rejoined Hulegu and the main army at Hamadan, where they decided to attack Baghdad, and then he rode back to the vanguard, which he commanded, which had remained at Irbil.
- Link to Karkh?
- Done.
- Translate daruyachi as admin officers per NOFORCELINK?
- Provided.
- "by the Ottomans in 1534,": the comma is not necessary, consider removing?
- Done.
- Provide 26673137 as the JSTOR ID for Biran 2019? I can't remember the exact MOS but I read that the policy is to provide multiple access options for sources.
- Done.
- Consider removing the second link to JA Boyle in Boyle 1968? It does not serve any purpose as far as I can tell.
- MOS:DUPLINK does not apply to citations.
- Have you read this recent article by Brack, Biran and Amitai: [11]? It questions the occurrence of a plague during the siege. I have not read it yet but if you do read it before I can, please let me know if it can be used here.
- I had not; it seems to not question the occurrence of a plague, but rather the plague i.e. the disease caused by the Yersinia pestis bacterium. I have added a half-sentence citing it in the article.
- Link to Cambridge University Press as done for other publishers?
- Done, through Template:Cambridge History of Iran.
- Add 10.2307/3632138 as the DOI and 3632138 as the JSTOR ID for Smith 1975?
- That is essentially the same link three times, but done.
That's all from me on the text. A great article overall, with more details than I expected would have been extant. Matarisvan (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for an excellent set of comments Matarisvan. Replies above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I want to do a source text but some of the sources are inaccessible. Will you be able to wikimail 5-10 supporting sources to me for spot checks? Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The files are very big, so that could be troublesome. I could provide quotations on-wiki, Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Alright with me. The sources that I can access, I will. For the ones I will need quotations for, I will ask. Planning to do the source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The files are very big, so that could be troublesome. I could provide quotations on-wiki, Matarisvan? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- A support from me for promotion to FA class. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I want to do a source text but some of the sources are inaccessible. Will you be able to wikimail 5-10 supporting sources to me for spot checks? Matarisvan (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]AirshipJungleman29, here goes:
- All sources are from reliable publishers and authors.
- Add 10.12987/yale/9780300125337.001.0001 as the DOI for Jackson 2017?
- Book, DOI not needed.
- Add 10.1515/9781474417402 as the DOI for May 2018? ISBNs are different in both this one and the above one but I don't think that would affect the content.
- Book, DOI not needed.
- #1: need exact quotations.
- It's a summary of two chapters; I cannot quote all of them.
- #4: ok.
- #8: Is p. 263 the right one for Atwood 2004? That page has details on the history of Japan and Mongolia/the Mongol Empire. Also need the quotation from May 2018, accessing it is tough.
- Was meant to be p. 363. May: "Thus in 1251 Mongke became Qa’an of the Mongol Empire and began the Toluid revolution. While the transition of the position of Qa’an from the house of Ogodei to the house of Tolui..."
- #18: ok.
- #23: Jackson 2017 and Boyle 1968 ok. Need exact quotation for Lane 2003.
- "As was normal practice and as was stipulated by the Mongols’ yasa, the caliph had been presented with the clear option of submitting peacefully to Hülegü and in return of receiving Hülegü’s assurances of safety."
- None of the sources say that he asked the caliph to dismantle the defences. Or maybe I missed something. Can you provide the supporting text? Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- That part was previously removed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "As was normal practice and as was stipulated by the Mongols’ yasa, the caliph had been presented with the clear option of submitting peacefully to Hülegü and in return of receiving Hülegü’s assurances of safety."
- #38: ok.
- #41: Jackson 2017 is ok, need quotation from Chambers 1979.
- "believing that they would be allowed to retire into Syria, [the soldiers of the garrison] marched out unarmed, only to be divided into companies and slaughtered."
- #45 and #56: ok.
- #53 needs page numbers for Chambers 1979.
- Fixed a sfn mistake.
- Add 10.1163/9789004192119 as the DOI and 10.1163/j.ctt1w8h10n as the JSTOR ID for Bai︠a︡rsaĭkhan 2011? The latter is open access.
- Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR.
- Add 10.1163/9789004314726_008 as the DOI for Biran 2016?
- Book, DOI not needed.
- Add 10.2307/j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the DOI and j.ctv125jrx5.7 as the JSTOR ID for Hodous 2020?
- Book, DOI not needed. Added JSTOR
- Add 10.4324/9780203417874 as the DOI for Lane 2003?
- Book, DOI not needed.
- Add 10.4324/9781315165172 as the DOI for Lane 2022?
- Book, DOI not needed.
Mostly ok just needs the above changes and quotations. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Responses above Matarisvan. My general position is that citations to books don't need DOIs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source review is a pass then. I would appreciate it if you could comment at a PR I have running, linked here, your comments would be very helpful for improving that article. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- As you note, they are not required by the FA criteria. What the FA criteria do require are consistently formatted citations, which would not be present if those to certain books contain DOIs and those to other books do not. In any case, DOIs for books are created by adding the code of the publisher to the ISBN, meaning they essentially duplicate what is already in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's always a good idea to give readers multiple options for accessing a source. DOIs are not required per FA criteria but it does not hurt to have them. You should get comments from other reviewers on this and see what they have to say. Matarisvan (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the funerary monuments and burial of the ancient Egyptian official Kha and his wife, Merit. Their ruined funerary chapel in Deir el-Medina was known since the early 1800s but their tomb, hidden at the base of the cliffs opposite the chapel, was discovered in 1906, intact after more than 3000 years. The majority of the contents (over 440 items) were awarded to the Italian Archaeological Mission's director, Ernesto Schiaparelli, and are housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy. Being unrobbed, the tomb gives a glimpse of what a well-stocked middle class burial looked like during the height of the Eighteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Amenhotep III.
I took this article to GA last year, and through peer review earlier in the year. After picking at it a while, and with the kind mentorship of Iry-hor, I am nominating it for FAC. Merytat3n (talk) 10:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support from Tim riley
[edit]This is a top-notch article and a delight to read (as I would expect from a protégée of Iry-Hor). These few comments are all I can come up with by way of criticism:
- The article is evidently in BrE, in which case "modeled" should be "modelled".
- The work "likely" occurs 19 times in the text, and a few variations such as "probably", "possibly", "may have been" etc would relieve the monotony.
- Similarly we have seven "due to"s. A few "because of"s or "owing to"s (both, on the whole better in formal English) would help the prose along.
- "Sem-priest" – a link or explanation would be welcome.
- "further restoration was carried out in 2002, before being placed on a new padded mount in 2004" – could do with a tweak – what was placed on a new mount was not further restoration, but that which was restored.
- "the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, France" – as opposed to the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris, Peru? Paris, Outer Mongolia? Paris, Azerbaijan? And I'd be sparing, à la français, with the capital letters, here and in the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale.
- "kiosk" – in the UK a kiosk is the booth where you buy your newspapers and cigarettes outside the railway station: a brief explanation of what the term meant to the Ancient Egyptians, as at Philae, would be helpful here.
I hope these few points are helpful, and apologies if my tone is a bit tetchy: it's beastly hot and sticky in London today. Tim riley talk 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words and helpful comments! I have addressed them as best I can ^_^ Merytat3n (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- All admirably addressed. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article to FA: it meets every criterion in my view, and I hope we shall be seeing more from the nominator in due course. Tim riley talk 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship
[edit]On first glance, seems a superb article. As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.
- Kha and Merit
- "but this probably reflects the use of this king's name long after his reign" is this the general consensus of scholars or the view of one? if the latter, his/her view should be attributed.
- Trapani (2012) says: "The prenomen of Thutmosis III (Men-kheper-Re) in effect was often used on scarabs or other objects much later than the Eighteenth Dynasty, signifying that his seal-name had acquired a protective power of its own." She cites C. Adriano, The Cretulae from the Tomb of Kha and their Administrative Signiicance in a Funeral Context, CRIPEL 22 (2001), 109–122, which I don't have access to. However, page 4 of Kathyln M. Cooney's "Scarab" chapter in the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology (2008) does back this up: "Even scarab inscriptions with royal names cannot necessarily be dated to the reigns of those rulers, because such names are often inscribed long after a ruler’s death—particularly those of the 4th-Dynasty king Sneferu, the 18th-Dynasty Thutmose III (Jaeger 1982), and the 19th-Dynasty Ramesses II." Added a citation to Cooney for academic robustness. I've also clarified why Kha is unlikely to have been working in Thutmose III's reign. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "obtained a bronze pan" couple of things: 1) by "pan", I assume of the cooking variety? 2) "obtained" normally means he asked, whereas the previous sentence indicates it was a gift.
- 1) swapped to "bowl" 2) swapped to "received" Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a "gold of honour"" ... I'm not entirely sure what this means.
- Oh OOPS! Defined (+ common alternative name and translit). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Preparations for his tomb likely began in the reign of Thutmose IV, as his name occurs most frequently as a seal on vessels." The second "his" is made more ambiguous by the fact that we have referred to Kha only as he/his for a few sentences now. Would suggest changing "as his" to "whose".
- "on the style of his coffins" absolutely no clue whether this "his" refers to Kha or Amenhotep III.
- Swapped sentence around to be "Based on the style of his coffins...Kha probably died in the third decade of Amenhotep III's rule" to make it clear. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the juvenilising art style seen on the painted funerary chests" as we previously haven't discussed the funerary chests, we could remove the "the" and clearly define them as in the tomb?
- "Merit (also transcribed as Meryt[1])" I believe it's normal practice for the citation to follow the parentheses, but I could be wrong.
- It is but if the citation in question refers specifically to the contents of the parentheses, the citation goes inside. In this case, the [1] citation refers to her as Meryt not Merit as the main citation does (although technically Meryt is more correct to the hieros (mryt)). Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "She seems to have predeceased Kha. Her death was probably unexpected as she is buried in a coffin intended for him." these closely-linked sentences could be combined; if not, "she was buried" seems more natural than "she is buried", although the latter is technically correct...
- Chapel
- Might be worth adding a clarification for the unlearned, such as I, that the chapel and tomb are separate from each other.
- I mention that they are separate in the last paragraph of that section, just before "Decoration" but I can mention it again, at the risk of duplication. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "time of European interest in it, during" can be cut
- "the stele now in the Museo Egizio in Turin, Italy" should probably be "a stele"
- The back wall being damaged during the stele's removal is mentioned twice.
- Kept the "second" mention of damage in the decoration section and removed the "first" mention. Merytat3n (talk) 11:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would suggest linking Register (art).
- Tomb
- This section contains several long paragraphs; I would suggest they be split in half, especially those which comprise individual sections by themselves (MOS:OVERSECTION).
Will continue. If you have time and the inclination, I have a current FAC I would appreciate comments on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Most people are familiar with algebra from their school days, where they learned to solve equations like . However, there is also a more abstract form of algebra, which is of particular interest to mathematicians because it provides a general framework for understanding operations on mathematical objects. Thanks to Bilorv for their in-depth GA review and to Mathwriter2718 and Chatul for their peer reviews. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (Support)
[edit]- As an administrative note, I noticed this page had been semi-protected since 2008. 16 years of protection seemed excessive, so I unprotected it.
- I'm still looking at this, but I do want to say that it's a joy to see a math article which is so approachable. My training is in engineering; I'm a user of math, but not a mathematician. Most math articles (Lie algebra being a good example) make my eyes glaze ever before I get past the first sentence. In this article, I'm down to Linear algebra and I'm still following every detail. This is wonderful!
- Hello RoySmith and thanks for reviewing the article! The parts on abstract and universal algebra will get a little more challenging but this is not entirely avoidable and I hope they are still accessible enough to grasp the main ideas without feeling overwhelmed. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm working on Abstract algebra now. Slower going than before, but I'm still hanging in there :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The word algebra comes from the Arabic term الجبر (al-jabr), which originally referred to the surgical treatment of bonesetting
You can't just leave the reader hanging without giving at least some explanation of how we got from bonesetting to a high-school math class. You link to Traditional bone-setting, but that doesn't say anything about it. I did a bit of searching. "The Origin of the Term "Algebra" on JSTOR". jstor.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024. talks about this a bit while "Simplifying equations in Arabic algebra". sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 6 August 2024. suggests the connection may be entirely accidental. Either way, I think it's worth a sentence or two.- That's a good idea and the sources are helpful. I put it in a footnote since there is no consensus on the exact meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
x-y-pair
do you need both hyphens? I would think "x-y pair".- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
An equation is linear if ... no operations like exponentiation, extraction of roots, and logarithm are applied to variables
why the equivocation, i.e. "operations like"? Which operations are like those and which are unlike? My understanding is that an equation is linear if there's no power greater than 1, and things like logs and roots get included in that implicitly via their Taylor series. I think this would be better written as an explicit list of operations that are allowed, rather than a vague "stuff like this isn't allowed".- Done: I added the general form and cut the "stuff like this isn't allowed" down to a short side remark. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
An operation[k] is associative if the order of several applications does not matter, i.e., if (a circle b) circle c ...
This is the first time you use the circle notation. A little earlier when you introduce N for Natural Numbers, you do a good job of explaining what the notation means; you should do similarly here. My understanding is that it's just "an arbitrary binary operation", but that should be clarified.- That explanation is given in a footnote, which was unfortunately positioned in a rather unintuitive place. I moved it right after the first use of the circle symbol so that the connection is clearer. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
An operation admits inverse elements...
explain what it means to "admit" an element.- I reformulated the expression to make it simpler. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
The natural numbers ... contain only positive numbers
Why not "positive integers"?- Changed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Group theory is the subdiscipline of abstract algebra studying groups.
studying -> which studies.- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how File:Magma to group4.svg relates to the rest of the article, or at least to the text it's near. It's near a section that talks about rings and fields, but the diagram only shows relationships for groups. Perhaps it should go with the following paragraph, where magmas et al are discussed?
- You are right, I moved it to the following paragraph. I expanded the caption to make it easier to see how it is relevant to the discussion. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
They differ from each other in regard to the types of objects they describe and the requirements that their operations fulfill
To me, this is the key sentence in this whole section. To go back to my comment about my eyes glazing over when I read articles like Lie algebra, this lays out the logical foundation that helps me read " a Lie algebra (pronounced /liː/ LEE) is a vector space ... together with an operation called the Lie bracket, an alternating bilinear map ... that satisfies the Jacobi identity}} and really start to get my head around what it's saying. By analogy, I have a rudimentary knowledge of Spanish, but I can usually read something well enough to say, "OK, that's a conjugated verb. I don't recognize the verb, and I'm not sure about the tense, but at least I can get past that and keep going with the sentence, knowing I can always go back and look up the verb later". The same thing here. I don't know what an "alternating bilinear map" is, but with your explanation in mind, I can say, "OK, I don't know what that is, but at least I recognize it's describing "the requirements the operation fulfills" and I can keep making progress, knowing I can come back later and dig deeper. The point of this rambling note is just to say that I think this sentence needs more prominent placement, perhaps in the first paragraph of this section. Then you can still conclude the section by saying that you've only described the three most basic structures, and lots of other ones exist, such as magmas, etc.- I found a way to mention this characterization in the first paragraph. I very much agree with you about the accessibility problems of several math articles. Some of them read as if they were written primarily for mathematicians, which becomes a problem specifically for the lead if an educated non-expert reader can't figure out what the topic of the article is. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
(I'm done with Major Branches. I'll pick up with History another day)
I couldn't stay away, so I finished this up today. I really can't find anything else to complain about in the rest of the article. I'll just leave you with a couple of suggestions which you can take or leave at your pleasure. One is that in Other branches of mathematics where you talk about algebraic solutions to geometric problems, you might want to mention that origami has been used to solve algebraic problems using geometry, see for example https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_09/papers/Sheri.pdf. The other is that I don't think you can talk about Gerolamo Cardano without at least mentioning that he has been credited with inventing (or at least accepting the existance of) imaginary numbers.
- I added a short side remark about origami and mentioned imaginary numbers. Thanks a lot for all the helpful suggestions! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not qualified to review this for the quality of the research or comprehensiveness, but I'm happy to give my support for general structure and "prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
Image review
[edit]- File:Muḥammad_ibn_Mūsā_al-Khwārizmī.png: the fine print on the licensing tag suggests a cropped image like this might not be covered by the copyright exception
- I removed the image since there were also other concerns about it in the comments below. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Rhind_Mathematical_Papyrus.jpg needs a US tag
- I added an US tag. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Francois_Viete.jpg needs a US tag, and why is this linked to the article? Ditto File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added US tags and removed the links. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's confusing indeed, thanks for catching it. I added the US tag and replaced the dead link. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was a similar problem with Descartes's image. To avoid future confusion, the images currently linked in the article are https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Francois_Viete.jpeg and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_Ren%C3%A9_Descartes_(cropped).jpg. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the former, the version that's actually in this article is File:Francois_Viete.jpeg - the one you changed is the version that's in the article that was previously linked (apologies for the confusion). The version in this article still needs tagging and also has a dead source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]I know even less about this one than ethics, so a more sensible person would stay away -- a few comments regardless:
- Linear algebra is a closely related field investigating variables that appear in several linear equations, called a system of linear equations. It tries to discover the values that solve all equations at the same time.: "all equations in the system"? As phrased, it sounds like we mean all equations in existence.
- Good catch. Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebraic methods were first studied in the ancient period: as with ethics, I think we could do with being a little more precise. Are we happy, for instance, that the Rhind papyrus is the earliest document to concern algebra, and/or that none exists older than the 2nd millennium BCE, or that the oldest known studies are from Egypt?
- We could mention the example of the Rhind Papyrus with a date in this lead paragraph. But I'm not sure that we want to go into those details in the lead. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- A matter of taste, maybe, but I'm not sure about a 1980s postage stamp (especially as the likeness is almost certainly totally fictitious) for al-Khwarizmi, especially if we're not going to tell the reader what the image is (some will, I'm sure, assume it's a contemporary portrait). Elsewhere, we have this, which is a page (I think the first page?) from the text we're discussing -- would that be a better illustration here?
- Good idea, I replaced the image, especially since there were also some copyright concerns above. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Transliterated Arabic should be in a transliteration template.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- A higher level of abstraction is achieved in abstract algebra: is is achieved the right phrase here -- it sounds like we're saying that abstract algebra is better than elementary algebra, when surely they're each trying to do slightly different things? "Abstract algebra uses/creates/allows a higher level of abstraction"?
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest linking countable noun.
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Very pedantic, but the link on " a certain type of binary operation" covers the "a", while the one on "a specific type of algebraic structure" doesn't. Usual form is to include it, I think.
- I included the "a" in the wikilink scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a little odd that note c mentions al-Khwarizmi before we've introduced him, and when we're talking about the use of the term prior to his work. I'd move it to the end of the following sentence.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This changed in the course of the 19th century: why not, simply, in the nineteenth century?
- Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note e (definition of constants vs. variables) does strictly need a citation, even though it's not exactly controversial. There are a couple of others -- I noticed l and s.
- Done, I hope I got all. I reformulated footnote l to be only about this article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to kick up a huge fuss on this point, but it would be reassuring to provide a citation to show that other people do this too (in other words, that it's not our own idea). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lowercase letters a and b are usually used for constants and coefficients. For example, the expression 5x+3 is an algebraic expression created by multiplying the number 5 with the variable and adding the number 3 to the result. I don't really understand the use of "for example" here -- I think we need to introduce this as a new thought.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- An equation is a statement formed by comparing two expressions with an equals sign ... Inequations are formed with symbols like the less-than sign (), the greater-than sign (), and the inequality sign (). : would it be better to explain this in terms of meaning rather than symbology? After all, the statement "the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the squares on the other two sides" was as much as passed for an equation for a large part of mathematical history, and we can imagine some other form of notation that expresses equations with a different sign or none at all.
- I reformulated it to take a middle path, covering both meaning and symbols. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some algebraic expressions take the form of statements that relate two expressions to one another: two or more?
- Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Two is the typical format in algebra. Our formulation leaves it open whether there are other alternatives. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The main goal of elementary algebra is to determine for which values a statement is true: more idiomatic, to me, as "the values for which a statement is true".
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In a similar way, if one knows the exact value of one variable one may be able to use it to determine the value of other variables.: do we lose anything important by cutting exact here?
- Not really. Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It bothers me that the graph example uses the wrong symbol for subtraction (the dash is too short), but that's not really your problem. Do consider, however, MOS:COLOUR in describing the line as red (not everyone can see its colour) -- perhaps also add that it slopes upwards to the right? I appreciate that there's only one line that graph-literate readers could identify, but we're rightly pitching this article to complete beginners, and it's not impossible that some won't know what the axes are.
- I updated the image file to use a longer symbol for subtraction (I had to close and re-open my browser for it show the new version). I also followed your suggestion to identify the line not only by color but also by slope. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- This means that no variables are multiplied with each other and no powers of variables occur.: or that no variables are raised to a power greater than one?
- Reformulated. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent. This is the case if the equations do not contradict each other: better as A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent if the equations do not contradict each other? At the moment, we state something, and then immediately seem to state that it isn't (always) true. If I've got it right, we're saying that it's impossible to be inconsistent and to have any solutions, so it might even be clearer to state that first -- something like If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is called inconsistent and has no solutions. For example, the equations and contradict each other since no values of and exist that solve both equations at the same time. If two or more equations contradict each other, the system of equations is inconsistent and has no solutions. A system of equations that has solutions is called consistent.
- I implemented a similar reformulation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- LU Decomposition: decap decomposition, and consider spelling out lower–upper?
- Decap done. I kept the "LU" since this is the more common way of referring to it and also the name of our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On a geometric level, systems of equations can be interpreted as geometric figures: do we need the first bit? Seems repetitive, given the end of the sentence.
- Removed. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- For systems with two variables, each equation represents a line in two-dimensional space. The point where the two lines intersect is the solution: can we briefly explain why this is so?
- I added a short explanation. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- binary operations, which take two objects as input: as inputs, surely, or as their input?
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The date of the Rhind papyrus -- can we give an idea of the "error bars" on the debate -- does everyone agree it's C17th, for example, or do some people think it's much later, or a modern forgery?
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- These developments happened in the ancient period in diverse regions such as Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, China, and India: our phrasing here implies that this list isn't exhaustive. Is that what's intended?
- Simplified. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In ancient China: I know the date of The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art isn't totally straightforward, but we should give it one anyway, if the Greeks get them.
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On Vector 22, I have quite a lot of sandwiching between the Al-Khwarizmi manuscript and the double portrait. I realise I've earlier suggested using it in place of Al-Khwarizmi's face, so that would solve this problem as well.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- We get a lot of people described as "the nationality mathematician": you could consider dropping mathematician in these contexts, and take it as read that we're generally talking about mathematicians (see User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful for an argument for this). Very much a matter of taste, though.
- the German mathematicians ... Emil Artin -- he was Austrian.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- to solve puzzles like Sudoku and Rubik's cube: we generally speak of a Rubik's cube, so I'd pluralise it here (especially as there are different variations on the form).
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebra education mostly focuses on elementary algebra, which is one of the reasons why it is also called school algebra. It is usually not introduced -- the series of its may not be totally clear -- we seem to be swapping antecedent here (the first one is elementary algebra, the second algebra education).
- I replaced the first "it". Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- unlike arithmetic calculations, algebraic expressions often cannot be directly solved: you might add an easily in here -- you can solve most school problems by trial and error, or simply by spotting the answer, but it's much easier to do it "properly".
- I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me, often cannot easily be directly solved is good English -- or perhaps "are often difficult to solve directly"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on whether we read "often cannot" as "in many cases, there is no logical possibility" or as "in many cases, there is no reliable way to do so". I would add it but "easily directly solved" sounds a bit odd. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the education side -- how worldwide is the use of balance scales? We've cited a single school textbook here, which to me is verging on WP:PRIMARY -- I'd be more comfortable with a survey article on the use of the technique in (American?) mathematical education. I've never seen it in UK schools, outside isolated word problems -- function machines are more common over here as a basic introduction to the ideas of algebra. I'd be interested to know how things are done in places like Shanghai and Hong Kong, which generally seem to outperform both systems, at least as far as concerns producing students who can solve school-algebra problems.
- I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've made a small and slightly pedantic fix (computers aren't visualisations), but I think this works well now. Feel free to counter-tweak. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added some additional context to the discussion by mentioning manipulatives and visualizations. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both of these sources (particularly Kaput 2018) consider balance scales as one tool among many -- Kieran talks about other manipulatives (cups and sticks, for example), and Kaput talks about a whole bunch of visualisations (including function machines), particularly those which they feel to be appropriate for use with a computer. I think the discussion here needs to be broadened to reflect those sources -- there's a good point to be made that teaching algebra often involves using conceptual tools, often ones with which students can interact physically, before introducing abstract concepts such as variables, but we shouldn't frame that entirely through one of those tools (balance scales). There's an interesting booklet for teachers here, with extensive bibliography, which recommends the use of representations but also acknowledges that the evidence for their effectiveness (like everything else in education!) is minimal. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I added two more sources that that examine some research on this approach. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Can I echo Roy's praise for the clarity and approachability of this article -- I'll admit that I skipped fairly lightly over the abstract algebra section, but the rest was absolutely clear and manageable, and I suspect I'm going to be one of the least qualified mathematicians to review this here. Excellent work once again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for yet another detailed review and for taking a leap to provide a non-expert opinion on the article! Given that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, this is also an important perspective to consider. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I am hugely impressed by the writing and clarity here, and while I am not qualified to vouch for the mathematics, everything within my expertise looks excellent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Edwininlondon
[edit]Although I am neither an expert in the field nor a native speaker, I have a few comments. Overall I very much appreciated the clarity and structure.
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures --> while I like overall how clearly topics are being described, there are a few cases where I get a sense of recursion. Is there a way to avoid using algebraic in the definition of algebra?
- You are right that this sounds circular, but I'm not sure that there is a good alternative. There was already a detailed discussion on this point in the GA review that resulted in consensus on the current formulation. It sounds circular but it isn't circular since the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- called a system of linear equations. --> why italics?
- This is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS since we talk about the term "system of linear equations". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- that appear in several linear equations --> a definition of linear would be good
- We could add a footnote but I'm not sure that we should get into this in the lead section. The first paragraph of the subsection "Linear algebra" provides a definition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Algebra is the branch of mathematics that studies algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures --> too recursive for me. A question: do I understand it correctly that algebraic structures include lgebraic operations? If so, do we really need to say "algebraic operations[a] and algebraic structures" or can it just use structures?
- You are right, the operations are already included. I found a way to reformulate the sentence to take this into account while cutting down on the repetitive language. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Arithmetic studies arithmetic operations --> too recursive for me
- I removed the term "arithmetic" since we already list the main operations. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- first use of axiom in body is not linked. Perhaps do this: together with their underlying axioms, the laws they follow.
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The natural numbers, by contrast, do not form a group --> should the + operation not be mentioned?
- Correct, I added it. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- One of the earliest documents is the Rhind Papyrus --> One of the earliest mathematical documents is the Rhind Papyrus
- I implemented the idea in a slightly different way. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- several generations between the 10th century BCE and the 2nd century CE --> I don't think 1000+ years can be described as several generations
- Agreed, this is an understatement. I adjusted the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thābit ibn Qurra in the 9th century --> I assume there is no more accurate estimate? Since 825 CE is also the 9th century, perhaps something like "also in the 9th century"?
- I think he made contributions in several works so we would have to list several dates. I added the "also". Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 1247, the Chinese mathematician Qin Jiushao --> how come this is not with the other China info?
- For chronological reasons: roughly speaking, we have two paragraphs on ancient history, two paragraphs on post-classical history, and then modern history. It's not ideal but putting him into the ancient paragraph is not ideal either. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That's all I could see. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Edwininlondon, I appreciate you taking the time to review this article! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A bit more:
- x y c – variables/constants --> would be better to make 2 lines and separate the variables from the constant
- Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- forgive me if this has been agreed already, but is Encyclopedia of Mathematics as a wiki a reliable source?
- Thanks for raising this point. The website use wiki software to display the pages but it is not user-generated. The articles were originally published in book form by Kluwer Academic Publishers/Springer and only later made accessible online. We could cite the original books but the online version is much better accessible for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent date formats. Example: "from the original on 4 October 2009. Retrieved 23 October 2023" but also "from the original on 2024-01-12. Retrieved 2024-01-13"
- Done. I hope the script got all. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Walz, Guido (2016) needs a trans-title
- Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spotcheck: 37 51 84 85 87 118 all check out
- 80 does indeed give 1550 but somehow I feel this source is not right to make the claim "The exact date is disputed and some historians suggest a later date around 1550 BCE" A more scientific source would be better.
- I replaced it with a better source. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- 87 is correct but the link unfortunately does not put me on page 31, nor is that page accessible to me. Perhaps this link is better: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11540/chapter/4
- I fixed the link, the page preview works for me now. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's it for this final round. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I hope I was able to address the main concerns. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Almost all fine, except that there still is a lingering sadness in me regarding the opening sentence with its circularity. I don't think the argument that the technical term "algebraic structure" is defined without reference to algebra is particularly strong. But I lack the expertise to provide something useful. Perhaps it is something like "Algebra is ..., known as algebraic structures, ... I was thinking perhaps the part "manipulation of statements within those structures" can be dropped, as that surely is encompassed by the word "studies". But maybe the phrase "manipulation of statements" is rather critical, as it conveys the essence of the field. Sorry, I can't express what is better. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
An unsuccessful nomination later and some significant copy editing with the help of others, I am renominating this article for a second time. For those of you who don't know about this article it is on an elusive comedy art film. It was directed by artist-turned-filmmaker Fredric Hobbs, and was the first of several that he managed to complete until his retirement from the film industry.Paleface Jack (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose (having opposed the first nom). This seems to be a visually remarkable but lost film, about which very little is known. I commend PFJ for pulling it all together; a fascinating insight into the genesis of the modern horror genre. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ceoil! Thouhg it is never classified as horror in any of the sources, it does offer some modern motifs to the genre that are quite fascinating.Paleface Jack (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose per Ceoil. I've had a good hack at the prose and clarified one item in talk. I'm happy that it now meets the standard. John (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks John! Paleface Jack (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- Cite 23 has a p/pp error.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why is cite 16 partially in all-caps? See WP:ALLCAPS.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cite 15: "films" should have an upper-case F.
- The article title uses lowercase. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't matter. All article titles should be given consistently in either title or sentence case regardless of how they appear in the original. (That's why you switched from all caps in the previous comment. :-) )
- Cite 16: the title should be in title case per MOS:CAPTITLES.
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and has yet to receive a home media release." It is normal to use phrasing such as 'it has not received a home media release as of August 2024', using Template:Monthyear. Or Template:year if preferred.
- Done except without template as am old and don't understand. Ceoil (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer just mentioning the year, rather than month and year as it seems a bit more in line with the article. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ok. (I bet I'm even older.)
- "Dispersed throughout the segment are clips of a procession of the blue people proceeding across an otherworldly countryside, accompanied by a strange vehicle. At this point, the segment cuts from the cave ..." "Dispersed throughout the segment ... At this point ..." doesn't work: If something is dispersed throughout, there is no this point to cut from.
- I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- You missed this one.
- I revised that a little, removing the "at this point and dispersed throughout"--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Plot": the 'The Blue People' section seems over-long and over-detailed to me.
- It's out of proportion to the other two segments, but that's more because the film is lost, and little is known about those two. It's not too long compared to other film FAs covering a third of the film. I would however like to see it cited, given nobody outside of those directly involved have seen it enough to make notes. Maybe it could be more suscintly worded, though I think readers will want to know. Ceoil (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Thrower's plot synopsis, there are more details with that section than any other portion of the plot. I agree with this assessment and will tone it down a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "from whose extended arm hangs". Just the one arm?
- The description given by Thrower reads "A female figure reclines, extending her arm from which hangs the faces and forms of flayed humanity. A bird (an owl?) sits triumphantly astride her extended limb, with various grisly horrors dangling below." I had to simplify that because it becomes too confusing and symbolic for the average reader.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "with a bachelors degree in arts". Do you mean a bachelor of arts degree?
- Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- If "Trojan Horse" is the name of a sculpture or artwork it should be in italics.
- "it incorporates several different narratives and genres for each segment." Optional: "for" → 'within'.
- Agree....done. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Hobbs plays a fictionalized version of himself as the chef and fantom characters." A fantom character is not elsewhere mentioned.
- I looked over that synopsis but it does not mention the character of the Fantom. Yet it credits Hobbs as playing the character. It is very odd.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Linking "Christ" is probably overlinking.
- Agree. Ceoil (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree and done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
This is in much better shape than for its first nomination, well done for sticking with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Ceoil you have an excellent person on board for that. Nearly there. A couple of comebacks from me above and awaiting further comment or action on the "The Blue People" section. Thinking on't, the "The" of "The Blue People" should only be there if it is a formal title, not if it is being used as part of a descriptor. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. The only part I would say that should include "the" is the descriptor of the segment, which includes this in my source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Could not have done it without assistance and advise.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
[edit]- "homunculus (an artificial human)": That's not quite what a homunculus is – the key part of them is that they are small
- Considering the plot synopsis from my source just calls it a homonculus with descriptions that it is make of cloth, I removed the parentheses portion alltogether.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Hobbs exits the frame and the film ends": I think there should be a comma after 'frame' between the clauses
- Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The cast mainly drew from unknown actors": I'm not sure the cast drew anything: "The cast was mainly drawn from unknown actors" works much better
- Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Morgan Upton, later known for his roles as Wally Henderson in The Candidate (1972)[26] and Mr. Gilfond in Peggy Sue Got Married (1986)": do we need the role names? Seems a bit too tangential and the details clutters the sentence a bit
- Agreed and done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope these help. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a tour undertaken by a Brazilian football club which quickly spiraled into chaos, becoming more and more unbelievable as it goes on. My first FAC! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from PMC
[edit]Within the week, badger me if I forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, slow night at work, so here we are. Please don't be freaked out by the number of comments, I write down everything that comes to mind when reading FACs. Suggested re-phrasings are always suggestions, feel free to do your own thing. If sources don't have info that I'm asking about, don't worry about it. Finally, I'm always open to discussion or disagreement - you're the one who knows the content, and FAC reviewers aren't infallible. And away we go!
Lead
- "looking to raise funds in friendly matches" - phrasing a bit odd here. Maybe "playing friendly matches to raise funds" or "playing friendly matches as a fundraiser"?
- Picked the first phrasing.
- Nice use of "who knows what the truth is" footnote :)
- Thanks! :)
- Sentence two is so, so long. Can it be split?
- Split into two, let me know if it needs to be split further.
- "misfortune, danger, and tragedy" - this feels a bit like over-egging the pudding. Can we pick one?
- Went with misfortune.
- Might link Nazism in Brazil since otherwise it's likely to be confusing (or maybe Brazil in World War II)
- Went with Brazil in World War II.
Natal
- Any details about what the financial crisis was or why it was happening? (Was it related to WW2?)
- Added.
- Link North Region again
- Done.
- For the ignorant among us, how would playing exhibition matches make them money?
- I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
- There's nothing more funny yet annoying than running into a situation like that, where every source is like "obviously everyone will know what a blorbo is, I don't have to explain" and then it turns no one knows what the damn blorbo is because no one explained it
- I assume it was through ticket revenue, but none of the sources actually spell it out.
- Recommend linking Brazil in World War II and maybe noting that German U-boats were patrolling the area, because many people might not realize they were
- Linked.
- Actually, the above three suggestions might fit well in a "Background" section (and you could give some brief background on the team)
- Created the background section.
- Looking good! (years ago I got taught to do Background sections and I've found it's such a help with setting up the rest of the prose)
- Created the background section.
- Is Santa Cruz from Pernambuco? I assume yes, but it's not clear - they could just be visiting there. Good fodder for the background section
- Yes. Added to background section.
- "local state's team" - no link I guess?
- Nope, not even an interlanguage link. :(
- Might want to clarify that Belem is a city, and add the state
- Added the state.
- I don't think "by" is needed when you're giving a whole-game score. You don't "win by" 7-2, you win 7-2, and win by 5 points. See what I mean?
- Removed the "by"s.
- Why is Remo 5 to 3 when everything else is given with a dash? Consistency is important
- Dash'd.
- Might be worth clarifying that all those teams are based in the city of Belém, as that's not clear from context
- Added. Doesn't read too smoothly imo, but it works.
- Are there no details in any sourcing about any of these games?
- There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
- Ah, just checking, in case any of them had any disastrous incidents :P
- There's some small details about them in modern sources, but definitely not anything substantial. Contemporary sources have some more stuff, but I'm not if in-game details really matter that much here, since the article is more about the overarching story than anything.
Manaus
- Again, might want to clarify that Manaus is a city, and add the state
- Done.
- Do we know who invited them?
- Clarified in background section.
- Was the head of delegation a player also, or like a coach?
- Clarified in background section.
- I know we don't always link countries, but I think Peru and Guyana are reasonably relevant links here
- Done.
- Link Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Brazil)
- Done.
- I know the answer is likely WW2, but why were clubs not supposed to leave?
- Added.
- "Under the possibility of being suspended for 90 days" - phrasing a bit awkward here
- Suspended from what?
- I don't know, none of the sources elaborate on what the "suspension" would be.
- If they can be suspended for leaving, it's not really a request not to leave, is it?
- Clarified, hopefully.
- I might suggest moving the suspension to the previous sentence, or rewording a bit
- Reworded.
- Suspended from what?
- "relapsed from the dysentery" - "had a relapse of dysentery" is more correct
- Done.
- Are first names known for King and Papeira? If so, please include them on first mention; if not, maybe footnote it (if a roster is known, it might be worth putting one in a table in Background)
- I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
- Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
- Done.
- Fair. You may want to footnote somewhere about names being unknown/the one-word-nickname tradition thing
- I couldn't find Papeira's first name anywhere. Including only King's name is kind of awkward in my opinion, so I'd rather not add it. Added the roster.
- "both having disobeyed previous medical orders" about what?
- Added.
- To be fair I'm not sure I could restrain myself from eating eggs and lobster either
- Added.
- "but all maritime travel was prohibited by the Brazilian government" - since when? they were boating before, no?
- Added date.
Belém
- "Defender Pedrinho" first name thing again
- @Premeditated Chaos: - just jumping in here to point out that Brazilian footballers are generally known by a single name e.g. Pelé, Cafu, Dunga, Tarciso, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Often, but not always, but I'll leave that to Hilst to confirm if that was the case at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe so, since the majority of the players in the earlier 1938 World Cup squad are listed by a single name. – Hilst (talk | contribs) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Often, but not always, but I'll leave that to Hilst to confirm if that was the case at this time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: - just jumping in here to point out that Brazilian footballers are generally known by a single name e.g. Pelé, Cafu, Dunga, Tarciso, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did Pedrinho still get to play in the game?
- I'm not sure if he did play against Remo, but he did play against Paisandu on the 9th. Added.
- "was also a club director, and was interested in the player's abilities." - so... he was going to arrest him then seduce him into joining his own team?
- Correct!
- I'm dying to know how he thought that was going to go, loooool
- "Sidinho, who had defected to the club a week earlier" - who is Sidinho? What is "the club" that he defected to?
- Added him to the roster at the top (confusingly, there's two players named Sidinho, and sources don't agree on how to spell their names...). "To the club" is a typo, it should've just been "defected the club". Rewrote the whole sentence.
- "The club then played..." I would flip the clauses in this sentence and remove "then"
- Done? I'll be honest, I'm not happy with either version
- Fair, I think it works better this way but if you want to change it another way it won't affect my support
- "before the end of the game" could tighten to "during the game"; similarly "After the end of the match" could be tightened to "After the match"
- Done.
- commemorated - I think you might want commiserated instead
- Done.
- "the Taça Cidade de Recife" - the what
- Translated "taça" to "trophy".
- Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
- Clarified.
- Sure, but what's the trophy for? I thought these were largely exhibition matches?
- "starting the journey back" via? And if by boat, when did the government stop prohibiting maritime travel? (or are we riverboating here)
- Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
- Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
- No dice.
- Is it possible to try to track this down? It's just that it sort of presents a thread that can be pulled on. If you can't find it, that's fine.
- Via boat. No idea when they started allowing it again.
- Were the trophies valuable in and of themselves?
- Probably? Since they went out of their way to hide them, they probably had some value, but I can't verify it.
- "boat was retained" - I think you want detained
- I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
- Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
- Done.
- Sure but we're not writing in Portuguese; "retain" in English lacks implication of legal matters that "detain" has.
- I think either one works, see wikt:reter#Portuguese.
- for the Campeonato Pernambucano - context? Even if you just say "the state championship, the Campeonato Pernambucano"
- Done.
Okay! Overall I think this is a well-researched and interesting article. It could use some polishing to get to the FA level, but it's definitely doable and I look forward to seeing it get there. No rush on responses. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: I've addressed all of your comments. Thank you for checking my article! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I'm a support :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh my god, I have no idea how I missed that. Sorry! Unless I've missed something else, @Premeditated Chaos, it's done! sorry for the pings too lmao – Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hilst:, responses to a few things above, anything not commented on looks fine to me. The question about the value of the trophies has no response - possibly missed? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Joeyquism
[edit]Committing to a review in the next couple of days. Congratulations on the successful GAN for this, and welcome to FAC! joeyquism (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@Hilst: Apologies for taking so long to get to this. The article seems to be in pretty good shape after the preliminary reviews before mine; however, for the sake of being comprehensive, I've noted a few things below. Feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
- The introduction of the term "Suicidal Tour" in the lead feels a bit late. From MOS:BOLDLEAD:
- If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
- The electron is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge. (Electron)
- Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way:
- The United States presidential line of succession is the order in which officials of the United States ... (United States presidential line of succession)
- If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence:
- Perhaps the lead paragraph can have its sentences rearranged and reformatted so that the first sentence refers explicitly to this term? Otherwise, do not fret too much about this critique; I haven't seen it mentioned in other reviewers' comments, so unless that becomes a point of contention, I will not base my final stance on this entirely. Leaving this as a suggestion.
- I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm liking what you've proposed as a solution. joeyquism (talk) 21:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought similar. I have put a proposed draft lead on the talk page of this FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if "Brazilian Portuguese" needs to be included before "Excursão da Morte".
- No comma before "due"?
- I'm noticing that Brazil in World War II is linked here; however, it does not appear to be linked anywhere else in the article. Would this be appropriate as a replacement for World War II link in the Background section?
Background
- I'm a bit confused by "subsist off of their suburban football fields" - is there something about the quality of these fields that using them would be seen as subsistence? Sorry if this is a silly question; I'm mostly just wondering. Feel free to tell me if answering does not seem worthwhile.
- What is meant by "buying" here? I'm not into the euphemistic use of words in articles; a clarification would be much better.
- The semicolon after "players" should be a colon, as it's coming before a list
Natal and Belém
- Would it be worth it to mention that this was a relatively untroubled time for the team during their tour? Just an observation; if sourcing for such a claim is not possible, I'd say it's alright to go without it.
- No double link for Pernambuco; it's linked in the previous section.
- No comma after "lights off"
- Done.
- No comma after "3-3"
- That one was added by Gog, btw. Done.
Manaus
- "Thrice" is a bit of an outdated word; "three times" should be good
- "as they were "attracted by good offers" from local teams - Not sure about the quotes again. Is this quote lifted from the sources, or is there some larger situation that is being euphemized by this phrase?
- "two players had a relapse of dysentery" - Did they get dysentery again, or did their health deteriorate as a result of having a sustained case of dysentery? Just wondering.
Belém to Recife
- "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl" - Same issues as other noted usages of quotes.
- For footnote D, "Some sources incorrectly report the date as 3 March." - Is this known to be incorrect, or is there simply a discrepancy between sources (there is a difference)? If it's the latter, I would remove "incorrectly".
- No comma after "Cidade do Recife trophy"
- Is there an aftermath/legacy to all of this? Might be a big ask to include, but if there's information/analysis on this tour's impact, I think it would be worth it to include in the article.
Overall, a very nice article on an interesting (albeit tragic) topic. I'll read over it again after my comments have been addressed. Looking forward to hearing back from you, and I hope you're having a wonderful start to your week. joeyquism (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- Link football in the lead, so we know exactly which sport we are talking about
- Done.
- In the lead you have "friendly match" (unlinked) but in the body you have "exhibition match" (linked).
- Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
- Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- Both should be linked -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped the links and renamed the second instance to friendly.
- "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks and deaths" => "including a lack of funds, the threat of Nazi attacks, and deaths"
- Done.
- Link the club again in the body (and also show full name, like in the lead)
- Done.
- "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2, Tuna Luso 3–1" => "where they beat Transviário Esporte Clube 7–2 and Tuna Luso 3–1"
- Done.
- "drew with the Pará state team 3–3, 4–4 with Paysandu" => "drew 3–3 with the Pará state team and 4–4 with Paysandu"
- Done.
- "While the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion" => "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém to be the last ones of the excursion"
- Done.
- "they lost their first game in Amazonas to Olímpico by 3–2" => "they lost their first game in Amazonas 3–2 to Olímpico"
- Done.
- "the head of delegation and six players" => "the head of the delegation and six players"
- Done.
- "Defender Pedrinho was sent an arrest warrant" - I am pretty sure that arrest warrants are not sent to the suspect. Maybe "An arrest warrant was issued for defender Pedrinho"
- Fixed.
- "being accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl"" => "as he was accused of "doing evil to a 17-year-old girl""
- Done.
- "It turned out that the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director" - which club?
- No idea, none of the sources mention it by name.
- "Santa Cruz entering the field before a game in Belém." - this doesn't need a full stop
- Removed.
- Do we really need the exact time of King's death and (particularly) funeral? If you feel we do, I think they should be shown using the 12-hour clock i.e. 2.35am and 4.00pm
- Removed the funeral time. I believe the 24-hour format is more appropriate here, since that's the one that is used in Brazil.
- "At 16:30,[16] before the end of the game" => "At 4.30pm,[16] before the end of the game"
- See above.
- "but had to return to São Luís due a thunderstorm" => "but had to return to São Luís due to a thunderstorm"
- Fixed.
- "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, via train" => "The players then decided to go to Teresina, Piauí, by train"
- Done.
- "Papeira's briefcase was given to his family, but King's briefcase could not be returned" - just a guess as I can't read the source but I suspect they were suitcases rather than briefcases
- Done.
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Done all, thanks for commenting! – Hilst (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "they played over 25 matches". Is the exact number of matches played not known? Ok, one needs to read the unobtrusive note. Suggest 'they played either 26 or 28 matches'.
- PS. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main article, but I can't see this mentioned in the latter.
- I think you missed this one.
- Leads are not usually cited, as they are summaries of the main articles, which will be cited.
- Removed.
- "and had to subsist off of their football grounds". I don't understand how their grounds (why plural?) helped them financially.
- I assume it was through leasing them to third parties. Changed wording so its closer to what's said in the source.
- "and the monthly payments from their associates." What associates? I mean, are we even talking people or organisations? And why were they paying money to the club?
- People. Associates in this case are fans who pay a monthly/annual fee for benefits like discounted ticket prices and merchandise. Check out the second paragraph of Sports club § Organization
- When I ask a question I am not asking it for my benefit, but for that of future readers. You have given a fine succinct explanation in answer to my query, along with a link. Could it be incorporated in line in the article?
- "Santa Cruz's directors decided to take a "quick spin" in the North Region". Why the colloquialism and the unattributed quote? 'take a short tour' would be more encyclopedic.
- It's a quote from Aragão 1979. Replaced.
- When quoting, bear in mind the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
- Who or what were "Transviário Esporte Clube"?
- Clarified.
- "The tour started at the height of World War II". What does at the height of mean. Perhaps 'in the middle of'.
- Done.
- "Due to fears of possible Nazi submarine attacks". Replace "Nazi" with 'German'.
- Done.
- "Afterwards, Santa Cruz traveled to" → 'Afterwards, the delegation traveled to'.
- Done.
- "Although the team's delegation intended for the matches in Belém". Suggest deleting "for".
- Done.
- "The club left for Manaus on 25 January". I suggest you stick with "delegation" throughout.
- Done.
- In the first paragraph of the Manaus section I suggest that you make it clear that they were travelling up the Amazon River.
- Done.
- "both having disobeyed the medical orders." What were the medical orders, and in what way were they disobeyed?
- They're defined in the previous paragraph. Clarified.
- "Santa Cruz intended to return ..." This reads oddly. Firstly, in what way is the football club synonymous with the delegation; secondly, I don't see how a football club is capable of intentionality, this is usually reserved for people.
- Changed to delegation.
- A map of Brazil showing the key places mentioned would greatly help.
- Costa 2020 has such a map, but I don't know its copyright status. I could make a free map, but I have no experience with this sort of thing.
- Oh the fun I had (not) doing maps for my first two FACs! So I left myself some notes and a couple of examples at User:Gog the Mild/Misc#Maps. I have added the start of a Brazil map at the bottom - see how good to you I am. The map documentation is at Template:Location map many. The Wikipedia article on each location has its coordinates at the top right, click to get a conversion to decimal. You should be able to take it from there to fill in the other locations. Have fun and shout if you have queries.
- "An arrest warrant was sent for defender Pedrinho". What do you mean by "was sent for"?
- They received a telegram from Manaus ordering his arrest. Rewrote sentence.
- "the police officer who ordered his arrest was also a club director". Of which club? Santa Cruz?
- Not mentioned in sources.
- "Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly thereafter". Suggest 'Santa Cruz suffered their first casualty shortly after'.
- Done.
- "being accompanied by a large crowd." Suggest deleting "being".
- Done.
- "Due to King's death, Cidinho, who had defected from Santa Cruz a week earlier, returned to the club." Who was Cidinho, why did he "defect", what does "defect" mean here, and why did King's death cause him to return?
- A player; he left so he could join another club in Manaus, see the last paragraph of the Manaus section; defect as in abandon (wording used in a source, can change if needed); I don't know.
- How come we know that Cidinho returned "due" to King's death, but not why? It seems odd and reads very oddly.
- "A minute of silence was held before the match." It would be more usual to say 'A minute of silence was observed before the match.'
- Done.
- What is "the Cidade do Recife trophy"?
- I believe its just a random tournament Paysandu made up for a symbolic gift. The source says that "the Paysandu board [offered] the club the Cidade do Recife Trophy, played between those two great clubs and which ended in a draw for each team."
- "substituting for an injured teammate." The cook won't have been a teammate of the injured player. Better to say something like 'injured member of the delegation'.
- I think "substituting for an injured player" is the best option here.
- Yes, that works.
- "The players returned to playing football on 2 May". "returned to"? They had just played 26/28 matches.
- Changed.
- You state it is disputed whether 26 or 28 matches were played, then list every one. Which two are disputed?
- Not every match is listed. I don't know which ones are disputed, Aragão 1979 doesn't list all of them.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking good. A few comebacks above. If I have not responded, assume I'm happy. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- At the moment "The tour became known as the Suicidal Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão Suicída) and the Death Tour (Brazilian Portuguese: Excursão da Morte)" is in the lead, the summary, but I don't see anything in the main article to be so summarised. Am I missing something? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
source review from sawyer777
[edit]an interesting topic and it looks like no one's done a source review yet, so i'll do one this weekend probably. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 04:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
alright, getting to it.
- the sources seem perfectly reliable for this topic; we've got some sports publications and good Brazilian newspapers.
- Guedes (2023) probably does not need to be a shortened footnote if it's not paginated/sectioned.
- not all citations have ISSNs - where they're available, this is useful info to add & will make the cites more consistent.
- all of the sources are in Brazilian Portuguese, so i'll be relying on machine translation for spot-checks. if any Lusophones happen upon this page and take issue with my assessment, i defer to them.
- spot-check as of this revision:
- ref 2a - good
- ref 5b - good
- ref 11a - good
- ref 15c - good
- ref 23e - good
i will continue combing through in case i notice anything else. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the Battle of Saipan in June 1944. Because it was underway at the same time as the Normandy landings in France, it is less well known. It was the first invasion of the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign. The invasion triggered the Battle of the Philippine Sea, which effectively destroyed the Japanese navy's airpower. The island's capture pierced the Japanese defense perimeter and provided the American forces with an island base that put the Japanese home islands in range of the B-29 bombers. The fall of the island led to the collapse of the Japanese cabinet with the resignation of Hideki Tōjō, the prime minister of Japan.
The article has passed an A-class review and the images have been reviewed by Hawkeye7. Wtfiv (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the maps
- Updated three maps of campaign progress to upright =1.2
- Some images are missing alt text
- Alt text added to 27th infantry moving inland, troops moving through Garapan in flames
- File:Garapan_Fire,_Saipan,_3_July_1944.jpg: the licensing here is contradictory - is this PD or CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Updated licensing to PD; it is part of the Marine archives.Wtfiv (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]I was one of the reviewers at A class and found this article to be a comprehensive review of the battle. I can happily support for promotion to A class on the general text quality. On source formatting, I would suggest adding archive URLs for the National Park Service source in the Online sources section, and also for Trefalt 2018, the only two sources we don't have archive URLs for. I will be doing a source review tomorrow. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Matarisvan,
- I added the archive link for the National Park Service. I couldn't archive the convenience link for Trefalt as it is behind academia.edu's server, but the doi is available for readers, who have access to the journal. Wtfiv (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
- All sources are from reliable publishers.
- #3, #8, #21, #68, #81, #172, #267, #287: all ok.
- #124: ok but only Shaw, Nalty and Turbladh 1989 has the required supporting text, I could not find any in Harmsen 2021. Perhaps you should remove the latter.
- #153: For this text, "Less than a half hour after the start of the amphibious invasion", p. 63 would be the correct one, not p. 64. For the other use of this ref number, p. 64 is correct. You will have to separate the two.
- Matarisvan (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source review is a pass then. Also I'd really appreciate it if you could check out a PR I opened recently, linked here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- For #124, The Harmsen citation and its associated convenience link were corrected to p. 62, which discusses the first night's assault; #153 was corrected to p. 63. Wtfiv (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source formatting review is a pass then. Here goes the source review:
Hawkeye 7
[edit]I reviewed this at A-class and looks good to me. But to prove I read it:
- "Nagumo" is misspelt as "Nagamo"
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Hawkeye7! I fixed it. Wtfiv (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the last nomination's participants (LunaEclipse and Heartfox) to participate in this nomination if they wish. Skyshiftertalk 23:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
LunaEclipse
[edit]I still believe my source review stands up. Support. lunaeclipse (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most. Accord... it didn't.
Let me know what you think! Many thanks! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 17:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- What's the benefit of the footers on the multi-images? They seem to duplicate captions
- File:EdwardPrinceOfWalesBeauchampPagaent.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikkimaria, I've linked to the original publication, all PD by now. I have also removed the duplicate footers. They was, as you say, not achieving much. SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
[edit]"One prince promised a throne, another prince denied a throne, a queen spurned, a king humiliated, and all because of an agreement that satisfied no one and angered most: sounds like a slightly stretched metaphor for the Tories at the time of Brexit. Have a couple of other things on my plate at the moment, but will be along to look over this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, great analogy! With the rest of the country all looking at em and wondering how much more they can completely balls things up! SerialNumber54129 12:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- General
- There are seven uses of "however" in the text, which is probably at least six too many! I've skipped the lead for now, but will finish off with it
- Only one 'however' left, in a footnote.
- Background
- Note one seems a bit out of place here. It starts off talking about 'The labels "York and Lancaster"' , when neither of the terms have yet been used in the body.
- Indeed. Moved to 2nd para; now note 2.
- "when a York had won": again, the York-Lancs division hasn't been raised in the body yet, and the reader needs to pre-understand the situation before getting to this. I think a sentence or two explaining why the politics was "partisan and factional" and who was involved in the "intermittent rises in violence and local disorder". It's a background section, so you're allowed to give a bit of potted history for people to understand rest.
- Expanded the recent history; always clearly of getting carried away on the old hobbyhorse.
- "Salisbury marched": A fleeting image of a whole town (houses and all), marching cross country popped into my mind here! Maybe full title and link (plus identification of what side he's on)
- Clarified in discussion of Yorkists.
- "York went into exile": ditto
- Ditto.
- "Warwick and Edward of March": Ditto
- Ditto
- "in Calais": probably best to add that this is in France – not everyone will know it's in a different country to the rest of the action
- Done.
- "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile": I know the tense sits well with the subsequent quote, but the grammar is a little off. "In the nine months following the Yorkists' exile" would be more in line with expectations
- Thanks, adjusted.
- "The Calais lords returned to England in May 1459": Just checking on the date: they returned before they were attainted by the Parliament of Devils?
- H'mm Ludlow castle a time machine? Bigger on the inside that on the out?! but changed, just in case it wasn't :)
More to follow - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- York's claim
- There's a bit of a mismatch between the text and the tree which jars a bit. The text refers to John of Gaunt who isn't named as such in the tree, but as John, Duke of Lancaster. It took a long moment for me to dredge that up from my memory, and others—particularly who haven't been through the British education system—won't be able to make the connection at all. Same problem for Richard of Conisburgh of the text, who is the tree's Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
- Adjusted their titles; added ordinal numbers for York, Lancaster and March, added death dates. Mass complicated table tab
- " Anne's grandmother, Philippa of Clarence, was the daughter of Lionel of Antwerp": Do we need to know this? I can't see the relevance
- No, removed.
- "argues Brondarbit": who he?
- New York comedian and PhD Winchester. Nice bloke. Knows what to do with cold canapes and warm wine.
- "when he landed": who is the 'he' here? I'm a bit lost in this bit with a plethora of names and a lot of 'he's being used – may need just a bit of a brush up for clarity
- Hopefully, some names have been clarified? Replacing 'he'.
- "says Ross": who?
- Linked.
- "but having been unable to do so": grammar ever so slightly off here. Maybe "but had been unable to do so"?
- Excellent, thanks.
Next sections and more to come. I can only echo Tim's words that I think this would possibly have done better with a PR first to iron out some of the wrinkles. – SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Recommencing with some minor tweaks and a support. Once comment, however: you need to decide whether you use King or king, as you have, for example, "The King was weak-willed" and "the king's efforts at reconciliation" running throughout. Consistency would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks SchroCat, and I appreciate the edits. Well caught! On K/kings, my personal preference—I think an increasingly popular one today—is king for a no name, but King when named. So, e.g., 'the king said', 'the king went', etc, but 'King Henry said' and 'King Henry went'. but do the MOS:HEADS preclude such simplicity in favour of something more esoteric that allows them all to argue for 5,000 words at a time? ;) I'm not absolutely pro or con any style, just whatever either a) makes it easier for me, or b) what we can all agree on! But I totally agree about consistency. SerialNumber54129 12:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think user:UndercoverClassicist gave a most succinct and helpful summary of how to turn the precepts of MOS:CAPS into practice, in a comment at another recent FAC: "... if the title stands in for someone's name (so "I met the Pope last Thursday" -> "I met Francis last Thursday"), it's capitalised, so most cases like "the Prime Minister did such-and-such" should be". Tim riley talk 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment Support from Tim riley
[edit]This article is not yet of FA standard: there are too many things wrong with the prose. It would, in my view, have been helpful if the article had been taken to peer review before coming here.
- "he and Henry were both direct descendents of Edward III" –"descendants" (OED and Chambers recommended spelling).
- Absolutely.
- "York possessed two claims, through both the male and female lines" – but later we say "Unlike the Lancastrian claim, the Yorkist claim on the throne was based upon the female line of descent" – I can't make these two statements square with each other
- I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
- Much clearer now. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've recast that whole paragraph, which hopefully clears things up but also simplifies the explanation?
- "broke out into open battle, when a York had won a skirmish" – can one have "a York" tout court?
- Not that one would want to, certainly!
- "In the nine months since the Yorkists' exile, "the political situation in England had again been transformed" – needs an attribution inline.
- Check.
- "And coming there he walked straight on ..." – unclear why this big quote is given in modern English but the other one – "At which parlement the commones of the reame..." – is in medieval English.
- Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
- Fair enough. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair point: it's literally the sources. One transliterated, the other... don't, I'm afraid. I could do it, but at some point, it stops being merely mechanical and starts being original work.
- "York's claim and right to the throne had long been recognised by the Royal council and in law, although it was theoretical until Edward of Westminster had also died childless." – I find this impenetrable. We need either a family tree or a clearer exposition of where the likes of Edward of Westminster fit in to the scheme of things.
- Family tree, check.
- Excellent! Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Family tree, check.
- "the Nevilles knew of York's plan prior to his arrival" – "before"?
- Done.
- "Warwick's keenness to disassociate himself with York's plan" – "dissociate" and "from"?
- Yes. Odd one that dis/as/sociate, I probably use them synonymously.
- "the Lords requested that the royal justices examine the matter ...The lords next turned the matter over " – capital or lower case for Lords/lords?
- UC for House of, lc for people.
- "the king's god-given " – the OED prescribes a capital for "God-given".
- Done.
- "Having to achieve popular acclamation, York had to push his case on a strictly legal basis" – Is there a word, such as "failed", missing here?
- Quite an important word!
- "the prince of Wales own patrimony" – possessive apostrophe required
- Done.
- Caption: "Richard of York, a descendent of Edward III's" – spelling ;of "descendant" and do we need the apostrophe-ess?
- Check x2.
- "removal by forceable means"– "forcible" (OED and Chambers)
- done.
- "Having sworn to protect the king's life, York presumably expected the king to do likewise" – doesn't say what I think you mean: not that the king would swear to protect the king's own life, but that he would swear to protect York's.
- Changed to "expected the king to reciprocate".
- " Queen Margaret into York's implacable enemy ... became more implacable in their resistance to the Yorkist government" – two implacables in one paragraph? Perhaps "resolute" or some such the second time?
- Good choice.
- "it could also have driven Yorkist loyalists away" – either a different stop before "it" or a capital letter needed.
- Semi-c'd.
- "Margaret could not accept the disinheritance of her son and perhaps encouraged her and her supporters to see York's death as now the only chance of returning Edward" – seems to be a missing word such as "this" after the first "and". And is "could" rather than "would" the correct word?
- Both good.
- "stymied " – jarringly inappropriate word, suitable for 20th-century golf but not for medieval history
- Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
- "thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thwarted is just right.
- "thwarted" perhaps? Just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to say I've never set foot on a golf course in either century... except in anger perhaps. Changed to 'prevented', although it doesn't convey quite the sense of 'stalled in her tracks'...
- "Henry's supporters who were behind this malcontent" – in modern English "malcontent" means a disgruntled person; the state of being discontented is "discontent".
- Thanks.
- "Rutland was probably probably knifed by Lord Clifford on Wakefield Bridge" – very probably.
- Check.
- "while Salisbury was captured and later executed at Pontefract Castle." – does "while" mean "simultaneously" or just "and"? Needs clarification.
- How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
- Absolutely fine, though just "and" would be fine too, I think. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- How bout "and Salisbury was captured after the battle, to be later executed"?
- "Wakefield was a decisive blow for the Yorkists" – "for"? "to", surely? And as they eventually won, in what sense can it be called "decisive"?
- True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
- If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Severe, also good thanks.
- If it were my prose, which of course it isn't, I'd say "a severe blow", but as always it's just a suggestion. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- True, it wasn't. Rm 'decisive'. For the other, I went with 'a hard blow to the Yorkists...', but I'm not sure that sounds right either!
- "The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how made them responsible" – missing a word, by the look of it; perhaps "it" after "how".
- Indeed.
- "He was both inept as a ruler – presumably "he" is Henry, but this needs to be clear.
- Named Henry.
- "Refectory.[31]" – I cannot work out the point, if any, of this footnote.
- I admit, that was completely bizarre. going back to the source, I realise it was to clarify that the room they were in was their refectory!
That's all for now. Tim riley talk 10:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim riley and SchroCat, I have spent much of the last decade carefully fashioning a circle of enemies, rather than friends.What happened here was that I forgot about the final—basic, if fundamental—stage of my approach: leave it overnight and do a final copyedit with fresh eyes. Sometimes, the last c/e might be light—typos, dup links, etc.—and sometimes heavy, such as moving stuff around and rewriting for clarity. This had a little of both. Still, Mutandis Mutatis is the cry around the hillside, and both your (much appreciated) comments above, often acting as a springboard to further development, have improved the article on how you would have found it had I not forgotten the final stage. What a palaver, though. Thanks again! SerialNumber54129 16:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll look in again for another read-through soon. Tim riley talk 17:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Tim riley: Thanks for your word suggestions, just the ticket. Re the above. Apologies: I don't see you as enemies at all, I was just putting myself down so as to save anyone else the trouble :) as you say, the duty of the reviewer is sacrosanct. Thanks for your help. SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey! Order, order! I'm not an enemy and nor is our mutual friend Schrocat. We are on your side, but must do our duty as reviewers. Tim riley talk 14:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Second batch of comments from TR.
Coming on nicely. Nearly there, I think. A few odds and ends:
- Lead
- "They, in turn, were defeated three months later" – "They" presumably being the Lancastrians, but you could make that clear, I think.
- Done.
- Background
- "that it impacted national politics ... Less impactful nationally" – two impacts in close proximity: perhaps change one or the other?
- "began interfering in government business"?
- "By 1459 ... despite the king's efforts at reconciliation" – but earlier you tell us that the King had become mentally incapacitated, comatose and unable to recognise his companions. Had he recovered somewhat? If so is there a source for that?
- Right. Opened the 3rd para of the section explaining that the king recovered his health, and sacked York.
- York's claim to the throne
- "the fourth surviving son of Edward Gaunt's younger brother" – I wondered for a moment who Edward Gaunt was, but I think a comma will make your meaning clear.
- Good spot!
- "Warwick had met with York in Dublin" – I generally maintain that in BrE (unlike AmE) one meets with things – fate, success, trouble etc, but just meets people, but here I can see that the profusion of geographical labels might be a touch dizzying. I wonder if "Warwick and York had met while they were both in exile in Dublin" might be smoother, but I don't press the point.
- OK...thanks, firstly for a clear way of remembering that difference. The only thing here that makes me pause is that, while they were both in their exiles, they were exiled to different places—Warwick to Calais, York to Dublin. Thoughts?
- Good point (ahem!). Your original wording will suffice, but I wonder if it is necessary to mention the location at all? ""Warwick and York had met while they were in exile..."? I leave the ball in your court. Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Negotiations and the act of Parliament
- "he bore the Langley arms ... he had never worn the Langley arms" – if he had never worn them in what sense did he bear them? Does this just mean he claimed entitlement to them?
- Butting in here - this looks to have been a typo, as Ross says it was the Clarence arms he never bore; I've gone and corrected it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's dead right, and many thanks, PMC, for fielding that! Absolutely correct, of course. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That's my lot, I think. I'll look in again shortly. Tim riley talk 08:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Tim; all of your suggestions adopted; just the matter of their exiles that's tripping me up a little. SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- With the recent improvements to the article it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am happy to add my support. But peer review first next time, perhaps? (Speaking of which—hint). Tim riley talk 17:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
[edit]Forthcoming within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Caveat - my comments are made with fairly minimal knowledge of the entire War of the Roses, so if I ask something particularly stupid, forgive me (but feel free to say so)
- Lead
- Why was the king absent?
- No idea; in Berkhampstead, IIRC, bt he'd only opened the blooming parliament three days earlier, and since it seemed a bit of extraneous detail, all mention of his or York's absence is now... absent.
- "The queen, Margaret of Anjou, refused to accept the disinheritance of her son, although her husband had publicly supported the act." I might swap the clauses here so we flow from king's support to queen's refusal to the next sentence's opener of "she was joined"
- Thanks, reads much better.
- I've never heard of Margaret before but I think I love her already.
- She was more King than her husband could ever hope to be!
- What was Henry doing while his wife was raising hell? Might be worth mentioning in the lead
- Well, he's still in London; he was still king, but York and the Nevilles were running the government. He was a catspaw.
- "was crowned King Edward IV" - when? Right then, or later?
- Dated.
- Background
- I recognize that the situation is complicated, but this article is ~3500 words and the background is ~1100. The section about York's claiming of the throne is another 500. That's just shy of half the article all together just to set the scene, before the Act even comes up. Is it possible to condense any of these details?
- Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
- We'll have to cut his catnip rations for sure. No worries though, I realize I'm kind of being a hypocrite here, complaining about the length and then asking for several clarifying points :P
- Aaghh :) would it be OK, and the comradely act of a fellow editor, to throw SchroCat under the bus at this point ("Miss! It was his fault! He made me do it!")... I may have taken his suggestion of expanding the background too literally. I guess some words probably can be cut; can I take a deeper look into this point.
- "heir to the throne until 1453" - what changed?
- Hh and the queen did their duty :)
- It is embarrassing to admit that "queen had a baby" genuinely didn't come to mind.
- Hh and the queen did their duty :)
- "the maintenance of God's Peace" is "God's Peace" a specific notion distinct from just "peace", or would "peace" suffice?
- Of course, absolutely.
- Henry was utterly incapacitated in 1453, but in 1455, he's able to raise a great council. When did he recover?
- I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
- Looks good to me
- I think my clarification to Tim above (his 2nd trance, 2nd point under 'Background') might cover this; he asked something similar. Can you see if it's satisfactory to you too?
- "King Henry was captured by the Yorkists after the battle" later he's taken prisoner again. when did he get let go?
- Clarified that it was only for a couple of months.
- Both pairs of images are so tiny, I think you could safely make them bigger
- Done. Yes, much better.
- "Henry Bolingbroke" who
- Glossed him in that sentence.
- York claims the throne
- The lead mentions that the king is absent when York makes the claim, but the body doesn't establish this (was the king still a captive at this time?)
- see above, re. absenting.
- I can see it being removed in the lead, but in the body of the article, not addressing where the king was during this moment really begs the question of why he didn't object to someone else strolling up and calling dibs on his chair
- see above, re. absenting.
- This whole second paragraph is giving me just the worst secondhand embarrassment for York, it's like a Blackadder bit
- Totally. Thought of the theme song at the time! "His great grandfather was a king / if only for 30 seconds" :D
- "York appears to have had Henry removed from his lodgings" - was the king still a prisoner or how did he do this?
- Not really, they were the royal apartments, which York threw henry out of so he could live there. Nice attitude!
- Negotiations
- Double checked Ross and Ross says he never bore the Clarence arms, so I've corrected that
- Thanks again.
- "The resulting compromise was modelled on the 1420 Treaty of Troyes, which it mirrored;" "modelled on" feels redundant to "mirrored", I think we could pick just one
- "The resulting compromise mirrored the 1420..."
- "York's political opponents could now legally be classed as traitors" this is likely a question from ignorance, but how did the Act give him this power?
- Not at all. Clarified, hopefully, that it had always been treason to attack the heir to the throne, and now that was York, it applied to him.
- "The Act of Accord neither stopped the civil war..." - the second half of this sentence feels redundant to the first (mainly "nor resolved anything"). I see what you're doing, stylistically, but I don't see what it adds to the reader's understanding
- Duly cut.
- "If she had been looking" - this sentence feels a bit knotted up in itself
- Yes, verbose. Have tweaked.
- Aftermath
- Same question as in the lead - where is Henry while Margaret is raising hell?
- Still in London 'supporting' York's government...
- "Henry was accused of breaching the act long before that date" - in what way?
- point. Have clarified what Henry was now accused of in breach of the act (and, I imagine, his coronation oath).
Okay, that's what I've got on first read-through. Again, I apologize for any questions that arise out of ignorance of English history, although I hope an outsider's perspective is helpful in terms of spotting things that may feel obvious to a more knowledgeable person. No rush on responses, cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: That's a great review, really helpful. To be honest, an outsider's review can be the most useful because that's 99% of the readership, I guess. Also, you hit (annoyingly!) on broad themes along with prose. I think I've addressed your points—all improvements—except where I'm sharpening a penknife! Cheers! SerialNumber54129 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the few days' grace, Premeditated Chaos. I had another look and reduced the backgound section by 25%. I've also added a couple of sentences on what Henry was (not!!!) doing or thinking while this was going on. It's very vague, unfortunately. With no thought at all for the 21st-century historian, contempories didn't seem interested in what people weren't doing, only in what they were doing :) but this should help clarify things a bit. Thoughts? SerialNumber54129 13:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The changes look good to me, there's just the background section and the question of the king's status during York's throne-touching incident that remains. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
John
[edit]Lead
What does this sentence mean?
Following much discussion—in which the king's serjeants-at-law and justices claimed that under the act, Henry was to retain the crown for life, but York and his heirs were to succeed him.
Background
In Late Medieval England, strong kings were seen as essential to sound governance and the maintenance of God's Peace.[5] Likewise, weak government was perceived as encouraging the collapse of law and order, and contemporaries saw this as happening in the last years of Henry's reign.
"Likewise" isn't right here. I'd just make a longer sentence and use "and".
- Done.
York's claim to the throne
Warwick had met with York in Dublin while in their respective exiles.
Would "...while they were both in exile" be better?
- Done.
York claims the throne
"When York entered London, he had his sword, and the Arms of England, born aloft before him, rather than the traditional Mortimer quarterings, emblazoned on his trumpeters' banners, in the manner of a king." I'm lost by the end of that sentence. What does it mean?
- It was rather turgid! I've turned it into a couple of shorter sentences now?
Parliament
"Forty years later, the Act of Accord similarly decreed that Henry would retain the throne for his life, but that on his death, instead of descending to his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, it would do to York or York's heirs." "Do to" sounds awkward. I would reword this.
- Done.
Aftermath
"Elsewhere in the country, events necessitated urgent government intervention. In Scotland, James II had captured Roxburgh Castle and was poised to march on Berwick." Scotland and England are different countries and were all the more so in the 15th century.
- Blush!
"The Lancastrians' supposed breach of the Act of Accord, including York's death at Wakefield, and how it made them responsible for the civil war, became a mantra of Yorkist propaganda until the end of the dynasty in 1485." A mantra is something else. Would "theme" be a better word here?
- Absolutely.
John (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I'm owed that for spotting the England/Scotland thing. Still smarting from the Euros... John (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- The encyclopedia anyone can hack at, John :) SerialNumber54129 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Any objections if I just take a general hack at the prose? As others have pointed out, it isn't quite there yet. John (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for looking in, John, and for the suggestions. I've actioned them all—with a guilt trip for doing to Scotland in a couple of keystrokes what Edward I couldn't do in 30 years... SerialNumber54129 13:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, and please carefully inspect my edits to ensure I have not inadvertently changed any meaning. There may be one or two other bits and pieces, but those were the issues that were jumping out at me. John (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Huh, not at all, it's an excellent and well-written article, it just needed a little polish. Still ok? John (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- thanks John, appreciated. SerialNumber54129 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- No John, that all looks good to me and reads nicely. Can't believe I never even mentioned the Wars of the Roses! The Homer Simpson of FAC, after all... SerialNumber54129 17:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a hymn, or four hymns? I have a long history with it, DYK in 2011, GA in 2017 and a peer review in 2019. Today I was invited to the 15 years society and feel like celebrating, with this hymn which - in Luther's version - has been part of family functions. I made the article my story today, and that 2011 DYK explains two hymns (... that the first stanza of the hymn "Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist", asking the Holy Spirit for the right faith most of all, is documented in German in the 13th century, and the later three relate to faith, love and hope?), while there are two others in Catholic tradition. Please explore. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Media review
[edit]- File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(GL).mid: what's the copyright status of the arrangement?
- File:Berthold_von_Regensburg.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(WA).jpg, File:Nun_bitten_wir_den_Heiligen_Geist_(1653).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dan! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added US tags for those three files. DanCherek (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking! I dropped the midi files as of no good quality. Dan, can you perhaps help with the licenses for File:Berthold von Regensburg.jpg, File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (WA).jpg and File:Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist (1653).jpg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil
[edit]Reading through; very interesting and aligning to the type of early modern music I prefer. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your interest, and for copy-editing! I am not yet convinced of some changes in the lead, admitting that change is needed, just how?
- The first stanza came from a leise: no, not really. There was a leise, and it became the first stanza of all three later versions, - how can we say that better?
- I am reluctant to call a 1524 work "modern", even if it was 300 years more "modern" than the leise.
- There are three versions in today's hymnals, two from the 16th century (Luther, Vehe) and one from the 20th (Thurmair). Perhaps we need to find a way to say that at the very beginning? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I now tried to write a new first paragraph to outline the relation of the three versions. Please check, but perhaps first read the body to know what the lead should summarize. History: when I began the article, I only thought of Luther's hymn. I remember how surprised I was to learn that singing in German had this long a tradition, - somehow I had thought it was all in Latin until Luther came along ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- but perhaps first read the body ' agh, you've lost me now. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Grand, will resume over weekend....Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was busy, yesterday RL, today Jürgen Ahrend. Did I say something wrong? - When I review, I look at the lead last, that's about all I wanted to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but the fact that I was confused as to actual meaning indicates issues. As the text only has 1200 odd words, it should be easily resolved. I'll do buttleted demands from here. best, Ceoil (talk) 06:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Airship: prose
[edit]- Lead is rather repetitive:
- " in German, which all share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise" // "The first stanza in all versions is a leise in German from the 13th century."
- "wrote three additional stanzas in 1524" // "In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas."
- " Maria Luise Thurmair wrote a continuation based on this in 1972" // "Maria Luise Thurmair; her version was published in 1972"
- It also needs copyediting for prose—I have corrected a couple of minor errors, but sentences like "They also have in common that they use its medieval melody." and "The request to the Holy Spirit for the right faith especially ("um den rechten Glauben allermeist") suited Luther's theology." are stilted and/or confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, thank you for reviewing! Please see above: Ceoil pointed out that the lead lacked an overview of the versions, which was added late, and made some things repetitive. Should the first (new) paragraph be more condensed to avoid that, for example saying only that there were also Catholic expansions, or rather some details cut in what follows?
- Thank you for the corrections. I'd appreciate help with phrasing. Trying something for the melody, please check. I will have to think about the theology. I think that it's rather commonly known that Luther promoted a theology of sola fide, faith alone, - do you think it should be expanded? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- A suggestion (I may have misinterpreted some content, so don't feel like this is a demand): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
concise lead
|
---|
"Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist" (We now implore the Holy Ghost) is the title of several hymns in German which share the first stanza, a 13th-century leise, and its medieval melody. This stanza alludes to the Latin sequence for Pentecost, Veni Sancte Spiritus (Come, Holy Spirit). Widely known, it was used as a procession song and in sacred plays. In his 1523 liturgy, the Protestant reformer Martin Luther recommended using the leise regularly in church services; it contained an appeal for the right faith which especially suited Luther's theology. In 1524, possibly for Pentecost, he wrote three additional stanzas, first published in Wittenberg in the same year as part of the Eyn geystlich Gesangk Buchleyn. His version's themes of faith, love and hope are appropriate for general occasions and funerals. not only Pentecost. Luther's chorale is sung by several Christian denominations in different languages, having received various English translations. It inspired vocal and organ music from the Renaissance to contemporary by composers such as Johann Crüger, Johann Sebastian Bach, Hugo Distler and Ernst Pepping. Alternative continuations of the hymn have appeared in Catholic hymnals. Luther's contemporary Michael Vehe, a Dominican friar and theologian, published his version, also with three added stanzas, in 1537. His hymn was revised and expanded by Maria Luise Thurmair in 1972. Both Luther's and Thurmair's hymns have remained in use into the 21st century. |
- Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.
- I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- (I am far from claiming professionalism.) I trimmed the lead to no repetition (but see the danger of sandwiching text when too short). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- See MOS:OPEN. The first paragraph should define the subject and clearly convey its significance. The rest of the lead summarizes the most important points of the article. A professional lead (FA criterion 1a) does this without duplication or repetition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand (generally in FAs) the first para as a summary of a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but the repetition between the first and last paragraph needs to be taken into account.
- Thank you for thinking about it. I woke up thinking that it would be better to present a very short overview. I did that and then took some of your good ideas on board, please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- General comments
- I have added four {{cn}} tags to uncited material. You should look to combine short paragraphs per WP:PARAGRAPH.
- It would be useful for all readers if a translation of the verses into English were provided. The {{Verse translation}} template may be helpful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll look into the first point later. Translations: sadly, I didn't see a free translation. Bach Cantatas Website (external link) comes with a good one, but from 2015. The various hymnary pages don't offer text, possibly for the same reason. But I now found this and will use it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I fixed one of the required citations. Looking for something online for Vehe's version in the Limburg hymnal (which I own), I found nothing for that fact, so may add a book ref. I found, however, interesting other sources leading to some rewrite, patience please. The short explanation of what the Vehe hymn says: call it OR, - it's my rendering in English of what it says in German, instead of a translation of that version which - I'm afraid - we will not find. I'll move the publications in other languages to translations, and add more publications of the Luther version. Before all that, there's garden work and dealing with the article of a cellist who died - my plan for today. I can ping you when I'll get to it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- (The cellist is on the Main page. Today's topic was a conductor, still far from how the article should be.) I added a ref for the 1975 Gotteslob, and modified to Vehe being the editor of the hymnal, not necessarily the author. As for what that version means in English: would it help if I'd write individual phrases in German with their translation, as for Thurmair's? For hers that seemed necessary because the English is under copyright (but can be seen in the "Fischer F" ref). - Too tired to search for more publications and translations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Airship, by now I managed to use Fischer (encyclopedia of hymns) more. I also think I found a better way of referring to it, listing its subpages as pages instead of new references. It led to more versions, and a complete rearrangement of the article structure: trying to avoid level-four headers, I dropped the distinction of Text and Music and then subdivided, changing to one of Leise - Protestant - Catholic, putting all music and translations under Protestant, because I noticed those only for the Luther version. I hope to expand the translation corner which is still short. I found a general ref for many appearances in songbooks and hymnals and wonder if I should mention some of those. What do you think. Do you know the verse template enough to find a way to avoid the excessive white space that comes with it - the more stanzas the more it seems? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
MyCat
[edit]I'll gladly review; however, know that my liturgical knowledge is very limited, so much of my review will just be about the prose rather than comprehensiveness. I'll review once Airship's comments are resolved, so I don't say anything they already said. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
[edit]Saving a spot for later; I'm working on a source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a fictional species in the Pokémon media franchise, the evolution of mascot Pikachu. The article discusses the character's design and appearances, as well as reception in the context of it as its own species and in relation to Pikachu from both audience perception and company handling of the character.
The article passed GAN in January of this year, and underwent a peer review in April, with feedback from both worked into the article. Additional discussions to refine sections have also taken place on the video game character task force to help get consensus on how to approach commonly used terminology and help a reader unfamiliar with the franchise or gaming understand them. One point of issue may be the use of a ScreenRant source in the reception section, however this source is being used strictly for the author Niki Fakhoori's opinion, and they have a long history in gaming journalism for outlets such as Prima Games and RPGFan as illustrated here (the latter of which recognized as a reliable source by the Wikipdia Video Game project).
I hope this article meets FAC standards, and will be receptive to quickly fix any issues or concerns that may arise.Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Pokelego999
[edit]I don't normally look at FANs but given that this is within my main subject area, I thought I'd stop by and leave some comments.
-"Sugimori asked Nishida to design the form, who gave it a "soft and fluffy" appearance. Nishida felt that Raichu's original design was far cuter than people gave it credit for, and wanted to express this in the Alolan form" The wording feels a bit informal here, and I feel this could be better worded.
- Reworded for better flow.
-What are Types? (Electric and Psychic) and what do they do? For those unfamiliar with Pokémon this aspect isn't very well-defined.
- Added a definition to the opening paragraph explaining this.
-I'd define what an ability is (Clarify it with something like "an in-battle special ability or something like that) for those unaware of in-game terminology
- Fixed.
-I'd also clarify what Electric Terrain is, given it isn't clarified what that is.
- Fixed,
-"First found in Pokémon Red and Blue, they have appeared in most Pokémon titles since, including every major game." This statement seems to be unsourced.
- Reused the Ode to Raichu reference here as he mentions capturing it in every game.
-"and another Pikachu must be obtained instead." I'd reword this to also mention "...must be obtained instead in order to obtain Raichu" or something like that
- Reworded
-I'd clarify "the games" Pokémon Sun and Moon in the prose in the Appearances section
- Fixed
-I'm not sure how necessary "due to the latter evolving his as quickly as possible" is in the article's context.
- Reworded
-I'd utilize a source that isn't Comicbook.com for cite 27 (Verifying Goh's Raichu) given that site is inconclusive in terms of reliability and tends to have low quality articles.
- Sadly this is the best source for that matter, as all others omit details. The anime at this point is not heavily discussed in sources and ComicBook.com offered the best material for this matter.
-How reliable are "Visual Entertainment Plandas" and "Gung Ho Bookings"?
- Both are the booking companies of their respective talents, and while still primary sources the alternative would have been to cite episode credits directly for Japan or Ms. Mongillo's Twitter, which per the previous FAC attempt was frowned upon. Most voice work in the anime are often either difficult to find secondary credits for or uncredited entirely in the English end.
-"or ending up not using them at all" I'd just change this to "end" for grammatical reasons
- Fixed
-"and expressing his confusion at the reaction." I'm very confused as to what this is supposed to mean.
- Reworded
-I feel the Comicbook.com source in the Reception isn't really adding much. I know there's other small sources used, but these at least have a reason to be used. The Comicbook.com source just feels unnecessary.
- While it's lighter it's used as a glue for that whole paragraph as it helps offer another reaction to how the fandom and company have treated the character. I feel removing this would undermine that paragraph and an idea of how the character was received in that regard overall as the series progressed.
-" to Ash's idealized childlike state instead of maturing in Pikachu's refusal to evolve into Raichu and how this displayed that they drew power from their younger states respectively." I'd cut the "instead of maturing" here because this sentence is very hard to comprehend otherwise.
- Fixed.
-The LGBTQ+ source is honestly really cool, but it only mentions Raichu once and is a small part of the article. I'm not sure if this counts as significant coverage in the scope of a FA.
- I feel strongly it helps bring a different enough viewpoint to the relation between the two and is significant enough to keep. While smaller sources on their own may not be ideal, they can help cement larger opinions and give the reader a more thorough perspective on how a relationship between two fictional characters can be seen.
-I think this article has potential but does need some work. Fantastic job overall, but do let me know your thoughts on the above or if you need any clarification, since this article still needs some improvements before I'll give my Support vote. (I believe that's how this works? Do correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not as familiar with FA voting.) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Pokelego999: I believe I have addressed all your concerns.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Kung Fu Man thank you for addressing the above concerns. I don't believe I have many concerns regarding the sources above per your explanations, and your fixes are very good. Happy to Support this for FA. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from the Night Watch
[edit]I'm traveling right now but I think I'll be able to get some comments up within the next week or so. Haven't looked at Pokémon in a long while but this might be a good start. The Night Watch (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just know that the review is still forthcoming, I'm just not feeling the best. May take a few more days The Night Watch (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hurricanehink
[edit]I figured I'd review this, since I noticed this FAC when I nominated my own FAC.
- "concepts of self-identity and portrayals of youth in anime media" - I feel like one of these could get a wikilink
- Wikilinked self-identity, portrayals of youth may be too broad to pinpoint to any one wikipedia article I fear.
- "the Japanese franchise began in the 1990s with the release of the video games Pokémon Red and Blue for the Game Boy" - I feel like I need to be pedantic and point out that it was called Red and Green in Japan. I think you should mention the exact year the first game was released, since you mention that in the infobox, and otherwise there's no reference for when Raichu made its first appearance. And then you could also say, it was re-released in North America as Pokemon Red and Blue. Maybe even having a note that for consistency sake, they are referred as Red and Blue? I don't want to belabor the point too much, but the remakes were FireRed and Leaf Green, so that lends to the originals being Red and Green. I'd just like some clarification that the article is deliberately calling them Red and Blue.
- We've actually had some back and forths regarding this across the wikipedia community as a whole, and part of the problem is that the games themselves are listed on here as Red and Blue, causing confusion for some readers when wikilinked if Red/Green was used in the text (I think this even came up with MissingNo. back in the day but that's over a decade ago now). While we could go into more detail on it too, I feel the Keep It Simple, Stupid policy may apply here also as the exact game names bear little weight on understanding Raichu as a concept or character, and going on a tangent about it may confuse readers in this article and others (given this block is shared among multiple Pokemon character articles)
- Well regardless of the Green/Blue, there should still be a reference and indication that the game came out in 1996. Leaving it to "the 1990s" is too vague when 1996 is a much better answer, and is what's in the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tweaked this a bit, avoided saying "released" to bypass an earlier issue (Red and Blue were technically released in '98, that's why the whole "1990s" bit came about as seen here.
- Also, since this is up for FAC, I have to ask, is there any literature on when the designs for the Pokemon started? Like, I know Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever created, so I wondered if there's anything about when the rest of them were made. If the first Japanese game came out in 1996, and it was apparently approved as a game in 1990 when Satoshi Tajiri pitched it. I feel like some of this should be mentioned for context, so it's not just leaving it to a vague decade long period that could have served as the origins.
- Not really, sadly. Pokemon had a very long development period, so an exact window of when certain designs were considered or even when exactly Atsuko Nishida was brought onto the development team isn't clear. We're only now getting more of the behind the scenes as time goes on.
- "In these games and their sequels, the player assumes the role of a Pokémon Trainer whose goal is to capture and train Pokémon." - feels redundant to say Pokemon twice, and "Trainer/train". Any way you could reword this a bit?
- Reworded this a bit with the following sentence.
- Pikachu evolves into Raichu through use of the game's "Thunder Stone" item,[9] while Raichu was originally planned to evolve into a Pokémon species dubbed Gorochu. - I love this factoid. I highly suggest splitting into two sentences.
- Split into two sentences.
- I wonder if it's worth mentioning the addition of Pichu in Gold/Silver. Raichu is the final evolution in that family, so I think that's worth mentioning.
- The problem is Pichu came afterward, and has no real bearing on Raichu's design or vice versa, and there's no discussion about a relationship between the two. It would be especially awkward to work it in as it has no bearing on the rest of the article at all.
- Except Pichu completes the evolutionary family. So when you mention Raichu as "Pikachu-related product lines", I have to wonder about other parts of the Pikachu line. I think it would be natural to mention Pichu after mentioning the canceled Gorachu, since that completes the evolutionary line. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to work it in carefully, since Pichu's design is Sugimori's and I didn't want to throw too much at the reader.
- "In Red and Blue the Gym Leader Lt. Surge, a Trainer that acts as a boss the player must defeat to proceed, utilizes a Raichu" - the grammar could be better
- Reorganized, is this better?
- Much! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- " Outside of games, Raichu has appeared on several pieces of merchandise, including plush toys, figurines, and as promotional material with companies such as Burger King." - could you go more into this? I think this is the most significant proof that Raichu is indeed fairly notable, independent of its relationship to Pikachu. I have been on Wikipedia long enough to remember when there was an article for every Pokemon, until there wasn't, and only certain ones were important enough for an article. Given all of the sources and analyses about Raichu, there is probably enough here, but expanding on the sentence I mentioned would really help prove that.
- I expanded this a bit with some references noting how Raichu's been part of Pikachu-themed product lines, I'm hoping that suffices for this. There was some commentary about it being part of the Year of the Rat promotion in 2019, but the only source I could find to corroborate that was Nintendo Soup which isn't a reliable source per WP:VG/S.
- Yea that's much better! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
And that's my review. I didn't get into checking out the sources or images. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink: Hit everything I could and addressed the others the best I could, let me know if there's anything else.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much better already, just two follow ups, if you don't mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Hurricanehink:Addressed it the best I could, lemme know what you think!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, much better already, just two follow ups, if you don't mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Support, yes thank you! Happy to support this now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.
This article passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "
A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->
" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Why would this need to go to WT:NFC? As far as I can tell there's nothing there supporting either the tagging or the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "
For visual identification of the object of the article
", you haven't provided a valid reason to object to this image and it appears to me to have no issues. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)- Passing GAN doesn't guarantee that something will pass FAC. I don't think this image is correctly tagged or correctly captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given it passed peer-review at the GAN and the automatic text addition for WP:NFCC#8 in the non-free rational states, "
- Why would this need to go to WT:NFC? As far as I can tell there's nothing there supporting either the tagging or the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Quick question Nikkimaria, what part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals are you referencing? From what I can tell, the only image-related item on the list is in regards to non-commercial images (i.e. Created Commons By-NC) licensed images. The image in question isn't a CC-related license, so I'm not sure what part of WP:PEREN you are referencing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The section regarding bylines (which includes discussion of CC requirements but is not limited to that). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "
- Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't generally support on an image review alone, but best of luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well thank you for the image review. I appreciate you for taking the time! (Personal note: Sad time. All of that to not get a support. :( On the bright side, at least I didn't get an oppose. :D !) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't generally support on an image review alone, but best of luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Ever wonder why Greek and Sanskrit cognates involving gutturals don't always match up like you expect and usually before an /r/ sound? Yeah, me either. But in 1881, a German linguist commented on this oddity and proposed a sound law to explain it. "Largely forgotten by the scholarly world", the law developed newfound interest when Dutch linguist Alwin Kloekhorst gave the law a full defense in 2011, giving Dr. Weise a high honor: naming it after him. As of now, there are no Proto-Indo-European FAs and only one other GA, which is something I'm hoping to fix. This article may be of interest to you if you speak a language affected by the law, including a Balto-Slavic language, Albanian, Armenian, or any of the Indo-Iranian languages, such as Farsi or Hindi. I would like to extend my thanks, first and foremost, to UndercoverClassicist who beat this article into shape during its GA nomination, swung by to help out during PR, and overall just gave great feedback. Also thanks to RoySmith and Matarisvan, both of whom gave me great feedback at PR as well. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Good to see this here -- will pop in at some point. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Count me in for a review! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 10:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Generalissima: Courtesy ping. Just wanted to see if you were still interested in reviewing this since it's been a few weeks. ThaesOfereode (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "Presented at a conference in 2008". Who or what was presented?
- Rephrased.
- "several different sources on the topic, both referencing Weise and not". This would work better as 'several different sources on the topic, some referencing Weise and some not' or similar.
- Done.
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gog! Looking forward to your comments. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "while the palatovelar stops generally were made into alveolar sibilants in most cases". You don't need to say both "generally" and "in most cases".
- Good catch. Fixed.
- "Sanskrit words contain many potential violations of the rule occurring". I am not sure this is grammatical. Try deleting "occurring".
- Fixed.
- "However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family such as in Sanskrit"> I am a little confused; "such as in Sanskrit", as opposed to what?
- In short, there appear to be violations of the law which are explainable by sound changes that took place after the law. In Sanskrit, as an example, /l/ becomes /r/ in many circumstances. Because of this, śr clusters appear to be violations of the law – since ś is largely, if not only, derived from PIE *ḱ – because *ḱ cannot precede *r according to the law. But because these words may be the result of a PIE *ḱl cluster, there is no violation. The examples serve to demonstrate such cases.
- In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
- Fixed.
- In which case I suggest that a bit much is being asked of this sentence. Perhaps something like 'However, these are often the result of later sound changes particular to a language or language family. Examples can be found in Sanskrit, where ...'
- Non-actionable comment: I like your two uses of "In other words". Is this deliberate minor humour?
- I'd love to say yes, but this is the template phrase of someone used to reading and writing technical jargon trying to make it more accessible. In other words, sadly no. :-)
- "The law must have occurred by". I know what you mean, but I am unsure that it works as prose. Perhaps unpack "The law" to say just what it was that "must have occurred by"? Similarly with references to "the law" in the last sentence of the paragraph.
- I've changed a few of these up; I think I'm understanding you right. If not, could you offer a suggestion?
- Yep, that's fixed it.
- And in "there is positive evidence that the law never occurred in Armenian" and similar uses. I am not sure that "the law occurred" etc communicates well to a reader.
- Ibid. above
- Likewise.
- "linguists suggest that this sound change occurred before the centum–satem split." All linguists, most, or some?
- Now that I'm looking at it again, I think it's really just Kloekhorst saying that. I've changed it to reflect that.
- "Although, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages, Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families." ' Kloekhorst notes that it is likely that a secondary wave of depalatalization law took place at a later date in each of those language families, because the results of Weise's law seem more extensive outside the Indo-Iranian languages' seems easier to parse.
- Done.
- "See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for more." Maybe '... for further information' [or 'detail', or discussion']?
- I like "further discussion". Fixed.
- "Larry Trask also categorizes both". Categorizes both as what?
- Clarified.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Gog. Thanks for your feedback. I've responded accordingly. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Everything should be addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just one come back of note above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am leaning support, but as it is early days for a technical topic I am going to hold off formalising this until I see what other reviewers think. In particular their view of WP:TECHNICAL "Wikipedia articles should be written for the widest possible general audience." I think that it passes this, but only just, and would like to see others' opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you for the comments and support. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Rereading, the article seems more accessible than I left it - thank you UndercoverClassicist and the nominator. And UC has explicitly approved of the level at which it is pitched. Who am I to disagree. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Borsoka
[edit]Before starting a detailed review, I think the article needs some expansion:
the main text could explain that the sound change is assumed to have occurred in Proto-Indoeuropean;
- If I'm reading you correctly, discussion on this is found in the "Relative chronology" section, where I've written about the two competing views: Kortlandt (Proto-Indo-Iranian only) and Kloekhorst (late Proto-Indo-European, excluding the Anatolian languages).
Proto-Indoeuropean could very shortly be introduced;
- Done.
I assume that the three sounds mentioned in the article are not attested, but assumed - this should be clarified.Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think this has been fixed with what I wrote for the above suggestion, since I talk about how PIE is hypothetical and no record of it exists. I go over that in the representational conventions in "Terminology", so I think all the bases are covered.
- I have responded accordingly. Please let me know if I misunderstood anything or need to do anything else. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]I am struggling to find too much to say, though I know I have already stuck my oar in a great deal on this article. I hope the below is useful nonetheless. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a ton for your help on this article. I've fixed most of what you've pointed out and responded to the rest accordingly. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- No doubt. Thank you for your tireless effort making this article more accessible and better quality. ThaesOfereode (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- I think I'm probably at the end of my expertise here, but I think we're in a much better place -- balancing technical detail and comprehensibility in an article like this is extremely tricky, and as far as I can see it's about as good as it can be. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The biggest point throughout -- I still think we could do more to help non-linguists understand what is going on here, particularly in the lead. I admit that I was never particularly good at philology in undergrad, but I've got pretty good training in it and find causes the depalatalization of the palatovelar consonants *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ in certain contexts. In short, when *ḱ *ǵ *ǵʰ are followed by *r, they depalatalize and thereby merge with the plain velars *k *g *gʰ, respectively, unless the *r is followed by *i or the palatalized form is restored by analogy pretty tough to parse. I also found the penultimate paragraph of the "Overview" section a little tricky.
- I've been thinking about how to de-technicalize the lede for some time now. I think I've figured it out, but let me know if I'm still off the mark. As for the penultimate paragraph in "Overview", I've also rewritten part of that. Same goes.
- I wonder whether "merge with" is likely to be confusing for most readers -- I'm not sure many non-linguists will parse it as "become [indistinguishable from]". A bit later, with One such example of this is Sanskrit अज्र ájra 'field, plain', which is derived from h₂éǵ-ro- 'field, pasturage'; in this example, the reflex of the palatalized consonant has been restored: can we say what it would be if Weise's law were followed, or what's "wrong" with ájra under it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Had to do a little source-digging and ended up clearing up a few things I thought could be further de-technicalized, but I added the expected reflex for ájra. As for the "merge with" issue, I asked a non-linguist whether that term was clear and they confirmed your concerns, so some thoughts: With respect to changing it to "become indistinguishable from" as an alternative, I'm concerned this may lead to the belief that they are still somehow distinct in some meaningful way; linguists do distinguish surface representation from deep structure. In other words, something may not be distinguishable in discourse, but may still be distinguishable in some other way. What I've done instead – since I cannot think of an sufficiently broad term that is correct in the linguistic sense – is link Phonological change#Merger. I think this will adequately address my technical concern about accurate terminology and the general concern about accessibility to non-linguists. Let me know what you think. ThaesOfereode (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I think this has been adequately addressed now. ThaesOfereode (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would probably work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I am a bit wary of "become" in this context is that it doesn't convey that the plain velars were already in the language; I think it sounds like they became novel sounds in the language. Could I steal the terminology from Phonological change#Merger and say that the distinction between the palatovelars and the plain velars was lost? ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be anything wrong with saying that one sound merging into another is, for all intents and purposes, that sound simply becoming the other one? I think the link helps, but as the tooltip doesn't give a definition (as it's linking to a section), it's not a perfect solution. Some sort of gloss on merge to explain that it includes taking on the same sound (even if it doesn't strictly mean that) might be possible? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- One thing that I think would help with this is a demonstration -- could we perhaps do a table with three columns -- PIE, [example centum language -- Latin?] and [example satem language -- Sanskrit?], with a few words that show the distinction written out in easily-parsed transcription?
- I'm not opposed to that, but I'm not sure what should be demonstrated with a table. There is a table on the Centum and satem languages page, which demonstrates the difference, which I suppose I could add with real examples (instead of just descriptions) to show the difference between the two fairly generally. The problem is, in the cases in which Weise's law applies, the difference between centum and satem languages can't be differentiated as a result of that depalatalization; Weise's law basically causes the "pseudo-centumization" of certain palatal sounds. I'm also concerned that using attested languages like Latin and Sanskrit may be unhelpful to the layperson because they will invariably show forms that are the result of later sound changes and may further confuse someone unfamiliar with historical linguistics.
- Similarly, some of the (entirely correct) technical notation could be written in plain language without sacrificing much: instead of (e.g., Sanskrit: श्रवस् śravas 'fame' < *ḱleu-es-; ह्राद् hrād 'to resound, to make a noise' < *ǵʰleh₃d-), try for example, the Sanskrit word for 'fame', śravas, derives from the Proto-Indo-European *ḱleu-es.
- Fair enough. Fixed.
- The law is named after German linguist Oskar Weise: a false title: this and similar are better as "the German linguist..."
- Done.
- According to Alwin Kloekhorst, Weise's original article has "been largely forgotten by the scholarly world",: is the tense quite right here, given that Kloekhorst was trying to bring it back to scholarly attention? Might be more accurate to do was largely forgotten as a paraphrase. I think we do need to put a date on K's work here.
- I'm not gonna push back too hard here, but I'd say it's still kind of forgotten. I think Kloekhorst did a good job reminding others that the law existed and sort of established the boundaries better than Weise did, but sound laws like Grimm's, Szemerényi's, and Verner's are commonly mentioned in the field's literature, whereas even narrow etymologies of Sanskrit don't mention it at all. Still, I'm willing to stand down on this if you think Kloekhorst successfully brought it back to scholarly attention, but I'm skeptical. That all said, I've dated the quote as requested.
- Note how the tongue's point of contact or constriction moves increasingly forward, from the palate to just behind the teeth. the MoS discourages editorial asides like "note how...", and takes the position that everything we write is notable. Better simply to start the sentence at The tongue's...
- Fixed.
- Another tough bit: since the metathesis of late Proto-Indo-European *u and *r occurs after both the divergence of Anatolian (e.g., Hittite: 𒍝𒈠𒀭𒆳 zama(n)kur 'beard' < *smóḱ-ur) and any depalatalization under Weise's law.
- Good call. I revamped this paragraph entirely.
- there is positive evidence that this kind of depalatalization never occurred in Armenian (սրունք srunkʿ 'leg' < *ḱrūs-ni-; մերձ merj 'near, close to' < *méǵʰsri).: as above, I think it might help to write out the bit in brackets in layman's terms.
- Yep. Done.
- Albanian and Armenian have a controversial placement in centum–satem taxonomy. See Centum and satem languages § Satem languages for further discussion: this currently seems a bit disjointed, since we then talk about this in the last paragraph of the article.
- Yeah, I originally put this in here to get in front of any head-scratching coming from someone with linguistics knowledge, especially since I originally wrote an extremely technical article (i.e., one in which a reader would only have gotten that far with some background in PIE linguistics). I think the discussion on the page is better (and better sourced), so would it be better to just {{slink}} the "Relative chronology" section of this article instead? Or should I just remove it outright?
- I think it mostly works: While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages, Kloekhorst considers Albanian and Armenian to be satem languages: is it worth sticking in the middle "it does affect Albanian and Armenian; most scholars categorise these as centum languages, but Kloekhorst..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- My take on the scholarship is that "Albanian and Armenian are satem languages" comprises a plurality – but not a majority – of opinions on the topic. I'd say "Albanian and Armenian exist outside the dichotomy/exist on a spectrum within the dichotomy" is a close second (usually in "inoffensive" contexts, such as intros to the field and papers in which Albanian and Armenian do not constitute a significant portion of the data). And I found this to remain the case as I developed the article, though scholarship is changing somewhat on what exactly the dichotomy is as a whole. That's why I simply put "have a controversial placement" rather than implying any sort of majority opinion because I don't think any polls or reviews of the literature would support an outright majority. And if they did, it might be outside the scope of this article; Weise's law affects these two languages, so for the purposes of most of scholarship on the law, they are categorized as such and that's really all the reader needs to know. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense. It's fixed, but let me know if the verbiage is still off. ThaesOfereode (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In which case, we need to think about the phrasing of While the law does not affect most of the generally accepted centum languages..., since this implies that Albanian and Armenian are generally-accepted centum languages. I'm not sure you need to come down hard either way, but we should avoid giving the reader the wrong impression. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Make sure that footnotes always end in a full stop (the citation template adds one automatically, as does sfn; harvnb doesn't) -- see note 3 for instance.
- Good catch. I think I got all of them now.
- Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Edith Roosevelt was a lifelong companion to President Theodore Roosevelt, from childhood until Theodore's death. Shying from the spotlight as her husband became increasingly famous, she found herself thrown into the role of first lady over a matter of days when Theodore unexpectedly became president of the United States. As first lady, she ruled Washington's social life with an iron fist, holding meetings with the wives of Theodore's cabinetmembers to determine when and how they were to hold events—and who they weren't allowed to invite. Edith took charge of the White House's first major renovation, and she was the first of the first ladies to hire her own employee.
This is the fourth article of my U.S. first ladies project that I'm submitting as a featured article candidate. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family,_1903.jpg, File:Edith_and_Ethel_Roosevelt_cph.3b42358.jpg
- File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg, File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631491_(cropped).jpg
- File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg: where is that licensing coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Edith_Kermit_Carow_Roosevelt_by_Frances_Benjamin_Johnston.jpg, File:Edith_Roosevelt.jpg, File:Mrs. Theodore Roosevelt LCCN2009631491 (cropped).jpg – These are all from the same source, which doesn't provide that info, and a Google search for each image didn't turn anything up.
- File:Theodore_Roosevelt_and_family._"From_a_father_of_five_to_a_father_of_five"_-_Gilbert_Studios._LCCN2015650317.jpg – Same as the others, but it's from Gilbert Studios, which was apparently owned by commons:Category:C. M. Gilbert. I don't know whether that's enough to call him the author though.
- File:Mrs._Theodore_Roosevelt_LCCN2009631530_(cropped).jpg – Figured out the author and added to the Commons page
- File:Mrs._Roosevelt,_Quentin.jpg – Yeah, that wasn't ideal. I switched the description to the standard format used by the other images, and I swapped the CC tag with a standard PD tag. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, they're all from Library of Congress which doesn't provide the publication info, and I haven't been able to verify them separately. Is there an alternative tag to use in this case, or should I just remove the tags (and would the images need to be removed from the article in that case)? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- So for all the images with tagging indicating a publication date prior to 1929, is it actually possible to demonstrate that? Or should the tagging be changed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's the earliest publication date that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by from Kavyansh
- link White House in the lead
- "came to be her most enduring legacies." — I feel we are stating a widespread scholarly opinion as a fact. I would have written it as "are considered by scholars/historians/authors<whatever deeps appropriate> to be her most enduring legacies."
- "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making," — Interesting! But do we need this in an encyclopaedic article?
I might add a few more comments, but I won't be supporting or opposing the nomination, primarily because these are just drive-by comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the feedback, always appreciated! I've made the first two changes. For my part, I've always liked having a few more personal details to give a better picture of the subject's family life and personal thoughts, but I have no objection to changing how it's presented or just removing it if others agree that it doesn't work as it currently stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
MSinccc
[edit]- Placeholder for the time being. Regards MSincccc (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year. The specific year or month-year might be mentioned as it has not been done previously in the paragraph.
- Edith resented the press, so she used her influence to control its coverage of the family and had photographs taken of the Roosevelts so she could provide them to the press at her discretion. Can this sentence be reconstructed to make its meaning clearer?
- This sentence gave me a lot of grief when I was writing the lead. I've given it another try and split it into two sentences. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing more for the lead. I will return with further suggestions later. MSincccc (talk) 14:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien More comments below. Looking forward to hearing your response.
- Legacy
- Historians have little information about Edith's own state of mind while studying her life,...
- The historian Stacy A. Cordery said that the White House renovations organized by Edith were one of her "most important legacies",... Grammatically correct, now.
- Edith has been ranked:... Can this sentence be rephrased into one sentence?
- MSincccc (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement
- Over 300 letters celebrating Franklin's nomination arrived as Sagamore Hill. The last phrase "...arrived as Sagamore Hill" is vague. Could you please explain it to me? The rest of the section is fine.
- Typo. Should have been "at Sagamore Hill". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- MSincccc (talk) 02:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Return to Sagamore Hill
- She temporarily lost her taste and permanently lost her smell from the accident.
- Rephrased sentence. MSincccc (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- To me this makes it sound like she enjoyed kitsch art and her body odor was cured. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Return to Sagamore Hill
- Thebiguglyalien Further travel and political involvement
MSincccc, I've replied to everything to this point. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- First lady of the United States
- Rather than hiring a housekeeper, she took personal responsibility for the care of the mansion. I suppose it should be "hiring" instead of "hire".
- Each Tuesday, Edith organized a meeting with wives of all the cabinet members to run concurrently with cabinet meetings.
- For two months beginning in April 1903, Theodore ventured off on a trip to the west, and Edith cared for the children on her own, first on a cruise aboard the USS Mayflower and then in the White House. What do you mean by the "White House" here? Was it a vehicle for him to travel to the West?
- Besides her own children, Edith also ensured to dedicate time to her stepdaughter Alice, who felt neglected by Theodore.
- @Thebiguglyalien Till here for now. I will return with further suggestions later. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]Outstanding work as usual; as usual, this is nothing but a list of minor nitpicks and I expect to support once these are dealt with or argued away.
- "until after Theodore was engaged to Alice Hathaway Lee": suggest making this "until after Theodore was engaged to his first wife, Alice Hathaway Lee". I suspect I know more about Teddy than most Americans (I live near Sagamore Hill and have visited it several times) but I still had to click through to remind myself that he did marry Alice.
- "and got elected governor of New York": suggest "and was elected" as a little more formal in tone.
- "She then became second lady of the United States when Theodore was elected Vice President, and she became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency later that year." A bit repetitive in structure, and I'm not keen on the "then". I also think it would help to have one or two dates in this paragraph. How about inverting the first half: "When Theodore was elected Vice President in March 1901 she became second lady of the United States for six months, and then became first lady when the assassination of President William McKinley propelled Theodore to the presidency in September of that year"? Mentioning a year once or twice earlier in that paragraph wouldn't hurt either.
- "she featured various musical artists at the White House": perhaps "invited to" rather than "featured"?
- "held a mutual animosity toward his wife Helen Herron Taft": I don't think there's a good verb that you can use in the form "she Xed animosity towards". If you want to keep "animosity", I would suggest "and there was mutual animosity between Edith and Taft's wife, Helen Herron Taft". If you'd rather avoid the passive, maybe "and she and his wife, Helen Herron Taft, strongly disliked each other".
- "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932—the latter being an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...": this doesn't work syntactically -- "the latter" refers to Hoover himself, not her support for him. Maybe "She remained politically active, supporting Warren G. Harding in 1920 and Herbert Hoover in 1932. Her support for the latter was an effort to distance herself from Hoover's opponent ...".
- "Edith's early schooling took place at the Roosevelt home": can we give the location?
- "Managing the family became a large responsibility, as she also considered her husband to be one of the children for his involvement in the children's trouble-making". I don't think "as" works unless the source is clear that it would not have been a large responsibility without Theodore's attitude, which seems unlikely given the number of children and the expectation of the day that mothers were responsible for day-to-day parenting. Suggest "Managing the family became an increasing responsibility, and she counted her husband as one of the children because of his involvement in the children's trouble-making".
- "cared for their family friend Cecil Spring Rice during his visits": this makes it sound as if he was an invalid?
- "Fischer's antique shop": this is mentioned as if it's well-known. Is it a candidate for a redlink?
- "Attending several receptions in 1890, Edith was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist": suggest "She attended several receptions in 1890, and was received at the White House with her husband, now as a guest rather than a tourist". I assume some of these receptions were not at the White House? If they all were at the White House then that could be made definite with "She attended several receptions at the White House in 1890 with her husband, and was now received as a guest rather than a tourist".
- "on February 1, 1894, by President Grover Cleveland, where Edith was sat directly next to the president": suggest "on February 1, 1894; Edith was seated directly next to the president, Grover Cleveland". I don't think we need to say Cleveland personally issued the invitation (and he probably didn't, anyway).
- "The promise proved to be short-lived." This doesn't sound right to me; promises don't last -- they are kept for a long time or a short time. Perhaps "The promise was not kept for long"?
- Is the link for Friday Morning Club correct? That article is about a building in Los Angeles.
- "Edith was uncomfortable with the proposition of Theodore running for Vice President of the United States": I think it would be better to start with the vice presidential opportunity as context rather than assume the reader knows what's coming -- e.g. "In 1900 Theodore was urged by Henry Cabot Lodge and others to accept the vice-presidential role on the Republican national ticket" (stealing from our article on Theodore). Then we can say Edith was uncomfortable with the idea.
- Our article on Theodore says he actually did issue a public statement that he would not accept the nomination, but here you say he only drafted one -- is one of the articles wrong?
- I don't doubt your adherence to the sources, but Cleveland's reassurance to Edith seems odd as it doesn't seem to address any of the concerns listed -- it's as if Cleveland was reassuring her that Theodore could cope.
- "For her sitting room, Edith used an oval library adjacent to the president's office". Was this the Yellow Oval Room?
- "Edith seemed to regret how her role as first lady": suggest "that" rather than "how".
- "with new obligations that brought her displeasure: suggest simplifying, e.g. "that she disliked".
- "commenting on how it ruined the grass": suggest "saying that it". I think "how" in these constructions is more useful when the intended meaning is "the manner in which" rather than just "that".
- "Because of a lack of historical records": does this really add anything?
- I don't understand the account of her interactions with Frances Metcalfe Wolcott. If the Wolcotts were divorced and stayed so, in what way did she "help ... fix her marriage"?
- "the handkerchiefs were scrutinized and criticized": I don't know that more details are worth including, but I am curious as to what the criticisms were -- poor fashion choices?
- "Edith featured the famous German composer Engelbert Humperdinck when he visited the United States": what does "featured" mean here?
- "She exerted her influence over journalists, such as occasions when she wore the same dress multiple times but convinced the reporters to describe it differently": suggest "She exerted her influence over journalists: for example, when she wore the same dress on multiple occasions, she convinced the reporters to describe it differently each time."
- "Edith and Helen had developed a rivalry over the years, both distrusting each other and the other's husband. This rivalry contributed to a rivalry between Theodore and William in the following years." Repetition of "rivalry"; can we eliminate at least one?
- Suggest linking Richard Derby Jr to Ethel Roosevelt Derby#Marriage and family, to satisfy the curiosity of readers who wonder via which child Richard was a grandchild.
- "Then in 1927, Edith ferried across the Paraná River in Argentina until she reached the Iguazu Falls in Brazil". I don't think "then" is necessary; and this phrasing makes it sound as if she piloted the ferry. Could we say "took a ferry" or even just "crossed"? I had to look at the linked article on the falls to understand why the sentence is constructed this way -- is the intended meaning something like "she took a ferry across the Paraná River in order to reach the Iguazu Falls"? If so I would suggest that phrasing, with "on the border between Argentina and Brazil" at the end to simplify the first half of the sentence.
- "By this time, Edith began having": either "had begun to have" or "was beginning to have", or cut "By this time".
- "Knowing that her health would not let her travel as frequently": suggest "Knowing that her health would no longer let her travel frequently".
- "as it had been thoroughly furnished": surely "refurnished"?
- "and her allowance of racist songs to be performed at the White House to suggest strong anti-black views": suggest "and the fact that she allowed racist songs to be performed".
- Steinmetz is in the list of references but does not appear to have been used.
- Not a FAC requirement but you might add "|ref=none" to the further reading citation templates to avoid harv errors for those who have them enabled.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Graearms (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Poverty in ancient Rome. It mostly focuses on defining Roman poverty, philanthropic efforts to help the poor, the social stigma regarding poverty, and Christian perspectives on the Roman poor. Although, there is still information on the lives and material conditions of poor people in ancient Rome. I recently had the article reviewed for GA and the reviewer said they hoped to see the article at FA. Perhaps I am overconfident regarding the quality of this article, but I figured I might as well nominate it. Graearms (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Mähmaschine.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Duble_herma_of_Socrates_and_Seneca_Antikensammlung_Berlin_07.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: I added 3D PD tags during the GAN; although they are buried under the other licenses. Is something else required for the tags? I have removed fixed px size and adding alt text for the images. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, missed that - that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]It's good to see this one here. I should say at the outset that many editors, myself included, consider large-scale survey articles like this to be the hardest to bring through FAC, so my admiration for doing so.
Iazyges rightly focused tightly on the GA criteria at GAN, which largely concern sourcing and ensuring that the article jumps through the basic formatting and structural hoops. For FAC, there is a much greater focus on the article's content -- on my read so far, I think it would benefit from some more attention, perhaps at Peer Review, before it is passed as an FA.
I will try to keep these points general, rather than getting bogged down in minutiae, so please understand the examples as representative rather than as a checklist:
- Probably my biggest concern at the moment is the level of chronological "flattening" -- we present events, categories and people from very different periods as if they are all fundamentally part of the same picture, creating a composite picture of an ancient Rome that never existed. A few examples:
- the patricians held greater political influence due to their claimed descent from the first 100 senators of ancient Rome while the plebeians were the common citizens with less political significance: this may have been true in the very early Republic, but the distinction was pretty meaningless by the first century BCE, if not earlier: Marius, Cicero and Pompey were all plebeians, for example. It's a fair point that wealthy citizens had more political influence, but whether someone was patrician or plebeian quickly ceased to be a good way of knowing how wealthy they were.
- I added more information which should hopefully fix this error. Graearms (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The distinction between honestiores and humiliores, on the other hand, is quintessentially late antique: we first see the term used in law in the 2nd century. However, it doesn't quite mean what we say it does, at least in practice for most of the period -- humiliores are simply the poor (which, by the fifth century, can include slaves, waged workers and free peasants), with nothing to do with whether they have held high office. I'd also note that our definition given here isn't quite what the source we've cited says.
- Sallust, a 1st-century BCE Roman politician and historian ... Tacitus, another 1st-century Roman writer: Tacitus was 1st century CE, not BCE.
- I should have fixed this error in a recent edit. Graearms (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- The "legal status" section is almost entirely late antique, while the "social status" discussion caps out at the end of the 1st century. This might be a reflection of the sources (though I'm not sure it's entirely so), but we need to be much clearer about that situation if it is. The Rome in which Sallust lived and the "Rome" of Constantine and Marcian were very different places.
- We spend a lot of time in the weeds of exactly how many people were in which social class, or exactly what the Gini coefficient of Roman Egypt was, but I don't think either discussion is really effective without greater contextualisation -- we don't really give any sense, for example, of what it would mean to have a Gini coefficient of 0.42. In a bird's-eye survey article, I'm not sure the weight given to these quite intricate discussions (Bagnall's paper on Egypt gets most of a large paragraph) really fits their importance at the level the article should be pitched.
- The framing on patronage and euergetism doesn't really chime with current work on the topic, where what we call "philanthropy" is seen much more through a political lens -- one thing that really needs to be emphasised is how almost all of these programmes, particularly the grain dole, are targeted at citizens only, and therefore serve more as badges of honour and community than as handouts for the destitute.
- I have clarified that the grain dole was limited to Roman citizens. Graearms (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few points where a good copyedit and close read would be beneficial: for example:
- a poor man who is forced to relinquish his ancestral tombs and household gods, indicating that this individual had sufficient wealth to afford such luxuries: our phrasing here has missed the point -- he has inherited these things, and wouldn't have bought them -- he's giving up what was passed down to him for safekeeping.
- I rewrote the sentence to avoid specifying that the individual question purchased ancestral tombs and household gods. Graearms (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- We are inconsistent on the capitalisation of Latin: in general, Latin words are not capitalised, apart from proper nouns (so it's the cura Annoniae).
- I have edited the article to hopefully make the Latin capitalization more consistent. Graearms (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are minor mistakes of spelling, punctuation, or MoS throughout the article. By themselves, these are easily enough fixed, but I include them here as an illustration that further close attention would be beneficial.
- Sourcing: the formatting of references is inconsistent -- some have full bibliographic detail, others don't.
- In the Osborne and Atkins edited volume, we should cite individual contributors directly, rather than lumping them all under the editors' names.
- I have broken up the citation into multiple separate chapter citations. Graearms (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, there is little archaeological evidence that can pinpoint who belonged to these classes: this isn't what Scheidel is saying (in fact, it's almost the direct opposite) -- he writes the apparent lack of non-economic indicators of membership in this 'middle class' tends to obscure its size and significance. His point is that we do have the tools to see a Roman "middle class", but we need to focus on the strictly material (like, as he goes on to say, the demand for luxury goods and specialist crafts in provincial areas, or the wealth profiles of houses), rather than inscriptions and other documents which promote an artificial two-class binary. I haven't spot-checked other sources, but this might be a wider concern.
- I have edited the sentence to better reflect Scheidel's claim. Graearms (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- For a huge scholarly field, the bibliography is quite small, and we make heavy use of only a few sources:
- The prominence of Osborne and Atkins chapters I can understand, though I'm not sure we can really surrender editorial control of so much of the article to only two people.
- We have a lot of weight on Hands and Duncan-Jones, both from the 1960s.
- I think you may have used the Oxford bibliography on Roman poverty already, but I see little of the work there looking at poverty through bioarchaeology (particularly diseases of deprivation) -- see Garnsey x2 and Graham listed there, and, for a more positive view, Jongman and Kron. There's a lot of other good material on that list: I'd include Storey 2013 here.
- Other notable omissions would seem to be The Cambridge Economic History of the Greco-Roman World, De Ste Croix's Class Struggle (despite the name, not just about Greece) and its successors, and the extensive bibliography on the impoverishment (or not) of the Italian countryside. Here the debate starts with Hopkins's Conquerors and Slaves, but again the Oxford biblio is very useful here.
- For a huge scholarly field, the bibliography is quite small, and we make heavy use of only a few sources:
I know there's a lot of different areas in these comments, but I hope I have managed to make them thorough and actionable without making them disheartening. FAC may not be the best place to work on them, but I'm very happy to help here or elsewhere if you do want to discuss any of these areas. Again, thank you for bringing the article and for your good work on it thus far. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- To make it formal, I would oppose promotion at this time. Credit to the nominator for making edits on the points of detail identified here and below, but at the same time, these have been spot-fixes on matters that are ultimately tangential to the major concerns -- in brief, the anachronistic "flattening" of developments and changes over time, the mingling of Roman customs with those from elsewhere in the empire, and the weaknesses in the handling of ancient and modern sources. As Choliamb said below, I have a great deal of sympathy for the nominator, as it wouldn't be unreasonable to boil this criticism down to "this article needs to be written by a different person", and that is neither easy to hear nor within their power to address. However, I hope they will not be disheartened -- this is simply a mismatch between content and creator, rather than any deficiency in them as a writer or Wikipedian -- and that we will see them back here with another article in due course. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Choliamb
[edit]In addition to the chronological "flattening" pointed out by User:UndercoverClassicist above, which I agree is a problem, I also see here an analogous geographical flattening. Many of the sources cited in the article refer to the Greek cities of the eastern Roman empire, where social and economic conditions differed markedly from those in Italy. The cultural traditions and civic institutions of these cities remained strongly Greek even after they fell under Roman political control, and it is dangerous to characterize them as "Roman" without much more careful contextualization than is offered here.
UndercoverClassicist also mentions that the number of works cited is quite small considering the size of the topic, and this seems to me to be one of biggest weaknesses of the article. The general bibliography on Roman social and economic history is enormous, and in the past half century or so there has been a growing interest in the lower strata of Roman society in particular. Relatively little of this work is mentioned in the article, which gives disproportionate weight to the essays collected in Osborne and Atkins 2006. Most of those are good, useful essays, but they are the very small tip of a very large iceberg. In this respect the article is undermined by its own ambition: an article that cast its net more narrowly and focused specifically on, say, tenant farmers in late Republican Rome, or the urban poor of the city of Rome at the height of the Empire, would have been more manageable in terms of bibliography, and might also have avoided some of the problems of chronological and geographical compression mentioned above.
The rest of my comments focus on problems with the presentation, translation, and general appropriateness of the ancient literary and epigraphical sources cited in the article. It is a credit to the editors that they usually provide references and links to the specific passages of the ancient authors cited, side by side with the references to the modern secondary sources where they found the quotations. This is an excellent practice and one that should be encouraged, even if some of the citations given here are incorrect. It is pretty clear, however, that most of the contributors to the article are not very familiar with the ancient authors and works that they cite, and this has led to confusion and misrepresentation in a number of instances. Here are a couple of examples:
- Example 1: The first paragraph of the section entitled "Social status and stigma" refers to the author Seneca, without any recognition that there are two different Roman authors by that name. The wikilink in the first sentence of the paragraph links to the article about Seneca the younger, but the quotations in the following three sentences come from the Controversiae, which were written by his father, Seneca the elder. The sentence after that contains a quotation from a different work, the essay De vita beata, which was written by Seneca the younger. The structure of the paragraph is set up to suggest that there is a contrast or conflict between the views expressed by Seneca in different works ("Seneca argued X ... However, Seneca also believed Y"), but in fact there is no such contrast, because the quotations are drawn from the works of two different people, not one.
- I should have removed the conflation of the two Senecas in a recent edit. Graearms (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This paragraph also reveals a serious misunderstanding about the kind of work the elder Seneca was writing when he composed the Controversiae.
In his Controversiae, Seneca asks "What is there that riches have not corrupted?" Seneca argued that unmitigated greed caused damage to the world, writing that "to meet the whims of crazy luxury every stone is quarried, forests are felled throughout the world." He continues, exclaiming "Poverty, how little known a good are you!"
These sentences imply that the views expressed here are Seneca's own views, but that is not the case. The ten books of Controversiae are school books; they consist of a series of debate topics designed to teach students the rhetorical and declamatory skills necessary for a Roman legal and political career. Each chapter states a proposition based on some aspect of Roman law, and is followed by examples of arguments both pro and con, the purpose of which is to show students how to be effective advocates for their clients. Many of the propositions are rather silly ("A woman is tortured by a tyrant who thinks that her husband is plotting to assassinate him. Later the husband divorces the women. Can she sue him for ingratitude?" or "A Vestal Virgin writes a poem in praise of marriage. Should she be prosecuted for breaking her vow of chastity?"), and quite a few involve pirates and kidnappings, the better to engage the interests of Roman teenagers. But the main point here is that these propositions, and the arguments advanced both for and against them, are rhetorical exercises for students; they do not necessarily represent the views of the elder Seneca on any of the underlying legal issues. To say that "Seneca argued that unmitigated greed caused damage to the world" is therefore seriously misleading.- I should have edited the article to better reflect the actual beliefs of Seneca the Elder. Graearms (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Example 2: The final paragraph in the section entitled "Private philanthropy" contains this sentence:
Plutarch believed that charity could prolong the suffering of the poor by encouraging laziness, describing a Spartan telling a beggar "But if I gave to you, you would proceed to beg all the more; it was the man who gave to you in the first place who made you idle and so is responsible for your disgraceful state."
The problem here is similar. In fact, we have no idea whether Plutarch himself believed that charity prolonged the suffering of the poor. The original source of this quotation is not cited in the article, but if you turn to the secondary source (Hands 1968, p. 65), it will lead you to p. 159, note 67, where you will find a reference to Plutarch's Moralia 235A. That citation is incorrect (it should be 235E), but persevering readers who turn to section 235A and keep going will eventually discover the correct passage. It comes from a work entitled Ἀποφθέγματα Λακωνικά (Sayings of the Spartans), a collection of quotations attributed to various ancient Spartans, from the legendary kings of the 8th and 7th centuries to genuine historical figures of the Classical and Hellenistic periods. Most of the quotations exemplify the famous Spartan qualities of severity and austerity, and this one is no exception. Plutarch's interest in collecting them was to illustrate the character of the Spartans, not to express his own views on beggars and charity, and to say that he himself believed that "charity could prolong the suffering of the poor" is to serious misrepresent the nature of the work. Imagine if this same collection of Spartan quotations had been compiled by St. Augustine, or by Winston Churchill. Would we then claim, in wikivoice, that Augustine or Churchill believed that by helping beggars you only make them lazy? And leaving Plutarch aside, what do the words of an anonymous Spartan who was already ancient in Plutarch's time have to do with the subject of poverty in ancient Rome?- I have removed the statement in question. Graearms (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
These are just two examples, but there are many other passages in the article that reveal a similar lack of familiarity with the ancient sources. To be fair, most Wikipedia articles on Greek and Roman topics suffer from similar problems, to a greater or lesser extent; this one is no worse than most, and better than many. To avoid them, such articles really need the participation of editors who can read Latin and Greek, are broadly familiar with ancient Greek and Roman authors and their works, and have at least a little academic training in ancient history. There aren't a whole lot of people like that who are active on Wikipedia, but there are some. It is probably inadvisable to nominate an article on classical topic for FA without the active participation of at least one such editor, since problems that are obvious to people with experience in the field are liable to pass unrecognized by those whose interest is more casual.
Here are a few more passages in which the treatment of the ancient sources seems problematic to me, in one way or another. They are grouped by the sections in which they appear:
Private philanthropy
- First paragraph.
The 1st-century BCE Greek geographer Strabo described supplies to the poor in Rhodes being funded by wealthy philanthropists.
Rhodes =/= Rome. Although the island was firmly within the Roman orbit in Strabo's time, under Roman rule the cities of the Greek east were generally allowed to govern their internal affairs as they saw fit, and it is difficult to extrapolate from Greek cultural institutions to Roman ones. (See the remarks about geographical flattening above.)
- I have removed this statement. Graearms (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Same paragraph.
An ancient inscription from Acmonia recounts a legislative proposal by an individual named Titus Flavius Praxias to, in 85 CE, to allocate the funds earned from select pieces of property for an annual banquet.
This is true, but it is not a very convincing example of "private philanthropy", at least if that phrase is understood to mean assistance for the poor. Hands 1968 is cited here, but he is principally interested in the inscription for the light it casts on the legal mechanisms by which private wealth could be transferred to the state, and he does not imply that it describes any kind of charity in the modern sense of the word. From the inscription it is clear that the funds were to be used for a banquet celebrating Praxias's memory and a ceremony (an imitation of the Roman rosalia) in which roses were purchased to decorate his tomb, as well as for the ongoing protection of his tomb against vandalism and other damage. Praxias, although a Greek living in Asia Minor, had become a Roman citizen, and Simon Price (Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, p. 89) sees his bequest as an example of the imitation of Roman practices by upper-class Greeks in order to enhance their standing among the local elites. Aristocratic jockeying for status doesn't rule out the possibility of also helping the poor, of course, but there is nothing in the text to suggest that helping the poor was any part of Praxias's purpose. The SEG reference given for this inscription in the footnote (Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 15, 330) is incorrect; the correct reference is IGRR (= Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes) IV 661 (with corrections in SEG 13, 542). The Greek text is here; an English translation can be found in Barbara Levick, The High Tide of Empire: Emperors and Empire AD 14–117 pp. 83-84, no. 161. - Same paragraph. The same reference to SEG 15, 330 is also given for the inscription from Ephesos concerning the bequest of C. Vibius Salutaris, mentioned a few sentences later. It is incorrect there too. This long text (actually several related documents) is inscribed on the wall of the theater at Ephesos; it has generated a much discussion and a large bibliography, none of which is mentioned here. It was published as no. 27 in Die Inschriften von Ephesos, but the Greek text and an English translation can be more conveniently consulted in J. H. Oliver, The Sacred Gerusia (Hesperia suppl. 6, 1961), pp. 55-85 (JSTOR 1353868).
Legal status
Tryphoninus, a jurist recorded in the Digests, recounts the story of a supposedly poor man who authored his will without the knowledge of the mass of wealth through his slaves.
The odd phrase "mass of wealth through his slaves" presumably means "wealth [amassed] through [the work of] his slaves". But Tryphoninus doesn't actually recount the story of anyone in this passage. The "supposedly poor man" is not a real person but an imaginary, hypothetical example invoked to illustrate a legal point about the laws governing Roman inheritance. Look again at Humfress's more careful wording ("envisions a situation" =/= "recounts the story of") in the essay cited in the next sentence. The name Tryphoninus should not be italicized (but good for you for not following Humfress into error and misspelling it Tryphonius, as she does).
- I have edited the statement, hopefully fixing the error and making the sentence read better. Graearms (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Living conditions
- First paragraph.
According to Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, the Roman poor lived in tabernae, or the awnings of theaters.
The phrase sub velabris umbraculorum theatralium is here translated as "awnings of theaters", following Rolfe's translation in the Loeb edition, which is what the link in the footnote points to. But if you look again at Osborne's essay in Osborne and Atkins, p. 9, which is the other source cited in this sentence of the article, you will see that Osborne favors a different interpretation: he quotes Nicholas Purcell, who understands the words as a reference to the vaulted stone substructures that supported the seating of theaters and amphitheaters and formed the conspicuous rows of arched openings still visible today on buildings like the Colosseum and the Theater of Marcellus. These dark archways were notorious in antiquity as the haunts of thieves, prostitutes, and other persons of dubious character. There's no certainty here, but I would encourage you to follow Purcell and Osborne rather than Rolfe.
- I have included both of the translations. The article mentions the translation by Rolfe as an alternative interpretation of the text. Graearms (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Second paragraph.
Galen claimed the rural impoverished townsfolk consumed flat-cakes as part of their diets
. The phrase "rural impoverished townsfolk" is an oxymoron: rural people do not live in town, and townsfolk are not rural. Galen's text actually mentions two different groups here: οἵ τε κατ' ἀγρὸν ἄνθρωποι καὶ τῶν κατὰ πόλιν οἱ πενέστατοι (literally "the people in the country and the poorest of those in the city"). The links to both Galen citations in the footnotes are broken, but it looks as if they were intended to point to Powell's translation, published by Cambridge Univ Press (and behind the Cambridge paywall). Powell translates the phrase in question here as "country folk and very poor town-dwellers".
- I should have fixed the inaccuracy and the broken links. For whatever reason, a "+" sign was added in the url (perhaps I mistyped whilst trying to backspace?). Graearms (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fourth paragraph.
Poor Romans were especially vulnerable during crises, being susceptible to food shortages or being the victims of crime. According to the 2nd-3rd century Roman historian Herodian, during a time of plague in the city of Rome in which many common people suffered greatly, the Emperor Commodus (r. 177–192) left Rome for Laurentum.
I don't understand the sequence of thought here. What does Herodian's comment about Commodus's decision to leave the city have to do with the susceptibility of poor Romans to health problems and crime? As an analogy, earlier this year the governor of Texas was traveling abroad and chose not to return home when the city of Houston was devasted by hurricane Beryl. This may tell us something about the governor of Texas, but it does nothing to help us understand why the people of Houston are especially vulnerable to hurricanes.
- I should have clarified why poorer Romans more vulnerable in a recent edit. Graearms (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Christianity
- First paragraph.
The epistulae of Paulinus, a 4th-century Christian Bishop describes possibly fictitious Christians organizing mass events designed to provide alms and gifts for the poor.
This is a puzzling statement. What is meant by "possibly fictitious Christians"? On its face the sentence seems to say that certain charitable activities were organized (where? when?) by people who claimed to be Christians but who in reality were not, but is that really what Paulinus wrote? I couldn't check because no citation (ancient or modern) is provided here.
- I should have fixed this issue; Paulinus was describing a banquet for the poor and it was possibly fictious as it may have been exaggerated. Also, he wasn't present for the event he is describing. Graearms (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Second paragraph.
Ambrosiaster, an unidentified author of a 4th-century commentary on St Jerome
. The commentary attributed to the so-called Ambrosiaster deals with the epistles of Saint Paul, not with Jerome, most of whose works are later than the period when the Ambrosiaster is thought to have been writing. (Incidentally, it's a little surprising to see Jerome, who along with Augustine was the most formidable scholar and theologian of his age, and whose Latin translation of the bible remained the standard text for European Christians for over a thousand years, identified simply as "a 4th and 5th century priest".)
- I should have fixed the attribution error regarding the epistles of St Paul and also changed the credit of St Jerome to theologian. Graearms (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
And few other miscellaneous quibbles:
the Cataline conspiracy
: The name is Catiline (Catilina in Latin), not Cataline. The event is referred to as the "Catilinarian conspiracy" in most English-language sources, and that is the name of the WP article. Why anyone would take a perfectly good wikilink to Catilinarian conspiracy and pipe it so that it reads "Cataline conspiracy" instead (not once but twice!) baffles me.- I have heard people use the term Catiline conspiracy before which is why I wrote it that way. After doing a quick google-search to see if others had used this term before, I found a few sources which did indeed write it this way: National geographic, History skills, History collection, and the Ancient History Encyclopedia. Graearms (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Latin terms such as obligatus, nexus, and damnatus all were used to describe debtors
. Not quite true. Obligatus and damnatus are adjectives that describe debtors, but nexus is a noun that describes the debt itself. Hands (cited in the footnote) writes that these words "came to be used in the context of penalties for debt"; note the careful wording, which does not say that they were all used "to describe debtors". The paraphrase in the WP article has transformed the accurate statement in Hands into an inaccurate one.- I have edited the statement to better reflect what Hands has said. Graearms (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Gytheio
. Gytheio is the modern Greek name. When referring to the ancient city, better to use the ancient name Gytheion (or the latinized form Gytheum). And although the link to the Greek text is helpful for those who read Greek, most WP readers will benefit more from an English translation. Since Hands is already cited in this sentence, why not also cite his translation of the inscription (p. 189, no. D31)?- I Latinized Gytheio to Gytheum and have added the citation to p.189 of Hands. Graearms (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It cannot be a pleasant experience to have your hard work picked apart in this way, and because many of these comments essentially boil down to "the person who wrote this does not appear to have an adequate knowledge of the subject", it is probably hard not to take them personally. But in spite of the problems I have noted (and those noted by UC above), there is still a lot of value in this article, which brings together much interesting information that is not otherwise easily available in one place. It may not be among "the best articles Wikipedia has to offer", but FA status matters much more to Wikipedia editors than it does to ordinary readers.
Best wishes, Choliamb (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Jens
[edit]Very interesting article!
- These factors may have prevented the development of a uniquely poor social class. – I can't follow here, does this mean the class did not develop because the poor simply died?
- during the Roman Republic, only a small fraction of the massive population was truly capable of partaking in or influencing the political process. – I assume the rest of the paragraph is all about the Roman Republic? What, then, was the situation in the Roman Empire?
- Another uncertainty is the presence of a Roman middle class. Their society – Is "their society" really referring to the Roman middle class here, or does this need reformulation?
- Other scholars, such as the classicist Dr. William Harris – needs a comma after Harris
- single estate in Magnesia, owned – remove comma
- the text by Dr. John Rolfe – the use of titles (Dr.) is discouraged in Wikipedia. You could write "the historian" or similar to make clear that he is a scholar.
- Although, in another translation of the text by Dr. John Rolfe the "vaults" are the awnings of the theaters. – What is the significance of vaults vs awnings? Why does it matter if it was either of them? When this has no implications, you could combine to a single sentence and say "vaults or awnings".
- Products of horticulture, such as eggs or cheese – are eggs and cheese really the objective of horticulture? The linked article only talks about plants.
- the poor Roman diet – ambiguous wording. Presumably you mean "the diet of the Roman poor", not the "poor diet"?
- following the introduction of free pork by Aurelian – when? Any details about this?
- Constantine issued a decree – when was this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Brochfael was king of Gwent in south-east Wales in the late ninth and early tenth centuries. He is chiefly known for having been one of the Welsh kings who submitted to the lordship of Alfred the Great in order to get protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians. Brochfael was involved in a number of disputes with Bishop Cyfeilliog, who is an FAC below, and was once threatened with excommunication for insulting the bishop. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Is there no image of the subject that could be included?
- I cannot find one. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest expanding the alt text
- I have previously made alt text a short summary and this has always passed FAC, but recently an editor has been deleting alt texts in my FACs on the ground that it duplicates the label, and another editor commented that the alt text should be a place marker as it only prevents readers from seeing the file name instead of the label. I see from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images that this is incorrect, so I have gone back to make alt text a short summary. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Medieval_south-east_Wales_map_Lloyd.jpg is tagged as life+100, but gives an author date of death less than 100 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to PD-old-70-1923. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Nikkimaria. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
source review from sawyer777
[edit]yay, a medieval Wales FAC!! one of my favorite topics. i'll get to this in the next few days. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Sawyer777. There is another one below at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyfeilliog/archive1! Dudley Miles (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- aye, i'll give it a review if i've got the time and/or it stalls out & needs more feedback. :) ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
alright, let's get to it.
- in the publishing location, the cities don't need ", UK" (or NY, for Ithaca) after them - there's no ambiguity about which London or Cardiff is being referred to. also, for Oxford University Press, having the location is a bit redundant as it's right in the name. not really a big deal though. overall, citation formatting & consistency is great.
- no concerns about reliability; Iolo is nowhere to be found, and all of the sources are from solid academic publishers and authors. i see only three old sources, Haddan & Stubbs 1869, Evans & Rhys 1893, and Lloyd 1911, which are used perfectly reasonably.
small spot-check (ref numbers as of this revision):
- ref 8 (a & b): good
- ref 10: good
- ref 15: good
- ref 18: checked Charles-Edwards and Davies, both check out
- ref 25: good
no significant issues i could find. support on sourcing. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 10:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- Could "charter" be linked?
- Linked to charter. The article on Anglo-Saxon charters is much morre informative, but the title would confuse people. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "in order to get protection". 'in order to gain protection' sounds a little more encyclopediac to my ear.
- "Brochfael's acceded to the throne" ?
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and submitted to the West Saxon king." And who might this be? They don't seem to have been previously mentioned.
- Clarified that Alfred the Great was the West Saxon king. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and thus in an important step towards the unity of England." What unity of England? I think this needs unpacking a little further.
- Deleted as too complex and speculative. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest linking landed estates.
That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Gog. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]You wait years for an early medieval Wales FAC, and then...
- Mercia claimed dominion over Wales: in the body, we've only said most of. How much are we talking here?
- Changed to "most of", although I suspect that is just the source being over-cautious. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians: is oppression the right NPOV word here, or are we unwittingly parroting their/Alfred's spin on the situation? From what comes later, it sounds like the Ur-source here is Asser, who isn't exactly a neutral.
- That is true, although as a monk of St David's Asser was more concerned with its oppression by the king of Dyfed. However, Asser's description is accepted by historians, and it is hard to see why the kings should have voluntarily submitted to Alfred if Æthelred was not oppressive. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Surely there's the usual reasons that any ruler submits to another -- most obviously, feeling a choice between voluntarily submitting (hopefully with benefits or at least gentle treatment) and involuntarily submitting? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the chronological discussions about Gwent vs Glywysing in the body, I'd suggest putting a more concrete date on the map than just "early medieval".
- The map is from Lloyd's history. It is just labelled 'Medieval Wales'. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, but we have In the seventh century, south-east Wales was one kingdom called Gwent, but by the ninth century it was divided between Glywysing (later Morgannwg and Glamorgan) in the west and Gwent in the east. If we stand by the text of our article, we can therefore say that the map (with Gwent and Glwysing undivided) shows the borders of those kingdoms as they were before the ninth century, at the very least. However, on closer inspection, I have some bigger worries about the map. It has White Castle, which was built after the Norman Conquest, and Grace Dieu Abbey, which wasn't founded until 1226. How certain can we be that the other toponyms and, in particular, the borders are accurate for the time we're discussing? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, but we do need to caption it appropriately. If the borders of Gwent on the map are not the borders of the kingdom of Gwent that we describe, we should say so; if it's a map of 13th-century Wales but happens to have a lot of the right places labelled, we should say that too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have changed the label from Early medieval Wales to Medieval Wales in the light of your comments (also in the Cyfeilliog article). The map shows the area of the kingdoms. There is no better map which we can use which I am aware of, and I think it is much better than having no map. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- defeated the Vikings: "the Vikings" weren't (and aren't seen in scholarship) as a single group of people under that name -- we do, however, have the term "Great Heathen Army" for the force that Alfred defeated. Better to use that with some explanation?
- Historians often use the term Vikings as a general description and I do not think that going into more detail is relevant here. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think we could do better, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that the current approach is wrong. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I was doubtful about putting in the battle at all as it is only peripherally relevant. I do not think we need to worry about using a term which is widely used by reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf's successor as ruler of Mercia, Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians at the Battle of the Conwy: needs a comma after Mercians, but consider reworking to streamline the syntax a bit.
- Revised. OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comma corrected, syntax much the same, but perfectly grammatical and readable. I suppose you could argue that the "Lord of the Mercians" epithet is superfluous in a sentence that says he was, well, lord of the Mercians, and just give his name as Æthelred. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ceolwulf was the last king of Mercia. Giving Æthelred's title is intended to signal that he had a lower rank without going into details which are irrelevant to the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can we give any indication of the reasoning and the whys behind the different dates for Brochfael's accession?
- I do not think that I can find citations for a more detailed explanation. As so often, historians assume knowledge of basic points. There is only one fixed point for Brochfael's dates, Asser's mention of him in the late 880s. Apart from that, it is a matter of historians' judgements on the dates of charters which mention him, and maybe in some cases who is being referred to. Bartrum dates him 830, which is obviously wrong as he is recorded into the tenth century. Davies dates him c.872-910. Sims-Wiliams does not give an accession date (so far as I know) and says that Owain probably became king of both territitories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Owain probably became king of both territories by 893. As this looks too early and it is ambiguous whether it means he replaced Brochfael or his father as over-king I have left it out. : I'm a bit uncomfortable here -- taking no position on your judgement here, I think it's OR to say "this looks too early" purely on our own initiative. At the moment, it sounds as though we have Davies saying 910, Sims-Williams saying 893, and Charles-Edwards saying before 918 (which is compatible with either). Has anyone actually put it in print that 893 is impossible? If not, I think WP:DUEWEIGHT means we need to include it, even if we weight it as a minority view. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've found out the sources, and I agree that Sims-Williams is light on justification, but he does unambiguously give the terminus post quem for Owain's rule as c. 893, not 927. Rebecca Thomas, here (search "893") also gives 893 as the terminus post quem for Owain gaining control of Glywysing and Gwent. I'm not sure it needs to contradict what's in the article already, but I do think we need at least a footnote to the effect that both Sims-Williams and Davies say that Owain's rule over the two kingdoms began at some point after c. 893. We've given a terminus ante quem, so the other side of the date range is manifestly relevant, and we need to observe both WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree. Sims-Williams gives as a reason for the 893 date that Owain was recorded as king in 927, and cites pages in Charles-Edwards which do not support 893. Davies dates two charters of Brochfael to 905 and 910, and Sims-Williams has not questioned this dating so far as I know, or provided any reason for his 893 date. I think mentioning the date would be misleading without unreferenced qualifications. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would give a brief introduction, at least by approximate date, to the Book of Llandaff and the Life of King Alfred.
- Added dates. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael: may therefore? I think we need something to tie the logic of this sentence into the previous one.
- Not sure about that one. The source does not say "therefore", so it would verge on SYNTH. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does the source not connect those two dots at all? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is successive sentences. Changed to "several show Brochfael as a royal grantor and witness, so Ffernfael may have been subordinate to Brochfael". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Brochfael's father Meurig gave grants in both territories, and Charles-Edwards and Davies think that he ruled them both as king of Glywysing: we've demoted the dissenting view into a footnote. I know it's two against one, but WP:DUEWEIGHT is not a vote -- do we have a separate good reason to think Sims-Williams is wrong? If not, I think we need to give the two sides equal billing.
- Revised. I had missed Sims-Wiliams's explanation of why he thinks Davies is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy: suggest reminding us of the date, particularly for readers who won't go through the article top-to-bottom.
- Brochfael and Ffernfael were joint kings of Gwent, and their cousin Hywel ap Rhys was King of Glywysing: this isn't wrong, per the MoS, but the capital on the second king reads oddly, and is inconsistent with how we've approached the same problem in the first sentence (Brochfael ap Meurig was king of Gwent in south-east Wales.. Would suggest decapitalising.
- three modii (about 120 acres (50 hectares)) of land: you can avoid the awkward double brackets by replacing the outer set with dashes. This comes up twice.
- It looks better to me the way it is. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- De gustibus -- not a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Latin text should be in lang templates, which will do the italics for you.
- Quotations that are put into italics for language reasons don't then have quotation marks around them (MOS:"?)
- Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle : this sounds as if we expect readers to know it already. Suggest "One [date?] manuscript of the ASC, known as Manuscript D, states..." Do the others omit this bit, though? That might be cause for concern?
- I think Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is self-explanatory, and there is a link for readers who want more information. D is thought to be a northern version dating to the mid-eleventh century, and there is probably a good deal to say on this, but I do not have a source. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a style point rather than a clarity one. I think it's certainly relevant that the source is perhaps over a century later than the events it describes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but any comment would be an unreferenced personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Giving the date of the manuscript, with an appropriate reference, would not -- you could cite here, p. xxv, for instance, for a date in the mid C11th. In fact, the date of a historian/historical source is the sort of context useful, perhaps essential, for non-specialist readers to properly handle the information we're giving them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added. Like all extant versions of the ASC, it was a conflation of earlier lost versions, but that would be going into too much detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but any comment would be an unreferenced personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- She died in around 910: just around 910 is more concise and, I think, more natural English.
- King of the people of Gwent: definitely needs a decap of king per MOS:PEOPLETITLES.
- he may have been the father of Gwriad ap Brochfael: and who was he?
- This is a difficult one. It is based on Bartrum, whose dictionary covers a vast number of Welsh people in fact and legend up to 1000. It is published by the National Library of Wales and cited by historians, but there are signs of carelessness in some entries. I have changed the comment to a footnote covering Bartrum's speculations. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Davies seems to argue with herself, and give two different dates (and levels of confidence) on Meurig's reign. Why have we given one of those in the body text (implicitly endorsing it) and the other as a footnote?
- One is a statement in the text and the other an entry in a table. I have given greater weight to the text, but I am happy to change it if you disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not sure we can really do that, unless it's clear from context that one is definitely not the author's intent. I don't think we can definitely say that authors or editors stand more strongly by data presented in prose than data presented in tables. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as c. 848 – c. 874 or c. 850 – c. 870"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, it sounds like Davies is saying the same thing with two different levels of precision, so the latter formulation would work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I should have said that the table dating looks more vague. Would you prefer deleting the footnote and having "Wendy Davies thinks that 874 is more likely and dates his reign as c. 848 – c. 874 or c. 850 – c. 870"? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
As with the last one, I enjoyed reading this -- a great job of reconstructing a life where the sources clearly make it difficult to know much for certain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your very detailed and helpful review UndercoverClassicist. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley
[edit]Only two quibbles from me:
- In the second sentence of the lead I'd lose "while" if I were you, as although the context makes it clear that it just means "and", I feel it safer as a general rule not to use "while" unless you mean it in the temporal sense. There's no real danger here of "the Bishop preached the sermon while the Dean read the lesson" but you might like to consider an "and" or a semicolon instead of the "while".
- Done, but you have ruined my best synonym for "and". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the Kingship section "Æthelred's defeat at the Conwy in 881" reads a little strangely to my eye. Somehow without the "Battle of…" before it – as at earlier mention – it looks odd, like saying "the Allies' victory at the River Plate" or "Nelson's victory at the Nile" or "the Allies and Axis forces at the Atlantic". Not wrong, but strikes an odd note, though I most definitely do not press the point, or indeed the one above it.
- Well illustrated (a pity about the lack of a mug shot, but I see from the above that one is not to be had) and a good range of mostly modern sources. Meets all the FA criteria in my view and I'm glad to support. I always enjoy reviewing Dudley's articles, but this time I had an uncovenanted bonus when my spell-checker announced that Brochfael should be either Rochdale or Bronchial. –Tim riley talk 11:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Tim. King Bronchial has a certain ring to it! Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Who is "Brlochfael"? Is that a typo of Brochfael?
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, and in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians." Suggest changing to "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales, but in the late 880s Brochfael, Ffernfael and Hywel submitted voluntarily to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex, in order to gain protection from the oppression of Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians."
- "The historian of Wales Thomas Charles-Edwards thinks that he may be the Meurig..." It's not clear that this is referring to the father, and not Brochfael ap Meurig.
- Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is there anywhere that "grants" can link to?
- I cannot find a suitable article. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In the previous generation, ..." Is this part of the sentence strictly necessary given that the latter part of that sentence establishes that it is talking about the father?
- It is not necessary but it is helpful to indicate at the start of the sentence that it is going back in time. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would change "(about 120 acres (50 hectares))" to "(about 120 acres or 50 hectares)" using
disp=or
in the convert template. This solution avoids using double brackets. Same with "(about 240 acres (100 hectares))" to "(about 240 acres or 100 hectares)".
- "...which Brochfael gave to his daughter, ..." Is this Brochfael's daughter or Cyfeilliog's daugher?
- I think "his" must be Brochfael grammatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 927 Owain, king of the people of Gwent..." Suggest adding a comma after 927 and before Owain.
That's all the comments I have. Steelkamp (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Steelkamp. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no more comments to make, so I give my support. Steelkamp (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Ceoil
[edit]Have read through (with trivial edits) a few times and have been following the reviews above. Really like these Anglo-Saxon Kingship articles, and this one is very clearly written and precise with no unnecessary padding. Sourcing is excellent, and I gather that info is so scant that it easily passes comprehensiveness. Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks Ceoil. I have removed the word "believes" in your edits. Some historians strongly object to it as they think it implies an opinion not supported by reasoning, as with religious belief. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah was thinking you might :) Was trying to avoid "thinks" x 2, and there was the hedge "may be" just afterwards. It's something I struggle a bit when writing about the dating of Iron-age artifacts. So no worries. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Serial
[edit]- Although the caption says that Glywysing is the 9, the map seems to suggest that that is Gwynllyg. Am I misreading it?!
- The map covers the whole medieval period. 9 is Glywysing, and Gwynllyg is a later medieval kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lead doesn't actually say much about Brochfael the king himself, more the regional politics.
- There is only one sentence in the lead which does not mention Brochfael. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "having a higher status" > the higher status.
- Anothr map, showing the broader geography—where Mercia, Wessex etc were positioned in relation to Glywysing would be useful for the background. (Maybe a crop of this?)
- I agree that a broader map would be helpful, but the one you link to is of Britain in 600, 300 years too early. There is a better map at [12], but it is of the mid 10th century and shows Gwent as one large territory, so it might confuse people. What do you think. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- re. Ffernfael's subordinacy, probably worth adding "Charles-Edwards has speculated", since no-one else has; indeed, it's odd that he doesn't mention the dangers of relying too heavily on charters when it is known that only a (random) percentage have survived.
- I think "may have been subordinate" is sufficient qualification. Other historians have not made the point because Ffernfael is such a minor figure that he is rarely mentioned. He is only recorded twice, by Asser and as a witness to one charter of his father, and I think he probably died soon after Asser mentioned him, but of course I cannot says so. I take your point about charters and have qualified by saying "Ffernfael does not have any surviving charters of his own". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- All from me. Nice one Dudley Miles, compact but comprehensive. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 13:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Serial_Number_54129. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- All good changes, Dudley Miles, mutatis mutandis, and I'm very happy to support this article's promotion. I love the obscure fugures! SerialNumber54129 18:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Support from Unlimitedlead
[edit]- "Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." Suggest changing to "The Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Mercia claimed dominion over most of Wales..." for clarity.
- "The historian of Wales..." This sounds like an official title. Suggest revising to: "Thomas Charles-Edwards, a historian specializing in Welsh history, thinks that Meurig...", or something of that vein in order for improved sentence flow.
- Introduce Wendy Davies; we do not know who she is.
- Revised to cover both points. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why does Davies postulate a different date?
- Davies attributes it to "the claims of the relative chronology of the witness sequence". I intend working on an article on Meurig, and I think the question is better covered there. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can more be said about Brochfael's own family? The fact that he had a daughter is suddenly thrust open the reader in the last few sentences.
- This is the only reference to a daughter. A speculative suggestion that he had a son is covered in note b. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Please notify me when you have had the chance to reply to my concerns. Great work; it's always nice to see more history articles here at FA :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review Unlimitedlead. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Goodness, Dudley. I didn't even realize this article was written by you! It's been nice catching up with an old friend. I'd be happy to pass this review; great work as always! Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about an Afro-Cuban religion revolving around spirits that are housed in cauldrons and fed with blood. Much of the tradition derives from the Kongo religion of Central Africa, so there is much here to interest Africanists as well as those intrigued by religions of the Americas. This has been a Good Article since August 2023 and I am now hoping to bring it to FA status, having already done so for two other Afro-Caribbean religion articles, Santería and Rastafari. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest editing captions for grammar
- I've gone through and made some tweaks to the image captions. Any further recommendations on these captions would of course be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest adding alt text
- I've gone through the article and added these to the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:WLA_metmuseum_Power_Figure_Male_Nkisi.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured?
- In this case, the creator of the original nkisi being photographed will probably never be known; nor will the exact date when it was made, although it is dated to between 1800 and 1950. The object is nevertheless on display in a public museum and the photograph has been issued under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The photograph's licensing is not an issue, but as the US does not have freedom of panorama for non-buildings, we do need to account for the copyright status of the work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Goetia_seals.jpg: are these taken directly from the Lesser Key, or are they original works?
- The explanation given by the original uploader claims that they are their own original illustrations, but looking closely, the fact that there are numbers right by them suggests that this is actually a scan from a printed edition of the Lesser Key, which will probably be late 19th or early-to-mid 20th-century in date. I think the safest bet is just to get rid of this image from the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Fétiche_du_Bas-Congo.jpg: what is the copyright status of the work pictured, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
- I've changed the licensing on this one; as it was published in Belgium in the first decade of the 20th century, we should be able to use the following: "This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States prior to January 1, 1929." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- What about the author question? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Adechina.jpg needs a US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed this image from the article; while the photograph is late 19th-century in origin, I am unsure when it was first published, which raises issues when trying to determine its copyright status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a causewayed enclosure near Cambridge, in England. It was excavated briefly in 1975 and 1976, but the project was derailed by a tragedy: David Clarke, who was the director of the excavation, died suddenly in his 30s in the summer of 1976. The project archive lay untouched for three decades; in 2006 what could be found of it was written up, but no new excavation was undertaken -- by that time the location had become a scheduled monument.
The "Background" section, and a couple of sentences in the lead, are taken verbatim from other articles on causewayed enclosures, as the background information is identical for all of them. See Offham Hill or Barkhale Camp for examples. I don't think this should be an issue, but wanted to mention in it as an FYI. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
HF - support I'll review this soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a whole lot of comments here - I read some archaeological literature for fun but wouldn't consider myself to have a whole lot of knowledge in this subject base; I wouldn't say my poking around in old farm fields with a metal detector has enhanced my knowledge of archaelogy much either.
- "and a single bone each from red deer, dog and horse" - is this the dog remains here the same as the wolf remains noted to have been found in the site?
- Hadn't noticed that; good catch. The later review doesn't say so explicitly, but it's clear the case. I've worded it carefully to avoid saying that the review found this to be an error, but I think it'll be clear to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and that the dig had not found evidence of a bank associated with the ditch[60]" - misssing a period after this sentence
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Overall the site was found to be "spectacularly" rich in finds, " - as this is a direct quote it should probably have inline attribution to the author who is being quoted
- There are multiple authors for that chapter, so to avoid the issue I changed it to "remarkably". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The site was listed as a scheduled monument in 1976." - is it known if this is due to St Joseph's aerial work, or Clarke's field excavations?
- I haven't found anything about it and I don't see anything on the HE website giving the background. I suspect that once the 1975 excavation proved it was a causewayed enclosure the wheels were set in motion, but I don't have anything I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
This was a very interesting read; I wish I were able to provide a more in-depth review. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks; all replied to. As you can see below I am benefiting from an in-depth review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure I've done that for a diagram before, but I had a go at it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
[edit]Unless I am missing something (I don't think I am, because I read it through twice to make sure) Clarke's death, mentioned in the lead, is not covered anywhere in the body...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
UC
[edit]Will give this a look -- very much up my street. A small drive-by for now: the article has WP:TIES to the UK, so BrE should be used (and so analysed, not analyzed), and the St in J. K. St Joseph isn't followed by a dot. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you're going to review it. I've fixed the full stop after "St". I think "analyzed" is allowed as Oxford spelling, though I have to confess I came to use that spelling sideways -- decades in the US have corrupted my native British English, and I probably switched from -ise endings without even realizing it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "analyse", and I added the relevant tag. I'd have no objections if you or anyone else changed it all to regular BrEng. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I must admit to finding Oxford English bizarre -- it is a perfectly good variety of English, though I'd advise putting up tags to be clear that you're using it rather than "normal" BrE. However, as User:Tim riley explained it to me, OxE uses -ize when the etymology of the word is from a Greek '-izein suffix (so Hellenize); analysed is from analusis, so I don't think that would apply here anyway? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- We seem to be a bit coy about dating the enclosure: we talk about the dates in which these enclosures were built, but don't at any point try to pin one on Great Wilbraham. Has anyone done so?
- Not as far as I can tell. Gathering Time (GT) is the most recent coverage, and they conclude with "The enclosure remains undated. It was not possible to locate any further suitable samples." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Same point on functions: we talk about what enclosures in general might have been used for, but don't say e.g. it may have been a settlement, meeting place, or ritual site.
- I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter th at this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done; I joined it with a "but" as I think (and Evans doesn't quite say) that Clarke was being much too confident in his assertion, and I want the reader to be aware that the excavator's opinion is not definitive here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- We do have Clarke (via Evans et al, too) going out and saying that the site was a settlement, or at least a camp, but as far as I can tell largely doing so by assertion rather than argument. How about something like "the site's excavator, David Clarke, considered that it was probably a settlement. The function of causewayed enclosures in general is debated..." and then go into the discussion we already have about military vs civilian, domestic vs ritual (and, if I may, allow for those functions to overlap?) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I'd like to keep it as is is that I don't believe there's any consensus on what these enclosures were used for -- it's not as if the function of some has been determined, but not of others. Nobody knows what any of them were used for, so there's nothing that's specific to an individual enclosure that can be said. I have seen a couple of references while looking at Freston causewayed enclosure, which I may tackle next, that imply there are some recent theories, and I'll follow those up in case there's something to be added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, I think the situation is reversed when we've got an article about a specific enclosure -- there, I think we would normally be expected to keep the focus on the Great Wilbraham enclosure, and widen the picture only when necessary to add important context. However, this is a matter of taste -- your approach is entirely reasonable. I do think, as currently framed, we've introduced a strong element of doubt as to which, if any, of these functions could reasonably have been filled by Great Wilbraham, though I can also see why that would be intentional. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think you mean that it would seem natural to talk specifically about what Great Wilbraham might have been used for, rather than in general times about what causewayed enclosures might have been used for? This is the seventh of these that I've brought to FAC, and I think I've been writing them this way (both the lead and the background section) because I've been imagining them as a unified topic. If you were reading a book with chapters about each enclosure, you wouldn't expect a statement to be repeated in each chapter th at this enclosure might have been a camp, or a ritual site, and so on -- there would be an introductory chapter giving that overview, since the statements would apply to more than just one enclosure. I think it makes sense to take the same approach here -- speak generally about the class of site, then specifically about this site when we're talking about the archaeological or antiquarian investigations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- On the dating issue: Historic England has They were constructed over a period of some 500 years during the middle part of the Neolithic period (c.3000-2400 BC). That's quite a way off what we've said -- I can't get to most of the sources, but are we sure that HE have simply made a mistake and there's no debate here?
- I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we've got good sources on our side, I'm happy to write off HE as an error, but just wanted to check. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've emailed HE with a correction request. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If we've got good sources on our side, I'm happy to write off HE as an error, but just wanted to check. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can send you any of the sources you're interested in, if you like -- particularly if this is an area of expertise for you I'd be very glad to have another pair of eyes on interpreting the material. I am really surprised by the dates given there. GT (p. 897) has "...probably began ... in the late 38th century cal BC ... The pace began to quicken in the second quarter of the 37th century cal BC ... construction of new enclosures in southern Britain was on the wane from the middle of the 36th century cal BC". GT is authoritative, but earlier sources give similar dates. For example, The Creation of Monuments (Oswald et al., 2001) has a chart showing 3800-3200 BC as the date range, with the core period being 3600-3300 BC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone—mostly cattle, but with some sheep and pig: the first and here is a bit poetic/rhetorical, I think.
- I think "poorly copyedited" would be more accurate! Removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- they would have provided multiple ways for attackers to pass through the ditches to the inside of the camp: if we just said that we don't know what these are, on what basis do we now call them "camps"? Suggest cutting this last bit.
- They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'd suggest the reverse -- actually say, explicitly, early on that Clarke referred to [the interior of?] the structure as a "camp". UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent solution to both problems. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- After thinking about it some more I've changed the two instances of "camp" to "enclosure". The article now mentions Clarke's assertion that the site was a settlement, as you suggest, but I don't think that interpretation should be accidentally reinforced by the language (which was your original point). The "causeway camp" usage does seem to be dying out, and Evans, for example, never uses the word camp except when quoting others, so I think the article should follow suit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I'd suggest the reverse -- actually say, explicitly, early on that Clarke referred to [the interior of?] the structure as a "camp". UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- They do get called that in the literature. It sounds like you have access to Evans (2006); you can see from that that Clarke's own notes describe it as a "causeway camp". A friend of mine who is a professor of archaeology, whom I contacted for help with interpreting some of Evans' wording (and who, it turns out, knew David Clarke and was at Cambridge when Clarke died) referred to them as camps in his emails to me (though he's not a specialist in that period). I just did a Google Scholar search and found a 2020 source using the term, though it does seem to be falling out of fashion. Both usages in the article currently are in hypotheticals where there are people in the enclosure, so I probably unconsciously put them in on the basis that these were camp-like situations. Having said all that, I can remove it if you think it's misleading. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The construction of these enclosures took only a short time: can we put a vague number on that -- a few minutes?
- The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Had another go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Might be as simple as someone mistaking "halfway through the 3000s" as "halfway through the 3rd millennium". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- On reflection I agree with you. I changed it to "would probably". Incidentally, on one of your other points, I found a mention of causewayed enclosures in the British Handbook of Archaeology as "mid-third millennium BC", which is the same mistake that HE made. The author is John Pouncett, who is a Neolithic specialist as far as I can tell, so it's just odd. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit woolly to me (they really think it takes years to shift the rocks and choose some good trees?), but if it’s in a good source, that’s all the justification you need. One could make an unkind comment about academics and their sense of a reasonable speed at which to work… UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm OK with weakening it if you want to, but "must" is in the source -- "Before their construction the work must have been planned for some years, the area being cleared of vegetation and big stones, with trees for the posts and palisades selected, prepared and transported". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. We might quibble "must have been planned in advance" (emphasis mine) -- people could otherwise have been very efficient because they did it a lot, were very well-organised, or simply had a huge amount of labour power. Perhaps something a little softer like "was probably/almost certainly planned well in advance"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Had another go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think, as Femke says below, we're currently blowing hot and cold -- simultaneously arguing that it was a quick job, and a very big one. Perhaps the missing link is that it was a lot of work, but also that it was done very quickly and efficiently? Maybe spelling that out would be helpful UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't seen anything on the energetics but agree that would be worth adding if it exists. (I should probably have a go at the causewayed enclosure article itself, where that would most naturally belong.) I take your point that Andersn stresses the labour, but the article does currently say "since substantial labour would have been required for ..." -- is more needed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Has there not been any more specific energetics research done here? There's loads of it into Neolithic monuments, where people have attempted to quantify the amount of worker-days involved in constructing the things. "Many days" could be expressed as "in a matter of days", but I'm conscious that the source phrasing is emphasising the large amount of effort, whereas we've turned that around to assert that they were relatively easy to build. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source says "Causewayed enclosures ... were very large and often highly visible sites. They were built in one operation, involving the investment of many days' work by a large number of people." I could make this "a short time (weeks or months, but not years)" if you agree that doesn't go too far past the specifics in the source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any reason not to push the map up into the "Site" section? I found myself looking down at it as I followed the text description.
- On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- On my screen, the diagram is gigantic -- more than half the horizontal width. Would shrinking it slightly solve that problem? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Size is good, but I would definitely align it right to keep a consistent left margin (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Moved to the right. It bumps up against the infobox on my screen in that position, which is why I put it on the left, but it's not too bad. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Size is good, but I would definitely align it right to keep a consistent left margin (MOS:ACCESSIBILITY). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I made the map 20% smaller -- how does that look? Unfortunately that's not going to help the sandwiching since it's the top of the image that will sandwich with the infobox. I moved it up anyway; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- On my screen, the diagram is gigantic -- more than half the horizontal width. Would shrinking it slightly solve that problem? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- On my screen it would cause a sandwiching problem with the infobox, which is rather long. It would only overlap by a few lines, but I think any sort of sandwiching is frowned on. I agree it would be more useful a little higher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- included on a list of 16 possible causewayed enclosures: not a major problem, but we had Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles: why the figures now?
- Fixed; just being inconsistent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- We're inconsistent about whether to introduce new people: J. K. St Joseph gets no introduction, and while he needs none among British archaeologists, he probably does for the general public. On the other hand, Christopher Evans (worth a redlink?) gets the small and slightly ambiguous "Cambridge archaeologist".
- Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I made it "Christopher Evans, a Cambridge University archaeologist, ...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know Evans, really, but a lot of his early work from the 1980s looks very post-processual, and as you say there are a few co-publications with Ian Hodder (who has been at Stanford since the nineties). I think that's a good reason to introduce him, but I might be clear that Cambridge means the university, not just the city (Evans has long had a foot in both camps). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added an intro for St Joseph; he was a geologist and I gather never could be fairly described as primarily an archaeologist, so I went with the CUCAP credit for his description. I haven't found much in the way of independent sources for Evans so didn't redlink him but can if you think it's justified. Would just "archaeologist" be better for him? I included "Cambridge" as a nod towards the academic continuity -- I'm no expert on the history here, but I understand Evans has worked a lot with Ian Hodder, also at Cambridge, who was a pioneer in post-processual archaeology and so a sort of academic descendant of Clarke's. That in turn made me wonder if there is some academic controversy or debate hiding behind Evans' criticism of Clarke and his methods, and again made me want to draw the connection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The enclosures in southern Britain began to appear: more natural, I think, as the enclosures began to appear in southern Britain -- current phrasing sounds like they popped out of the ground.
- Yes, fair. Done. I'll have to remember to make that change in the other articles that use this text. I see you've been replying above; I'm off for second breakfast now and will get back to this later today. Thanks for the detailed comments; by the way. I've pushed back on several above but I don't want to give the impression that I'm resistant to your input -- just trying to communicate the details so we can agree on what's needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would generally convert between metric and imperial units -- did Clarke use metric?
- He did. I've added conversions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- New Archaeology, a movement to revise and expand the foundations of the discipline: I think it's worth setting out briefly how New/processual archaeology hoped to change things -- in particular, that New Archaeologists wanted excavations to be run like scientific experiments, explicitly theoretical in their conception, carried out to test hypotheses and with the collaboration of lots of scientific specialists. I think it would be worth name-checking his 1973 "Loss of innocence" paper as well -- he talked a lot there about why a New Archaeology was needed and how "traditional" excavators would push back against it. In a sense, was this excavation a bit like the University of Minnesota Messenia Expedition or, for a later movement, Hodder's work at Çatalhöyük, in that it served as a way of taking abstract ideas that had been discussed in theory and proving that they could make a difference in the field?
- I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- (See big comment below on this and related points) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Responded there; perhaps that takes care of this point too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can keep it loose -- try Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to
revise and expand the foundations of the disciplinebring archaeology closer to the natural sciences, and conduct archaeological excavations in a scientific manner. We don't need to get into the weeds of exactly what that meant in practice to each individual archaeologist, but Johnson is clear that everyone in NA agreed on that much. 06:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- Done; I cited it to chapter 3 in the absence of page numbers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- We can keep it loose -- try Johnson's Archaeological Theory here (frustratingly, no page numbers in Google Books, but search "New Archaeology"), which does so and explicitly uses Clarke. I would cite it to amend something like David Clarke was one of the leading figures in New Archaeology, a hetreogenous movement to
- "Clarke has a contemporary status as a disciplinary 'ancestor', cited in claims of intellectual descent and in accounts that sometimes border on hagiography", according to Evans; combining that with this obituary in Nature, which explicitly denies that his work is "in the manner of the American New Archaeology", I think you're right. I'm afraid I'm not clear how you think I should fix this. I had left the references to New Archaeology linked and unexplained in the version I brought to FAC because I didn't see clear statements in the sources I had. I can see why you suggested adding more about New Archaeology, but I don't see where to get it from -- particuarly if Sherratt's obituary is right and Clarke shouldn't be seen as only or strictly in that mould. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it does: I still think our definition of New Archaeology is too vague, and putting all the concrete detail into Clarke's proposal makes it sound almost as if he came up with the idea of treating archaeology as a physical science, when in fact most of the theoretical groundwork had been done in the United States by people like Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery a decade or so earlier. Clarke was important as an evangelist for the movement, but I'm not sure he did as much to invent it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Responded there; perhaps that takes care of this point too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- (See big comment below on this and related points) UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is there anything in the grant proposal that would be relevant here -- "the value of this excavation is that it will allow us to field-test the methodology of using X, Y and Z" or similar? I do think it's useful to define what New Archaeology was, beyond that it was, well, new, but agreed that it's dangerous to say exactly which aspects of it C. hoped to implement here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I looked into this a little while working on the article, but gave up on this for lack of sources. If I find something on New Archaeology, I'm concerned it would be SYNTH to apply the language in whatever I find to Clarke's work here. I think I would need someone talking about Great Wilbraham specifically, so I've made do with Evans' comments. For your second point, yes, I think in Clarke's mind it was exactly that. Evans says "Great Wilbraham also offered the potential to put specific ideas into practice; the chance of taking a systematic approach to data retrieval, analysis, and modelling at site, landscape, and broader scales." I turned that into "it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade". Are you suggesting I should name those ideas in that sentence, for example? I didn't because Evans doesn't and for these abstract discipline theories I am very hesitant to write something that might put words into the source's mouth. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- because the plan included using it as a training ground for students: this is pretty universal for digs led by university academics, particularly in Cambridge, but I'm not sure we can do much with that fact. Was Alexander not also brought along because, well, he would know which end of the shovel was which? Evans et al refer us to Hammond's biographical sketch for Clarke's fieldwork experience, which I can't immediately get hold of, but as I know it he was certainly more of a thinker and a writer than a digger. More pedantically, Evans et al say that Alexander got involved after the project became a training dig, not strictly because it did.
- Yes, Evans says "after", but surely that's just a colloquial way of saying "because"? Why mention it otherwise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough -- that's a plausible reading, so I've changed it to "after". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- My read of that was that the operation was getting bigger, and so would need two people, rather than Alexander being specifically brought on because of his expertise with training archaeologists, as our framing implies. Alternatively, since the general point was that Clarke was the driving force behind the operation, the decision to become a training dig might have been intended mostly as a chronological marker, to be clear that Alexander joined at a relatively late stage of the planning process. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, Evans says "after", but surely that's just a colloquial way of saying "because"? Why mention it otherwise? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- it was planned as a way to put into practice some of the theoretical ideas he had propounded over the previous decade: as above, I think it would be helpful to set out what some of those were.
- See comment above -- I'd like to be able to do this but would probably need help from you to word this correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits: this presumably implies that someone had been and surveyed it before this point?
- Yes, but as far as I can see Evans doesn't mention it. My own guess would be that it was so close to Cambridge that Clarke probably went there several times while working up the original grant proposal to the BM, and would have noticed the peat (and probably spotted some of the worked flints). That's just a guess though; I don't have anything I can source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Clarke planned to include interdisciplinary analyses and an evaluation of the surrounding landscape and environment in the project: I would be explicit that this is a definition of "total archaeology".
- Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's a funny phrase -- lots of people use it, usually to bash it as ill-defined or impossible, but few people actually go out and say what it means! See Godja here, p. 216: "total archaeology (an approach to understanding in which all of the disciplines capable of bringing understanding relevant to settlement history are applied)". Alternatively and more critically, here p. 68: "the ... integration of diverse perspectives ... [and] disparate data generated by an interdisciplinary team of specialists".
- Applying this to Great Wilbraham, Evans et al, cited, p. 118: This was intended to be an experiment in what Clarke called total archaeology. Predicated on the excavation of the entire enclosure, it was to involve a full array of interdisciplinary scientific/environmental analyses and intensive sample recovery. The site's proximity to Cambridge and its laboratories is also stressed as a major advantage for rapid response and systematic information retrieval - feedback, of course, being a major tenet of 'new' procedures. Based essentially on the quantity of its finds, Clarke is unambiguous in his assignation of the enclosure as a settlement given its 'heavy domestic occupation', and there is no mention of 'ritual' whatsoever. He is no less clear that one of the keys to understanding the site would come from exploring its situation at the interface of chalk and fen.
- The three bolded bits are all key "New Archaeology" tenets (lots of STEM-y specialists, a feedback loop between hypothesis, method and results, and a strongly landscape-based approach to the study of a site). I think it's also important here that Clarke said that the site was definitely a settlement -- we might not want to throw all of our weight behind that in Wikivoice, but we should at least talk about it when we talk about the site's functions. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used Gojda's definition to follow Evans' mention of "total archaeology" and to introduce Clarke's approach; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't see an obvious place to mention it in the article so I created a "See also" section and added it there. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you've done this, so I've removed the "See also". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would do "total archaeology, a precursor to landscape archaeology", or even just link "total archaeology" to landscape archaeology (come to think of it, I might create a redirect and put a little explanation in the landscape archaeology article). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't see an obvious place to mention it in the article so I created a "See also" section and added it there. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good, but I realised I missed the obvious earlier on -- the more current term is "landscape archaeology", and while that isn't quite the same thing (part of the reason for changing the terminology is to be a little more specific and concrete), a link or nod might be helpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used Gojda's definition to follow Evans' mention of "total archaeology" and to introduce Clarke's approach; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm being too timid about this sort of wording, but Evans doesn't say that so as above I'm uncomfortable using a term he doesn't. Again, can you point me at a source that would let me say something like this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link British Museum?
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- allocated for purchasing collections: purchasing artefacts for its collections, surely -- unless it specifically had this money put aside for buying some aristocrat's entire hoard?
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Clarke and Alexander never published their work: this might be a little uncharitable -- we haven't yet, in the body at least, given Clarke's rather good excuse.
- Yes, good point. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- but the grant proposal for the following year records some of the details of the two weeks: can we put a date on it?
- Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant for when the grant proposal was written/submitted?
- UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Clarke mentions the September 1975 excavation as in the past in the proposal. The only other date Evans mentions is that the Fortran contour 3D plot is dated January 1976, but I don't think we can assume that was before the grant proposal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately not -- frustatingly Evans gives no dates at all except to say "three weeks in the summer" for both years. I think Hammond mentions the dig in The Times and I could get a terminus ante quem, so to speak, from that, but it didn't seem worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Finds included animal bone including cattle, sheep, pig, deer and wolf: neater as bones of cattle... to avoid included ... including? OK, presumably there were at least some unidentified bone fragments as well, but I'm not sure they're going to be particularly important.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- A pollen column was taken, which covered 5000 years of the peat: I can visualise this, but I need a lot of "help" from having seen something similar done -- most readers will, I think, need a bit more explanation of what's actually going on here.
- Had a go at this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- demonstrated changes in the environment over the life of the site, such as the clearance of the site in Neolithic times and later pasture development: might do a footnote to explain how this works -- presumably, they noted a sharp drop in the proportion of tree pollen in the Neolithic, then certain other changes characteristic of grazing?
- I imagine so, but unfortunately this is from Clarke's notes, reproduced by Evans: "Dr. Birks (Dept Botany Cambridge) took a complete pollen column which showed that the peat ran from c. 5000-0 BC recording the neolithic clearance of the site, pasture development and many other interesting features contemporary with, as well as earlier and later than the neolithic occupation." The cite I just added is from a general archaeology reference which goes into a bit more detail about pollen analysis, so I could add a footnote explaining how this works in general. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Up to you; without specifics, it would have less (but not zero) value. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: Was Clarke hospitalised or dead at this point? I think it would almost be worth bringing Clarke's death to the front of this whole discussion, as a kind of apology and explanation for why we're reconstructing everything out of scraps and plans.
- I've moved mention of his death up in response to another of your comments so perhaps this is now addressed? Clarke died at the end of June, but since Evans doesn't give the dig dates for 1976 I can't see if Kinnes was added while Clarke was ill or after he died. Clarke died at the end of the Tripos and the dig was probably in the summer holiday so I would guess everything was planned and ready to go when he died, and Kinnes stepped in. No source for that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's almost certain that the dig would have been between July and September, but agreed that there's not much we can do without a source. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two more trenches were dug the following year, directed by Alexander and Ian Kinnes: I would explain what a spit is in archaeology.
- I'll come back to this -- I have some general references that talk about digging but haven't yet found a good explanation that I can cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have you got Renfrew and Bahn? Would have thought that any introductory textbook/glossary would do the trick. I can probably dig it out (stratigraphically) if you don't. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do, but I discovered in trying to find a definition that modern books don't even use the term any more, so I couldn't use that for the definition. I found a condemnation of spit-digging in Drewett's Field Archaeology and cited that, but had to use the online Oxford Reference for the plain definition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- rather than the more modern method of stratigraphic excavation (removing the material in each identifiable layer of soil as a unit).: I am surprised by this -- doing stratigraphy "properly" was a big deal for would-be "scientific" excavators. You might also be being slightly too kind in saying "more modern", implying that it was cutting-edge in the seventies -- back in the twenties, John Pendlebury is on record as moaning that his director wasn't paying enough attention to the stratigraphy. In the UK, good stratigraphic methods had been standard for most of Clarke's life, since at least the 50s, and since the 30s to those who were paying attention.
- I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
- Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a bit in here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What we've got works nicely, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just read those two chapters, and at the moment I'd rather not add anything more -- as you say there's no slam-dunk statement that in 1975 it would have been considered poor technique. Also it seems that there was a phase in which digs were conducted by spit but recorded by spit and stratigraphic layer, and Evans seems to say that that's what Clarke intended -- if I'm reading that correctly it's the execution that is bad, as the layer numbers are not clearly identified or correlated across trenches. If so, spit-digging is not the only or even the main criticism. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a bit in here (1989), chapters 2 and 3, that makes clear that stratigraphic excavation was a Thing from the 20s and 30s, and that non-stratigraphic excavation was a definite oddity after the 50s at least, but I'm struggling to find a slam-dunk one-liner that can pin it to a single page. Personally, I think there's enough there to cite "the then-preferred method" and reference "for the growing acceptance of the stratigraphic method over the first half of the twentieth century, see Harris 2014, ch. 2 and 3", but that might be a bit loose for some people's tastes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe something like Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, or again Renfrew and Bahn on the history of archaeological methods? We don't necessarily need a source from the time, only one that looks back on when stratigraphic excavation became the norm. Something reflecting on Wheeler and his legacy might also do the trick. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I used Drewett to say "unsound" (his word); is that strong enough? I'd like to be able to say "considered unsound even at the time", but I'd need an old source for that. I tried Crawford's Archaeology in the Field (I have the 1960 printing) but he doesn't get that specific about excavation technique. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Especially given Evans' comment there (bearing in mind nil nisi bonum), I think we've been too kind. I think Evans elsewhere is explicit that the conception and command of the excavation were very much Clarke's? I would certainly reword "more modern" to something stronger like "generally accepted", "the standard method of stratigraphic excavation" or similar -- we make it sound like there was a genuine choice between a new-fangled approach and a traditional one, when in fact very few archaeologists of the time would have defended Clarke's methods. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I completely agree that it's surprising; there are a couple of paragraphs in Evans that can be translated as "Clarke's fieldwork was very poor", though he's polite about it. I've written a couple of articles about pre-war excavations and the question of stratigraphy vs. spits was clearly coming down on the side of the former back then, so to my lay eyes it's astonishing that Great Wilbraham was excavated like this. Particularly since I gather Alexander was very experienced indeed; that has to imply Clarke designed the methodology. But do you think a change in the text was warranted? The only judgemental (as opposed to specific) comment that Evans makes is "Though not wishing to dwell on matters of hindsight, Clarke's approach to the monument, while undoubtedly pioneering, was also (at least in part) inappropriate."
- two 45 m long arms: hyphenate, as adjectival.
- Done, with a conversion added, which makes it look a bit awkward. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Recording of finds below this level was inconsistent between the trenches: can we explain exactly what this meant? Was one trench simply not very good at it, or did different trench supervisors adopt different recording strategies?
- The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with that. Changed to "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I read descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous, it's more than "different trenches did it differently", as we imply, it's that no trench seems to have done a usable job. I take Evans as saying that no trench recorded finds consistently (with itself) or clearly. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The full answer to this is presumably lost in the missing part of the archive. Evans says "Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate." Evans says at one point that "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares", and there's a photo to support this, but later "These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered", implying that the layer numbers were stratigraphic. And "buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches". So it seems to be spit-digging, for spatial control, but stratigraphic layer numbering, without a clear way of connecting the notation from one trench to the others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- a sample of the peat itself to 7000 BC: no error bars on that?
- No -- Evans couldn't find the 1970s lab information for that sample so all he had was "7000 BC". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The earliest estimated date was for a retouched blade which may have been from the Upper Palaeolithic.: I'd put a BC/BP date down here so that readers don't have to click away to the Upper Paleolithic page.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- the nearby river gravel terrace: hyphen needed in river-gravel.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- A few artefacts not made from local stone were identified: suggest made from non-local stone; we currently imply that not many artefacts were made of e.g. bone or pottery.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- fragments of stone axes from from Cornwall and Cumberland: not Pike of Stickle, by any chance? Has anyone commented on what they were doing there? Lots has been written about Cumbrian axes, in particular, as having some kind of special status.
- All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha: Group VI axes are from the Langdales, and are indeed a bit of a Thing. I'd suggest naming them and giving some context here. There's a bit that can be said about Group I axes as well: the linked page isn't the greatest source, but gives an overview, and I'm sure from there you or I can follow it up in more authoritative works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Funnily enough: I was in a museum this morning and found a rather nice map of the different "groups" and their origin points - it was cited to this edited volume from 1979, and put a nice big dot over the central Lakes for Group VI. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done, using another source to cite "greenstone" for the Cornish axes. That source (Schauer) refers to Group VI axes from the Langdale source as if there were other possible sources for Group VI. Taylor (the source you linked) seems unambiguous that they're Langdale axes though, so I've worded it that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gotcha: Group VI axes are from the Langdales, and are indeed a bit of a Thing. I'd suggest naming them and giving some context here. There's a bit that can be said about Group I axes as well: the linked page isn't the greatest source, but gives an overview, and I'm sure from there you or I can follow it up in more authoritative works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- All we have is "In addtion to flint, work in 1975 resulted in the recovery of a small number of artefacts made on non-local stone. These have now been lost, but were identified at the time by Professor Forbes of the Department of Geology and included fragments of Group I (Cornish) and Group VI (Cumbrian) stone axes." That's from Evans p. 131. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mildenhall ware, a form of Neolithic pottery found in southern England: as ever -- can we put a date on when it was made, other than "Neolithic"? "Made in southern England between 3700 and 3400 BC"?
- The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not the greatest source, but it does have bibliography -- I got those Mildenhall ware dates from this guide: Percival is a professional archaeological pottery analyst. Mid M4th works for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done; I think Gibson is enough here so I used that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not the greatest source, but it does have bibliography -- I got those Mildenhall ware dates from this guide: Percival is a professional archaeological pottery analyst. Mid M4th works for me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The names and classification of Neolithic pottery are nightmarish for a layperson like me. I have two references I use for them: Gibson & Woods, cited in the article, which is from 1990, and a 2002 book by Gibson, Prehistoric Pottery in Britain and Ireland. The former is structured as a dictionary; the Mildenhall entry gives no dates but refers to another entry that calls it middle Neolithic. The 2002 book mentions Mildenhall as the eastern version of a set of Neolithic forms that began to appear around 3600 BC. I think I could reasonably combine these to say "mid-fourth-millennium BC", if you think that's worth doing? I emailed Gibson a couple of years ago asking if there were more recent references, and he said no, and proceeded to give me a very helpful explanation of why the evolution of the terminology for Neolithic pottery is so complicated. It stems partly from changes in the understanding of the chronology, and partly from incorporating what were once regional style names into an overall chronological picture. I can't really cite his email though! He had not at that time interested the publisher in an updated version of his book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- since the excavation was by spits: you might be able to solve this with a better explanation further up, but at the moment it's not obvious why this would ruin the stratigraphy. Technically speaking, this wouldn't be a crisis if Clarke and Alexander had also recorded the stratigraphic context in which it was found (you can, after all, have more than one in a trench without a real problem), but it sounds like they didn't do that or, indeed, establish a system of context recording at all.
- See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think this is still an issue, given the changes so far and the conversations above about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied in a new subsection below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Strictly, yes, but that's in a previous section. Also, again strictly speaking, our sentence is still a slight non sequitur: it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits. In fact, as we've said The sherds were stored in the 1970s in labeled envelopes, identified by layer, trench, and grid square, I think something may be awry: either layer doesn't mean "stratigraphic context" or there's another piece to this puzzle. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't this covered by "Recording of finds below this level was poor within the trenches and inconsistent between them, so it was not always possible for the later analysis to be sure of the original stratigraphic position of the finds"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a problem, but I might add, "with no record of stratigraphic divisions" just to be extra-clear. It's possible to dig spits and still record stratigraphy properly, if you have the right systems in place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Do you think this is still an issue, given the changes so far and the conversations above about this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- See my comments above about this and the quotes from Evans. I will see if I can address this when I find something I can use to define spits -- it does seem as if there was some attempt at stratigraphic labelling. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The upper four layers included some Mildenhall material, but also pottery from the Late Bronze Age through to the present-day. All layers below this, which were all probably from within the various prehistoric ditches, contained Neolithic pieces, with a few Iron Age and Roman fragments. The outermost ditch found in trench GW II contained Roman material in all layers, indicating that this ditch dated from the Romano-British era: lots of dates would help here. Most people know the Romans were about 2000 years ago, but a bit of precision would be better.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- A dog was apparently present at the camp : again, we've called it a "camp", but I don't see in the article where we've got that from.
- Addressed per the comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cepea nemoralis: scientific names are italicised. Our page on those snails says that they live in woodland and prefer broad-leaved plants to grasses?
- See next reply. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- though there was some inconsistency between the data from Great Wilbraham and a trend from the Neolithic to the Iron Age at other sites of the woodland form predominating in earlier sites.: I think this could do with a bit more explanation as to what it means and why it's important.
- I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cepea nemoralis shells, most of which had visible bands. This form: The banded form of this species? Just want to be clear that "this form" doesn't mean Cepea nemoralis (incidentally, nemoralis means who lives in woodland groves). UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've had a go at this. Strictly speaking John Evans doesn't support the "implying ..." part of what I've added, but I think it's a logically obvious statement to make given what he does say about grassland and woodland forms. I think what I've added also addresses your comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- The lowest sample: I think we need to be explicit about what lower and upper mean in chronological terms.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- These pollen spectra from these samples was in agreement with: ce: The pollen spectra from these samples were in agreement with...
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link Norman Hammond, Catherine Frieman in the biblio?
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would give the Antiquity date (for Wilson's article) simply as "1975", as it's an annual publication.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why do some people get their names spelt out in the bibliography and others, like Maud Cunningham, just get initials?
- This reflects how they are listed in the journals -- Cunnington was actually listed as "Mrs. M. E. Cunnington", but I wasn't going to go there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to spell out where I can, in the same sort of vein as MOS:CONFORM, but that works too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- This reflects how they are listed in the journals -- Cunnington was actually listed as "Mrs. M. E. Cunnington", but I wasn't going to go there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Greatly enjoyed that one -- kudos as well for providing an excellent diagram. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Phew. Finished a pass through; will go back through and start on your replies, probably in a little while. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long review, but hopefully at least some of it is useful, and maybe some of that even passes for interesting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I am now caught up on all your comments. Will go and recaffeinate and take a look at the comments from others below. ~~`~~
- Don't apologize -- there's not much on Wikipedia that's more rewarding than having someone who knows what they're talking about engage with one's work. I really appreciate the detailed review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the long review, but hopefully at least some of it is useful, and maybe some of that even passes for interesting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Another one, sorry -- I think having Evans et al. 2006 as a subhead to "Archaeological investigations" implies that Evans et al made an archaeological investigation of the site in 2006, which they didn't. Why don't we subordinate that heading to Clarke et al, since it's really a continuation/reassessment of their work rather than a new study? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And another one -- I don't think we actually say in the body that it's near the village of Great Wilbraham.
- Fixed. I saw your other points but have to pause till this evening as I'm off to work shortly, but I'll just say I suspect "layer" of being used for both stratigraphy and spit level, either in Evans' description or Clarke's or both. I'll see if I can sort that out this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Layers
[edit]Starting a new section for the layers discussion since I want to quote a couple of things from Evans, which would make a mess of the bullet list above. From Evans:
- "Having removed the topsoil, the trenches were essentially spit-dug by 'layers' in metre squares (Fig. 7). Whilst potentially maximising the spatial control of finds, discrete fills were not distinguished, nor - breaking with convention - was any kind of feature numbering system systematically applied." (p. 122)
- "Recording was undertaken by dividing each trench into 1 m2 units, each given a unique letter and number. These individual squares were then hand-dug in 10 cm spits, with layer numbers given to different soils and feature fills as they were encountered. In several trenches, alternate squares were dug as a first priority to establish the nature of deposits, quantify artefact densities, and 'record stratigraphy'". A photo of a context sheet from the dig is included. (p. 124)
- "... buried soils were identified (usually as Layer 3) in several trenches, and provided the first horizon at which artefacts were collected and recorded systematically. So far as can be established, no cut features were identified above the chalk marl. Unfortunately, descriptions for all three trenches are inconsistent and frequently ambiguous. However, cross-referencing the record sheets with surviving sections and artefact densities suggests that any material given a layer number of five or greater is probably derived from features cut into the chalk marl substrate". (p. 125)
- A grid diagram is captioned "Trench artefact densities shown by spit/layer depth and metre square". (p. 128) It seems spit/layer only makes sense if they are different indications of depth, so this use of "layer" seems to refer to stratigraphic layer, but there's only one depth dimension given. That dimension is labelled "layer" not "spit", so this seems to be a stratigraphy diagram.
- "The material was contained in 499 individual envelopes separated by trench, grid square, and layer. The majority of the envelopes held mixed assemblages reflecting the spit method of excavation." Surely "layer" here refers to spit depth? Otherwise the second sentence makes no sense.
Given the above I think the sentence at the end of the "Reanalysis" section is OK -- it doesn't make any direct assertion about the stratigraphy and just reports Evans' criticism of the recording. You comment above that "it does not follow that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer from the excavation was by spits", but I think the last quote from Evans above says that it was the case. My interpretation would be that the envelopes were separated by trench, grid square, and spit depth, and that layer does not mean stratigraphic layer in that sentence of Evans'. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed -- they've clearly done the vertical divisions arbitrarily (at 10cm increments) rather than stratigraphically. How about in labeled envelopes, identified by
layerspit depth, trench, and grid square? I do think, at the moment, the word layer is going to cause confusion with the upcoming since the excavation was by spits this meant that each envelope could contain material from more than one stratigraphic layer, since we need the reader to understand that what we're calling layer and stratigraphic layer are completely different things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- Yes, done. Not sure why I couldn't see that that was a simple solution to the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, both for the support and for the detailed and very helpful review. The article is much improved because of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: that's my last quibble sorted, and on re-read I have nothing but praise for the article. I've certainly prodded and poked it over the course of this review, but I hope it's been beneficial: at least from my perspective, I think we've beaten out some really tricky issues and made it even closer to watertight. Very impressive work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, done. Not sure why I couldn't see that that was a simple solution to the confusion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Steelkamp
[edit]I'll have a look at this too. If you would like to do a review, I've also got an article at FAC that needs reviews. Steelkamp (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Lead
- "The site was rich in finds, including Neolithic flint, and pottery from periods stretching from the Neolithic to the present day, and animal bone..." Two ands in a row?
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The third paragraph is really short, which makes the lead unbalanced. Perhaps that sentence could be tacked onto the end of the first paragraph, behind "The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972."
- Per Iazyges comment in the review below I've made a different change at that part of the lead, so I added it to the end of the second paragraph instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Background
- Could you add a non-breaking space before each BC for the dates? MOS:ERA says it is "advisable to use a non-breaking space".
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "in the early Neolithic." Suggest change to "in the early Neolithic period."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Causeway can be linked.
- Done, but I'm not sure it isn't a little misleading -- the linked article is about tracks on embankments above wet places, whereas in "causewayed enclosure" it's a figurative use, more or less. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. It probably doesn't need to be linked. Steelkamp (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done, but I'm not sure it isn't a little misleading -- the linked article is about tracks on embankments above wet places, whereas in "causewayed enclosure" it's a figurative use, more or less. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Western Europe and MOS:COMPASS indicate that "western Europe" should have a capital "W".
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Site
- I would link Cambridgeshire in the body as its only linked in the infobox. Also, just to clarify, are you not linking terms already linked in the lead? I believe that is fine, although I would typically link those terms in the body as well.
- Done. My intention is to link again in the body, as you say; did I miss others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there is Cambridge. There is also David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
- All addressed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there is Cambridge. There is also David L. Clarke, who is linked upon his second mention in the body but not first. Its also inconsistent as to whether he is mentioned with his middle initial or not.
- Done. My intention is to link again in the body, as you say; did I miss others? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No conversions to imperial units? Either way, the unabbreviated measurement should be given first. "20 m" should be changed to "20 metres" and "2 ha" should be changed to "2 hectares".A non-breaking space should be put between each figure and its units as well.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Most causewayed enclosures are oval..." Suggest changing to "Most causewayed enclosures are oval-shaped..."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The site is slightly tilted towards the old river course, with the upper edge of the site at the edge of the higher ground." This is unclear to me. What is the higher ground referring to? In what way is the site tilted? Is that just a way of saying the site is sloped? If so, saying the site is sloped towards the old river course is a clearer way of putting it.
- Done. "Tilted" seems to be the preferred way to describe this sort of thing in sources about causewayed enclosures, but you're right that "sloped" is perfectly clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Archaeological investigations
- "it was close to Cambridge..." Did Clarke work at Cambridge University?
- Yes; clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Great Wilbraham was the only known causewayed enclosure to include peat deposits..." How did they know this. Was the Clarke investigation not the first investigation?
- This is not stated in the sources. Most likely Clarke visited the site (it was very close to Cambridge), saw the peat area at the north of the site, and knew that no other causewayed enclosure was in a peat landscape. I can't source that though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976,[23]and he and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks." I think this would be better as two sentences. "Clarke died unexpectedly in the summer of 1976.[23] He and Alexander never published their work, but the British Museum grant proposal records some of the details of the two weeks."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "A magnetometer survey was done, and fieldwalking to recover surface finds, and a trench 80 by 2 m (262 by 7 ft) (GW I in the diagram) was excavated." Two ands in the same sentence.
- I'd like to keep this -- I think it's necessary because the verbs vary in each clause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "in 3D perspective." Suggest changing to "in a 3D perspective."
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "...which was stored partly in Cambridge and partly in London." Could be simplified to "which was stored in Cambridge and London." Partly is implied here.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The cropmark plot used by Clarke to locate the trenches..." Is this referring to the trenches the archaeologists dug or the ditches that are part of the causewayed enclosure?
- The trenches, but I agree it's not clear. Added a bit to clarify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Two radiocarbon dates were..." Radiocarbon dating should be linked here rather than below.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
All responded to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Femke
[edit]Lovely article, thanks for working on it.
- It may be nice to have a feeling of the size of the enclosure in the lead.
- Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would split the first para of the background section in two, it's quite long.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The section relies quite heavily on older sources. For most of the material, that's no problem, but for two instances, I wonder if newer sourcing exist:
- The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
- I'm not aware of anything more recent, though I have a couple of papers to read that may have more ideas. I think "military analysis" is probably too dignified a term for some pre-war archaeologists guessing at the defensibility of the site! But I think the military possibility has to be mentioned because of the evidence that at least a couple of these sites were attacked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Over seventy causewayed enclosures have been identified in the British Isles --> Is this number still roughly the same since 2011? I can imagine that satellite techniques may be increased this number.
- It does seem plausible but I only know of one site identified since 2001, though there may be others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The debate on the purpose of the enclosures. Has there been any development in that debate since 2011? Or in terms of military analysis, since 1930.
- I don't quite understand the sentence " The construction of these enclosures took only a short time, which implies significant organization since substantial labour would have been required for clearing the land, preparing trees for use as posts or palisades, and digging the ditches". The first couple of times I read this sentence, it seemed contradictory (I read the first bit as implying it was easy to make, the second bit as difficult). Can you reorganise / split the sentence so that this becomes clearer? For instance, by first talking about how much and what work is needed, and then a second sentence about the findings of low constructions times / organisation.
- This has been reworked as a result of other comments -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Similarly, consider breaking the first paragraph of the Archaeological investigations in two, it's quite long.
- Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Consider explaining cropmarks the first time it's mentioned. (I assume you've looked into adding an image of the cropmarks of the find, and there weren't any suitably licensed ones available. Would be cool if we could have one).
- I added a note; does that do it? And yes, sadly there's nothing freely available, and I don't think fair use could be justified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Should ploughsoil be (red)linked? Seems notable, and it's jargon
- I added a link to glossary of archaeology; I'm not sure it could be an article, but I agree it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link fieldwalking
- It's linked -- maybe I added the link after you read the article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe link sherd
- Same here -- this is linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- These pollen spectra from these samples --> Only use these once (the pollen spectra from these samples).
- Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
That was all from me! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- All addressed, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Femke, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, very happy with the article now, support :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Femke, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Iazyges
[edit]- The Great Wilbraham enclosure was first identified from aerial photographs in 1972. keeping this in the first paragraph of the lede seems somewhat awkward, suggest making it the first sentence of the second paragraph.
- Excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, but in other ways the work was advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective. the phrasing seems a bit odd to me, perhaps While excavation by spits is considered an unsound approach, the work was in other ways advanced for its time: for example, a computer program was written to render the contour topography of the site in 3D perspective.
- That's all from me. A fascinating article! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support I've looked it over and no obvious issues. Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]I see that some issues have been noted above. I kinda wonder why "Hammond, Norman (30 December 1975). "Archaeology report: Cambridge: Neolithic 'causewayed camp'". The Times. London. p. 10. " is written by an expert on archaeology on another continent. ""'Causewayed camps' and 'interrupted ditch systems'"." lacks a DOI. Otherwise, it seems like we are dealing with well-cited publications from reputable publishers, keeping in mind that this isn't an area where I am an expert in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added the DOI for Wilson. I think Hammond was the archaeology correspondent for The Times at that time, so he covered everything in the field for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Lovely piece, Mike. Just one very small comment which doesn't affect my support, and which I make as a suggestion, is that "peat is one of the few environments in which wood can be preserved": one of the few natural environments? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done; thanks for the suggestion (and the support). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Ten years ago, geneticist Ron Davis called ME/CFS "probably the last major disease that we don't know anything about". A lot has changed since, most notably a global pandemic that led to millions more contracting the illness (15% to 50% of those with long COVID) and the start of research programmes in many countries. A lot still remains to be discovered. ME/CFS has a long and contested history, making it an interesting but difficult article to write. Comments most welcome :).
Many thanks to those helping with pre-FAC reviews, User:Ajpolino, User:Graham Beards, User:RoySmith and User:Draken Bowser, and those involved in the article over the years (User:Innisfree987, User:The Quirky Kitty and User:Ward20). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Some images are missing alt text, and some that have it don't have enough description - see MOS:ACCIM. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added and expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Draken Bowser
[edit]Back from vacation and ready to review! I like what you did with the prevalence estimate, it seems to reflect the inherent uncertainties while remaining comprehensible.
Classification looks good to me.
Signs and symptoms
- or other symptoms - I'd prefer for this to be either more specific or omitted. Could we for example call these "physical symtoms"?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Symptoms significantly reduce the ability to function compared to before the illness started - since this is not about diagnostics could we let this be implicit?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Severity
- and 19% have a full-time job - I'm concerned about this for the same reason as the old prevalence estimate.
- The source cited does not have a range. It's based on the broader Fukuda criteria, so may be an overestimate compared to modern criteria. I have found one other source on the topic in an MDPI journal by an independent researcher. The numbers found there are similar (typically 10-30% based on older criteria, one study with the strict but uncommonly used ICC criteria found <10%). I'm not sure the mpdi journal meets the criteria for HQRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it to give a wider range. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My concern here is that while it's presented as 19% in the source, we're making a very specific general statement about ME/CFS based on a questionnaire answered by a hundred individuals. /DB
- I've changed the percentages to a more vague "one in five". Is that sufficient? Or you still think it's too specific / outdated? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- My concern here is that while it's presented as 19% in the source, we're making a very specific general statement about ME/CFS based on a questionnaire answered by a hundred individuals. /DB
- The source cited does not have a range. It's based on the broader Fukuda criteria, so may be an overestimate compared to modern criteria. I have found one other source on the topic in an MDPI journal by an independent researcher. The numbers found there are similar (typically 10-30% based on older criteria, one study with the strict but uncommonly used ICC criteria found <10%). I'm not sure the mpdi journal meets the criteria for HQRS, so I'm hesitant to cite it to give a wider range. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Causes
- but there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk. - is this trying to say that it is likely polygenic or that no candidate genes have been reliably identified?
- The first. There have been GWASes of like ~2000 people, which didn't find anything. Expanded. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
No suggestions on Pathophysiology or Diagnosis. Time for a break. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Management
- The goal of the exercise programme borderline case, but the preceding sentence hasn't established anything resembling a structured exercise programme, slight rephrase?
- the --> a.
- but there may be a trade-off required rest during the day. I think I get what this means, but could it be spelled out?
- I've tweaked the wording to "trade-off with needed rest", which should hopefully be clearer. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Prognosis
- In extreme cases, people can die from the illness. I think we need a little more info here.
- While I would love to write more, there is not much more on this in HQRS. I've written more on trying to expand this at in a recent talk discussion. Did another search, but sources on the topic are either news articles about individuals who've died, primary, implicit, or published in lower-quality journals. Had another search, but no success. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Epidemiology
- Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS. Haven't changed with the rewrite of the lead, on the other hand the figure is presented in context here, which might be fine.
History
- though challenged the source specifies Dr Ramsay so I think we'd need to as well.
- It was a bit odd that the source only talked about Ramsay's challenge, so I omitted this deliberately. Some prime overcitations on Controversies_related_to_ME/CFS#Mass_hysteria_accusations shows quite a long list of people who objected. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Time for another break. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ajpolino
[edit]Glad to see this here at last, and looking forward to reviewing in the next few days. Feel free to bother me if I'm not back by midweek. Ajpolino (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Just getting started, but need to step away for a moment. Enjoying the article so far. Some little things:
- Lead - I am uninspired by the first sentence. I assume you wanted to keep it short and sweet, rather than merging it with the second sentence? Anything else we can say here? The word "serious" seems unnecessary since you show us it's serious with your description in the following sentences.
- My intention was to keep it short and without using big words. The main reason I didn't merge with the second sentence is that is misses the key symptom (PEM), which is best explained after the other symptoms are introduced. As the first sentence can feel definitional to readers, it may be misinterpreted. For comparison, this is what other sources use:
- NHS: "is a long-term condition that can affect different parts of the body",
- CDC public: "is a serious and often long-lasting illness that keeps people from doing their usual activities",
- CDC for HCP: "is a chronic, life-altering disease affecting many organ systems."
- informedhealth: "is a chronic illness that can cause a range of different symptoms"
- Ward20 changed it from serious to disabling after a talk page discussion. Better for you too? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, at least "disabling" means something slightly more specific than "serious". Ajpolino (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ward20 changed it from serious to disabling after a talk page discussion. Better for you too? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My intention was to keep it short and without using big words. The main reason I didn't merge with the second sentence is that is misses the key symptom (PEM), which is best explained after the other symptoms are introduced. As the first sentence can feel definitional to readers, it may be misinterpreted. For comparison, this is what other sources use:
- Lead - Similar note for "They are able to do much less than before they became ill." Seems generic; is that not true for many diseases? I think it could be cut, as it's implied much more colorfully by the rest of the paragraph.
- Done (might get pushback on talk for this). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Self-reverted, as I got pushback. It's a key part of many of the diagnostic criteria: one of the three mandatory criteria in the IOM for instance. The other symptoms may not be sufficiently severe to be this disabling. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it redundant now that the lead sentence changed to include "disabling" (Sorry for butting in). Draken Bowser (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- And removed it again, as I think there is a rough consensus to do so now. I agree it's now even more redundant with other parts of the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it redundant now that the lead sentence changed to include "disabling" (Sorry for butting in). Draken Bowser (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead - "less than a day to several months." momentarily confusing as it reads like "less than" could also be applied to "several months" (which I suppose it can be). Is "hours to several months" acceptable?
- That was my initial wording. It felt a bit too vague to me, and a big jump from hours to months. I've now put in hours or days to severals months to emphasize the more typical crash duration (which is >14hours as I understand). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lead - "avoid flare-ups and counseling..." I've never had the strongest grasp of English grammar, but Sammi Brie has instructed me that a comma belongs here (her essay on the topic in case it's helpful). Ditto "healthcare settings and care is complicated".
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Lead - "severely affected and unable to leave their bed or home" seems redundant? Sentence means the same with "severely affected and" cut out.
- That was my failed attempt to introduce a part of the severity classification. That classification is a bit unintuitive anyway, so better to not mention in lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Classification - "classified under other disorders of the nervous system". I don't feel strongly about this, but "other" is not very meaningful unless you look at the ICD-11 to see what it's "other" relative to. Would it be more meaningful to the reader to skip a level and just say "classified under diseases of the nervous system"?
- Done (the first sentence already said neurological). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Classification - "The cause of the illness is unknown and the classification is based on symptoms which indicate a central role of the nervous system." (1) another spot for the Sammi Brie comma. (2) I had to read this twice to understand. I'd suggest cutting the first clause (we know the cause is unknown because you told us four paragraphs earlier) and maybe tweaking to something like "ME/CFS is classified as a neurological disease as many of its symptoms indicate a central role of the nervous system."
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Classification - "may better fit" reads as editorializing (I know it's the source's wording, but it's a short "Perspective" piece from an immunologist. A perspective piece is a good place for her to editorialize; the wording fits less well in an encyclopedia article). Is it fair to replace with "is sometimes labelled a neuroimmune condition"?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Signs & symptoms - "The illness..." I assume you're trying to limit the number of sentences starting with "ME/CFS..." but since the prior paragraph described several illnesses, I think this is a time to specify the subject of your sentence clearly.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Signs & symptoms - "may be considered outdated" reads as editorializing. Is there a way to rephrase this so it doesn't sound like it's Wikipedia's opinion? Did the new term pick up any steam outside the NICE report?
- PEM is definitely the more used term still. That said, it is used in some prominent publications, for instance this week's lovely long COVID review in Lancet. I've moved the discussion about the best term to the subarticle, where I have the space to do proper in-text attribution. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Signs & symptoms - " can lead
onto a" is how I think it would be said here (US). Is this a regional English thing? If so, ignore me, of course.- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Signs & symptoms - My general opinion is that dividing a section into a series of (mostly) single-paragraph subsections makes for an uncomfortable, choppy read. We don't need a bold title for every paragraph. I'd suggest lumping some subsections together -- maybe one on "core symptoms" (which could even go unlabelled as the top material of Signs & symptoms) and one on "Other common symptoms", as you have now.
- Done, even though there is not full consensus on core vs non-core symptoms across definitions. I've used IOM here, which is probably the most authorative. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Signs & symptoms - "in muscles (as myalgia) and joints" should this just say "muscles (myalgia) and joints"? I.e. is myalgia a type of muscle pain, or just the word for muscle pain? Also I don't insist you add "... joints (arthralgia)" but my brain cries out for symmetry.
- Removed "as", and linked arthralgia. Despite the annoying asymmetry, I prefer to omit arthralgia as jargon. Myalgia is useful to introduce as it helped explain the name of the illness. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Illness severity - "than healthy controls" - consider wikilinking "healthy controls" or "controls" as it's scientific jargon.
- There was no good link, so I changed it to healthy individuals. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pathophysiology - "in work rate at the anaerobic threshold" any chance there's a clearer way to communicate this? I imagine this won't be meaningful to most readers.
- I can't think of any. I would love to omit it altogether and just talk about performance, but the reduction in work rate more generally didn't reach the significance threshold in the last two reviews. I assume the next review will, as the biggest primary study so far confirmed these findings more generally last month. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "... in obtaining a diagnosis and diagnoses may be missed altogether" Sammi Brie comma
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "These include the NICE guidelines, IOM criteria... and CDC criteria." some abbreviations/acronyms get spelled out; others do not. I'm not sure I'd prefer they all be spelled out (since that's a lot of words that readers may not care about) but figured I'd flag the inconsistency for you to consider.
- I've now spelled out IOM at first mention, as I don't think it's a household name. CDC and NICE are both more known by their abbreviation I believe. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "missing more diagnoses and overdiagnosis" this could be read as if "missing more" applies to both. If you flip the order or reword another way it gets clearer.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - I think I said this at talk, but your table "ME/CFS symptoms... diagnostic criteria" is fantastic.
- Thanks :).
- Diagnosis - "the Fukuda criteria have limitations" reads as editorializing. Would it suffice to say "While used frequently, the large variety of optional symptoms..."?
- This is wording found in sourcing too, for instance from BMJ: "A limitation of the CDC criteria is that PEM is not a requirement for diagnosis. Another limitation is symptom scoring, as the original criteria allowed symptoms to be 'present' without grading for severity. A stricter interpretation requires moderate or severe complaints for diagnosis." I want to convey specifically that missing PEM as a mandatory symptom puts Fukuda out of step with modern definitions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "In addition to PEM and sleep problems..." is it worth stating in the text that fatigue and functional impairment are required symptoms for the CCC (based on the table)?
- I've added fatigue. Becomes a bit too wordy if you include functional impairment imo. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "Similarly, the International Consensus Criteria are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people" is all we get on the ICC. Is anything else due or is this really a disfavored criteria set?
- I've expanded a bit. ICC is somewhat disfavoured as it defined ME rather than ME/CFS. It was influential in the sense that the illness severity categorisation was first defined there, so I've expanded slightly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "red blood cell sedimentation rate (ESR)" do we need to know the abbreviation (ESR)? It isn't used again in the article.
- Please forgive me for poking my nose in. I think we do. The term ESR is used so often, at least in the UK, that its full name is not known. Graham Beards (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll keep it as is, per Graham's comment. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please forgive me for poking my nose in. I think we do. The term ESR is used so often, at least in the UK, that its full name is not known. Graham Beards (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - "Standard tests... thyroid-stimulating hormone." the first two list items are "standard tests" (as promised), the last three are things measured by tests. Is it possible to gently reword so the sentence makes more sense? Maybe something like "Standard tests include an HIV test and blood tests to determine full blood count, ESR, and levels of..."
- Done, and changed away from the superior West Country pronounciation of the H (haitch) in HIV. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diagnosis - " present similar symptoms... [paragraph break]...Various rheumatological" It's not clear why these two paragraphs are separate. Is there a contrast between these two example groups you're trying to highlight?
- Merged. Only reason to split was to avoid a jargon-filled word salad paragraph; no content reasons. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Management - "cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)" the abbreviation is used a few paragraphs before it's defined.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Management - "flexible, prevent..." is a word missing here? A well-placed "and" or change to "preventing" would work I think.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:Pardon my slowness. Will continue to be slow through this week, as we have family arriving this evening. Hoping to be through everything by the end of the weekend. Ajpolino (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rest looks great to me! Thanks for the interesting read. Will take another readthrough, then move on to a source review if no one beats me to it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Working my way through the reference list. So far the article is based on recent scholarly reviews and resource pages from major healthcare organizations. A couple questions on source I'm unfamiliar with:
- Can you say something about how we know the IQWiG source is reliable? You may assume for the moment that I don't speak German and am shamefully ignorant of German health authorities.
- They're basically Germany's NICE. It's the most recent national clinical guideline on ME/CFS produced from a major country, hence my strong reliance on it. It goes in more detail than the 2021 NICE report. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC), 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- O'Leary 2020 is a satisfying read, but as a letter from one philosopher/ethicist sharply dismantling the thesis of Sharpe (one of the PACE trial authors) and Greco (another philosopher) I don't think it's an ideal source for broad claims like "People with ME/CFS often face stigma in healthcare settings" (lead) and I hesitate with it as a source for "a subset of professionals still see the condition as... 'illness-without-disease'" (O'Leary gestures at this, but she's mostly prodding directly at Sharpe and Greco, of whom I assume only Sharpe sees patients). The third place it's used, "Professionals who subscribed to the psychological model had frequent conflicts with patients...", is most defensible. Though I can't help but feel this topic is probably covered in a more authoritative source that set out to review the topic, rather than this one which set out to make a particular point.
- Aoun Sebaiti, et al. 2022 (used to reference a single statement) is published in Scientific Reports, which is a mega journal. Not inherently a problem, but academics typically publish in mega journals when more selective/prestigious journals won't accept their work. At a glance, I'm not sure why this review was sent to Scientific Reports, but I'd suggest you double-check that the material you cite to it reliably represents the scientific mainstream, and consider replacing if possible.
- It not possible to replace it with something similar, as this is the only meta-analysis of its kind. It's cited, including by in higher-quality journals, and the corresponding author is a well-cited researcher in the field of neuromuscular diseases. I think it adds to the section as it shows objective markers of the symptom. Happy to be convinced otherwise however. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ditto Maksoud, et al. 2020, which is in PLoS ONE.
- I'm confident of this article. Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik is a well-known expert in the field, also behind a Science article on the disease and co-author of the BMJ Best Practice document. Furthermore, none of what we cite to the paper is controversial. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Similarly, there are a few citations to articles in MDPI journals. Again, not inherently bad, but since MDPI has a poor reputation you see more work there that's of poorer quality or from a field's fringe, since it's often a destination for work that isn't accepted in more mainstream/selective journals. Consider double checking these:
- Montoya, et al. 2021. Three of the authors are listed as "Independent Consultants" which is unusual.
- Replaced with NICE and Mayo. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lim, et al. 2020 and Pheby, et al. 2020 which we discussed very briefly here and so I feel less concerned about.
- Montoya, et al. 2021. Three of the authors are listed as "Independent Consultants" which is unusual.
- Ditto the Frontiers journal, though I haven't personally noticed the same quality issues with these, and my opinion of the vibe in academic science (for whatever that's worth) is that Frontiers is not disfavored to the same extent as MDPI. Here it's Pollack, et al. 2023 and VanElzakker, et al. 2018
- Both these sources are cited significantly for papers in the field. The recent CDC website update seems to have used the conclusions from Pollack, and it was mentioned frequently in the NIH research roadmap conference. The VanElzakker paper is on the old side, but the paragraph is mostly based on the newer source. The VanElzakker paper allows us to put in into context a bit more, that is, noting that PET evidence is the more direct type of evidence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Overall, there is less sourcing than you'd expect for a major illness, hence my occasional reliance on MPDI/Frontiers. There is a trade-off between comprehensiveness and where to draw the line on HQRS. Learned a new thing about mega journals though; I was not aware Plos ONE was in the same boat as Scientific Reports'. Will have another look at the sources that I'm not 100% on.
- I'm satisfied with your responses, and the other sources appear to be high quality to me. I'd appreciate a response on the O'Leary paper when you get a moment. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Taking this space to pick a few nits. Apologies in advance.
- Per WP:MEDDATE, we try to source medical information to a source within the last 5 years, to ensure we're representing the (ever-evolving) medical mainstream. Many exceptions apply, of course. I'll try to limit my MEDDATE nit picks to the most relevant:
- Regarding the name, "The most commonly used are..." cited to the 2015 US Institute of Medicine Report. Any chance we have something more recent to backup a statement about current language usage on this (though the statement does seem to obviously still be true)?
- Similarly, "The onset of ME/CFS may be... it often follows an infection." to the same 9-year old source. Any chance we can find something more recent?
- Ditto "However, a two-day CPET..."
- "prevalence is highest between ages 40 and 60" partly to a 2016 source
- "People with ME/CFS have... correlate with symptom severity" to Nijs, et al. 2014. This material isn't that time sensitive, but if no one else has mentioned it in a review in ten years, are we sure it represents the mainstream view of the science of the disease?
Still working my way through the list. Possibly more to come. Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Mostly done! Will take another look through everything shortly and add any final comments. Ajpolino (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Sgubaldo
[edit]Putting my name down; should be able to look at it properly within the next couple days. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Lead
I was initially going to comment on the first sentence, but I see that it's been changed and I'm satisfied with its current state.
- "treat the condition and management is aimed" – this reads like it needs a comma after 'condition'.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph, three sentences start with ME/CFS one after the another. Could one of them, perhaps the latter, be changed to start with 'The illness'?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Classification
- "Alternatively, based on abnormalities in immune cells, ME/CFS is..." – Are these abnormalities also a symptom due to ME/CFS? I presume so from the lead, but it's not clear to me here.
- No, they are not a symptom, and it's not yet completely clear how cellular abnormalities translate to specific symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Signs and Symptoms
- "In addition, cognitive issues, orthostatic intolerance...." – Wikilink orthostatic intolerance?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "...upright), or other physical symptoms, may be present." – I'm not sure either comma is needed here.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "..cognitive impairment, often improve again after lying down." – 'again' could be cut?
- I think it's better with again, as it emphasises the link with the previous sentence. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Illness Severity
- ".....in particular pain" – I feel 'especially pain' would read better.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Functional impairment can be greater than multiple sclerosis,..." – Reads like it's missing something (e.g. Functional impairment for those with ME/CFS can be greater than people with multiple sclerosis,...)
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Causes
- "...there is not a single gene responsible for increased risk" – This makes it sound like there's no genes responsible at all, I think it should be 'there is no single gene...'
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "...probably individually have small effects, but..." ==> "...probably have small individual effects, but..."
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and environmental exposures such as mould." – Not sure how you'd change it, but this reads like mould itself is an exposure, rather than talking about 'exposure to mould'. Also, wikilink mould?
- I've changed it to "environmental exposures such as to mould. Is that better?
Research
- The word 'research' in the subheadings 'research funding' and 'research directions' might be unnecessary.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "People with ME/CFS can widely differ in which symptoms they have and how severe these symptoms are." seems convoluted; perhaps change to "Symptoms and their severity can widely differ among people with ME/CFS"
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Diagnosis
- "Could You Have ME/CFS? from US Centers for Disease Control" ==> "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States" or, alternatively, "Could You Have ME/CFS? handout from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention"
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk over overdiagnosis," ==> "The broad Fukuda criteria have a higher risk of overdiagnosis,"
- "... whereas the strict ICC criteria have a higher risk of missing people" ==> Remove 'criteria', since it repeats second C in ICC?
- "Similarly to the CCC criteria, ICC is stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." ==> "Similarly to the CCC, the ICC are stricter than the Fukuda criteria and select more severely ill people." per the issue above?
Management
- "It was developed for ME/CFS in the 1980s." ==> Perhaps change to 'The technique was...' to make it extra clear this is referring to pacing?
- "Similarly, a form of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) that assumed the illness is maintained by unhelpful beliefs about the illness and avoidance of activity, is no longer recommended." ==> I think the comma is not needed here.
Prognosis
- "Information on the prognosis of ME/CFS is limited". ==> Wikilink prognosis?
Epidemiology
- "Overall, around 1 in 150 have ME/CFS." ==> "Overall, around 1 in 150 people have ME/CFS."?
- "Based on the 1994 CDC diagnostic criteria, the global prevalence rate for CFS is 0.89%. In comparison, estimates using the stricter 1988 CDC criteria or the 2003 Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME produced a prevalence rate of only 0.17%" ==> Silly question, but why are these sentences referring to just CFS or ME instead of the full name?
History
- Is there any information on when the umbrella term ME/CFS started being widely used that could be added here?
Final comments above, apologies for taking a while. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Jens
[edit]- I think that the section "Naming" might be better combined with the "Classification" section, right at the start of the article. I suggest this because I was very confused about the name "Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome", which seem to be two alternative names put together, which is quite non-standard and needs explanation at the beginning of the article. Also, most readers will have no idea what the title (i.e., words such as "myalgic") actually means until they reach the end of the article, where it is mentioned en-passant. I think we first need to define the topic before discussing anything else, and some understanding what the article title is trying to say is crucial.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was initially considered a subset of chronic fatigue syndrome – Take this as example: Here, for the first time, you use "chronic fatigue syndrome" without the addition "myalgic encephalomyelitis", and the reader will not know if this now refers to a distinct condition or not.
- I've merged the two sections. I hope this makes it clearer. Some context is missing still from the diagnostic criteria/history (CFS is sometimes used to denote that old criteria are used), but the section is now quite meaty, so I hope it's clear without further expanding. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great! One more point about the part Some people with post-acute infection syndrome (PAIS) meet the criteria of ME/CFS. PAISs such as long COVID and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome share many symptoms with ME/CFS and are suspected to have a similar cause: maybe some context is missing but I'm unsure what to make of this information. The paragraph starts with the classification of ME/CFS as a neurological desease, and it does not become clear how these two sentences relate to that. PAIS does not seem to have anything to do with neurology, so what does this mean regarding the classification of ME/CFS? Does this mean that some people do not consider ME/CFS to be a neurological desease? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've reworded to make clear that PAIS/infection-associated chronic illness is another potential classification, based on the new CDC pages. I don't know if there is any official classification of PAISs, but they also have strong neuroimmune symptoms. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Great! One more point about the part Some people with post-acute infection syndrome (PAIS) meet the criteria of ME/CFS. PAISs such as long COVID and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome share many symptoms with ME/CFS and are suspected to have a similar cause: maybe some context is missing but I'm unsure what to make of this information. The paragraph starts with the classification of ME/CFS as a neurological desease, and it does not become clear how these two sentences relate to that. PAIS does not seem to have anything to do with neurology, so what does this mean regarding the classification of ME/CFS? Does this mean that some people do not consider ME/CFS to be a neurological desease? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've merged the two sections. I hope this makes it clearer. Some context is missing still from the diagnostic criteria/history (CFS is sometimes used to denote that old criteria are used), but the section is now quite meaty, so I hope it's clear without further expanding. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also think that the structure of the "Classification" section is not ideal. For example, "post-viral fatigue syndrome" and "post-infectious fatigue syndrome" are discussed in separate paragraphs, although they seem to be synonyms (?).
- Yes, they are roughly synonyms (post-infectious fatigue syndrome can also follow bacterial infections). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rest of the article seems to have only a few issues. My nitpicks as follows:
- "verbal memory" – what does this mean, can it be linked? It does not seem to refer to forgetting of words, as this symptom was already mentioned earlier.
- Linked and expanded the linked article. Verbal memory refers more to storing and retrieving new verbal information. A verbal memory test could for instance require you to remember a phone number and recall it a few minutes later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- autoimmune should be linked.
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- A waiting period before ME/CFS is confirmed, is used to exclude acute medical conditions or symptoms which may resolve within that time frame. – The comma seems wrong, maybe try "Before ME/CFS is confirmed, a waiting period is used to exclude …"
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sleep apnoea is may also co-occur with ME/CFS. – remove the "is"?
- Done. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- more to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, avoiding standing by using a shower chair. – This does not read like a complete sentence. Combine with the previous one?
- I've expanded instead, and gave a different example to avoid duplication later on. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- However, these studies have often been small – does "small" refer to the number of participants?
- Yes, clarified. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- In 2015, the Institute of Medicine produced a report with new diagnostic criteria – I guess there must me many "Institute of Medicine" in the world, so this is a bit unspecific (edit: I see that it is linked later, but should be linked at first mention).
- Linked at first mention, and specified in the US one, if there are more. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent, well readable article overall! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support on prose. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations
[edit]- Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about Australian politician John Tonkin. This is my first featured article candidate for a politician and, if successful, would by my longest featured article yet. Tonkin was the longest serving member of the Parliament of Western Australia, at 44 years, and was the premier of Western Australia for three years. My main sources are the Australian Dictionary of Biography's entry on Tonkin and a book by Peter Kennedy, supplemented with newspapers from Trove and the Australian Political Chronicle in the Australian Journal of Politics and History. Many thanks to GMH Melbourne for reviewing this article at GAN. I look forward to receiving any comments. Steelkamp (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll do a full review later, but I'd recommend merging the sections "Early political career", down to ""Premier (1971–1974)" into one section titled "Political career". 750h+ 00:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have such a large portion of the article under one section and I think the current sectioning works. Steelkamp (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Nuralingup_school,_1920s,_cropped.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure, so I will remove that image. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- "Tonkin was a minister in the John Willcock, Frank Wise and Bert Hawke governments". I suggest "previously a minister" as you have just mentioned his later premiership.
- Done.
- "After working several jobs". "Working...jobs" sounds wrong to me, but maybe it is AusEng?
- I've reworded this.
- "Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age as his father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party." I would not say "as". Children of politicians are not necessarily interested in politics. Maybe "His father was a unionist and a supporter of the Australian Labor Party and Tonkin became interested in politics at a young age."
- Done.
- "After leaving school age of 15". "After leaving school at 15"?
- Done.
- "party figure Joe Chamberlain". "Party figure" is too colloquial and you do not say how it helped him.
- I will have to take some more time on this one. I'm not entirely sure what Chamberlain's exact position at the Labor Party was at the time. I'm going to take a look at Chamberlain's autobiography to see what I can find there. It's possible that Chamberlain wasn't even in an important role in the Labor Party at the time. In that case, I will just remove any mention of Chamberlain here.
- Update: I've decided to remove the part mentioning Chamberlain. It seems he wasn't in a position of authority in the Labor Party at the time.
- "Douglas credit committee" You should explain this in the same sentence. For example, "Douglas credit committee to assess the proposal".
- Done. I've moved the explanation to the same sentence.
- I think you need some clarity on this. It sounds like a local proposal from your wording. If I understand correctly, it was a Labor party state committee which examined the theory of a British economist about the solution to the Great Depression and its application by the Federal Australian government. I am not sure it is worth mentioning and I do not think you can say that the committee "ruled" on it.
- I've made some changes to this section. I think its relevant to mention because it shows Tonkin becoming more involved with internal party affairs and is a result of him gaining a profile from his previous attempts to enter parliament.
- "became standout members of the backbench" "standout" is POV. Maybe "leading".
- Done.
- "Wise was elected to the ministry". What does "elected" mean here"? Were ministers elected by Labor assembly members? You say below that Tonkin was appointed a minister.
- I have changed it to say that the Labor caucus elected them.
- "Tonkin spent much of that time on leave without pay". Why? What did he do? Did he serve in action? Was he discharged because he was coming up to 40 years old?
- I'm not sure. The sources don't say why.
- "appointed by cabinet to travel to the eastern states to lobby Prime Minister John Curtin". You need to explain that Curtin was federal Prime Minister and I do not think you need to mention eastern states.
- I reply re federal prime minister in the comment below. I mention eastern states because sources disagree as to whether they visited Melbourne or Canberra (possibly both).
- You refer to state premier and federal Prime Minister. Are there different titles at different levels in Australia? If so, I think you need to explain as premier and prime minister are synonyms in British usage.
- I've changed it so that "prime minister of Australia" and "premier of Western Australia" are written out in full the first time those terms are mentioned in the body. I hope that is enough distinction between the two positions. In Australia, prime minister is exclusively used to refer to the head of the federal government and premier is exclusively used to refer to the head of a state government. I've hesitant to use terms such as "federal prime minister" because that is not a term that is used often (if at all) in Australia, and it is not a source of confusion for Australians or those familiar with Australian politics.
- "Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education, fulfilling a long-held dream of Tonkin's,[17] and minister for social services, a newly-created position, in the Willcock ministry." This is confusing. Were the appointments simultaneous or successive, and you do not need to say "in the Willcock ministry" as you have said that Willcock appointed him.
- The appointments were simultaneous, which I think is clear because the sentence begins with "On 9 December 1943", which was the date he was appointed to the ministry.
- "Tonkin saw his greatest achievements in education being the merging of one-teacher schools into larger schools, commonplace in rural areas. I think it should be "as being". Also, what was commonplace, one-teacher or larger? This is ambiguous.
- Fixed. I've rearranged the sentence to make this clearer.
- "Nevertheless, the commission made no findings against Tonkin." What was he charged with? This is not clear.
- I've decided to completely remove that section. Only the Australian Dictionary of Biography source mentions that, and the royal commission report does not mention Tonkin at all.
- "state aid for private schools". You do not need to repeat the expression three times in a short paragraph.
- I've removed the second use of this phrase.
- "it still retained government". This sounds odd to me. I would say "it still retained power".
- Done.
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In the Legislative Council" You should explain that this is the upper house.
- Done, and explained the lower house as well earlier.
- "The twelve-man ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and Tonkin had the responsibility of allocating the specific ministerial positions." You should explain this above when you say that Tonkin lost in the caucus election.
- I've added it to when he is first elected to the ministry as that's where I think it fits best.
- "The next election was held in December 1943; parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war.[14] Labor won for the fourth time in a row, and in the days following, the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry.[18] Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education" For clarity, I suggest something like "The next election was held in December 1943. Parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war[14] and Labor won for the fourth time in a row. The ministry was chosen by the Labor caucus and the premier allocated their roles. Tonkin was elected and[18] Premier John Willcock appointed him as minister for education". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "and so over the course of the Tonkin government, 21 bills were voted down by the Legislative Council". I would leave out "so" as implying that specifically 21 were lost.
- Done.
- "Labor had lost its majority and Coalition supporters called for a snap election, believing that the Coalition would win." You should clarify here that the loss was only pending the byelection.
- Done.
- "Court was unusually exuberant, even going doorknocking in Belmont". "exuberant" is an odd word here.
- I've changed that word, although I would have been fine with exuberant.
- "much to the surprise of Labor MP Don Taylor." How is this relevant to Tonkin?
- I've removed that part, as its already covered by the word "unusually" in that sentence.
- "against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, albeit with a reduction in the seat's margin by around 10 per cent". The article on the byelection says that the Liberals did not stand in the previous election. "a reduction in the seat's margin" is meaningless.
- Turns out the the source is comparing the by-election with the 1968 result, which I have clarified in the article.
- "the seat's margin" is meaningless. Maybe "winning the by-election against Liberal candidate Fred Chaney, who was only 12% behind even though the Liberals had not stood in the 1971 state election". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've decided to just get rid of that part. The by-election wasn't very close. The noteworthy part was the decline in Labor support, but as the 1971 election was not contested by the Liberals, making comparisons gets murky. I don't have a map of the electoral districts in 1968 and 1971, so its possible that changes in support for Labor and Liberal could be down to changes in boundaries. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "however, bureaucrats at the mines department were opposed". "bureaucrats" is POV. Maybe "officials".
- Done.
- "boycotted visits to Western Australia by the South Africa national cricket team and South Africa national rugby union team amidst apartheid". "amidst" is odd and unclear. Did he boycott specifically because black people were excluded from representing South Africa or as a general gesture against apartheid?
- I've added an additional source and reworded this section a bit.
- "The machine was discarded by the Court government due to being ineffective." Presumably the succeeding Court government.
- Done.
- "The appointment angered the party caucus though due to the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and due to Graham being one of the government's better ministers." This is clumsy. Maybe "The appointment angered the party caucus in view of the Tonkin government's one-seat majority and because Graham was considered one of the government's better ministers."
- Done.
- "Opposition Leader Charles Court". Here and in othee places I do not think "Opposition Leader" should be capitalised.
- I would have thought it should be capitalised in those situations because it's directly followed by a persons name as per MOS:JOBTITLES.
- "Arthur Tonkin. You should clarify whether he was related to John Tonkin, and if so, how.
- They are not related, which I have clarified.
- "He delayed further pressure. Maybe "He resisted further pressure".
- Done.
- "By that point though, it was too close to the next election for it to be a good idea to change leaders." This should not be stated as a fact but as the opinion of specified people.
- Done.
- Presumably, elections were held every three years. This should be spelled out.
- Done.
- "a swing against Labor of 0.81 per cent." This is a minimal swing. The article on the election says it was 2.5%.
- I have clarified that this is referring to the primary vote swing and not the two-party-preferred swing.
- The linked article does not explain primary vote spring. Maybe "first preference vote swing". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've modified the linked article as primary vote is just a synonym of first preference vote, and its shorter so I prefer that phrase. Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Many people laid the blame". This is too vague. What people?
- I reckon that is covered by the rest of that paragraph, which mentions Ian Thompson, Charles Court and his wife Joan.
- "chose not to recontest his seat" What does recontext mean here. He chose not to contest it.
- I've changed it to "contest", which is simpler and has the same meaning.
- "This came under controversy" This is clumsy. I think you should say that it was opposed.
- Done.
- There does not seem to be any logic which sources you put in the bibliography and which only in the references. I would put them all in the bibliography for the convenience of readers, but this is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The logic I used is to put sources that use multiple different pages in the bibliography, which is where shortened footnotes are really useful. Steelkamp (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it is better to have all sources in the bibliography so that readers can easily see what sources have been used, but as I said, that is a personal opinion. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would you be ok if I put all the book sources in the bibliography? Steelkamp (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I leave it to you. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments Dudley Miles. I have responded to everything now. Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]I should be able to post comments tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I've copyedited as I read through; please revert anything I screwed up.
"Tonkin was previously a minister in": suggest "Tonkin had been a minister in"- Done.
"When Labor won the 1953 state election, he reassumed his role as a minister, most notably serving as the minister for works and minister for water." From a glance at the body he held these roles for the entirety of the 1953 government, so it would seem simpler to say "When Labor won the 1953 state election, Tonkin became the minister for works and minister for water".- Well he was also the minister for education for a short while, so I've changed to to "he reassumed his role as a minister, including as the minister for works and minister for water."
"By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each resulting in the near defeat of Labor." Suggest "By-elections occurred in 1971 and 1973, each of which was narrowly won by Labor".- Done.
"He contested the state electoral district of Sussex in 1927 and Murray-Wellington in 1930". Can it be made clear whether this election was for the upper or lower state house?- Done.
How about making that sentence "He unsuccessfully contested the ..." and then the next sentence could be shortened to "These campaigns helped him gain a profile within the Labor Party"?- Done.
"appointed Tonkin to the Douglas credit committee to assess C. H. Douglas's social credit theory that ...": suggest just "... to a committee to assess ..."; the name of the committee doesn't tell the reader anything they don't get from the rest of the sentence.- Done.
I don't think any change to the article is needed, but I'm curious -- were the Australian states issuing money independently of each other, in which case Douglas's theory could have led to a change in Western Australian banking and currency, or was this a more theoretical exercise to determine if the WA state wanted to support Douglas's ideas at the federal level?- The latter. Each Labor Party state branch could make its own policy, which could be used to influence the federal party's policy.
"The Labor caucus elected Wise to the ministry": does this just mean Wise became a minister? I think in the UK one would say "he joined the cabinet"; "the ministry" isn't a phrase one would use to mean ministerial positions in general.- It just means Wise became a minister. The Wikipedia article Ministry (collective executive) seems to be using the word in this way. Each premier's ministry has an article, such as Willcock ministry or Hawke ministry (Western Australia). Also, the source seems to be using ministry in this way. In Western Australia, the ministry and the cabinet are one and the same, but at the federal level and in some states, the cabinet consists of only the more senior ministers.
"which led him to put greater concentration on his seat". A bit vague -- did he spend more time in his district, have more meetings with constituents, change his focus to work on issues important to his constituency?- The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
- It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\
- Sorry, should have recognized that you were already using that source. That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That source is already cited for three direct quotes, and you should be able to access a pdf version here. I could only find the part about the "bull at a gate" (pdf page 140) but not the part about concentrating on his constituents. It's probably in there somewhere, but not able to be found using "control f". Either way, I'm hesitant to use that source for anything other than direct quotes. I've managed to expand the period after 1936 using the ADB source by writing "He improved his skills in parliament and adjusted his approach to be less aggressive and more measured." Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)\
- It appears that source is citing this, which I don't have access to. If you can't get hold of that how about "led him to pay more attention to the needs of his constituency"? Also vague, but perhaps a bit closer to the meaning of the ADB source. I know the oral history source can't be used for much as it's primary, in a sense, but where it's been cited by an RS I think referring to it would be fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The source is a bit vague. All it says is "Concentrating on his electorate after nearly losing his seat in the 1936 poll, ..."
"but Tonkin spent much of that time without pay": it's not clear what period this refers to -- May to December 1941? December 41 to January 42? If the former, why "but"? Being called up for deployment in December doesn't imply he should have been paid prior to that date.- This is referring to December 1941 to January 1942, which I reckon is clear because the leave without pay part is directly after the part that says the battalion was mobilised.
"were appointed by cabinet to travel": should this be "appointed by the cabinet to travel", or is the usual usage in Australian English?- This is usual in AusEng. See the Cabinet Handbook, which says "by Cabinet" 15 times.
"The next election was held in December 1943 ...": suggesting making it clear we are still talking about WA state elections -- the last seat we mentioned was Curtin's in the federal government.- Done.
"parliament's term had been extended by one year as a one-off measure due to the war": I don't think we need "as a one-off measure".- Done.
"...the Labor caucus elected Tonkin to the ministry. Premier John Willcock appointed Tonkin as the minister for education ...". I see you're using "to the ministry" again, so it seems this may be standard usage in AusEng. This makes it sound as if the caucus gets to pick who is in the cabinet, and then the Premier assigns them a portfolio. Is that right? So Willcock couldn't give a portfolio to someone the caucus had not elected, and the caucus had no say in the portfolios of those they elected? If so maybe a footnote explaining this process would be helpful, and if not then I don't understand what's going on here. Added later: I see from the section on 1971-74 that this is indeed how it works, so I would suggest moving the explanation up or (I think the better option) putting the explanation in a footnote at the first point it's relevant.- I think you wrote that before I made some changes in response to Dudley's review above. You are correct that the caucus elects the ministry and the premier allocates the portfolios. I've added that this is just a Labor Party rule.
"made himself the minister or works and the minister for water supplies". The latter is just given as "minister for water" in the lead. I see from the linked article that the title of the post has varied over the years. I think if you're going to use lower case, I'd stick with one usage throughout -- "minister for water" is probably simplest. If you want to use "Minister for Water Supplies" I would capitalize it as it's the title in use at the time. Either way I think the lead and the body should have consistent usage.- The "minister for water" in the lead was a mistake, I meant minister for water. It remains uncapitalised though, due to MOS:JOBTITLES, particularly the part that says "When writing "minister of foreign affairs" or "minister of national defence", the portfolio should be lower-cased as it is not a proper noun on its own (i.e. write minister of foreign affairs or, as a proper noun, Minister of Foreign Affairs; do not write minister of Foreign Affairs".
Did Tonkin's 1955 assumption of the role of deputy premier mean he lost his portfolios, or was it just an additional responsibility? And had he been the deputy during the earlier period when it was an unofficial role?- He kept his portfolios after becoming deputy premier. He was deputy leader of the Labor Party before that, which means he was unofficially the deputy premier, which is why he was acting premier a few times. I'll see if I can find some sources that show this.
- Update: I've changed this section a bit with this diff to show that he was in the position unofficially since 1953.
Why was Tonkin acting premier in July 1953?- Turns out Hawke was attending the Coronation of Elizabeth II over a three-month trip. I wouldn't otherwise write the reason in the article, but since Tonkin's time as acting premier was so long, I decided to add it.
Do the sources give any more detail about the "Golden West" name for the bridge? Was Tonkin really choosing to name the bridge after the drink or was it just that "Golden West" was a term in use for the area and the drink was just a product that took advantage of it?- It seems the name was chosen because of Gold mining in Western Australia and "golden grain". It was then criticised for being unoriginal and too similar to the soft drink name, regardless of the soft drink company inventing the name or not. Perhaps an unfair criticism, but that's what occurred according to the sources.
"the Coalition's alleged secrecy within government" -- this is opaque to someone like me who knows nothing about WA politics. Can it be unpacked a little?- All I've found mentioning that is the Sydney Morning Herald source, which doesn't say very much. All it says is "John Tonkin has been a consistent critic, in and out of State Parliament, of Liberal-Country Party coalition's tendency to secrecy in Government."
- How about "Tonkin also persistently criticised the Coalition government for being too secretive", which avoids saying who alleged it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Steelkamp (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- How about "Tonkin also persistently criticised the Coalition government for being too secretive", which avoids saying who alleged it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- All I've found mentioning that is the Sydney Morning Herald source, which doesn't say very much. All it says is "John Tonkin has been a consistent critic, in and out of State Parliament, of Liberal-Country Party coalition's tendency to secrecy in Government."
"At age 69 years, he is the oldest premier at the time of swearing to date": suggest "As of 2021, Tonkin, who was 69 when he was sworn in, is the oldest person to have become premier of Western Australia". Or is he the oldest for any of the Australian states and territories?- Done. He is only the oldest in Western Australia.
"Tonkin wanted to make it easier for Hanwright to develop McCamey's Monster": given that this name is somewhat hidden in the linked article, and the name doesn't make clear that this is a mine, suggest "to develop McCamey's Monster, an iron ore mine [or deposit, or discovery, if it was not yet a mine at this point] in the Pilbara region of the state".- Done.
"has been compared to the later case "Mineralogy v Western Australia": in what way?- I've expanded upon this.
"free return airfares for people working north of the 26th parallel". What was special about that latitude? And presumably this only applied to public servants? And does this mean that if the government required you to fly somewhere south of that latitude you had to pay for your own travel?- The source does not expand upon this. This just applies to public servants, as does the rest of the things mentioned in that sentence. I couldn't find any information online about this, but I did find the currently active Pensioner annual free trip scheme, which is for pensioners living north of the 26th parallel, giving them one return journey by air or coach per year to Perth or elsewhere in the South West Land Division. I would presume the free airfares that Tonkin implemented was similar to that, and would be used to make it more attractive to work north of the 26th parallel, where it's isolated and hard to attract people to work there. As for why they chose the 26th parallel, I would guess its just an arbitrary limit which was easy to legislate, rather than using local government boundaries which would be liable to change.
"block supply" -- you link this, but it's a term I'm not familiar with. If it's the standard term in Australia that's fine, but it would be good if it could be rephrased as something more definitional. Maybe something like "to refuse to pass funding legislation" or "budgetary approvals"?- Changed to "block spending bills", although "block supply" is still a common phrase used in Australian politics and is used on 1975 Australian constitutional crisis.
The paragraph about the Balcatta by-election has no dates till we get to the September/October comment at the end. Maybe give the date for the YLO's motion of no confidence? And for the conversation between Bryce and Tonkin? And does "By that point" mean "at the time Tonkin suggested he should reveal the unpopular budget" or "September/October 1973"?- I've added a date for the by-election when its first announced in the previous paragraph. The source does say that the YLO's motion was "a few days after Burke's election", but I'm hesitant to include that, as I don't want to overdate everything as I think that doesn't make for the best writing. All that matters is that the threats from within his own party came soon after the by-election.
"This was opposed when the owners applied in December 2003 to have the house demolished". What was opposed? The decision not to add the house to the register? If so, who by? When East Fremantle rejected the application from the owners did they say it was because it's should have been added to the register?- I've reworded this section by changing it to "Stephens' decision became controversial..." I think the following sentences explain the main groups opposing the decision: the Town of East Fremantle, local heritage activists, and the National Trust of Western Australia.
That's everything from a read-through. Nothing major; just a list of nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers Mike Christie, I've responded to all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- A couple of follow-up comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It's 1998. Fresh off of the watery theatrics of Untitled, Alexander McQueen decides he's going to rein it in a bit with Joan. Just a long straight runway, black ashes on it, moody industrial lighting – oh, and a masked woman writhing in a giant ring of fire to cap it all off, of course. Based on McQueen's obsession with Joan of Arc, the collection featured a stark red black and grey palette and androgynous clothing based on priestly garments and armour. Just about everybody loved it, except The Sun columnist Jane Moore, who wrote an irate column after McQueen denied her entry to the show. The strange, ambiguous finale has been variously interpreted as violent, sensual, redemptive, and triumphant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Generalissima
[edit]- File:Mcqueen joan finale.gif oooh, a fair use gif! Rare case here, but checks out.
- File:Paris-statue-J d'arc 02.jpg - CC-BY-SA
- File:Melun-diptychon-detail.gif - PD
- File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 45.jpg - CC-BY-SA
- File:Daguerreotype of three girls, Carl Gustav Oehme, 1845 (cropped).jpg - PD
- File:Joan Look 42 from Alexander McQueen Savage Beauty.jpg - CC-BY
Everything has appropriate alt-text and is laid out well. All images seem relevant to the subject at hand. Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47
[edit]- When I first read the lead, I was unsure about this sentence: (Several celebrities attended, including actress Kate Winslet and model Kate Moss.) I was not sure if it is notable enough to highlight in the lead and the selection of Winslet seemed a tad random. I would think that McQueen banned several news outlets from the show would be more notable than the celebrity guests.
- Yes, good point. Swapped.
- The pronoun usage in this part,(Particularly in his early career, journalists often framed McQueen as something of a working-class trespasser), seems off to me. I would think that the "his" would need to reference the subject of the sentence, which in this case is the journalists and not McQueen. Maybe changing it to "Particularly in McQueen's early career ... often framed him as".
- Reworded
- For the second paragraph of the "Background" section, the placement of the sentence on menswear in McQueen's collection feels a bit random. The paragraph is mostly about the theatricality of his collections so this does not really seem to fit there.
- I reordered some content, how does it look now?
- It looks good to me. Thank you for addressing it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I reordered some content, how does it look now?
- I think that for this part, (causing his friend Simon Costin to resign), it would be helpful to have some additional context on who Costin is outside of his friendship with McQueen as it is unclear what position he is resigning from.
- I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
- That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really think we need to spend much time on Costin, the point is really more that McQueen was being a total ass around this time because of pressure
- Does robot need to be capitalized in "Robot couture"?
- I capitalized "couture". I think it works as a proper noun, although the article itself is inconsistent
- That works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I capitalized "couture". I think it works as a proper noun, although the article itself is inconsistent
- For this part, (McQueen had worked with Garland before), could you provide a clearer timeline or examples of other things that they have worked on? I only asked because in previous sentences, examples are given, like with Sarah Harmarnee for instance.
- I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
- Thank you for the explanation. I agree with your rationale. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure much context is needed, as she solely does makeup. I think the reader can infer from the second clause which says it's Palau's first show. If they had worked together on something different absolutely I would put that in there, but that's it.
- I think you can cut this part, (one of the last in the show), as it does not add much. The reader already knows that there are 91 looks so they would know that Look 78 would be toward the end of the show.
- Removed
- Maybe I am just being dense, and if I am, sorry in advance, but I am not fully sure what the quote means in this sentence: (Menkes felt the photo-printed items were "less assured".)
- "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
- That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Assured" in this context means "confident", so basically she's saying she thinks McQueen kinda doesn't seem like he knew what he was doing with them, compared to other stuff which is strong and on-theme.
- I am not sure the following sentence really adds much: (Writer Chloe Fox called the finale "spectacular".) The one-word quote does not really clarify or illustrate anything further to the reader, and unless more could be added from this particular reviewer, I think it would be best to keep the focus on the other comments.
- Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
- That should be fine then. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mainly it's just more evidence that the collection is well-regarded by retrospective writers
- From what I remember, Lady Gaga wearing the outfit at the VMAs was quite iconic. Would it be possible to briefly mention the reception to that? I was debating on whether or not that would be outside of the scope of this article. However, I think something brief would help to further illustrate the legacy and impact these looks had outside of the show itself.
- Let me see what I can find
- Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
- Thank you for looking into this. I really like the information that you added to this section. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, I wasn't able to find a ton of reception, but I was able to find Gaga talking about the meaning of the look, which I liked just as much
- Let me see what I can find
- Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the red lace dress on season nine of RuPaul's Drag Race (for an episode where the contestants wore outfits inspired by Lady Gaga's looks). Do you think that would be notable enough to briefly mention here as part of the show's legacy?
- Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
- Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
- I could only find these two sources, (this one from W (magazine) and this one from The A.V. Club), which only briefly mention that Nina Bo'nina Brown wore a modified version of the McQueen dress. Since they are only brief mentions, I will leave it up to you on whether or not that would be notable enough to mention in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now this, I could not find anything for. It's possible my google fu is just weak, but I didn't find anything that really discussed it in any detail, so I'm going to leave it out for now. (But if you have any knowledge of a useful source, please!)
- Ah, I didn't know this! I'll have a look and see what I can find.
Wonderful work as always. I really enjoyed reading through this article. My comments are rather minor and mostly nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure that I did not miss anything, although I imagine that I will not find anything further. Best of luck with this FAC and I hope you have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you as always for your comments, Aoba! My articles are always better after you look at them :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words! I really do appreciate that, and it is always a joy to work with you. I have added some potential references for the Nina Bo'nina Brown version of the red dress, and I trust your judgement on whether or not that would be enough to warrant a mention in this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
asilvering - partial source check
[edit]Just zooming through as many non-sfn fns as I can in 15 minutes:
- fn 3: eh, I don't think you need this one here? btw, it's also fn 12, you should probably merge these
- fn 4: definitely move this one to futher reading instead. This isn't actually about the cited claim at all. I think you should just remove the footnotes from this sentence anyway, since it's so top-level; if the rest of the article doesn't inherently confirm the information in this sentence, you have much bigger problems than citation going on.
- Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
- With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
- I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
- Ah, I was just going to say that the problem with that one would be solved if you cited a specific page number for that source, rather than just citing it generically, but I see now that you did do that, so that's my bad. No more "skimming through as many non-sfns as I can in 15 minutes" for me. I still think this is so top-level it doesn't need specific citations, but I no longer think that's a misleading citation.
- I'm sorry that you don't think that it's reasonable, but in terms of the FAC criteria, which asks content to be verifiable and preferably cited, having the citations is better than not. As to your second point, a source doesn't have to be wholly about the content it's supporting for it to support the content, so again, there's no reason for removal since the specific pages I cited do support the content.
- With respect to the people who have told you that in previous FACs, I don't think that's reasonable. In the case of the second footnote, it's actively misleading, since that isn't what the source is even about. If it were my work being cited in this way, I'd be a bit confused, a bit annoyed, and I'd remove the citation myself.
- Merged the duplicate refs, but I disagree on removing these; I've been knocked at FAC before for making these kind of broad claims without multiple sources. I feel the pages I cite for the T&F source definitely support the broad claim.
- fn 11a: This sentence worries me a bit. He felt this? I think you're just looking for "said" or "wrote". I can't find this in the source to give a better suggestion.
- I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
- Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
- I've added another citation and revised the wording entirely.
- Sorry, disagreeing with your previous FACs again, then. "Felt' is not reasonable here, especially since this is not a subjective assessment involving feelings, so much as a statement of fact: the work contains these themes. (Subjectivity would be if he was saying it was the most important theme, or judging it in some other way - but this is just fact.)
- I've used "felt" as a synonym for "said" in a number of FACs before without issue, mainly to avoid repetition. The google translated quote that I'm basing this on is "Matheson explains that the theme of persecution plays a huge role in the artist's narrative, who came from humble origins in the working class of England: “He stood up for those who were not recognized for their potential or who were treated unfairly.”"
- fn 11b: the thing that needs checking here is whether anyone calls McQueen "historicist" - I'm not sure what that word is in Italian, so I have no idea. imo the sentence would work just as well if you removed the historicist bit; the rest is so obvious to anyone reading the rest of the article that you don't need a specific citation here.
- The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
- I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
- With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
- Great! This comment was when I was checking fn11b, and I didn't see that exact word there. If it's in fn 3, you're fine for this one obviously.
- With all due respect, the V&A source specifically says "One of the defining features of Alexander McQueen's collections was their far-reaching historicism." The Elle source backs that up even if it doesn't use that precise word, and covers the self-referential aspect.
- I agree that you would need a source here for calling it "historicist". I'm looking for a source that says exactly that word in this context. If you don't have one, that's fine - I really think the sentence works just as well if you remove the beginning of the sentence and just leave it with the remaining, which explains the historical angle.
- The source is Brazilian Portuguese, not Italian. In the translated version, the paragraph "Although he began his career..." goes into what I'm saying, with the historical references and the self-referential revision of earlier designs/ideas. I don't understand why I would remove the historicist part, as it's important to the remainder of the article, which talks about McQueen using historical designs for the collection. And again, I have been knocked at FAC before for not explicitly citing what's in a given sentence, so I do think I need the refs here.
- fn 11c: I don't think he "argued" this so much as stated it as fact. I don't see any reason to imagine this is a controversial statement, so you can just start this sentence with "With Joan..." and not specifically attribute it.
- It's a subjective assessment, not an objective fact, so I felt it best to attribute
- fn 11d: I don't see anything about sexuality in here at all? Is this citation a mistake maybe? No ctrl+f hits for "hem" either, and these images are definitely not sexual, plunging necklines, etc.
- From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
- Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
- Revised.
- Okay, I was wondering a bit if that was it. In that case I would say the sentence in our article needs changing. Sexuality and sensuality are not synonymous, and the distinction here is important imo. These pieces are weird and draw attention to people's bodies in arresting ways - we're talking about impact and feeling more than physical arousal.
- From the gtranslated article: "Irreverence and provocation like this defined the presentation, which also flirted with a more aggressive and dark form of sensuality, combining red contact lenses with sheer fabrics, slits, necklines and mini lengths."
Ack, that was 15 minutes already, so I'm back to work. Good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for having a look, even if your time was limited. Sorry to push back so much, but I think perhaps there were some issues with the translation software you used to check ref 11 - maybe you ran it as Italian? I've provided quotes, if that helps. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I did note that above. I've responded to your comments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Push back all you like! My I'm-rushing-through-this-as-fast-as-I-can glance is what ID'd it as Italian, as it happens - gtrans says it's Brazilian Portuguese. -- asilvering (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Another quick zoom through the most accessible fns, working from this diff, in case fn numbers change, sigs on each line for your convenience in replying:
- fn 16a: I think this is the wrong Vogue link? Did you mean this one: [13]? It mentions the water, but not that the runway was flooded - but I'm not sure if I'm seeing the entire article here or if I'm being locked out of the rest of it by a paywall. asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- This one's my mistake both ways round. I was crossing the Untitled runway with Eye and Bellmer la Poupee. Untitled had clear water tanks and rain but the models didn't walk in the water. It was Bellmer and Eye that had flooded runways that the models waded through. I've revised the wording and fixed the Vogue ref.
- fn 16b,c: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn16d, e: imo these are redundant, given how you already cited this in fn 16d and it's clear the source will still be the same asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, fair
- fn16f: not sure what's going on here, when I click on this one it doesn't send me anywhere asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, it's bundled in with ref 89, which begins "Several remarked upon the contrast of elements..."
- fn18: this doesn't verify the sentence it's attached to asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- "religion was a fascination for McQueen throughout his career"? Regardless, I've dumped it, as it's a review of the collection the Bolton book is from, so largely redundant to it
- fn21: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn23a: checks out for the Dante claim asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn23b: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn26: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn27: checks out, but also there's some context here that I think would be helpful to include: I don't think "creative differences" quite gets across the issue, which appears to be that Givenchy "was all about elegance and ladylike tailoring and then this wild-child street kid ripped the hell out of it". asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was
a huge dick about itunhappy with the situation
- I mean, that sentence basically boils down to "creative differences" in more words. I don't think it's necessary to get into the weeds of why it was a bad match. The reader only needs to know that it wasn't working and McQueen was
- fn30: same problem as fn16f, where's this supposed to point? asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, that's so weird. I removed some images from the multi-image template and I guess the caption (with ref) didn't get removed somehow, so the article was basically showing an invisible reference. (This was the same problem with ref 42; I've tidied both now)
- fn38: checks out asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- fn42: also not working? I'm getting very confused asilvering (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi asilvering, most fixes made and I've replied above where necessary. Thanks for doing the source review, I appreciate it! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from ZKang123
[edit]Will be looking into this.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- By "collection" at the beginning, I understand this is a fashion showcase?
- Yes, "collection" is the typical word for a set of fashion designed with a unifying concept, presented seasonally
- McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists from attending. – Maybe can elaborate a little further why? And cite a few examples of banned journalists
- I considered expanding on this when writing the lead, but decided against it. I'd have to explain that he (allegedly) did it for class reasons, which would necessitate the quote, and I prefer not to quote in leads.
- Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team. – This short sentence by itself seems to be left hanging a bit. Might combine with the latter sentence
- The general statement about the creative team doesn't relate to the details of the set design though (there were other recurring personnel like hair and makeup for example)
- as something of a working-class trespasser – "as something of" seems a little unencyclopedic unless you are quoting right from the source.
- Fair, I've cut it entirely.
- McQueen's collections were both historicist, in that... , and self-referential, in that... – probably just me but I'm not very used to the repetition of "in that" here. Maybe you could say:
...historicist through his adaptation of historical narratives and concepts, and self-referential as he revisited and reworked ideas between collections.
. Maybe consider splitting the sentences.- Normally I'm quite a hawk about repetition, but here it's intentional and I think it works better than your suggested tweaks. I'll see if anyone else points it out though.
More to come.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments, ZKang123, I appreciate it. No rush on anything further. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Epicgenius
[edit]I will look at this nomination as well. I'm currently on vacation and might not be able to take a good look at this for 2 weeks, however, but I'll see what I can do. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead:
- Para 1: "eponymous fashion house" - Personally I'd extend the link to include the word "eponymous", i.e. "eponymous fashion house". Otherwise it looks like you're linking to the article about fashion houses.
- Fair, done
- Para 2: "Production was handled by McQueen's usual creative team." - Is it possible to mention specific people? If not, I would say "Production was handled by McQueen's longtime creative team" or something like that.
- I could, but I think it would be hard to justify noting certain people out in the lead and not others, and I definitely don't want to list everyone. I like "usual" more than "longtime" in this context because it doesn't imply quite as much about the length of time each person had spent with him.
- Background:
- Para 1: "nearly twenty-year career" - Should this be "nearly-twenty-year career" (with a hyphen between "nearly" and "twenty")?
- I don't think so, but I could be wrong
- Also, I like how one of his collections is just called Untitled.
- It was originally titled Golden Shower, but in the vein of Fall Out Boy, "His Sponsor Made Him Change the Name of This Collection So He Wouldn't Get Sued"
- Para 4: "From 1996 to October 2001, McQueen was also – in addition to his responsibilities for his own label" - "Also" and "in addition" are redundant to each other. I suggest removing "also".
- Hmm yeah. I've removed it from here, and a few other articles that had the phrasing to boot.
- More in a bit (hopefully before tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Epic, I'll hop over to your FAC within the week. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Sammi Brie
[edit]- McQueen caused an upset by banning several journalists for being. Being what?
- For being incomplete sentences :) Fixed
- men's and womenswear Is this styling correct? It is inconsistent with the body.
- Someone noodled with it at some point (possibly me? I don't know). I've cut the Gordian knot by making it "menswear and womenswear" always
- However, McQueen "got a bit carried away" and the show "turned into another huge production". We have one CinS here, after "away".
- She was upset that guests were expected to enter the show via a "small entrance in pitch darkness", and that following the show, bouncers refused to let photographers exit the venue for unexplained reasons. Remove comma after "darkness"
- She criticised the "bizarre little episode", but felt she should not have been surprised given McQueen's treatment of GMTV. Same here.
- The staff writer from WWD thought that the Joan finale lacked the impact of the rainstorm that finished Untitled, but considered the collection stronger. Remove comma.
- Callahan considered the collection an expression of McQueen's "ongoing martyr complex", and wrote that "the more he abused himself, the better his work became". Remove comma.
- Judith Watt felt that it was the end of the press dismissing McQueen as a low-class intruder into the high-class fashion scene, and considered the collection a demonstration of McQueen's "informed mind". Remove comma
- All the above done
- for her, the red dress represented "flayed flesh", and the dangling beads, "dripping blood" Drop both commas
- Normally I don't fuss, but stylistically, I think the commas work here, especially since "dangling beads" drops the "represented", so the comma puts a slight pause before "dripping blood"
- Grimaldi Figueredo argued that the finale of Joan incorporated both sacred and profane imagery, and cites it as an example of the aesthetic of abjection in McQueen's work Remove comma
- Final prose sentence, hyphenate "black-and-white" as an adjective.
- Above two done also
No other issues that I see. Very good as always. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sammi Brie, thanks for your comments, always appreciated. All fixes made except one that I'm going to be a brat about for style reasons. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): JokEobard (talk) 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series; who is known for her red dress. This was originally written by Niemti before I and HopalongCasualty rewrote it. The article was further copyedited by JokEobard, which I feel like I should push through.
The article is currently GA and has received peer reviews by reviewers like Aoba47 UndercoverClassicist Damien Linnane, PanagiotisZois, Tintor2, Fritzmann2002 after inviting some of them. I feel like the article is ready for the FA criteria and would appreciate more feedback. Thanks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Ada_Wong_in_Resident_Evil_2_remake.png needs a complete FUR
- Both images need a source by or with the permission of the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. I think I already resolved it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- UC
I set out at peer review that I don't think the treatment of this character's sexuality/sexualisation is where it needs to be -- we have a lot of comments at the start of "Reception" as to her being a sex symbol, a feminist icon, a "bitch" and so on -- but nothing really set out to say where this comes from, other than that she's a woman and wears a (fairly unremarkable-looking, at least in the lead image) dress. There are also quite a few remaining grammar and prose errors. PR is advice rather than commandments, but it seems odd to bring the article here having left a lot of that feedback unactioned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I already removed and replaced it about their relationship with Leon since I found another source. I felt like the peer review was stagnant already. But I already attempted to resolve everyone's concerns at the peer review and got no reply back. Can you be specific what are the other few prose errors so we can figure it where is it? Thanks. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- You did make some small scale changes at PR, mostly to remove individual examples of e.g. "revealing" or "sexualised", but I didn't see a real response to the broader point about how the issue of sexualisation is framed across the article. It's more than a matter of taking out a few words: it's about the overall structure and flow of information, and making sure that we actually have good evidence for one of the article's most prominent arguments.
- A few examples of the prose issues, but not an exhaustive list:
- Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular and best female video game.
- Magazines also praised her as one of the best female villain
- Although digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart said that Resident Evil's female characters possess unique qualities making them viable choices for players to select over their male counterparts, and said their combat attire helped them avoid criticism of adhering to the male gaze.
- Play editor Gavin Mackenzie criticized her perceived "bitch" personality in Resident Evil 4 in retrospective from the events of Resident Evil 2
- correspond to the submissive woman–femme fatale character couple
- In themselves, these are fairly easy to fix, but the reason for bringing them up is that I think they illustrate that the article really needs a bit more looking-over, including but not only for the matters brought up at PR, before it comes here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize if I was a bit rushed. But yeah, I can admit that writing in the reception section can be hard. Anyway, I made some changes to the prose issues you mentioned [14], though I couldn't change/remove the last part "submissive" since it's part of the author's quote. But I reworded the next sentence after that. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I apologise for repeating myself, but I don't think this is a matter of tweaking a few sentences: I think the evidence base of the article needs a good look, and then the article itself needs to be reworked so that either a) the commentary about sexualisation, feminism and so on has some evidence from the games to support it, or b) the article is reworked to ensure that what it says is proportioned according to what it can demonstrate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Discussion was continued to the user's talk page. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- And I apologise for repeating myself, but I don't think this is a matter of tweaking a few sentences: I think the evidence base of the article needs a good look, and then the article itself needs to be reworked so that either a) the commentary about sexualisation, feminism and so on has some evidence from the games to support it, or b) the article is reworked to ensure that what it says is proportioned according to what it can demonstrate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I apologize if I was a bit rushed. But yeah, I can admit that writing in the reception section can be hard. Anyway, I made some changes to the prose issues you mentioned [14], though I couldn't change/remove the last part "submissive" since it's part of the author's quote. But I reworded the next sentence after that. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Vacant0
[edit]Will leave some comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- How is "biohazardcg2.com" reliable?
Done and replaced into Behind the voice actor (the only source that confirms every voice actors)
- Ref 61 and 62 are missing pages.
- I don't think they need book pages since the book itself contains almost everything about the RE plot. There are a lot of Ada mentions because she appeared in that RE novelization, which just retells the story of Resident Evil: Retribution. Meanwhile, I already replaced the 2nd novel source. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Add ISSN to ref 76.
Done
- If there are any, unsourced categories should be removed. I'll have a look at them when I finish the review.
Done I have removed some of them that don't fit the character.
- I did not find any issues in the first two sections of the article. To me, it reads well and explains those parts well.
- I will go through the Reception later and do a source spotcheck considering that the GA review took place in 2023 and the article has been slightly revamped since then.
- Vacant0. Thanks for your review. I think I already resolved your minor concerns above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Continuing.
- "
Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular female video game characters.
" – in the following sentences you should list the reasons and opinions about this claim. This also goes for "Magazines also praised her as one of the best female video game villains, with capabilities to star in her own video game.
"- I'm not sure if its needed because if I did added their long quotes/reasons then the reception might turn out to be listicles, which the WikiProject:Video games community hates it. I copied this format to the FA article Jill Valentine's reception section. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Spotchecked Ref 1, 2, 6, 18, 19, 20, 28, 31, 38, 40, 43, 56, 64, 65.
- "
The game allows players to select between four scenarios with interwoven storylines, and Ada's campaign becomes available upon completion of those of Leon, Chris Redfield, and Jake Muller's scenarios
" I only see the beginning mentioned in Ref 40- I ended up removing that content for being like a game guide content by reviewer below. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- No mention of the Russian Far North in Ref 43.
- Removed and commented/resolved each of your concerns Vacant0. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "
- Support Looks good to me. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your thoughtful review! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Andrzejbanas
[edit]Some brisk points from my reading through the article.
- In the lead (and in the Concept and design section), the game genre survival horror is mentioned. While I agree, Ada shows in more than just the games and as this is an article on a character and game mechanics don't seem typically important in the prose, I'd drop the "survival horror" and maybe even say she's from the Resident Evil media franchise.
- Removed at the concept and design section only since in the lead it needs to be really specific. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I've noticed you've kept in the genre in the lead. I know Wikipedians (myself included) can get obsessed with genre. I feel like in game articles it is important. Most people don't know what "survival horror" is and if we discuss Ada as a character in games and films, a game genre does not seem to relevant. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed it, hopefully my conom will agree this time. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I've noticed you've kept in the genre in the lead. I know Wikipedians (myself included) can get obsessed with genre. I feel like in game articles it is important. Most people don't know what "survival horror" is and if we discuss Ada as a character in games and films, a game genre does not seem to relevant. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead and first section mention Ada, but sort of suggest she was an anti-hero in the first game as well. The citation mentioning the name maybe clarifies that the name as just sort of tossed in without much reflection of what kind of character Ada was or would be at the time. Might be good to add that or clarify it.
- Unfortunately, we can't. Pls see this argument by my conom here [15]. It also reads to me that her name being mentioned at the first game doesn't mean she was an antiheroine already. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Sure, not going to argue this. She is more developed in the later games and hey, this might be a "different" Ada for all we know. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- While I see this all over video game articles lately, WP:VG's cousin WP:FILMS and MOS:FILMCAST suggest "Subjective interpretation using labels such as protagonist, antagonist, villain, or main character, should be avoided. The plot summary should convey such roles." Not to mention we have material like "playable protagonist" linking to "playable character", which should probably be changed via WP:EGG.
- Replaced others except the word "protagonist" from lead and concept section and "antagonists" at lead. See this [16]. I am following Jill Valentine FA format, but I also agree that "saves the main character Leon" or other stuff reads awkward if I am gonna replace the word "protagonists". 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Honestly, probably don't even need to say he's the protagonist either. Again, per the plot description ideology a good summary of who she is and what she does would clarify her role in a not really complicated story. If she's working for Umbrella or terrorists or whoever, this will establish her to a general audience. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is if we also removed the word "protagonist", the reviewers would be asking like "who is Leon?" like in the peer review, 2 person asked me about this. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- There are other ways to address Leon that will help the user. if its in terms of character, you can surely find sources that he's a police officer stuck in raccoon city or looking for the president's daughter. If it's more vague, you can surely find a source for him as the main playable character. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrzejbanas Great idea you got there. Ive changed it into a "police officer" since I do have IGN source for that claim. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- There are other ways to address Leon that will help the user. if its in terms of character, you can surely find sources that he's a police officer stuck in raccoon city or looking for the president's daughter. If it's more vague, you can surely find a source for him as the main playable character. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is if we also removed the word "protagonist", the reviewers would be asking like "who is Leon?" like in the peer review, 2 person asked me about this. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Honestly, probably don't even need to say he's the protagonist either. Again, per the plot description ideology a good summary of who she is and what she does would clarify her role in a not really complicated story. If she's working for Umbrella or terrorists or whoever, this will establish her to a general audience. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- A lot of the concept and design refers to plot points I wouldn't understand unless I played the games or knew a basic narrative. It jumps around between the character/personality/job of Ada and changes in her overall design.
- Unfortunately, Concept and design section isn't the place for the readers to know the character well and I can't do really much here unless more sources can be found for her dev info but I already went deep and found nothing more. Especially Ada's backstory is unknown and Capcom didn't introduced it yet. I already arranged it in order into RE2- Re2remake- RE4- RE4remake- RE6/RE Village. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I think you managed to make this easier of a read. Good job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Concept and design section isn't the place for the readers to know the character well and I can't do really much here unless more sources can be found for her dev info but I already went deep and found nothing more. Especially Ada's backstory is unknown and Capcom didn't introduced it yet. I already arranged it in order into RE2- Re2remake- RE4- RE4remake- RE6/RE Village. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Leon and Ada develop a relationship. Is it like, romantic or sexual or strictly business? Might want to elaborate on that here.
- Their relationship is not specified by the source [17]. Their relationship is kind of complicated since in RE2, they have more of a romantic relationship in the middle of the game, but she actually only used Leon to steal a sample of the virus by betraying (the same with RE4). They can be assumed by fans or people who are familiar with RE as if they are having a romantic relationship, but it is not. It can't be specified or do you have any suggestions? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Yeah see this is the problem here. A lot of the article assumes we are familiar with Resident Evil while we have to assume someone could stumble upon this article via a "Random Article" button or see her on the front page potentially. If we could find a source that somehow explains even that their relationship is vague or maybe re-phrase this that Ada casually helps Leon or steals from him or whatever she may do to showcase her anti-hero nature. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added content [18]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Yeah see this is the problem here. A lot of the article assumes we are familiar with Resident Evil while we have to assume someone could stumble upon this article via a "Random Article" button or see her on the front page potentially. If we could find a source that somehow explains even that their relationship is vague or maybe re-phrase this that Ada casually helps Leon or steals from him or whatever she may do to showcase her anti-hero nature. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Their relationship is not specified by the source [17]. Their relationship is kind of complicated since in RE2, they have more of a romantic relationship in the middle of the game, but she actually only used Leon to steal a sample of the virus by betraying (the same with RE4). They can be assumed by fans or people who are familiar with RE as if they are having a romantic relationship, but it is not. It can't be specified or do you have any suggestions? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Resident Evil 6 takes place in 2012 in the fictional Chinese city of Lanshiang. The game allows players to select between four scenarios with interwoven storylines, and Ada's campaign becomes available upon completion of those of Leon, Chris Redfield, and Jake Muller's scenarios." probably don't need to know when you can play as Ada, feels a bit video game guide-y.
- Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Honestly, going back and forth between the development and the plot, I feel like a lot of it could be moved around to make it easier to understand. I feel like stuff like "Ada is a Chinese-American spy and mercenary who recurs as an antiheroine in the Resident Evil series." and "Ada Wong was introduced as a supporting character in Capcom's 1998 survival horror video game Resident Evil 2." and "She meets protagonist Leon S. Kennedy, and the two develop a relationship as they save each other's lives throughout the game." can be covered in the plot. I'm assuming a lot of this article is based on the format of the Jill Valentine FA. I wonder if it would be better for video game characters to follow more wikipedia film article formats. Possibly a section called "narrative" or something that introduces key facts about the character "she's a chinese-american spy who works for the baddies" (but you know, written better) and then going into specifics about how her character relates to the plot and other major characters like Leon and Wesker etc.
- Discussion moved below. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Same with other elements. Her clothes she wears in the game feel a bit more related to the reception of how she looks and is perceived, as in the development section it just seems tossed in mid-sentence. Might be good to try to format how she looks in the critical reception. Something like "Ada has repeatedly been brought into broader analyses of the male gaze in video games [...] In the video games Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 4, Ada's outfit wears a red dress and high heels" follow up with the criticism, then maybe explain how the characters look changed in later games after.
- Removed her signature RE2 outfit info. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
I feel like i've addressed a good amount here, but that's just my comments for now, but I feel like this would greatly enhance the focus on the aspects of the character in the article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrzejbanas I definitely feel the right way is to copy Jill's article format or VG format rather than WP film article formats (I'm really sorry, but this would confuse everybody, including the peer reviewers). Moving her info about being Chinese and saving each other's lives kind of nowhere can be fit since the plot/appearances section only talks about in-game each Resident Evil game. Her outfits can also be part of the concept and design, especially its changes to the remakes. I don't see how it fits at reception since it doesn't contain positive or negative feedback. Also, all of the male gaze discussions (3rd paragraph) at the scholar and books mostly mentiona only her outfit at Re4 (No mentions at Re2). I will work on your first 6 lists tomorrow. Again, I'm really sorry If I couldn't do your last 2 concerns, but I can think what I can possibly improve to it for people who are not that too familiar with Resident Evil or video games format. Thank you for the review though! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey hey. Sorry I think i'm being a bit misunderstood. I'm not suggesting to do WP:FILM standards (my main point there was to possibly slow down on the the protagonist/antagonist stuff as a clear plot summary will make it clear their roles. Having to name them as a protagonist/antagonist honestly feels a bit "high school essay".) I'm generally speaking in terms of her costume and look are brought up in terms of what seems trivial in appearance and honestly, stuff that I feel I could learn from the picture in the infobox (she's indeed wearing a red-dress.) But it comes off as "so what?" in that section and even potentially trivial. I feel it has better context within the reception section where they seem to be more thematically related. Also, nothing is really set in stone with how you write the article. I think you are doing a bang-up job, these are just basically my suggestions and you've brought forth valid points back. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I understand what you mean now hehe. I already removed [19] what you mentioned and will work on your other concerns much much later. Thanks for the detailed review! Will mention you back once I feel like I'm done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrzejbanas Hi. Feel free to read each of my comments. I attempted everything what I can. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you did a really good job of handling the issues presented. Some other quick ones:
- "She uses a grappling gun for combat and traversal in the downloadable content (DLC) "Separate Ways"" Indeed she does and its pretty neat, but I don't know why its essential to know this. Doesn't really seem to come up again and comes off a bit trivial unless this is some major plot point I'm missing out on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I wonder if the whole "Voice-over and live-action actresses" section is better represented by a table or something as it feels a bit odd to just read. I know video game fans tend to really go big on voice acting, but is there any context we can have? Do any of the actors have anything to say about the role or the character that might add? That might add some meat to this section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- About the voice actors, I'm not quite sure since I cannot find a reliable source other than Li bingbing info at movie about her wig and minor details, but it was removed because it is the only one that can be provided a bit and its kinda redundant. The same happens at Jill FACs. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Andrzejbanas just gonna poke just in case :D 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- About the voice actors, I'm not quite sure since I cannot find a reliable source other than Li bingbing info at movie about her wig and minor details, but it was removed because it is the only one that can be provided a bit and its kinda redundant. The same happens at Jill FACs. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "She uses a grappling gun for combat and traversal in the downloadable content (DLC) "Separate Ways"" Indeed she does and its pretty neat, but I don't know why its essential to know this. Doesn't really seem to come up again and comes off a bit trivial unless this is some major plot point I'm missing out on. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you did a really good job of handling the issues presented. Some other quick ones:
- Andrzejbanas Hi. Feel free to read each of my comments. I attempted everything what I can. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I understand what you mean now hehe. I already removed [19] what you mentioned and will work on your other concerns much much later. Thanks for the detailed review! Will mention you back once I feel like I'm done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey hey. Sorry I think i'm being a bit misunderstood. I'm not suggesting to do WP:FILM standards (my main point there was to possibly slow down on the the protagonist/antagonist stuff as a clear plot summary will make it clear their roles. Having to name them as a protagonist/antagonist honestly feels a bit "high school essay".) I'm generally speaking in terms of her costume and look are brought up in terms of what seems trivial in appearance and honestly, stuff that I feel I could learn from the picture in the infobox (she's indeed wearing a red-dress.) But it comes off as "so what?" in that section and even potentially trivial. I feel it has better context within the reception section where they seem to be more thematically related. Also, nothing is really set in stone with how you write the article. I think you are doing a bang-up job, these are just basically my suggestions and you've brought forth valid points back. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Andrzejbanas I definitely feel the right way is to copy Jill's article format or VG format rather than WP film article formats (I'm really sorry, but this would confuse everybody, including the peer reviewers). Moving her info about being Chinese and saving each other's lives kind of nowhere can be fit since the plot/appearances section only talks about in-game each Resident Evil game. Her outfits can also be part of the concept and design, especially its changes to the remakes. I don't see how it fits at reception since it doesn't contain positive or negative feedback. Also, all of the male gaze discussions (3rd paragraph) at the scholar and books mostly mentiona only her outfit at Re4 (No mentions at Re2). I will work on your first 6 lists tomorrow. Again, I'm really sorry If I couldn't do your last 2 concerns, but I can think what I can possibly improve to it for people who are not that too familiar with Resident Evil or video games format. Thank you for the review though! Regards 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your patience @Boneless Pizza:.
- In the lead with the "for antagonists" phrase... This is still a bit odd phrasing for me. everything else feels very narrative in-universe in this explanation, but in the way this is phrased, it sounds like antagonists is some evil group within the narrative of the game. Probably can just drop "antagonists" here as the sentence will still make sense as she's a spy, she's betrayed by her employers, I think everyone would understand that.
- Maybe this rationale can explain properly to you [20]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "more background is given to Ada and Leon's romance," what does "more background" mean? The source says " In the original game, it felt like Leon and Ada fell in love too quickly, so [the development team] spent more time building it up in the remake." Perhaps something like "The development team behind the 2019 remake of Resident Evil 2 to establishing the romance between and Ada and Leon."
- I don't think it might be a good read to me, but I did reword it to be more understandable a bit. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Kamiya said he believed that it works out" what works out? The romance? or the narrative change/choice?
- The kiss thing from the sentence above it "Executive producer Jun Takeuchi suggested that the kiss between Ada and Leon occur earlier in the remake", to which Kamiya agreed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Despite assisting Leon, she steals a sample of a biological weapon from him for her employer, Albert Wesker."
- Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Ada's campaign was designed to be "a very classic Resident Evil-style" experience." This sentence only makes sense if we are familiar with the gameplay changes from the first three to the fourth game, which is not referenced here.
- Removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Maybe include a picture of Li Bingbing or Lily Gao or both in the actress section. They are free images so it couldn't hurt?
- Added. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- That's an extensive list of side-games! I would suggest dropping the genres from them again, as its not really intregal to her appearance in them.
- Dropping all of it could lead to a lack of consistency per other RE characters and Jill Valentine FACs.
- "Several comic books based on the games were released," probably should mention Ada is in them if she is.
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "with capabilities to star in her own video game." is a bit of a weird sentence. Either expand on this or maybe remove it. Being in your own video game isn't really a merit of honour, if so, we'd say Bubsy the Bobcat is infinitely superior as he stars in his own game series.
- Removed 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Several publications have also praised Ada's relationship with Leon; Harri Chan of Polygon has described it as a hallmark of a sexpionage trope. Chan criticized it..." first part of the sentence makes it sounds like Chan was in approval of this, but then the second sentence makes it sound like he's contradicting himself.
- The first sentence was just a little commentary. I ended up removing it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "According to Bernard Perron", maybe say who Perron is so we know it's not just some guy. Kind of like " Digital media scholar Esther MacCallum-Stewart" etc.
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- Also, this is a bit of a weird statement "according to Perron" sounds like we're going to get an opinion, but if the camera is focused on the skirt on the lead, does this happen or not?
- It did (some parts), the cutscene during in-game. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Critic Courtney Stanton". Per this, she appears to be a professor, not a critic. maybe say "academic" or something.
Done 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- There's a lot of reading into Ada Wong as a character in the game and that one about the voice acting. I know you said there wasn't a lot of specific details about the films, but any critical response to Li Bingbing or Lily Gao's portrayal?
- Only this source [21], but it is mostly about the film rather than the actor as it seems. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
I'm still going through prose and haven't gone into checking sources for confirmation too much or what is there, but I think this gives you plenty to do regardless. Reach out or ping me if you have any questions. Good work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Andrzejbanas. I think I already resolved most of your concerns. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments Oppose by David Fuchs
[edit]Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Concept and design:
- It seems odd to me that the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Ada is a Chinese-American spy and mercenary who recurs as an antiheroine in the Resident Evil series." Isn't the opening line of the body, since that's the top-level relevant detail. It makes more sense to say who the character is at a broad level before explaining when she was introduced.
- Her backstory is not yet known if thats what you're thinking. But, I've rearranged it a bit and added a content for its introduction. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "The name "Ada" was conceived by designer Kazunori Kadoi and first mentioned in the original Resident Evil (1996).[15] Resident Evil 2 director Hideki Kamiya changed Linda's name to Ada to provide a link to the first game, and writer Noboru Sugimura came up with her characterization as a corporate spy." This feels like a weird mashup of facts and unclear through line. "Ada" was just a throwaway name in the first game and they picked it as a bid towards continuity? Or was Ada an actual character? (The source used doesn't really clarify that as someone who has never played either game.) Either way, I'd make the detail about the name(change) as a single sentence or two sentences, rather then "and Sugimura came up with her characterization" since that's not really linked to the name.
- Yes, the name "Ada" at first game is just an idea and more like a "throwaway". I made the changes you may wanted [22]. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I think the concept section needs some rethinking more broadly. You go from development info to broad overview of the character role, to development info from the 2019 remake without introduction, then back to a 2005 game, then a 2012 game, etc. I know a lot of video game character articles try and stick all the development info before appearances, but there's no context for a lot of this development info if you tell it to us and then restate a lot of it when you get to appearances.
- I think I already juggled it now. It is arranged into RE2 - remake - Re4 - remake then Re6/Village. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Voice actress Sally Cahill played Ada Wong in her initial appearance in Resident Evil 2" — I get you might not want to repeat "voice" in the same sentence, but if the VA is not actually performing motion capture, etc. it seems weird to say Cahill "played" the character versus "voiced" her.
- Replaced 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "The developers of the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4 replaced Ada's red dress in order to distance her from the derogatory Dragon Lady trope, which portrays Asian female characters as "deceitful, mysterious, villainous, and domineering" according to Harri Chan of Polygon." Given that this is one critics' opinion that a) Ada is a dragon lady stereotype, and b) they changed her outfit specifically to avoid that, this really shouldn't be in the development section.
- Fair enough, I moved it into reception. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- It seems odd to me that the first sentence of the second paragraph, "Ada is a Chinese-American spy and mercenary who recurs as an antiheroine in the Resident Evil series." Isn't the opening line of the body, since that's the top-level relevant detail. It makes more sense to say who the character is at a broad level before explaining when she was introduced.
- Appearances:
- I think it would be better to rewrite the appearances a bit so each paragraph isn't telling us when and where each game is set, given that the chronology doesn't seem super important and the germane details are what Ada is doing in each game, rather than telling us where and when each one is set.
- The chronology only contains a minor detail because it is the introduction to each appearance in what place it happens and what year (the same with FA Jill Valentine article). Its really hard what to come up at intro if I'm gonna remove it or you got any suggestion? Anyways I expanded a bit. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I think it would be better to rewrite the appearances a bit so each paragraph isn't telling us when and where each game is set, given that the chronology doesn't seem super important and the germane details are what Ada is doing in each game, rather than telling us where and when each one is set.
- Reception:
- "Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular female video game characters." There's some weird tense choices in this section, where stuff like this is described in strict past tense, but something like "The Guardian journalists" are in present perfect tense when that seems like an example where you'd want past tense.
- I did reworded it now [23] 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- I think a little more collating of critic opinions is warranted, as right now there's certain stuff that is getting redundant (like if the common critical consensus is that RE4's outfit was impractical and ridiculous, that could get summed up rather than giving a laundry list of critics saying the same thing.
- Added 2 opinions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- "Game publications described Ada Wong as among the most popular female video game characters." There's some weird tense choices in this section, where stuff like this is described in strict past tense, but something like "The Guardian journalists" are in present perfect tense when that seems like an example where you'd want past tense.
- Media:
- An infobox image needs to primarily be about identification if that's its purpose; to that end, I'm not entirely sold on File:Ada Wong in Resident Evil 2 remake.png as the image here? A remake with a (consciously different) design doesn't seem like it's the best image for that.
- Hey David fuchs, I think I already resolved your concerns but what do you think her appearance would be more suitable for her infobox image? I used her RE2remake design is because, it has been also used by Capcom or RE portal at her profile at the website. Her render at Dead by daylight has the exact pose like this one too. Much like Jill Valentine' s infobox image I supposed? since that appearance has been used by Capcom as like promoting the character. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)
- An infobox image needs to primarily be about identification if that's its purpose; to that end, I'm not entirely sold on File:Ada Wong in Resident Evil 2 remake.png as the image here? A remake with a (consciously different) design doesn't seem like it's the best image for that.
- References:
- Forthcoming.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs just gonna poke just in case :D 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure most of my issues above have been addressed. The tense issues in the reception section remain, the point that Ada was just a random name thrown into RE1 that was repurposed is still unclear, and the article as a whole repeats itself heavily, with the Concept and design section mostly being an in-universe description of the character in its appearances, before those appearances are elaborated on further afterwards in the Appearances section; the changes to this section just make it more confusing since it spends its time talking about the games in a non-chronological sense, and it's missing a lot of context ("Ada's red side-split dress, choker, and high heels from the original version of the game were replaced for the 2023 remake of Resident Evil 4" for instance, tells us what her revised design was not, rather than what it was.) I think there's an overuse of quotes that obfuscate the meaning rather than clarify. I'm not sold the layout of the article is the best way to present the information to a casual audience. I'm regretfully going to oppose since I don't think this is something to be addressed in the scope of FAC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs JokEobard and I made some changes [24] [25] [26], what do you think now? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Support prose from Shooterwalker
[edit]Reserving this space for later. I'll have more comments in time. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some review of the prose that would address a few minor issues, mostly for clarity and flow:
- " Ada is a spy and mercenary who is often hired to steal biological weapons for antagonists, " -> " Ada is a mercenary who often steals biological weapons for antagonists," (it's implied that mercenaries are hired)
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "characterized her" ->
"described her" (simpler)
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The design feels like it covers the appearances in a way that pre-empts them. I'd consider swapping the order so that appearances start first (here's what she looks like in the game), and then the design comes after (this is how and why they came up with it). I realize you might get conflicting advice on this, but I think this will make a lot more sense. I leave it up to you.
Done Moved some part of sentences from the first paragraph and third paragraph as suggested. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- " Game publications described" -> " Game publications have described" (slight verb tense change that summarizes what sources have done over time)
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the reception refer to the timeline and events, and being unflattering to the character. It feels like something is missing here, because the issue is unclear or confusing. Try to rephrase or re-order, if you can.
- " that their combat attire helped avoid criticism of pandering to the male gaze" -> this is unclear. Is the reviewer saying that the red dress is appropriate combat attire, or are they saying that having an alternate "combat appropriate" outfit helped address the criticism?
Done, just added "alternate" just in case. Her outfit in Re4 despite being red dress can be considered a conbat attire cause she has a blacj thing on the sides of her legs. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Further to the last sentence, since this sentence is the outlier, maybe it makes more sense to put it at the end of the paragraph. In WP:PYRAMID style, it's better to lead with the general statements, and put the exceptional statements later in the prose.
Done moving it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- " who she assumed were viewers or players" -> this is an odd statement. Like, doesn't everyone assume that some men played the game? It feels easy enough to remove without losing anything.
Done removing it. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Scholar Andrei Nae wrote that Ada and Ashley Graham are a "submissive woman–femme fatale character couple" in Resident Evil 4." -> "Scholar Andrei Nae contrasts Ada's role in Resident Evil 4 with the character Ashley Graham." (the quote is unclear and begs for more explanation. It's clearer to remove the quote and explain it in plain language.)
- I'll admit this part is the hardest to rephrase or rewrite. I attempted to add, but I'll shows you what was written in the book just in case it can be improved. It was written like this "The not-yet hypermasculinity of Leon S. Kennedy is also reflected in the game’s scripted narrative whose approach to gender is indebted to noir cinema. The game’s two main female characters, Ashley Graham and Ada Wong correspond to the submissive woman-femme fatale character couple. While Leon’s authority over Ashley is never contested as she obeys him throughout the entire game, Ada Wong is the femme fatale whose disobedience of patriarchy demands regulation. However, contrary to the conventions of noir cinema and in synch with Leon S. Kennedy’s incomplete hypermasculinity, Ada remains outside the ambit of the male protagonist’s authority." Any thoughts or the added content is fine? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- " Gao deleted her Instagram posts after she was harassed online, later saying: "My Ada is a survivor. She is unpredictable, resilient, and absolutely not a stereotype." -> It makes more sense to place this after the criticism. Right now, it breaks up the flow of the paragraph.
Done. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- The prose is otherwise excellent. This is very close to FA quality, a few issues aside. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- This has all helped a lot. The biggest issues are still some of the more complex, confusing ideas in the reception:
- Mike Wehner of The Escapist said, "Capcom's manipulation of the Resident Evil timeline hasn't exactly been kind to this particular theory surrounding Ada Wong's fate" when Ada returned in Resident Evil 4 after her supposed death in Resident Evil 2. According to Wehner, Capcom buried Ada's death in series lore to the extent that "you're not supposed to acknowledge that it even exists".
- I'm having trouble understanding it, and it should be clear in the article without having to dive into the sources. It could use a rephrase, or at least a reorder. We can always talk it out if you're looking for further input.
- Also,
- Scholar Andrei Nae wrote that Leon S. Kennedy's not-yet hypermasculine personality is also represented in the game's scripted plot, which takes a noir film-inspired approach to gender. He stated that Ada and Ashley Graham are a "submissive woman–femme fatale character couple" in Resident Evil 4. He further says that while Ashley always follows the protagonist Leon's commands in-game, Ada stays outside the scope of the male protagonist's control, defying patriarchal convention.
- Done attempting to rephrase this one. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know academic sources touch on some complex ideas, but for the sake of an encyclopedia article, it starts to feel off topic at this level detail. The phrasing I suggested in my first round of feedback ("Scholar Andrei Nae contrasts Ada's role in Resident Evil 4 with the character Ashley Graham") would be shorter and clearer. If "contrast" feels too specific, the word "compare" would work too. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Done and replaced. I think I should be done to your concerns? Shooterwalker 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support the prose on this article. I wanted to note the objections from David Fuchs and I actually sympathize. I would return to my earlier comment: The design feels like it covers the appearances in a way that pre-empts them. I'd consider swapping the order so that appearances start first (here's what she looks like in the game), and then the design comes after (this is how and why they came up with it). It's going to make a lot more sense to say "this is how Ada appeared in the fiction, and this is how she was designed" instead of the other way around. (That's indeed the template I used on my other FAs.) It will likely allow you to simplify some of the verb tense issues, as you could write the design section without having to jump back and forth with how she appeared in game. I would still support in spite of that, but I think it's the type of thing that would improve the article substantially. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review/support! I'm not sure if Fuchs would be fine now, but we already tried and made the changes at the design and appearances section. I did not made the changes that much earlier from his concern becauae I was having trouble until my coworker had enough time and do the changes. Hooefully he respond to it (he hasn't yet). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 16:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to support the prose on this article. I wanted to note the objections from David Fuchs and I actually sympathize. I would return to my earlier comment: The design feels like it covers the appearances in a way that pre-empts them. I'd consider swapping the order so that appearances start first (here's what she looks like in the game), and then the design comes after (this is how and why they came up with it). It's going to make a lot more sense to say "this is how Ada appeared in the fiction, and this is how she was designed" instead of the other way around. (That's indeed the template I used on my other FAs.) It will likely allow you to simplify some of the verb tense issues, as you could write the design section without having to jump back and forth with how she appeared in game. I would still support in spite of that, but I think it's the type of thing that would improve the article substantially. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- This has all helped a lot. The biggest issues are still some of the more complex, confusing ideas in the reception:
I Will be doing some revisions.I think I'm qualified to oversee this article. Tintor2 (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2024
- Behind the Voice Actors has been approved by the game project but only the green mark is available. I recommend adding that to the citation.
- I've talked with the nominator and other members about the quality of Siliconera, but I'm pretty sure the game project has also approved it. It tends to mention the original material like Famitsu and translates most of it in order to be a more accessible source for the general public.
- Citation 16 is kinda weak. Access to such part of the game though is possible in modern console thanks to ports becoming playable digitally.
- I read all the sources and found everything reliable as approved by the project. The only website I had no knowledge involved writing by the famous Sarkeesian.
- The formatting of citations is consistent and formating of dates is also consistent. I might easily pass this once @Boneless Pizza!: added the note to Behind the Voice Actors.Tintor2 (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I apologize for this, but no ref 16 is not weak or something, it is the only one of the two primary sources being used to verify the artists at the article. Anita Sarkeesian or Feminist Frequency is indeed reliable and it went through Jill Valentine's FAC several times. Also, I don't think we need notes at Behind the Voice, its unnecessary. Any more concerns? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Giving my support then. I was wondering if there was a more commentary to add for 16 though.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The commentary for that source is also unnecessary after reading through Jill Valentine FACs, it has no commentary for the source about its artist. Thanks for reviewing. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Giving my support then. I was wondering if there was a more commentary to add for 16 though.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. I apologize for this, but no ref 16 is not weak or something, it is the only one of the two primary sources being used to verify the artists at the article. Anita Sarkeesian or Feminist Frequency is indeed reliable and it went through Jill Valentine's FAC several times. Also, I don't think we need notes at Behind the Voice, its unnecessary. Any more concerns? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 19:12, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]What makes http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com, https://www.star-ch.jp, https://www.fukikaeru.com, Micro Design Publishing Inc., Biohazard 4 Kaitai Shinsho - Report about Ada and BradyGames Publishing reliable sources? Should Twitter be titled X now? #80 has a notably different format from the others. Is Perry 2012 used anywhere? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus Done replacing everything. However, I don't know how to change the name "Twitter" into "X", because the name "Twitter" is not stated in the title and I don't think it's replaceable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it's a thing with {{cite tweet}}. Note that sometimes you don't need to remove a source; explaining how it is a "high-quality reliable source" sometimes suffices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! About the source, most of it was irrelevant anyway that's why I ended up removing it, including the "Kaitai Shinsho" source despite it being the only reliable source you've mentioned. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk Hey, I wanted to know is this a source review pass or there's more? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! About the source, most of it was irrelevant anyway that's why I ended up removing it, including the "Kaitai Shinsho" source despite it being the only reliable source you've mentioned. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 08:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it's a thing with {{cite tweet}}. Note that sometimes you don't need to remove a source; explaining how it is a "high-quality reliable source" sometimes suffices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Shooterwalker, Andrzejbanas Thank you for your detailed reviews, but unfortunately I have to withdraw my nomination due to 2 opposses here in FaC and I feel like I've been burned out here just because of these issues (I'll work on it slowly). Hopefully I can renominate it in the future and I could able to let User:Aoba47 check if they are satisfied with the prose already before renominating it next year or not. Also, thanks to UndercoverClassicist and Fuchs for weighing in to make sure that the article still contain significant issues. Because of that, I wanted to withdraw my first FAC nom. Thank you.🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)- I'm sorry to hear it but I encourage you to try again when you're ready. There is a lot of great work here, and it can one day be a featured article. I'm here if you need any support. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- .:Shooterwalker I got an email and someone said I shouldn't abort yet cause of single oppose so Ill try to resolve these issues as much as I can now and gather more feedbacks 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 02:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the spirit. Keep going. As far as the prose is concerned, I only have two notes that can be resolved with a bit of work. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a rather short article (less than 1500 words) about the 1973 FA Charity Shield, the curtain-raiser to the 1973–74 season. It is arguably Burnley's most recent major honour, although many will argue it is just a meaningless match to kick off the new season. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think maybe instead of a 'pre-match' section maybe title it 'background.' Also, a little elaboration to the blurb about Burnley winning the second division (how they earned qualification to the match) could be a nice touch, but what do you think?
- Another idea I had would be to totally rip off the style/format of the 1974 FA Charity Shield article due to its classification as a good article.
- Article is brilliant otherwise. Cheers. HYTEN CREW (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HYTEN CREW: Thanks for the comments. I altered the heading to include "Background". I think the current information about Burnley's previous season's success is sufficient (only 4 losses, clinching the title after a draw at PNE), but if you think that's not enough, please let me know. Thanks, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria, thanks for the comment, I added alt text. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "It was the third consecutive year neither the Football League First Division winners nor the FA Cup champions chose to compete" - might be worth mentioning that normally they did/do, otherwise readers not familiar with the CS might wonder why this is noteworthy
- "after Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" => "after a shot from Alan Oakes hit the Burnley crossbar" (he didn't personally hit the crossbar....I presume :-))
- " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed" => " Doug Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Frank Casper whose cross was headed"
- "The FA Charity Shield was founded in 1908 as a successor to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield" - if you have a source, it would be worth mentioning why the SLCS ended (dispute between professionals and amateurs)
- "in 1921, the fixture was played by the Football League champions and FA Cup winners for the first time" - mention that this then became the standard format, otherwise it sounds like it could have been just another one-off like the other ones earlier in the sentence
- "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete." => "The 1973 FA Charity Shield was the third consecutive edition in which neither the Football League First Division winners (Liverpool) nor the FA Cup champions (Sunderland) chose to compete."
- "explained that his preparation was geared to have his squad ready for the first league match of the season" => "explained that his preparation was geared towards having his squad ready for the first league match of the season"
- "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title the previous season" - I presume you mean the same team as the final game of the previous season specifically? Rather than that the same team had played for literally the whole season......
- "City started the second half well and dominated the game. [....] Around the 60th minute, Burnley began to dominate the match" - hint of repetition here, anyway to reword?
- "Collins pretended to take the free-kick but left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front" => "Collins pretended to take the free-kick, left it for Casper whose cross was headed in powerfully by defender Waldron to put Burnley 1–0 in front"
- "Waldron ran in unmarked from the edge of the box." => "Waldron had run in unmarked from the edge of the box."
- "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grew back into" => "Adamson also noted that Docherty helped Burnley grow back into"
- That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude Thank you very much for the review! I addressed your comments and tried to expand/clarify the lede and first part of the body of the article (hopefully to your satisfaction). Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]- "In 1971, double winners Arsenal withdrew from the competition due to previously arranged pre-season friendlies, with Leicester City replacing them." If the norm was FAC Cup winners vs. Football League champions, then it doesn't really make sense to just say Leicester replaced them. How about "with Second Division champions Leicester City and FA Cup runners-up Liverpool replacing them"?
- "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title during the final game of the previous season." Saying "previous season" is correct because the Charity Shield is generally regarded as the first match of a season, not the last, but it's a bit confusing because it feels like a culmination of the season, so "previous" seems to refer to the season before that. How about "Burnley fielded the same team which had won the Second Division title against Preston North end in May" (or whenever that match was)?
- I assume the footnotes for Man City and Burnley in the "Details" section cite the teams, but don't we also need citations for the date, time, score, goals, location and referee, at the start of that section?
- "Todd criticised City's ineffective style of play, to add:": suggest "adding" rather than "to add".
- "was more praiseful of Burnley": suggest just "praised Burnley" -- the "more" doesn't seem right since the previous comment was not praise for Burnley at all.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review, Mike! I made the changes in the article, and while doing that, also discovered after checking in the Simpson (2007) book that Burnley actually made one change from the team which had won the 2nd Division title at Preston. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- All the fixes look good except that I don't see where you added a cite for the match details -- am I missing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, I added the refs under the 0–1 score. If you prefer me to individually cite the stats (time, referee, etc.), I'll happily do that. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, that works -- I just missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mike Christie, I added the refs under the 0–1 score. If you prefer me to individually cite the stats (time, referee, etc.), I'll happily do that. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- All the fixes look good except that I don't see where you added a cite for the match details -- am I missing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the review, Mike! I made the changes in the article, and while doing that, also discovered after checking in the Simpson (2007) book that Burnley actually made one change from the team which had won the 2nd Division title at Preston. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Seems like we are mostly using local newspapers and some books that I don't know much about as sources - are these books prominent? Sources seem to be consistently formatted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: the Burnley book was written by former Burnley F.C. historian Ray Simpson (see e.g., [27]) and published by the club. I don't have a hard copy of the Man City book as I came across it via the Internet Archive. However, I saw this 1993 article from The Independent ([28]), where the book is praised as is the publisher (Breedon): "Their A Complete Record collection, which has set the standard for statistically based club histories". Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Costello's was a watering hole for journalists, writers, and cartoonists on the east side of Midtown Manhattan. Ernest Hemingway reportedly broke a cane over John O'Hara's head on a bet; the bar's owner responded by displaying the broken cane over the bar. I wish I could have dropped in for a whiskey there. As an aside, I've been having trouble finding images that are either in the PD or that would satisfy WP:NFCCP, particularly photographs of Tim Costello and the bar's exterior and interior. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Vacant0
[edit]Will leave some comments here after I have a look at the article. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- You've asked for an image, so I did find one but the author and the date of the photo are unknown (we know that it was taken between 1949 and 1973 because of 699). Taken from Classic Chicago magazine.
- That's a NYT photo, first published on October 3, 1973, and taken by Cosmo-Sileo, which appears to have been a photography studio. I've looked in the copyright catalogue and found just one registration by Cosmo-Sileo. Nikkimaria, do you think this image is likely PD? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That part is unclear. My guess would be the former, but I can't find very much about the studio. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That might be a complicating factor - NYT has historically been more protective of copyrights and renewals, so we'd want to be sure the rights weren't assigned to them. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Would this photograph of the bar's owner (dead since 1962) talking to a customer (James Thurber)? The article describes the bar's owner at length, including his relationship with reporters/journalists/cartoonists. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't access that NYT link - is it the case that the image was from Cosmo-Sileo and reproduced with permission, or is it Cosmo-Sileo working for hire? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's a NYT photo, first published on October 3, 1973, and taken by Cosmo-Sileo, which appears to have been a photography studio. I've looked in the copyright catalogue and found just one registration by Cosmo-Sileo. Nikkimaria, do you think this image is likely PD? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- You could make a fair-use claim for that photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. I found some PD images, so it's less needed now. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sources appear to be reliable. Good job on using the {{sfnm}} template.
- Link Richard Severo in the NYT ref.
- @Vacant0: Done. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link Richard Severo in the NYT ref.
- Shouldn't the second note be at the end of the first sentence? It is currently at the end of the second sentence.
- Do we know why they moved premises in 1949?
- I haven't seen anything about why they moved in 1949. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Overlook website is a primary source and I do not understand what it is supposed to verify. The NYT source confirms 225 East 44th Street and that it is a sports bar, I verify the year, though.
- Removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant to say "I cannot verify the year, though". My bad. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will leave more comments in the following days. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What year can't you verify? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 15:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the 2004 year was not mentioned in the NYT source, but it actually is in one of the captions. I had another look at the article, so I'll change my vote towards support now as I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. What year can't you verify? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Will review this in a bit. lunaeclipse (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. No issues with ref formatting or reliability. lunaeclipse (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Drive by comments by DWB
[edit]- I feel like this desperately could use an image of the building/business even if it is NFC. I believe it would be incredibly useful in establishing a visual identity for something we are identifying as notable. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still mulling over whether any of the images can be used under an NFC rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call any of the photographs I've been able to find "basic". They're all well-composed, artistic shots under the NYT's copyright. For example, [29] and [30]. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think if you can use both images they both offer something unique, but the second is my preference from an aesthetic POV. I can see you're already speaking to nikkimaria above, I was going to recommend them since I think they've helped with copyright in the past. Both images would likely have to go under NFC though since I assume the photographer and the NYT are still within the copyright period. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call any of the photographs I've been able to find "basic". They're all well-composed, artistic shots under the NYT's copyright. For example, [29] and [30]. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find the copyright side of things confusing but I believe it would fall under the same rationale as a film poster/album cover/game cover in that it is a primary identifier and it's not possible to describe the subject in words alone. I think basic building photos taken in a public space fall under non-copyright as well.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can't use both per WP:NFCCP#3a. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, maybe I could since they both depict different things. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm still mulling over whether any of the images can be used under an NFC rationale. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Potentially, although having multiple non-free images means the rationale for each needs to be stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've added an unambiguously PD image of the exterior of the bar. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Pendright
[edit]Placeholder! Pendright (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- My circumstances are such that I will be unable to review the article at this time. Please accept my apology. Pendright (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for offering to review the article. All the best, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- "speakeasy". In the main article could this be briefly explained in line for the benefit of non-US readers.
- Is the wikilink not sufficient? I find that trying to explain these things in line leads to unwieldy parentheticals that disrupt the flow.
- I am afraid that the MoS requires it. MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." We are after all building an encyclopedia, we are writing in order to explain things to people who don't already know them. Doing so while maintaining a professional standard of prose is part of the challenge of FAC.
- "... a speakeasy in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. The speakeasy was located on Third Avenue ..." "Speakeasy" twice in nine words seems unnecessary. Suggest "The speakeasy" → 'It'.
- Done.
- "James Thurber illustrated the walls, depicting the "Battle of the Sexes"." Why the bold?
- Per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT.
- "during a gut renovation for a new restaurant". What is a "gut renovation"?
- Changed wording.
- "and during renovations, they preserved the cartoons". I am not sure about this comma.
- Changed wording.
- "John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories that he wrote for The New Yorker." Wrote twice? Perhaps '. John McNulty wrote about the discussions and happenings at the bar, which he called "this place on third avenue", in the 1940s in a series of short stories for The New Yorker.'
- Done.
Lovely work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Thank you for reviewing. I've replied above. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, just speakeasy outstanding. Perhaps something like '... in 1929 as a speakeasy—a bar illicitly selling alcohol—in Midtown Manhattan ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review -- Pass
[edit]- File:Costello's, 701 Third Avenue, Manhattan (c. 1939-1941) (cropped 2).jpg: PD as the work of a US government employee; the provided source seems to verify that.
- File:Battle of the Sexes (c. 1934-1935) by James Thurber.jpg: another slightly complicated one: PD status hinges on it not having a copyright notice. It does have a signature, but as I read the letter of the law applicable at the time in our article, without the © symbol, it doesn't technically qualify as a copyright notice, so I'm happy that this is above board unless someone with more knowledge comes in to contradict me. There is then a further restoration in the 1970s, but that wouldn't pass the threshold of originality to generate a new copyright.
- Both images are well captioned and supported by detailed alt text.
All checks out as far as I can see. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about... Bruce Springsteen's third studio album Born to Run. A make a break record for the singer-songwriter, it's easy to say he made it (very well). Now regarded by many as his magnum opus (although this editor would argue Darkness on the Edge of Town or Nebraska), I rewrote this article from the ground up and after its GAN it went through a helpful peer review and I believe it's now ready for the star. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Nick-D
[edit]It's great to see an article on a major popular music album here instead of the more common FACs on modern pop. I'd like to offer the following comments:
- " was designed to break him into the mainstream" - bit clunky
- How about "Recorded in New York, it was Springsteen's effort to break into the mainstream..."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- "the band and producers spent six months alone working on the title track" - seems like trivia for the lead
- I would say otherwise because it displays how "prolonged and grueling" the sessions were; plus, most songs did not take that long to record, especially at the time. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Springsteen's lack of direction and confidence" - this appears out of the blue after text that stresses that Springsteen was ambitious about the record
- Removed confidence
- "Springsteen was sent multiple mixes as he was on the road and rejected all of them, approving the final one in early August." - this needs to be tweaked: if he rejected all of them how could he have approved one?
- How about "...and rejected all but one, which he approved in early August."? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "such as a road can take you anywhere" - I suspect that a 'that' is missing here
- Fixed
- ""Born to Run" uses an automobile to escape from a depressing life" - this is unclear
- ""Born to Run" uses an automobile as a means to escape from a depressing life." That better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The success of Born to Run revitalized Springsteen's career" - this is unclear given the article previously stresses that the album led Springsteen to move from relative obscurity into stardom.
- Would 'revitalized' not work here? He had a career before this (albeit struggling financially), but this record turned that around and brought him success. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "revitalise" usually means to renew something or restore vigour, which isn't the case for Springsteen. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D The source uses "saved"; although that technically is true (Columbia would have dropped him if it had failed), I'm not sure if that's appropriate for WP. What about "rejuvenate"? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Same issue with that. 'Saved' seems appropriate if it's what the sources used (though it's hard to believe that Springsteen wouldn't have had a decent chance of making a successful music career given his skills). Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to 'saved' – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- "revitalise" usually means to renew something or restore vigour, which isn't the case for Springsteen. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Had the album been performed live in total before 2008?
- Not that I could find. Setlists for the Born to Run tours are hard to find. I know he has performed all the songs from Born to Run quite often since 1975, but the album itself in order front to back I could not find. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article cites a wide range of very high quality sources, but not any academic articles. Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does this one not count? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are there no other journal articles worth citing? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found this one and this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Pinging in case you didn't see. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Sorry I'm just now getting to this. I found this one and this one, although both are in German and don't appear accessible (at least for me). I recall in my search during initial expansion, the English one already in the article is the only one I could find, other articles were about Born in the USA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Are there no other journal articles worth citing? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nick-D Thanks for the comments! Replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by ChrisTheDude
[edit]- "By 1974 his popularity was limited to United States East Coast" => "By 1974 his popularity was limited to the East Coast of the United States"
- "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and the E Street Band" => "Low morale plagued Springsteen's team, including both his manager, Mike Appel, and his backing band the E Street Band"
- Changed to "backing group" so we're not saying band twice
- "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestra" => "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras"
- "Bittan mostly replaced Federici on the album, whose sole contribution" => "On the album Bittan mostly replaced Federici, whose sole contribution"
- "The stunt generated interest the track" => "The stunt generated interest in the track"
- "a long saxophone solo from Clemons, which he spent 16 hours replaying to Springsteen's satisfaction;[71] he dictated almost every note played" - it's ambiguous who the "he" is in the last part
- Clarified it's the latter
- "The seven known outtakes from the album included" - using "included" doesn't really work when you then list all seven. Change "included" to "are"
- "The song contains autobiographical elements to Springsteen's youth" - don't think the grammar works here. Maybe "The song contains autobiographical elements related to Springsteen's youth".......?
- "Following his demise, death and destruction continues across the streets" => "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets"
- "Springsteen's guitar strap dons an Elvis Presley pin" - I don't think an inanimate object can really "don" something. Maybe "On Springsteen's guitar strap is an Elvis Presley pin"
- Changed to "An Elvis Presley pin appears on Springsteen's guitar strap,"
- "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers poll" => "The cover was included in a Rolling Stone readers' poll"
- "receiving both critical praiseand from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis" => "receiving praise both from critics and from former Columbia Records president Clive Davis"
- "and moved different studios" - should this be "and moved to different studios"? "and moved between different studios"? I doubt he physically moved the studios........
- Clarified 'between'
- That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- ChrisTheDude All fixed, with some comments above :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil
[edit]Placeholder. Was part of the PR and intend to continue the review, but it may be a few days. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ceoil Friendly reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- For the co-ords re this timing out; I'm a likely support but haven't had the chance to re-look since the PR. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Moise
[edit]Placeholder for me too. I'll try to start my review soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I should be able to get started this weekend. Moisejp (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments (as usual, I'll add them as I go along, in some cases one at a time):
- "The band went back and forth between studio recording and live performances." This could be clearer. What exactly does "go back and forth between" mean here? Does live performances that aren't in the studio mean concert performances? Maybe it means some kind of jamming (because it says Springsteen used these to develop new material)? Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes concert performances. To me it's clear but I can see how you got confused. Clarified.
- "Bittan had a background in symphony orchestras and had previously known of Springsteen's music, but Weinberg had not and had experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions." A bit awkward overall. "Weinberg had not" presumably is only referring to "had previously known of Springsteen's music" but it's not totally clear. In a way "experience with various rock bands and Broadway productions" emphasizes the rock/Broadway vs. symphony, which may suggest "Weinberg had not" is also about the symphony, which sounds like an unusual thing to say. Moisejp (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Separated them into different sentences.
- Not sure what to suggest here, but it's also a bit awkward to say that Bittan "replaced" Sancious and then right after that he "mostly replaced" Federici. Moisejp (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Iagree. I'm not sure how to reword either... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The songs themselves feature introductions that set the tone and scene for each." Maybe specify the kind of introduction this is referring to, I imagined you meant extended musical bits before the singing starts. Moisejp (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added "musical"
Comments by Wehwalt
[edit]- No, I'd say this is the realest Springsteen album. Before he really went commercial and then political ....
My comments:
- "The album cover, featuring Springsteen leaning on E Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons's shoulder, is considered iconic and has been recreated by various musicians and in other media." I'm not sure recreated is the word. Maybe (not sure) imitated?
- Changed to imitated
- "By 1974 his popularity was limited to East Coast of the United States," Should be a "the" in there.
- Fixed
- "the then upcoming artist Billy Joel" this should probably have a hyphen somewhere in it.
- Fixed
- "the label conceded" Maybe "the label agreed"
- Done
- "From the Churches to the Jails, The Hungry and the Hunted, War and Roses, and American Summer.[23]" is it worth mentioning that some of these are lyrics in the completed album?
- Maybe but the source doesn't mention that so I think that would qualify as OR. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "an early version" a demo?
- Re-reading the source cited it was actually the final track (which would make sense if it was in November) so I shortened it to just "Appel sent "Born to Run"..." – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "By January 1975, the band had been working for over a year with only one finished track." Maybe " ... the one finished track"?
- Removed the 'only'
- "and the highway as a means of escape and coming-of-age journey ... "Jungleland" I'm not quite clear on who uses the highway as a means of escape/comes of age in "Jungleland".
- The source has the song listed in quotes; I assume the authors grouped it there since the song takes place on a street and tells the story of the Magic Rat and his unnamed girlfriend. Think I should just separate it in a new description? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "the songs on Born to Run are not specifically tied to New Jersey and New York" none of them? Really?
- I mean yeah some obviously are. I added "most of" does that work? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- "According to Masur, the Rat was gunned down by his "own dream"." Why does that need Masur? That's what the lyrics say, "the Rat's own dream guns him down". And the quote makes it sound like it's Masur's words, not Springsteen's.
- The quote after "symbolizing" is Masur's. Reworded to clarify.
- "Following his demise, death and destruction continue across the streets until they are left in complete devastation" "they wind up wounded, they're not even dead"?
- Removed 'death and'
- "an article by Henry Edwards in The New York Times that slandered both himself and Born to Run." Slandered is a pretty strong word. Is it justified here?
- I believe so. I recall reading through Edwards' article and thinking it was pretty harsh. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Greil Marcus paraphrase would probably be better as a direct quotation. If you're going to paraphrase at that level of detail, you are probably better off with a quote.
Not done Will come back to this one. I'm sure Ceoil won't approve of the full quote so I wanna get his opinion (I also can't access the source for whatever reason atm). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Was the album nominated for any awards at the time of its original release?
- Not that I found/know of (no sources mention anything like that that I can recall either) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is the action of the state assembly to try to make the song Born to Run the state's unofficial rock theme worthy of mention?
- It certainly would be on Born to Run (Bruce Springsteen song), but here it might stretch to WP:OFFTOPIC
- That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt Thanks for commenting. Replies/Questions above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wehwalt Thanks for commenting. Replies/Questions above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Ippantekina
[edit]My review will be focusing on prose exclusively. Ippantekina (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This is my second attempt at nominating this obscure worm. I believe I've made all changes requested in previous nomination, and peer review and captured all relevant literature (there is not much), but am ready to make any and all suggestions here. Thanks in advance!Mattximus (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Can you tell me from which date you made the improvements based on the last FAC? Then I can compare with my notes from back then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure! I made a large number of edits on May 8th just before the FAC closed, but it was not enough to garner support. I then went through all comments and did some rewrites on June 4th to try and make sure every single comment was addressed. Is that the information you were looking for? Also thank you for taking the time to review such an obscure article. Mattximus (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've compared my last comments with the current version, and a few points still stand out, listed below. I believe that's all, but it's a bit difficult to figure out after this time. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Two reviewers have suggested conversions for measurements, which has not been done.
- I added this to the lead, but there are so many measurements in the body that it looked like a complete mess with double the measurements. I'm not sure that non-metric measurements are needed in a scientific article, apart from the lead which provides an overview. Is this critical to passing FA? It would make parts of the body almost unreadable.
- There is still a good deal of duplinks. They can be highlighted with this script:[31]
- Done. Thanks for sharing that script, I'm going to use it from now on.
- Anything on on how the type specimens were collected? From one or more moles?
- Unfortunately not, I did my best to relay all information regarding the collection from the original document. It's also the only paper to mention the sampling.
- That's all three comments worked on, thanks again for your review. Awaiting your reply. Mattximus (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - I won't hold it back for lack of measurement conversions, but if a third reviewer brings it up, it's probably time to add them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Femke
[edit]Thanks for working on the article!
- Thank you for your review!
- I find the first paragraph of the article too difficult. It's an article likely of interest to people how know much more biology than me, but I think some movement can be made towards an easier lead per WP:EXPLAINLEAD
- Both the first and second sentence say the genus only has one species. The first does it with jargon, the second in plain English, right? Can we omit the first?
- I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
- We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done.
- We still have the scary jargon in there. Do we need the Latin name for the mole that prominently? Might be better to omit it from the lead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I fixed the wording by merging the first two sentences.
- Maybe switch East London and Transkei upon first mention, so that if you skim-read, you're less likely to think it's a part of London, UK (with east london now positioned next to South Africa)
- Done.
- I would put the size of the creature much earlier, before delving into difficult things with its hooks and rings
- Done
- Not knowing what proboscis means, I found it really difficult to parse the text after. Perhaps starting with the trunk helps (so that we know the proboscis isn't the trunk).
- Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
- The sentence is now very long and more difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Rewrote this sentence, splitting it. Should be better now?
- The sentence is now very long and more difficult to parse. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here I added a definition of the proboscis which should make this sentence much more clear.
- I find the rings difficult to visualise. From the lead, I hadn't guessed that the ring surrounds (?) the proboscis, as seems to be indicated in Figure 3 here
- A diagram would help immensely but none exist that are free. I did try my best at rewording, does this work?
- In the body you explain that insects are an example of an arthropod. I would repeat that in the lead for context.
- Done.
- There are no known aberrant human infections for H. niekerki species --> What does the word aberrant mean here? Is it necessary?
- Well it means that sometimes you can accidentally get an infection even though it evolved to infect something else. I can remove it since it still gets the idea across. Done.
- but the life cycle of any thorny-headed worm, or acanthocephalan, unfolds in three distinct stages. --> I think if we say "any", we imply that we know the life cycle of all thorny-headed worms. Instead, can we say "in general".
- Done
- At this stage, which for H. niekerki measures between 38–60 μm in length and 19–26 μm in width, it burrows into the host's intestinal wall and continues to grow --> which for is weird, as it seems "stage" is the antecedent. During which?
- I changed it to when, which seems to flow better, does that make sense?
- I've made some minor edits directly to the article.
- Thank you!
- I would split the first paragraph of Hosts, as it's quite long.
- Done.
- Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus remain unidentified, it is generally accepted that, for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs, insects serve as the primary intermediaries This sentence doesn't flow that well, consider changing it to: Although the specific intermediate hosts for the genus Heptamegacanthus are unidentified, it is generally accepted that insects serve as the primary intermediaries for the broader order Oligacanthorhynchida to which it belongs.
- Done, that is much better wording.
- Source formatting is not quite consistent: first names are sometimes written full-out, sometimes Vancouver Style, and sometimes abbreviated with a full stop. Please choose a consistent style. First read done, might add some more comments later. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- I found one that was inconsistent, but all journals use the same citation template, so not sure what else is in error. Found first name error, but could not find full stop error.
- Thank you so much —Femke 🐦! What an excellent review. I've addressed all comments, but a few require your response. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- one other possibility for simplifying the lead is to omit US-specific units. Per MOS:CONVERSION, unless there is a good reason to add, they can be omitted in scientific articles. From what I understand, even some in the US use mm in daily life for small sizes like this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, removed. I think I addressed all your new points.Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's continue with the first paragraph. It's better than it was, but still has room for improvement.
- The first sentence still contains both the word monotypic and containing a single species. Okay if you disagree, but I think it's redundant and an easy opportunity to remove the word monotypic
- I agree completely, this technical term belongs in the taxonomy section not the lead. Removed. Mattximus (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its body consists of a tubular feeding and sucking organ called the proboscis which is covered with hooks and a short, wide trunk. --> I would start with the trunk here, as the next sentence is about these hooks again.
- Done.
- There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings that are not radially symmetrical which surround the proboscis, with seven large anterior hooks. --> put the "surround the proboscis" next to the word rings "arranged in rings surrounding the proboscis". You could say. "There are 40 to 45 of these hooks arranged in rings surrounding the probiscus. They are not radially symmetrical. Long sentence about sizes of the hooks as a function of distance from trunk." Overall, ensure that you vary sentence length, and include short sentences as well. Also keep ideas together as much as possible. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tried my best to reword as you requested. I think it's much better, but maybe I made some grammar error I can't figure out on the last sentence of the first paragraph? Other than this part, I believe I've completed the next batch of questions! Thank you —Femke 🐦! Mattximus (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks better now! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- "formally described in 1990 by Mary E. Spencer Jones, curator at the British Museum". Describing it as the British Museum is odd. It is true that it was formally called the British Museum (Natural History) until 1992, even though it had been separated from the BM since 1963, but it has long been generally (and now formally) known as the Natural History Museum. I think you need to either use the common name or the full formal name as of 1990.
- I linked it to Natural History Museum, London, as there are many natural history museums, would this work?
- "sent from south-east Africa". I think "sent from South Africa" would be clearer.
- Done
- "these glands produce a substance used in the reproductive process". Is there no information about this substance?
- Nothing for this species, but for acanthocephalans in general it's also not much: "a protein with molecular weight of 23 kDa; in fresh glands it is white in colour", not sure this adds anything though.
- "Much of the second paragraph of the Taxonomy section appears to belong in the Description section as some comments are purely descriptive rather than explaining why the species is morphologically distinct.
- I see what you mean, but many sources put this in the taxonomy section as it's kinda like a dichotomous key for classification purposes. The taxonomy is defined by this key, as there has been no phylogenetic analysis.
- "without completing their devoplemented rendering them smaller than normal". Typo?
- Oops, nice catch!
- "into the copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)" "into its copulatory bursa (a fluid filled sac)"? (I assumed that it was the female's until I read on.)
- yes that is much more clear. Done.
- "found in South-East Africa in the Nqadu Forest, Transkei, South Africa". South-East Africa should not be capitalised and is superfluous. I would delete.
- Removed all 3 instances of "south-east" and just kept it South Africa.
- "the life cycle of thorny-headed worm" "the thorny-headed worm" or "thorny-headed worms".
- Fixed this and made the acanthocephalan -> acanthocephala to match the plural.
- Is it known whether the worm harms its host?
- Unknown. Most certainly yes, but there exists no source to back up my claim.
- A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your excellent review! I believe I've either completed or addressed all your comments above. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't use fixed px size
- Fixed
- Is there no image of the worm to use in the lead? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly there is not. There is a line sketch but it remains copywrited and behind a paywall. It is possible none actually exist as the last paper on this species was over 30 years ago. Mattximus (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]Mattximus seems to be taking a Wikibreak. Which is fine, except this article is getting close to timing out for lack of responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry was on vacation. Was hoping to pass before I left, but only had 2 supports. Am back at it and will be able to complete any missing tasks today and tomorrow. Mattximus (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually managed to finish up all the comments already! I await any further responses. Mattximus (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
This article is about another skyscraper in New York City. This office building, constructed for the Time and Life Company, opened in 1960 as part of an expansion of Rockefeller Center. It's distinctive not so much for its exterior (which resembles any other 1960s office building in NYC), but for its whimsical modern interiors, which include a serpentine pavement, steel-and-marble walls, and burgundy glass ceilings. The building also featured a dining club, stores, and even an auditorium. Perhaps the design of the interiors is why the building was nearly fully occupied a year after it opened.
This page became a Good Article three years ago after a Good Article review by A person in Georgia, for which I am very grateful. After some more recent copyedits, I think the page is up to FA quality. I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Joeyquism
[edit]I'll get to this in the coming days. joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Below are some comments on prose, most of which are nits; feel free to refuse with justification:
Lead
- "The lobby contains serpentine floors; white-marble and stainless-steel walls; reddish-burgundy glass ceilings; and artwork by Josef Albers, Fritz Glarner, and Francis Brennan." - I think that the semicolons here should be replaced with commas, though I recognize that this is technically proper usage as the last clause itself contains a list with commas. Just a small grammatical nitpick on my part.
- The first instance of Time Inc. should be wikilinked. Premature apologies for further comments on wikilinking - I recognize that it can be a bit of a nuisance to the nominator and that there are certain MOS standards that should be upheld with regards to it, though I will try to keep it to a minimum here.
- "Construction started in May 1957; the building was topped out during November 1958; and occupants began moving into their offices in late 1959." - In this case, however, the second semicolon should be a comma, as the last clause is not independent (contains "and").
Site
- No glaring issues.
Architecture
- I happened to be familiar with Syska Hennessy for reasons I am not too sure of at the moment; however, to someone who may be unfamiliar, it could appear to be a person with a rather unconventional name. Would mentioning that it's an engineering firm (or just a firm/company) be worth it here, in your opinion?
- Wikilink Limestone in "1271 Avenue of the Americas' facade is made mostly of glass, which at the time of the building's construction cost the same as a wall made mostly of limestone."
- Wikilink Canopy (architecture) in "At ground level, there is a canopy over the 51st Street entrance." I won't include further comments on wikilinking from here, though I would suggest it be done for the more technical terms such as emissivity, parapet and terrazzo. I will leave the determination of what could be considered technical up to you, unless more elaboration is requested. Hoping this isn't too big a bother :( I realize that I'm being rather pedantic here.
- "Internally, 1271 Avenue of the Americas was divided into eight zones for air-conditioning." - Is this currently how the building is set up, or has there been further development here (as of right now, I am not sure whether the upgrade in 1957 was done to address this division). I think that "initially" between "was" and "divided" would be a good disambiguation, though if it's set up like this now, perhaps change "was" to "is".
- "The ceiling throughout the lobby is 16 ft (4.9 m) high. The ceiling is made of dark maroon glass tiles, finished in a matte covering, with white lighting coves in some tiles." - Perhaps these can be combined into one sentence?
- "The interiors were designed by Alexander Girard and furniture by Charles Eames." - In contrast to my previous supplications that other terms be wikilinked, I will suggest that the names of the designers be unlinked to avoid too-close duplicate linking.
- "This arrangement was inspired by the PSFS Building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." - In its current location, this sentence feels a bit out of place, as the arrangement hasn't been described other than the footage of the floors and the presence of columns. Perhaps this could go at the end of the paragraph instead, or could be expounded upon with regards to how it was the column arrangement that was inspired by the Philly building.
- No further issues with the rest of the section.
History
- Apologies, I lied. David Sarnoff has an article you could wikilink in "NBC ultimately dropped out of the project because its CEO, David Sarnoff, dissented."
- "In addition, Major League Baseball moved its headquarters to the building,[162][163] and it leased two stories in the building's base for use as an MLB Store, which opened in 2020." - Should "MLB Store" be in title case here?
- Rest of this section is straightforward and well-written.
Impact
- No glaring issues.
@Epicgenius: It was a pleasure to read Hearst Tower when it was at FAC, and I'm glad to say the same for this article. This is looking to be in great shape already, and once my comments are addressed, I will likely come back to support. Looking forward to your responses, and I hope you're having a wonderful week so far. joeyquism (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @Joeyquism, and hope you're having a good week as well. I'll take a look at these on Thursday. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great! I won't hold you any longer for further wikilinking; I'm already glad to support this FAC for nomination. Hope you're having a great week so far! joeyquism (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Joeyquism, thanks again for the comments. I've addressed all of your comments, and I added a few more relevant links (though I'll see if there are any other terms that I can link tomorrow). – Epicgenius (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Pickersgill-Cunliffe
[edit]Will have a read through soon. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, just a gentle reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agh! Hope to be on this later today. Sometimes I need less of a nudge and more of a shove... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- SC
Have one other to review first, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for agreeing to review the article, @Pickersgill-Cunliffe and @SchroCat. Just as a heads up, I'm going to have limited internet access for about 2 weeks beginning on August 9, but I probably will still be able to address your feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture
- "Harrison & Abramovitz, a firm composed of Wallace Harrison and Max Abramovitz": I'm sure it was composed of more than just those two individuals, so maybe "a firm headed by WH and MA", or something similar?
- Yep, they were just the lead architects. I've rephrased this. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, Syska Hennessy": you don't need the "In addition" – works better without
- Done. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "a 48-story slab": I'm not sure what you mean by "slab" in this context (unless you mean slab construction. Is there something you can link to?
- Yeah, that may be confusing - basically it's a tower without any setbacks, but "slab" could refer to floor slabs. I've changed this to "tower". Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Offices
- "largely uninterrupted by columns": the lead says "Each of the upper floors ... consists of a column-free space". Both of these can't be true
- I've fixed the lead. The sources do say that there were a few interior columns. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "largest floor plates": again, anything "plates" can link to?
- Funnily enough, these are floor slabs. I've added a link. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The panels themselves were": you don't need "themselves"
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "The chairs remain in production as of 2015": Any update on this? As it's nine years old, the use of the present tense jars a bit
- They are indeed still being produced, but I wasn't able to find any non-primary sources confirming this. I changed it to "The chairs remain in production during the 21st century". Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Late 20th century
- "Although Life magazine shuttered in 1972": I'm not entirely sure what "shuttered" means. I think I can guess, but it sounds idiomatic to me
- I've revised this too. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- "In addition, Glarner's and Albers's": Again, you don't need "in addition"
- Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments @SchroCat. I've addressed all the points you raised. Epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Another very nice article. I don't normally think tower blocks are particularly interesting, but I do like reading your articles on them! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
[edit]Incoming! Bug me if I don't get back within a week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead & Site
- This is neurotic, but "serpentine-shaped pavement" doesn't really work; I don't know that I'd call serpentine a shape. "pavement with a serpentine pattern" might be better (applies for the same phrasing in the body also)
- "The ground floor also includes storefronts and originally also" too many alsos
- "a members-only restaurant during the day." this beds the question of what was it at night?
- "After Time Inc. expressed its intention" sentence opens and closes with "time inc", which is a bit awkward. "to accommodate the move" maybe?
- "Just prior to the development of 1271 Avenue of the Americas, most of the site was occupied by a parking lot,[6] which had previously served as a New York Railways Company trolley barn." I feel like this sentence is written backwards? Something like "Part of the site was originally a New York Railways Company trolley barn, later a parking lot" feels tighter
- Architecture to Interior
- "was hired as" twice in one sentence, I think you could write around that
- "Furthermore, a provision" I don't know that "furthermore" is necessary
- What is an accordion wall? Google only shows me room dividers, uselessly
- "The glass curtain wall covers either" - that's a big discrepancy, what's up with that?
- I'm sure you have a good reason to have it there, but the sidewalk image on top of the text, centered with all the whitespace... aesthetically I do not like it and I wish it was elsewhere. I will not attempt to enforce this as it's a personal preference but I wanted to say it
- " a tribute to its location along Avenue of the Americas" Possibly a question from ignorance, but what's the connection from Copacabana Beach to Avenue of the Americas?
- "Harrison had believed" - can just be "Harrison believed", as "had" implies that he stopped believing this at some point
- "A seating parapet ...covered by cement and terrazzo" the past tense in these three sentences suggests that these items were removed? When?
- "Trees and shrubs were originally also planted" - similarly, are these gone now?
- "In 1972, the Association for a Better New York hired William Crovello to create a sculpture called Cubed Curve." the paragraph manages to never say that it was placed at the building
- "supposedly inspired" why supposedly? according to who?
- Architecture from Ground floor
Image review
- The templated map results in significant sandwiching
- I think I fixed this. However, I'm currently traveling across the US and on my phone, so I can't determine whether the sandwiching issue is still present. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some images are missing alt text
- I added alt text to the remaining images. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- File:Curtiss-Wright,_Time_Life_Building,_Ave._of_the_Americas._LOC_gsc.5a27425.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Hemisphere_Club,_Time-Life_Building,_Rockefeller_Center._LOC_gsc.5a27661.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I still have to figure out when and where these images were first published. In any case, I have added c:Template:PD-US-no notice to both images, and I'll figure out the original source of these images when I get back from my vacation. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review @Nikkimaria. I've left my initial replies above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Don't think that newspapers (The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal) need an ISSN. Pei Cobb Freed and Partners is sometimes written with and and sometimes with &. Are Emporis, Progressive Architecture high-quality reliable sources? I don't know them very much. Same question about The Midtown Book (and is it now The City Review or not?), Wallpaper.com, Eater.com, Globest.com and Gothamist. More a question of due weight than reliability, but I wonder if "Herman Miller" is a good source to use, it seems like a sales website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the source review. Here are my initial comments:
- I won't be able to fix the ISSNs until I get back from vacation in a week or so.
- Emporis: I believe you asked about this before, but here is my response. This database is defunct, but there was a RSP discussion about this a few years ago, which seems to indicate that it is marginally reliable (with some content that was suggested by users and vetted by staff). I have removed it from this article, as it wasn't being used to cite anything.
- Progressive Architecture - You asked about this too. This was a reliable source in its field; while no longer published, it was an established magazine with editorial oversight.
- Wallpaper.com - ditto, it also has editorial oversight.
- Eater - this also has editorial oversight and is part of the Vox website group, which is reliable per WP:RSPVOX.
- GlobeSt - this has editorial oversight too.
- Gothamist - This is a news outlet owned by radio station WNYC. It also has editorial oversight.
- Midtown Book - The author, Carter Horsley, was an architecture critic for the New York Times for a while. I can try to find a separate source if you want, though.
- I have removed the Herman Miller website.
- Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, that sounds like sufficient credentials for Midtown Book. I must have forgotten that I already reviewed these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
So this is another MRT article! But what's more interesting here is that the station was closed for a while even when the line was opened (20 June 2003). The announcement to close the station was rather last minute and hence led to some discontentment among the few residents living in the area. There was some lobbying by residents, MPs and grassroots leaders to open the station, including a rare form of public protest by putting up "white elephant" cardboard cutouts when a minister visited the area. While the station was projected to open only in 2008 in tandem with housing developments, the government eventually relented and the station opened in January 2006. A curious little drama for the "white elephant" station. ZKang123 (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Limited comments by Nick-D
[edit]The material on the protests stands out for me, as it seems a bit under-developed. I have some comments:
- The police response seems absurdly heavy handed. Google Scholar returns some references which seem to discuss this, including as an example of the limited opportunities Singaporeans have to protest
- This scholarly book has some good discussion of the incident, noting that it was an example of the problems the Singapore government was experiencing at the time in terms of building the train line and (more significantly) responding to public concerns.
- This academic article is also worth consulting and discusses the over-reaction to the protest. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Very interesting. Though the PAP book essentially covers what I managed to find (given it's published by SPH Holdings, which definitely would have access to the news articles I've cited about the incident). I try not to detract too much focus from the station subject, and commentary of the protests in nature is something that can be explored in another potential article (White Elephant saga, perhaps, as the PAP book calls it.) There's actually further context from another source (p56) on how the slump in housing development of the Singapore northeast was due to the 1997 financial crisis.
- Just keeping an archive of a cited source from the 2nd journal page here. Not sure how to incorporate it, given the editor isn't really an authority on what determines a national political issue or not. I added a citation of what Chua Beng Huat remarked about the paranoia.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
750h
[edit]Will review. 750h+ 13:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- lead
- Located underneath Sengkang Central near the junction add a comma before "near"
- Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- The station will also serve Sengkang Grand Residencies – an upcoming integrated development, and a future bus interchange. remove the comma
- I've used a slightly different rewording.
- Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter, and the two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets.. Id split these two sentences, like something like "Buangkok station is a designated Civil Defence shelter. The two entrances of the station are enveloped by white Teflon sheets."
- Done. Though the problem is that the lead seems a little choppy here.
- history
- The North East Line (NEL) project, which was first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996. ==> "The North East Line (NEL) project, first proposed in 1984,[1] received government approval in January 1996."
- I think I prefer to retain "which was"
- for redevelopment into an important new town. ==> "for redevelopment into a new town."
- Done.
- Just days before the opening of the NEL, on 17 June 2003, operator ==> "On 17 June 2003, just days before the opening of the NEL, operator"
- I've used a slightly different rewording.
- along with the other stations, due to the lack remove the comma
- Done.
- open the following January, after SBS Transit remove the comma
- Done.
- required for them to sell the shirts, while also warning the organisers remove the comma
- I think a comma here is necessary given the clauses are rather long.
- still traveled to the adjacent change "traveled" to "travelled", as in Singaporean English (i think)
- Fixed.
- details
- The station is designed by Altoon + Porter Architects and 3HP Architects. change "is" to "was"; unless they're still designing the station
- Fixed.
- artwork
- Leow drew parallels to the little dots and pixels of TV and computer images which blur out certain images add a comma before "which"
- Fixed.
That's all I got, nice work. 750h+ 13:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did the fixes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I have an FAC open if you'd like to take a look (don't feel obliged though)! 750h+ 08:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Brief comments by CMD
[edit]- "Dissatisfaction with the station's continued closure had increased after the announcement of transport fare hikes." I don't fully understand the link, the source implies it is due to having to pay more and not getting a better service?
- Yeah something like that.
- The dates on White elephant incidents and station opening are slightly unclear, after mentioning "27 July 2005". After that no years are mentioned until "pushed to 2008".
- They are all in the same year. I clarified it was Yeo who said in September that the opening date was pushed further.
- No history after the opening? Did ridership eventually increase?
- Unfortunately no. But I shall dig up the latest ridership numbers.--ZKang123 (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Best, CMD (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Vacant0
[edit]Will leave comments here. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- "
in the Singapore notheast area
" → "in the northeastern Singapore area". - "
of 5,000 for the station to be
" → "of 5,000 for it to be" - "
commented by
" → "commented on by" - I actually do not really have anything to add besides these minor changes. The article is well-written and researched and I do not see any issues with referencing. Support from me. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Did some of the above changes. Thanks for the review!--ZKang123 (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]This has been open for over four weeks and has yet to pick up a support. I have added it to Urgents, but unless it receives several further in depth reviews over the next week it's liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from PMC
[edit]Will look within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead
- The lead feels a little skinny for an FA, even a relatively short one
- Expanded the lead.
- Agree with Mike's comments re Sengkang Central, which I also took to be a neighborhood rather than a road
- Added "road of"
- Is Buangkok a town, or a neighborhood? Our article says neighbourhood
- Neighbourhood. Well, there's a bit of ambiguity between these distinctions, but I think it's still part of Sengkang town.
- "will also serve as a future bus interchange" - future is redundant, as "will serve" tells us this will happen in the future
- Fixed.
- "The station will also serve as...Sengkang Grand Residencies, an upcoming integrated development." The station is going to be a residential building? Please clarify
- Typo. Removed "as"
- "First announced in March 1996 and beginning construction in April 1997," - tenses are wonky here. The station didn't begin construction, construction began on the station
- Fixed.
- "including a white elephant protest incident in 2005" this is definitely unclear without context
- Lead has been expanded with context.
- History first half
- "The station was constructed in a forested area that was proposed for redevelopment into a new town." - one of New towns of Singapore these?
- I suppose
- Do we know why the land was given to the NEL project instead of being made into a town?
- Well, in Singapore, we have to build transport access to a new town. So from my understanding, this station will serve this future new town.
- "the vacated warehouses demolished" what warehouses? This was a forested area, you said
- The source didn't state very clearly where were these warehouses. Well, they said "Around the site of Buangkok station".
- " the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods." is redundant to "The site was excavated to a depth of up to 20 m...work on the station then proceeded from the bottom up."
- Fixed.
- " Following the station's construction, roads were built to connect the station with existing roads." This sentence awkwardly uses "the station" and "roads" twice. How about something like "Once construction was complete, new roadwork connected the station to the road system"?
- Fixed.
- "two stations on the line – Woodleigh and Buangkok – would not open " - but they were completed?
- Well, mothball stations. So like the abandoned stations on the London Underground and the New York City Subway.
- "sudden decision to close Buangkok station" can you close something that never opened?
- Reword to "keep Buangkok station closed"
- "grassroots leaders" this is a bit wooly. Who?
- Basically community leaders
- Charles Chong - I assume his constituency area covers Buangkok, but this isn't clear from its name or general context
- Yes, it covers Buangkok
- Agree with Mike's comments re: distance stuff.
- Suggest linking Sengkang and Hougang stations in the text, yes they're in the infobox but the infobox isn't the body
- Ah yes. Wikilinked Sengkang station in earlier instance and also for Hougang.
- "announcement of the station's closure" again, can you close something you never opened?
- Fixed.
- "In response to residents' plans to gift a white elephant statue to the operator" it's the first time any such plan has been mentioned. in fact, it's the first in-body reference to the station as a white elephant. going straight into a response to a plan and nickname we didn't know existed two seconds ago feels odd. back up and explain the white elephant thing first (and actually, if his comments happened in august, which the date on the source seems to indicate, why are they being placed chronologically here?)
- I did a bit more research that it was first mentioned by the transport minister in July.
- please, here or elsewhere, briefly explain the idiomatic meaning of "white elephant" for those not familiar (I am, but that doesn't mean every reader will be, and they will lose out on a huge amount of the context without this)
- Added hatnote.
- White elephant incidents
- I might split this whole section into "white elephant protests" and "station opening", it's quite large
- "Chong and other grassroots leaders" in what way is an MP a grassroots leader? what other types of leaders were involved?
- " near Punggol station" is this station nearby or otherwise comparable to Buangkok? ie, why Punggol specifically?
- "visited Punggol South " what's Punggol South
- Do we know who put the cutouts up? Like any specific activist group?
- "the construction of the 2,000 residential units" what 2,000 residential units?
- "the elephant cut-outs were removed" by the public as in "good job, we made our point" or by the government as in "nice try, citizens"
- "closed station", "station's continued closure" still gonna complain, pedantically, that it's not closed, it's unopened
- "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat" -> simplify to "In a letter to The Straits Times, sociologist Chua Beng Huat commented that the investigation was "paranoid". He criticized the press for treating what he saw as a municipal-level issue as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government"
- In this version I've removed "forum" as it would require clarifying that the Forum (capitalised) of the Straits Times is not just an internet forum where people can comment on anything, it's basically the letters to the editor section. "in a letter to" captures that without needing clarifying
- Also added the municipal-level thing to clarify his criticism
- Maybe also link Government of Singapore?
- "Chua had also called to distinguish between the varying degrees of importance of community matters in Singapore as he believed those who put up the cut-outs did not intend to challenge the government." I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It feels redundant to the first sentence about Chua's opinion.
- "sternly warned one veteran grassroots leader" do we know who, or what for?
- "For the carnival..." this is similar to my second to last comment in the History section, where you're introducing something as though the reader should already know it. I would suggest moving the part about the creation of the youth group and their shirts earlier, into the thick of the white elephant section. then here, you can return to them and be like "that group from earlier did some stuff..."
- "Punggol South grassroots" again, who? grassroots what
- "the youth" can just be "youth" I think
- "walk-a-jog" a what
- I revised a couple sentences here for clarity
- "due to their amenities" such as?
- Has nothing else happened to or about this station since 2008?
- Details & artwork
- "Being part of the NEL, the station is operated by SBS Transit." this could probably be condensed into the first sentence somewhere.
- Combined with the later sentence..--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- HDB needs to be spelled out as Housing & Development Board; I had to google it. My initial assumption was "high-density buildings"
- There's actually a mention of the agency earlier in the body so I abbreviated it there..--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you
- There's actually a mention of the agency earlier in the body so I abbreviated it there..--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead implies that the Sengkang Grand Residencies is a future thing. Is this already in place? When was it built? When is the bus interchange supposed to happen?
- It's currently under construction. I can't find when constructed began. Wait, a quick search showed that the mall itself has opened in March 2023, but not yet the residences above it, which has an expected completion date of 2026. So I suppose, yes the station currently serves the development because the retail side has opened. There's not yet an announced date for the opening of the bus interchange.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so the lead should reflect that, because right now it still reads as a future thing with the "will also" phrasing
- It's currently under construction. I can't find when constructed began. Wait, a quick search showed that the mall itself has opened in March 2023, but not yet the residences above it, which has an expected completion date of 2026. So I suppose, yes the station currently serves the development because the retail side has opened. There's not yet an announced date for the opening of the bus interchange.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is an "integrated development"? Is it a specific designation?
- Integrated commercial and residential development. Further clarified.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Mike that "envelop" is not the correct word here
- Wrote covered.
- Slightly reorganized the paragraphs here so that design & accessibility are one paragraph, and CD operations is its own paragraph
- Noted.
- Artwork feels like it should be a subsection of details - is the art not logically a detail of the station?
- Done.
- The whole artwork section feels somewhat disorganized, and I think it could be reduced in size
- Summarised a bit during the reorganisation.
- "The images incorporate dots, graphic motifs, and bands to reflect the "vitality of Buangkok New Town"" - in what way do dots and bands reflect this? Who said it? We should always attribute subjective quotes in-text
- Well, it's in the official LTA commentary. I'm unsure if the artist wrote it or it was by some LTA intern, because the original extensive commentary from the book didn't have the phrase. Attributed to LTA in general.
- The way it's used in the source, it's basically meaningless marketing fluff. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of the piece if we don't know what it means.
- Well, it's in the official LTA commentary. I'm unsure if the artist wrote it or it was by some LTA intern, because the original extensive commentary from the book didn't have the phrase. Attributed to LTA in general.
- "allowing him to express himself" this is redundant to the rest of the sentence
- Removed.
- "The vibrant embellishments contrasted with the backdrop of black-and-white photographs" it's not clear what this clause has to do with the rest of the sentence
- Well, the juxtapositions of colourful stuff against the black and white backdrop would catch your attention, wouldn't it? I thought that would be clear enough.
- We're all over the place here - why are we describing what's in the art in three separate paragraphs?
- Reorganised based on details. Artist's background and intention, then the images selected before the embellishments.
- With apologies, I still think this section does not work. You still have to read three whole paragraphs before you understand what the art even looks like. The artist's intention and the meaning of individual bits is less important than just describing the thing.
- Reorganised based on details. Artist's background and intention, then the images selected before the embellishments.
Honestly, I hate to say it, but I'm leaning a bit towards oppose in the state the article is in right now. It feels like this could have used a copyedit before coming to FAC. There are lots of small prose things that aren't quite up to snuff, and there's a few larger things that stand out to me (organization, clarity of certain aspects). I'll stick around and see what comes of more work though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the thorough comments. I will need some time to look over your thoughts. I have also expanded the lead more to try explain more about the incidents. I admit perhaps my writing style may not be up to scratch, but I will try my best to address the other comments. I'm not feeling that great at the moment.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keeping an offsite link of p150 here. p151.--ZKang123 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZKang123, I've replied to a few things above. Take your time, there's no rush responding to anything, I just didn't want to forget. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
[edit]"Located underneath Sengkang Central": I thought this was a place but eventually figured out it was a road. A link to an article about the road would work if we had one, but in lieu of that, could we say "underneath Sengkang Central, a north-south thoroughfare in Sengkang" or even " ... in Sengkang in northeastern Singapore"? Or anything that makes it clear to non-locals that it's a road?- Added "the road of"
- I don't think that works. How about reversing the sequence of the sentence so that it can be introduced more naturally as part of the description of the neighbourhood? E.g. "The station serves the residential neighbourhood of Buangkok and is located near the intersection of Sengkang Central with Compassvale Bow"? I think "intersection" makes it clear we're talking about roads. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Added "the road of"
"including a white elephant protest incident": this isn't comprehensible without the additional information later in the article. Maybe "including a protest that used cardboard cutouts to describe the closed station as a white elephant"? And I would definitely link white elephant.- Yeah added.
- I think that's better. Can we change "labeling the station a "white elephant" if it had opened" to "and said the station would have been a white elephant if it had opened"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah added.
"White Teflon sheets envelop the two entrances": I don't think "envelop" is the right word -- it implies the entrances are invisible under a completely enfolding layer of Teflon. If the image in the infobox is a guide, how about "White Teflon sheets roof the two entrances"? And the same comment applies to the same sentence in the body.- I used "covered".
"After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the station was constructed using the "open-cut" and "bottom-up" methods. The site was excavated to ...". Suggest "After the forest was cleared and the vacated warehouses demolished, the site was excavated to ...". The names "open-cut" and "bottom-up" may be the usual names for those methods, but given the next sentence explains exactly what they are, the reader gets no more information from the names, so we might as well cut them.- Fixed.
"Member of Parliament (MP)": suggest dropping the abbreviation as you don't use it in the rest of the article.- Fixed.
"willing to walk the long distance to the station": suggest just "willing to walk to the station"; the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that SBS Transit must have considered it a long distance, and we don't need to tell readers that since for many (I would think most) readers this is going to seem a pretty short distance.- Fixed.
"willing to make daily trips to a station 400 meters away": I think this is the wrong way to introduce the 2005 poll. SBS Transit believed that too few people would ride from the station -- the 400 m distance is just a dividing line they used to split residents into two groups for their initial poll. If enough people who lived within 100 m had said they'd ride the station would have been opened; the distance wasn't relevant to the decision. That figure presumably influenced the wording of Chong's poll that July, but we don't need to draw that connection for the reader -- they'll get it when the numbers are quoted.- Alright deleted that part.
"walk the long distance to": again I would cut this to "walk to".- Fixed.
- What does "Singapore's single-tier government" refer to? I had a look at Government of Singapore but couldn't find anything that seemed like it would be the intended meaning.
- I think it's also due to how we are a city-state and there's no subdivisions like national-state-city etc.
- Rereading the whole sentence I'm not actually sure what Chua Beng Huat means. "The investigation was commented on by sociologist Chua Beng Huat on The Straits Times forum as "paranoid", pointing out how the incident was treated by the press as a "national issue" due to Singapore's single-tier government." Why does the fact that the incident was treated as a national incident by the press mean that the investigation was paranoid? What connection are they drawing? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I got into this a little with my suggested fix to that sentence. In the source, basically, Chua is saying that the station opening is nothing more than a municipal-level issue. But because Singapore is a city-state where the municipality is the nation, everything gets jacked up into a national-level issue because there's no lower-level government to take care of it. So this doofy little local protest of cardboard elephants winds up getting national attention from the press. The national government doesn't want to be seen to be doing nothing, so they investigate it as a criminal matter, which to Chua is a paranoid response. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's also due to how we are a city-state and there's no subdivisions like national-state-city etc.
No year is given for any of the dates in the "White elephant" section after the surgery named in the first sentence, except for the mention of 2008 as a possible opening date. I would give the year again at the next date mentioned after that, just so the reader is aware the mention of 2008 is not moving the narrative three years forward.- Added dates.
"taken an interest in current affairs": this is apparently a typo for "taking", but I would cut the whole phrase anyway as it's evident from the rest of the sentence.- Alright cut away. I suppose it was missing "having"
Is there any information about how long it took for ridership to grow from 1,386/day? No problem if the sources don't say, but there was so much fuss about the ridership numbers I think you could justify including whatever data there is.- Not really, except I just pulled the latest numbers that the daily ridership is now 19,000 (recorded in June 2024), and added that in the infobox
What is an HDB flat?- Public flats. I mentioned HDB earlier in the body.
"allowing him to express himself": vague and I think could just be cut.- Done.
"vibrant embellishments" is a bit WP:PEACOCK.- Cut vibrant and explained which are the embellishments.
- "which blur out certain images while creating a new image": I don't know what this means. Pixels on TVs and computer images don't blur out images; if you get close to them the image is not discernible anymore, but that doesn't seem to be what's intended here -- and in any case that's mentioned earlier in the first paragraph of the section.
- Well, I'm also not following what the artist said either. The relevant page p151. He said (near the end of the second column): "I relate to dots. TV and computer images are made of little dots or pixels. Dots blur out certain images while creating a new image altogether. They allow you to play with layers of images."
- I don't think we should be including material we don't understand. I agree his comments aren't clear; I think it would be best to just cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm also not following what the artist said either. The relevant page p151. He said (near the end of the second column): "I relate to dots. TV and computer images are made of little dots or pixels. Dots blur out certain images while creating a new image altogether. They allow you to play with layers of images."
"which were familiar to many Singaporeans": surely "are", not "were"?- Fixed.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Did the above changes, @Mike Christie:.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have replied or struck everything above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Went over your other suggestions. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've struck two of the points. When I read PMC's comments I found she'd spotted quite a few things I had missed, so rather than waste your time by repeating those points here I'm going to wait for you to finish working with her and then read through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Went over your other suggestions. Thanks.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC) and Gah4 (talk)
This article is about Lise Meitner, the Austrian physicist who was the co-discover of the element protactinium and nuclear fission. She spent much of her scientific career in Berlin, Germany, where she was a physics professor and a department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. She fled to Sweden after Austria was absorbed into Germany in 1938. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Image review
[edit]- Suggest adding alt text
- File:Lise_Meitner_(1878-1968),_lecturing_at_Catholic_University,_Washington,_D.C.,_1946.jpg: is a more specific tag available? Ditto File:Lise_Meitner_standing_at_meeting_with_Arthur_H._Compton_and_Katherine_Cornell.jpg
- The originals are at [32] and [33]. Donated to the Smithsonian by Otto Hahn's biographer. No known copyright restrictions. We could use Template:PD-USGov-SI? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we can - those links indicate usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this one File:Lise Meitner (1878–1968) 1953 OeNB USIS 2955727.jpg can be used as a lead photo? It's of better resolution, and the copyright looks ok. Artem.G (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- just noticed that it's Hawkeye who uploaded high res version :) Artem.G (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe this one File:Lise Meitner (1878–1968) 1953 OeNB USIS 2955727.jpg can be used as a lead photo? It's of better resolution, and the copyright looks ok. Artem.G (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure we can - those links indicate usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- The originals are at [32] and [33]. Donated to the Smithsonian by Otto Hahn's biographer. No known copyright restrictions. We could use Template:PD-USGov-SI? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Lise_Meitner12.jpg: source link is dead; when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Otto_Hahn_und_Lise_Meitner.jpg
- Author is unknown. Image was created in 1906. A copy is in Churchill College, England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so retagging needed. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know when they were first published, but they are in Hahn's 1962 biography. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, so retagging needed. What is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Author is unknown. Image was created in 1906. A copy is in Churchill College, England. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is any info provided there on previous publication? If no, the current tag is lacking evidence. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Berliner_Physiker_u_Chemiker_1920.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
- Added URAA tag. Author unknown. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do not know first publication but it is in Hahn's 1962 book. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added URAA tag. Author unknown. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Hahn_and_Meitner_in_1912.jpg: when and where was this first published?
- In a commemorative brochure for the opening of the KWI in 1912. A copy was in Otto Hahn's papers, and is now in the Smithsonian. The Max Planck also has a copy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- File:Chemist_Lise_Meitner_with_students.jpg: the source seems to indicate this is not a NRC work?
- Source says "Courtesy of Bryn Mawr College" via the NRC. Has a CC 2.0 licence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I have switched the lead image to a new one I found in the Library of Congress. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Adding: The liquid drop model image is causing layout issues on my screen. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Wolverine
[edit]I'll drop some comments pretty soon. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 14:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- On 13-14 July 1938, she fled to Holland with the help of Dirk En dash
- her sisters Gisela and Lola converted to Catholic Christianity that same year Replace Catholic Christianity with Catholicism
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- She also adopted a shortened name "Lise". "A" should be "the", since we are specific here.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- and first studied colours of an oil slick, thin films, and reflected light. "The" before colours
- In July 1901, the girls sat an external examination at the Akademisches Gymnasium. Grammar
- Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann, and was said to often speak with contagious enthusiasm of his lectures. I'm not sure about "contagious" here, and it should be "about" rather than "of"
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- who was on the record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, "The" is not needed
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner and Hahn in their laboratory, in 1913. When a colleague she did not recognise said that they had met before, Meitner replied: "You probably mistake me for Professor Hahn. Image caption is confusing
- Looks fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner was more concerned with understanding their radiations. Should radiations be singular?
- Might as well. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- In 1912, Hahn and Meitner moved to the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) for Chemistry. Why is chemistry capitalized?
- It is the proper name of the institute. There were several of them, including a KWI for Physical Chemistry. See Kaiser Wilhelm Society for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- of which he gave ten per cent to Meitner. Is this %?
- MOS:PERCENT: "The body of non-scientific/non-technical articles may use either the % symbol or the word(s) percent (American English) or per cent (British English)"
- In 1945 the Nobel Committee for Chemistry in Sweden that selected the Nobel Prize in Chemistry decided to award that prize solely to Hahn: Colon should be a full stop
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hahn only found out from a newspaper while interned in Farm Hall Cambridgeshire England. Should be "at"
- I think "in" is correct. He was incarcerated there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Support -- My comments are so minor that you already have my support. Well done! When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of the narwhal FAC. Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Prose review by Generalissima
[edit]- You bold Elise Meitner in the Early years section, but you already mention this name in the lede - it should probably just be bolded there.
- Yes. Emboldened as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm slightly unclear what "advanced education" means in this context. Merely attending college, or becoming academics in their own right?
- Tertiary education. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897, and she completed her final year of school in 1892 I think this would make more sense with the clauses reversed, and moved after the following sentence; this way, it'd flow naturally into the "only career available" part.
- Good idea. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some context on what either her masters or doctoral theses were about could be interesting.
- The title translations are mine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Circumspect" seems like a bit of an obscure word here. Also "egalitarian" is a bit confusing - I know we're talking about how Hahn drank a lot of Respect Women Juice, but it's phrased confusingly in this portion.
- Germany was very formal society at the time. Oppenheimer, for example, once made the mistake of addressing Arnold Sommerfeld as "Professor" instead of "Geheimrat". Removed. I need to strike the right note here. For a man of his time, Hahn was progressive in his attitudes towards women. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Later that year, perhaps fearing that Meitner was in financial difficulties and might return to Vienna, since her father had died in 1910, Planck appointed her his assistant at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in the Friedrich Wilhelm University I think it might be best to remove the "since her father had died" clause. Maybe split it up; "Meitner may have entered financial difficulties after the death of her father in 1910. Possibly due to this, Planck appointed her..."
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You reference prices in marks a lot, but a modern reader has no context. Is there a way we can have conversions? There's likely a template for the mark. (Tho these might be best as efns after each quote rather than as in-line text)
- I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Betty Logan showed me how, so added currency conversions to euros. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to do this. I will ask and see in anyone else does. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "fortuitous" is somewhat vague, since it can either mean "by chance" or "fortunately". Just using fortunately would be a lot clearer in this context.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Might be good to wikilink Radium.
- This isn't really a prose thing, but I notice a paucity of images in the middle sections. The diagram of the Auger effect might be good at the beginning of the Beta Radiation section. More importantly, there's gotta be something that fits for the Nazi Germany, Transmutation, and Nobel Prize for nuclear fission sections, right?
- Added Auger effect diagram. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would love to be able to use this image Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added Auger effect diagram. Suggestions welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- The exhibition table being left-aligned creates a weird break in the text in combination with the massive Frisch quote. Might be better to right-align it.
- Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
- Pared it down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Moreover; the Frisch quote is nice, but it is massive. Could there be a way to pare it down a bit more with a (...) or two?
- The bust of Meitner image is a bit low-res and hard to make out. What about "file:Lise Meitner Denkmal vor dem Lise-Meitner-Wohnheim in Kaiserslautern2.jpg"? Bit more photogenic.
- Switched images as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That's all for now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: These changes look great! Happy to Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa
[edit]This looks interesting. I'll try to find the time to review it in the next few days. As an initial comment, "what was now Nazi Germany" in the WP:LEAD would make more sense to me as "what was by then Nazi Germany". TompaDompa (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- General comments
- There are quite a few places where I think the article would benefit from being more clear and explicit about the geography and geopolitics. Those conditions, especially during the pre-World War I period, will only become more unfamiliar to readers as time goes on, so I think it important to future-proof the article, as it were. I've made a number of specific comments about this below.
- Lead
"the development of atomic bombs during World War II, and subsequently other nuclear weapons" – atomic bomb is a redirect to nuclear weapon, so this is in effect the same link twice in close succession.- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Early years
"Meitner was born Elise Meitner [...]" – any particular reason to not just write "Elise Meitner was born [...]"? That's the usual approach."Her father was a confirmed freethinker" – "confirmed"?- Deleted "confirmed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Education
"Meitner's earliest research began at age eight, when she kept a notebook of her records underneath her pillow." – I can't say I quite understand what this is saying.- That she was interested in science at an early age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but what is meant by "a notebook of her records" (and how it relates to research) is not clear to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Re-worded to make the point clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but what is meant by "a notebook of her records" (and how it relates to research) is not clear to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- That she was interested in science at an early age. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"She completed her final year of school in 1892 [...] In 1899, Meitner began taking private lessons with two other young women, cramming the missing eight years of secondary education into just two." – eight missing years?- Yes, it was not that much. Deleted "eight". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"an article on optics by Lord Rayleigh that detailed an experiment that produced results that Rayleigh had been unable to explain" – a bit choppy with three instances of "that" so close together, but this is really a nitpick.- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Friedrich Wilhelm University
Max Planck and Beta particle are both linked twice in this section, and both isotope and isotopes (the latter a redirect to the former) appear.- Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner went to the Friedrich Wilhelm University" – here we should probably state where this was located geographically. She moved to a different country, after all.- Added "in Berlin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Planck invited her to his home, and allowed her to attend his lectures, which was an unusual gesture by Planck, who was on record as opposing the admission of women to universities in general, but he was willing to admit that there was the occasional exception; apparently he recognised Meitner as one of the exceptions." – this sentence does not "flow" particularly well and could probably be improved by copyediting (possibly by splitting the sentence).- Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"She became friends with Planck's twin daughters Emma and Grete" – I might indicate something about their age here. Easiest would probably be to state the year they were born.- In 1889. Added this. Both died in childbirth, Grete in 1917 and Emma in 1919. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"(In fact, they were isotopes of known elements, but the concept of an isotope, along with the term, was only propounded by Frederick Soddy in 1913.)" – entire sentences in parentheses is rarely the best approach, and I don't think this is one of the exceptions.- Moved to a footnote Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "propounded" is a conspicuously unusual word. Plainer language such as "put forth" would be better.
- I think "propounded" works better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "she noted his informal and approachable manner" – is "noted" the right/best word to use here?
- I think so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists, including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." – this is really minor tinkering, but I think this would be better if the second comma were replaced with "stronger" stronger punctuation (I would suggest an em dash).- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists—including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "In Montreal, Hahn had become accustomed to collaboration with physicists—including at least one woman, Harriet Brooks." TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Women were not yet admitted to universities in Prussia." – Germany (or the German Empire) has not yet been mentioned. Considering that, I would gloss this as "the German state of Prussia".- Prussia didn't become a state until 1918. At the time it was the Kingdom of Prussia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but whether the states of the German Empire were called Kingdoms, Duchies, or something else, the salient point is that they were constituent parts of the overarching German polity, which was what I was going for here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, my German gets in the way here. Made this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is now "the German state of Kingdom of Prussia", which should probably either be "[...] of Prussia" of "[...] of the Kingdom of Prussia". TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Added missing adjective. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is now "the German state of Kingdom of Prussia", which should probably either be "[...] of Prussia" of "[...] of the Kingdom of Prussia". TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, my German gets in the way here. Made this point. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but whether the states of the German Empire were called Kingdoms, Duchies, or something else, the salient point is that they were constituent parts of the overarching German polity, which was what I was going for here. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Prussia didn't become a state until 1918. At the time it was the Kingdom of Prussia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"radioactive recoil, in which a daughter nucleus is forcefully ejected from its matrix as it recoils at the moment of decay" – this is rather technical. In order to make it more accessible, I would link daughter nucleus and provide either an appropriate link for "matrix" or explain it in some other way.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Meitner was particularly interested in beta radiation. By this time, they were known to be electrons." – I'm guessing "they" here is a result of the preceding sentence previously using "beta particles", but it doesn't work with "beta radiation", and using "radiation" rather than "particles" is the right call.
- Changed to "beta particles" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry
"the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) for Chemistry" – again, it would probably be a good idea to indicate the geographical location for this.- Added "in Berlin". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner received an attractive offer of an academic position in Prague" – I would try to find some way to note that Prague was then part of Austria-Hungary (the significance being that she would have left Germany for her home country if she had accepted the offer).- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Fischer arranged for her salary to be doubled to 3,000 marks" – is there any particular reason her previous salary did not get a mention prior to this point? The paragraph does note that she held "the same rank as Hahn (although her salary was still less)".- It was raised over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see. TompaDompa (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was raised over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- World War I and the discovery of protactinium
Actinium being element 89 is rather important context that is missing here.- "the search for the mother isotope of actinium. According to the radioactive displacement law of Fajans and Soddy, this had to be an isotope of the undiscovered element 91" – I'm confused. They knew about beta decay, and the article has already stated that Hahn and Meitner made money off of radium-228 ("mesothorium"), which beta decays to actinium (as do other isotopes of radium, for that matter). Why did they assume the mother isotope had to be an alpha emitter?
- Presumably they detected alpha radiation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "However, the isotope they had found was a beta emitter, and therefore could not be the mother isotope of actinium." – I understand why beta decay of element 91 cannot produce element 89, but I don't think this is clear to the average reader.
"In 1914 Hahn and Meitner developed a new technique for separating the tantalum group from pitchblende, which they hoped would speed the isolation of the new isotope." – this is jumping back in time a bit, so I would say that they had done so.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"not only Hahn but most of the students, laboratory assistants and technicians had been called up" – I gather this is "called up" in the sense of "summoned to serve in the armed forces" as opposed to "personally selected (for some particular purpose more generally)". Maybe I'm an outlier, but I come across this phrase more frequently in the latter sense than in the former, and so think this should be rephrased somewhat to eliminate ambiguity/lack of clarity.- As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is, from what I can gather, rather common in sports. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- As a military historian, I have never seen it used in that sense. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"they devised a series of indicator tests to eliminate other known alpha emitters. The only known ones with similar chemical behaviour were lead-210 (which decays to alpha emitter polonium-210) and thorium-230" – this doesn't quite work. I might suggest replacing the first "alpha emitters" with "sources of alpha [particles/radiation]". I would also add "via bismuth-210" to the parenthetical statement.- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The connection to uranium remained a mystery, as neither of the known isotopes of uranium decayed into protactinium." – I don't think it's clear why a connection to uranium should be expected in the first place?
I might also note which those known isotopes of uranium were. "the mother isotope, uranium-235" – technically uranium-235 is the grandmother isotope of protactinium(-231), no?- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"uranium-235, was discovered in 1929" – according to the linked article, it was discovered in 1935. Which is wrong?- The source says it was in 1929. The linked article has no sources, but I found Dempster's 1935 Nature article. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Beta radiation
- "At a conference in 1937, Meitner shares the front row with (left to right) Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Otto Stern and Rudolf Ladenburg; Hilde Levi is the only other woman in the room." – there are seven people in the front row, so one name is missing. Who is sitting closest to the camera? I would also add indicate Levi's position in the room in the caption.
- The image does not identify him. Tweaked caption. I would have thought Levi stood out, but she is at the back next to Mark Oliphant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...] Otto Stern, an unidentified man and Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...] Otto Stern, Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen some cases where Meitner is described as the only woman in the room. And [34], for example, deliberately crops the image so she is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you have identified the man as "J. C. G. Jacobsen". I'm guessing that is the physicist Jacob Christian Georg Jacobsen (1895–1965; Wikidata Q95348157)? If so, I might add a WP:REDLINK as the entry in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon seems to indicate that he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 ("The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."). TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Identified him from the Niels Bohr Archive. I believe he meets WP:ANYBIO but he doesn't have an entry even on the Danish language Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I see you have identified the man as "J. C. G. Jacobsen". I'm guessing that is the physicist Jacob Christian Georg Jacobsen (1895–1965; Wikidata Q95348157)? If so, I might add a WP:REDLINK as the entry in Dansk Biografisk Leksikon seems to indicate that he meets WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 ("The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)."). TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have seen some cases where Meitner is described as the only woman in the room. And [34], for example, deliberately crops the image so she is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The unidentified man is the one at the very end (if nothing else, our article on Rudolf Ladenburg uses a cropped version of this very image, showing the man sitting next to Meitner), right? In that case, the current "[...] Otto Stern, an unidentified man and Rudolf Ladenburg" should be ""[...] Otto Stern, Rudolf Ladenburg, and an unidentified man".Levi stands out okay in the full-size image, but not so much in miniature versions that one may see on this article under typical viewing conditions (screen size and resolution, and so on). I also think it says something that Meitner is in the front row while Levi is furthest back, and that the caption should note this. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The image does not identify him. Tweaked caption. I would have thought Levi stood out, but she is at the back next to Mark Oliphant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner was so stunned by this result" – it is not clear from this whether she was stunned that it appeared to match or that it didn't quite match.- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"It appeared that the law of conservation of energy did not hold for beta decay" – it is not obvious how this conclusion follows from what was stated before.- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right? TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but it is the implication of this that bothered the physicists. Quantum theory hold that the electrons can only have discrete energy states. How then can they not have when ejected? (As an aside: Chadwick conducted this experiment while in an internment camp with a home-made Geiger counter and a tube of toothpaste.) Here, Meitner shows her tenacity as a physicist. This has important results later. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it works now, assuming I have understood it correctly—the difference between the spectrum's measured energy and the disintegration energy was viewed as a real difference (as opposed to being within the expected margin of error for the setup), meaning there was an unexplained "loss" of energy. Did I get that right? TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nazi Germany
"the largest party in the Reichstag (Weimar Republic)" – stray parenthetical disambiguator.- Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Meitner published exclusively in Naturwissenschaften" – should probably clarify that this is a journal.- Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Transmutation
"Irène Curie and Frédéric Joliot irradiated aluminium foil with alpha particles, and found that this results in a short-lived radioactive isotope of phosphorus. They noted that positron emission continued after the neutron emissions ceased." – neutron emissions? Not alpha particle bombardment? It would make perfect sense to me if positron emission continuing after the alpha irradiation ceased was viewed as evidence of radioactivity (as opposed to the bombardment "knocking loose" positrons directly or something), but I can't quite figure out the text as it is, which is why I'm suspecting an error of some kind (or maybe I'm just bad at nuclear physics).- You are correct. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Escape from Germany
"On 1 August she took the train to Stockholm, where she was met at Göteborg station by Eva von Bahr." – this phrasing makes it sound like she was met by von Bahr at Göteborg station in Stockholm, which is of course nonsensical. Did she take the Stockholm-bound train and disembark at Göteborg? Or did she take the train to Stockholm and was joined from Göteborg by von Bahr? The former sounds much more likely as Kungälv, where they went next, is much closer to Göteborg than to Stockholm.- The former. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"on 9 November" – WP:EASTEREGG.- removed link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"the results of the experiments, particularly the supposed discovery of isomers of radium" – the what now? Unless I've missed something major, this has not been mentioned previously.- More details in the main article. Alluded to above in the final paragraph on transmutation. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nuclear fission
- "Hahn and Strassmann isolated the three radium isotopes" – as above: which? Also, is "isotopes" here and "isomers" in the preceding section correct, or should they match?
- Isotopes is correct here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"the liquid-drop model of the nucleus" – at present, this is a WP:REDLINK. That's not necessarily a problem, but I note that liquid-drop model redirects to semi-empirical mass formula, so you want to tweak the link or create a redirect (or not—redlinks are fine).- Corrected the link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Hahn had mistakenly believed that the atomic masses had to add up to 239 rather than the atomic numbers adding up to 92, and thought it was masurium (technetium), and so did not check for it: 235
92U + n →
56Ba +
36Kr + some n" – surely that should be uranium-238 on the left-hand side rather than uranium-235, if the atomic mass should add up to be 239?- Tweaked the formula by removing "235". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Nobel Prize for nuclear fission
- I don't think this heading really works. It sticks out a bit from the other (which it wouldn't if it were plain "Nobel Prize"), but more importantly it belies that Meitner did not receive the Nobel Prize. I don't have any good alternative suggestion right now, however.
- Changed to "Nobel Prize"
"On 15 November 1945, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced that Hahn had been awarded the 1944 Nobel Prize in Chemistry" – this looks like an error, but it isn't one. I would definitely add an explanatory footnote about the one-year delay."The five-member physics committee included Manne Siegbahn, his former student Erik Hulthén, the professor of experimental physics at Uppsala University, and Axel Lindh, who eventually succeeded Hulthén." – if that's three people, the first and third commas need to be semicolons.- Added sme-colons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner" – that their relationship was poor came as news to me, as there was not really anything obvious above to suggest so—or did I miss it?
- It is the first mention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"The poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner was a factor here, as was the bias towards experimental rather than theoretical physics (a bias that did not help Chien-Shiung Wu when she was omitted from the Nobel Prize for her experimental work and the prize awarded to two men for their theoretical work)." - this borders on snide. The intended meaning is clearly that the exclusion was due to bias against women, the implicit (but unsubtle) argument being that even a bias in favour of a particular subfield was later not enough for a woman to be awarded. If the accusation of gender bias is attributable to appropriate sources, make it explicitly and attribute it to those sources. If it is not, remove the implicit one. If the mention of Chien-Shiung Wu being omitted from the Nobel Prize is retained, the year should be given.- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Hahn's receipt of a Nobel Prize was long expected." – the word "receipt" stands out to me as I almost never encounter it in any other sense than, well, receipt. I would suggest rephrasing here.- Tightened text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- This section feels quite a bit like it was written to be later in the article than it currently is, beginning with "Despite the many honours that Meitner received in her lifetime" (as though referring back to the "Awards and honours" section), discussing the poor relationship between Siegbahn and Meitner (which is mentioned in the following section, "Later life", even if only briefly), and just generally covering events that happened at a later point in time than the first couple of paragraphs of the following section. This is, I think, a rather serious issue with the structure of the article at present. My suggestion would be to remove this section, add the Nobel Prize stuff in its proper chronological place in the following section in a "just the facts" manner, and move the analysis of the Nobel Prize stuff to the last section (which could optionally be renamed "Legacy" or something).
- Changed as suggested. (But it was never intended to be later in the article.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Later life
"Jutz's boss, Gottfried Bermann had escaped to Sweden" – zero or two commas would work. One does not.- Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Her sister Gisela and brother-in-law Karl Lion moved to England, Meitner also considered moving to Britain." – a comma is not the right punctuation here.- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Siegbahn's obstruction of Meitner's Nobel Prize" – the description of this turn of events earlier in the article does not really seem to fit the term "obstruction".- Reworded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- "The intention was that Meitner would have the salary and title of a "research professor"—one without teaching duties." – does the source say anything about whether having or not having teaching duties would be seen as preferable here?
- I thought all professors aspired to not teach. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"The professorship fell through when the Minister for Education, Tage Erlander, unexpectedly became the Prime Minister of Sweden" – I would state the year.- "she applied magic numbers to nuclear fission" – I daresay both the meaning and significance of this will be unclear to most readers.
- They can read the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Awards and honours
Marie Curie, German Physical Society, and Free University of Berlin are all linked twice in this section.- Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"Four years later she was elected a Foreign Member of the Royal Society." – something of an WP:EASTEREGG.- Altered link Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
"In 2000, the European Physical Society established the biannual "Lise Meitner Prize"" – there exists a Lise Meitner Prize article, and going by that article it should be "biennial" rather than "biannual".- Changed as suggested, linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- The list of items named after Meitner appears to largely be cited to sources on the items themselves, rather than sources on Meitner or sources on items named after Meitner. This is not ideal from a WP:PROPORTION perspective. How is the relative importance of the different items (compared to each other) assessed to make sure the weight is due? Likewise, how is the relative importance of this aspect of the overall topic (Lise Meitner) compared to other aspects assessed to make sure the weight is due? From a WP:PROPORTION perspective, this is the equivalent of the much-maligned (and now deprecated) practice of sourcing "In popular culture" sections to primary sources.
- Each source is authoritative, and details that the item was named after Lise Meitner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- Were my point about whether the information is correct/verifiable, that would be sufficient. But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is about whether the information is WP:DUE, or more specifically WP:PROPORTIONAL. TompaDompa (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Each source is authoritative, and details that the item was named after Lise Meitner. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Ping Hawkeye7. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Hawkeye7, my comments:
- Provide a translation from German for her thesis in the infobox, as done in the body?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Could we add Phillip Meitner in the infobox?
- Link to freethinker (freethought)?
- Isn't the 1906 portrait of Meitner creating a WP:SANDWICH with the infobox? Consider moving it down a little?
- Moved image down. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Gloss Matura in one or two words per NOFORCELINK?
- Link to Maxwell Formula (probably Maxwell's equations)?
- Is the link to Montreal necessary?
- deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and settled as radioactive dust": "had settled"?
- Don't see the need, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to Austrian Army (Imperial-Royal Landwehr)?
- That would be incorrect. Hahn served in the Prussian Landwehr. He was German; Meitner was Austrian. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to tantalum?
- Link to radium-226?
- "proposed of the nucleus": remove the "proposed"?
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Link to technetium?
- Link to Geiger counter?
- Link to George de Hevesy?
- Link to American Physical Society and Physics Today?
- Link to Oskar Klein?
- Link to Erwin Schrödinger?
- Link to Max Perutz?
- Provide translated titles and journal names for refs #16, #18, #42, #55, #146, Stolz 1989?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provide an archive url for ref #168?
- Not possible, I'm afraid. Substituted a new reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Provide a link for ref #136?
- Don't have one. switched to another source.
- In the biblio, link to Nicholas Dawidoff, Willy Ley?
- Provide publication locations for Sexl and Hardy 2002, Stolz 1989?
- Provided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Why have we not used the sources in the Further Reading section in the article? If they don't have anything unique, I would suggest removing them; if they do, then you can always include them in the biblio and cite them.
A fine article overall, only the source formatting seems to be a bit off. Matarisvan (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Edwininlondon
[edit]I'm pleased to see an article about a female scientist here, thank you for such an excellent effort. With the caveat that I am not a native speaker, here are some comments. Feel free to ignore.
- The repetition of her name in bold is not great. I know of no specific guideline but in earlier FAs I have applied the use of " to introduce the commonly used first name. For example Nancy Sophie Cornélie "Corry" Tendeloo. So could Elise "Lise" Meitner be an option?
- There is a specific guideline. MOS:BOLD: "Boldface is often applied to the first occurrence of the article's title word or phrase in the lead. This is also done at the first occurrence of a term (commonly a synonym in the lead) that redirects to the article or one of its subsections, whether the term appears in the lead or not" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I avoided the construct 'Elise "Lise" Meitner' because that would give the impression that it was a nickname, and it was not. Note that she signed her papers "Dr. Lise Meitner". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- who was one of those responsible for the discovery of the element protactinium and the discovery of nuclear fission --> who was instrumental in the discovery of protactinium and nuclear fission
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- department head at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry there --> can we drop "there"?
- Another editor wanted it clarified that the KWI was in Berlin.
- to be with other family members --> to be with her family members, or, perhaps: to be with family members
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She also adopted the shortened name "Lise" --> is it known when?
- Not known. Her matura was recorded under the name Elise Meitner. "Lise's name also changed slightly from its original Elise. In Berlin such things might have caused a flurry of paperwork; in Vienna it made no difference." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She completed her final year of school --> from reading onwards I gather this is not secondary school. Would it not be better to explicitly say primary school here?
- She went to a high school for girls that went to what in my country would be year 8. This might be consider primary school depending on where the reader is. So it would not be better. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- but women were not allowed to attend public institutions of higher education in Vienna until 1897--> I don't get the "but". And would the list of subjects at school not be better placed with the earlier sentence about final year of school?
- Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- the girls --> at age 23 she is not a girl. And the others were introduced as other young women. So "women" instead of girls
- She was 22, but point taken. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Only four out of fourteen girls --> same thing
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- She was particularly inspired by Boltzmann --> to avoid confusion, perhaps professor Boltzmann
- Changed to "Ludwig Boltzmann". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Examination of a Maxwell Formula" --> "Examination of a Maxwell equation"
- Sure. Pardon my MilHist German. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Thermal Conduction in Inhomogeneous Bodies" --> "Thermal conduction in inhomogeneous bodies"
- Title, so used title case. German conventions are different. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- she went further and made predictions based on her explanation, and then verified them experimentally --> this seems like a notable event that should be described in a bit more detail: what kind of optics issue are we talking about, what did she predict, how did she verify?
- Sources do not say; I have the journal reference, but copies are not available online, or in hard copy outside Germany. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Meitner was introduced by Stefan Meyer--> is it known when?
- In 1906. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This led Ernest Rutherford to predict the nuclear atom. She submitted her findings to the Physikalische Zeitschrift on 29 June 1907. --> From this order I infer that Rutherford made the prediction before her publication, and thus that there was some sort of informal communication between them. Is this the case?
- No; he read her paper. Revered the sentences to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- , and shared her love of music --> because of that comma, I read this with Meitner being the subject of the verb shared. But I guess you meant the twins to be the subject, am I right?
- Yes. Not sure what can be done here; changed to "Meitner's love of music". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- During the first years Meitner worked together with Hahn they co-authored three papers in 1908, and six more in 1909 --> During the first two years Meitner worked together with Hahn, they co-authored nine papers: three in 1908, six in 1909
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- physical separation method known as radioactive recoil --> I assume that is the same as atomic recoil, and thus should be linked, right?
- Yes. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- discovered two more new isotopes --> which ones specifically?
- Sigh. Bismuth-211 and Thalium-207. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- For this more pitchblende was required, and --> For this yet more pitchblende was required, but
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- who independently discovered it in 1923 --> when did Meitner discover it?
- In 1922. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Vor allem steht ihre chemische Verschiedenheit von allen bisher bekannten Elementen außerhalb jeder Diskussion --> I don't think we need the German here
- I would prefer to keep it, so the reder knows that I am not misquoting or misrepresenting Hahn. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- at Manne Siegbahn's new laboratory --> better link label would be at the Manne Siegbahn Laboratory
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- amiable --> not sure I would use this. I'm sure Sigvard was amiable, but we might need quite a few sources first before we can say this
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- reached a similar conclusion --> similar to what? + state when he said this
- Moved this paragraph back where it belonged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I find it remarkable that Meitner lived so long and did not seem to have suffered any radiation damage. She must have been really careful from the beginning. This is just a thought, no need to act on it.
- Ditto for Otto Hahn, who also made it to age 89. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
That's all I have on prose. I will look at other aspects later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
More:
- Caption reads "Pressure from historians, scientists and feminists caused the museum" ... which museum?
- Deutsches Museum. Added. With link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Notes section:
- ref 4, 9, 25, 39, 73, 75, 78, 96, 98, 110, 111, 153 all need a specific page number or pp
- ref 39: the title is April 1915: Five ...
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent formatting: sometimes the journal article authors are of "Hahn, O." format, and sometimes "O., Hahn". Check all and make uniform
- Checked and corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- inconsistent naming: Free University of Berlin vs Freie Universität Berlin
- http://www.amacad.org/publications/BookofMembers/ChapterM.pdf seems to be a dead link
- Works for me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- ref 56 does a) not support the claim, and b) not seem to be a high quality source, since I seem to be able to edit the content just by signing in
- Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- perhaps it would be wise to archive some of the web pages used (Max Planck, Free University of Berlin
- A bot will come through. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
References section:
- Frisch, O. R. (1970): all the other authors have their first name spelled out, plus the source itself also has Otto Robert instead of O. R.
- Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I did a few spotchecks and all checked out fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support: I believe this fine article meets the FA standard. Thanks again for all your work. Edwininlondon (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
John
[edit]"On 1 August she took the train to Göteborg station in Sweden." I don't think it was possible to do this journey by train in the 1940s. Was it? John (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- From Copenhagen to Stockholm? In 1938? Sure. It became difficult after Denmark was invaded in April 1940. (example ticket) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure the Øresund would have been in the way, which was not bridged until 2000. I imagine some kind of ferry or boat train must have been involved in 1938. It sounds funny if you know the geography to just say "took the train". What do the sources say? John (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
On 1 August, she left for Sweden. Again the trip was beautiful. Eva von Bahr-Bergius was waiting for her at the Göteborg station. Together they continued by train and then steamer to Eva's home in Kungälv, a small town on the west coast where Lise planned to stay until September.
- There was a train ferry when I made the trip in 1998. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- According to the regional administrative board of Skåne train ferry service opened between Elsinore and Helsingborg in 1892, and between Copenhagen and Malmö in 1895. Draken Bowser (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, are you happy with my edits so far? John (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with me. I note that another editor wanted it clarified that Berlin is in Germany and Stockholm in Sweden. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about calling her "Jewish Austrian" in the lead. Could we say "Austrian Jewish"? John (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I trimmed the "Jewish" from the lead sentence. Her Jewishness was only defintionally important to the Nazis. She was a scientist, not a religious figure. We find out about her ethnicity and the trouble it caused her in her life, but I do not think it is needed in the first sentence. Happy to discuss, of course.John (talk)
- Sure. Meitner's problem was sexism, not racism, up until the Nazis came on the scene. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Support. Thanks for your work on this fine article. John (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Well, this is a high-profile topic if there ever was one. Keeping my usual caveat about not being familiar with the topic in mind, I wonder if there is any dedicated discussion to the conflict with the Nazis. It seems like we are using mostly academic publications and major publishers. What makes http://www.orlandoleibovitz.com/Lise_Meitner_and_Nuclear_Fission.html a reliable source? #112, should that give Nobel Prize rather than www.nobelprize.org? Especially since #113 does. Bit inconsistent with retrieval dates - #118 doesn't have one but #145 does? I wonder why only one German biography is used. What is the logic between placing some publications into Further Reading? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hawkeye7 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed www.orlandoleibovitz.com. Changed #112. Added date to #118.
- More than one German biography was actually used, but WP:NONENG: English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance.
- Further reading: in the case of this article, the Further reading section dates back to 2005 and is actually older than the text of the article. It seems that readers proposed these sources but none of the works was ever used as a source. I do not remove material without a good reason. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Mm, in this case I wonder if some of these Further Reading could be used as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The first edition of the Tour de France Femmes (a cycling race) – held in 2022 after years of campaigning for a women's Tour de France race.
This is a second attempt (nominated before, and I didn't get to fixing things in time – these have now been resolved). The article is a GA and has been through the WP:GOCE process. Wish me luck! Turini2 (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some polite pings - @AirshipJungleman29 who took part in the first review, and @Reidgreg who did the very excellent job of copyediting the article! Turini2 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does anyone else have comments on this? Ready and waiting to make any required edits or answer queries that people have. :) Turini2 (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Reidgreg
[edit]As noted above, I copyedited the article in Nov 2023 (copyedited version) and may be biased toward that version.
- I'm still not a fan of the wide infobox; the map is not terribly legible, so I'm not sure the point of having it take up that much room.
- I feel that the five-paragraph lead could probably be consolidated to two or three paragraphs for an article of this size. My copyedit version handled it after the lead paragraph as a results-oriented summary, putting the winners first as that's the most important result; I can see from the previous FAC review that some other editors prefer a chronological summary of the race. Can't say that I agree, but in any case it should be simpler and more concise.
The race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.
If it can be confirmed to have happened, use past tense.and not being hard enough for the professional peloton
Not being difficult enough or challenging enough.pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi day stage race, with former cyclist & commentator
multi-stage, cyclist and commentator.- As a matter of completeness, should there be a brief mention of how this race affected the second and third editions of the race?
That's it for now. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tweaks made. I also prefer your version of the lead – I expanded it slightly to accommodate the request for a chronological telling of the race following the last FAC review. In terms of the infobox, it's following the pattern of other Tour de France articles (e.g. FA 2012 Tour de France). Thanks for your help! Turini2 (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- As per the below, the lead now has three paragraphs - an introduction, 1st/2nd/3rd in general classification, and the winners of the other classifications. Turini2 (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, do you have any further comments or thoughts on this article. Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Gog the Mild
[edit]Recusing to review.
- The lead is IMO a little long in proportion to the article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
- "French rider Jeannie Longo won the 1987, 1988 and 1989 editions of the race, gaining fame in the process". This seems a little random. A factoid about one rider dropped into the history of the race.
- Would I be correct in assuming that no women's race took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, nor 2013? If so, perhaps this could be stated.
- "with sponsors welcoming the visibility of the Champs-Élysées". How is this relevant to the article?
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead, I have struggled with including all relevant information requested while keeping the length. Pointers welcome!
- The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
- Have rewritten the lead, now much shorter.
- The lead is not supposed to include all relevant information, it is intended to briefly summarise the article. I have put a draft of a slimmed down version on the talk page. See what you think. Note that it is not normal to include citations in the lead. (Nor the infobox.) As a summary, anything in the lead will be covered more fully in the main article, where it will be cited in more detail.
- Jeannie Longo is a reasonably famous sportswoman, particularly in France - happy to remove, but thought a useful (and referenced) historical tidbit.
- Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
- Removed.
- Almost the definition of things not to include. Either expand the mention to explain why and how Longo particularly influenced the development of the Tour de France Femmes - assuming she did - or take it out.
- Realistically, the last "Tour de France Féminin" was in 1989 - the organisers of the men's race didn't allow them to use their trademark. Hence the "although the name of the event changed several times" phrasing. There were other ersatz women's races that tried to be a ""Tour de France Féminin" - e.g. La Route de France. It's complicated!
- That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
- Have rephrased and reworded, to make clearer.
- That's why we FAC nominators get the big bucks! (Try explaining 3rd century BC naval tactics.) from whenever you start, if there was some sort of proto-TdFF you need to mention briefly it, if there wasn't you need to say so, if it was complicated you need to briefly explain the nature of the complication. What you do, you have done well, but what seem to be gaps stand out.
- Women's cycling historically has not been on live TV or well supported commercially - sources back up that sponsors of teams were very happy to be "sharing the stage" with the Tour de France. Again, happy to remove or rephrase.
- I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
- Have reworded, and added a slight bit to the background.
- I meant that thee and me might understand the connection between the TdF and the visibility of the Champs-Élysées, but a non-aficionado will have no idea what you are talking about. And as an encyclopedia we are supposed to be explaining things for a general audience.
- Turini2 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- "and not being challenging enough for the professional peloton". What is "the professional peloton"? And why "the" and not 'a'?
- Piped to clarify
- "Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve into a multi-stage race, cyclist & commentator Joanna Rowsell stating". The comma should be either a full stop or a semi colon.
- Fixed
- "We need mountain climbs, flat stages, time trials and a Champs-Elysees finish". Reading this made me realise that the article just assumes that the reader is aware of the TdF for men to quite a detailed level. I think you need to explain it somewhere near the start of Background, including what all of these things are and touching on the different jerseys. I assume that you can steal most of this from the TdF article. Having just reread, I am eg unsure from the article whether La Course by Le Tour de France was a stage race or not. Or what a stage is.
- I've added a sentence on what the Tour de France is at the start of Background... I note that FA 2012 Tour de France does not provide this level of background information. Have tweaked things to clarify.
- "Pushing back on criticism". "on" → 'at'.
- Fixed
- Did la Course by Le Tour de France occur in each year from 2013 to 2021?
- Rephrased
- "with Anna van der Breggen stating ... and Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating ..." Who are these two that a reader might care about their opinions? And synonym time, can we avoid two times "stating".
- Clarified
I am going to pause here. I think I have given you a fair bit to think about, come back on and/or get on with and I would like to get this foundation stage of the article sorted before moving on to the detail. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild hi - as per above, I've made those edits and redrafted the lead substantially - now 267 words in length (3 paragraphs) rather than 369 words. Turini2 (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- I hope the improvements take it a big step forward! Turini2 (talk) 10:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Right, thanks for that. It is now, IMO, in better shape. However, moving on I feel that we may be getting into something akin to a fix loop. For example
- 'The overall length of the event was met with agreement, with some teams noting that they do not "yet have the staff or numbers ... for a three-week event." ' As it happens, I know the relevance of "a three-week event", but a passing reader may not and I don't see it explained elsewhere in the article. I feel, as I suspect the nominator does, that this is an important point, in which case it needs explaining.
- There is a section called "Mountain stages", but no explanation of what they are, nor their significance. Similarly re the several mentions of "summit finish".
- "chasing back after a mechanical". I am not sure that "chasing back" will be readily understood. I am sure that "a mechanical" won't. While it is piped, MOS:NOFORCELINK says "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." There are several other examples of a Wikilink being used instead of an in line explanation. (And where, IMO, a reader in unlikely to understand what is meant from context and where understanding the text is important to understanding the article.)
- Given the points above, each of which is an example of a broader point which I am unhappy with, I am currently leaning oppose. Unfortunately, while happy in principle to discuss this and open to changing my mind - there is a lot of good work in the article and it is not that far off FA standard - I am going to be away from any internet connection for most of a week. So apologies for an anticipated slow response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- I consider I have addressed these three points, as well as making some wider edits to clarify things and unknown terms. In terms of your wider point about a fix loop, this is why I had the article copyedited prior to bringing it to FAC. Turini2 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, would you consider these points to be resolved? Thanks! Turini2 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass
[edit]The article uses the following main images:
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022_Tour_de_France_Femmes.svg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2019-10-26_14-54-37_planche-des-belles-filles.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jumbo_tour_de_france_reims_1408748.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-36-56_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_17-20-13_TDFF-Plancher-les-Mines.jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-31_-_TDF_Femmes_-_Lure_-_302_(cropped).jpg
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2022-07-30_16-38-12_TDFF-Willer-sur-Thur_(cropped).jpg
They are all own works from wikimedia users and all licensed under Creative Commons. All images are relevant to the article. The image "2019-10-26 14-54-37 planche-des-belles-filles.jpg" lacks an alt text but the others have alt texts. All images have captions. The caption The final stage of the race finished at the hors catégorie (English: beyond category) La Super Planche des Belles Filles climb needs to end with a period as it is a full sentence. I suggest removing the expression "the hors catégorie (English: beyond category)" because readers may not be familiar with this technical term, the translation in parenthesis is not helpful, and the information is not essential to understand the image. The caption Large crowds greeted the Tour also needs to end with a period. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Amended and fixed, thanks! Turini2 (talk) 10:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good, the article passes the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]At four weeks in, the article has failed to progress towards a consensus to promote. Unless there is a significant change in the next few days it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- How do I encourage more people to engage with this article? I've been pretty on the ball here and responded to changes requested? Turini2 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- SC
A marker for now. I'll be along shortly for a review. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support This is a decent article - nothing here that would stop it being an FA as far as I am concerned. I think you've done well in explaining the technical side in most places (I know nothing about cycling except that it's a damned uncomfortable for of transportation, but I still managed to understand it).Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
[edit]Hello! Some initial comments after a read-through (disclaimer: I have no real knowledge of cycling)!
The early breakaway was caught in the closing kilometres, with the stage win determined by a bunch sprint.
- I agree with Gog the Mild above in that there are several cases where I can guess at the meanings of terms but am not certain of them. Both "breakaway" and "bunch sprint" are not perfectly clear to me. "Bunch sprint" could use a link to the glossary and both could use a very brief explanation.On the Petit Ballon, with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, van Vleuten broke away from the peloton
- Suggest changing to (and linking) Col du Petit Ballon, or Petit Ballon if the sentence is referring to the mountain itself instead of the pass.A kilometre (0.6 mi) from the top of the Col du Platzerwasel
- Suggest linking to Col du Platzerwasel.Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace.
- Suggest linking to Col du Ballon d'Alsace.van Vleuten suffered a mechanical
- Gog the Mild is correct above in that I wasn't quite sure what "a mechanical" referred to until I saw the link to it. I think this is worth instead calling "an issue with her bike", or even specifying what the issue was if there's coverage of it....Women's WorldTour races have a maximum stage length of 160 kilometres ... the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar...
- Are these two instances of "WorldTour" referring to the UCI Women's World Tour? If so, is there a reason they are spelled differently?
Overall, I think my impressions are very close to that of Gog. It's a very good article and it's close to fulfilling FAC criteria! But it does read like an aficionado of the sport wrote it and so it suffers from a little bit of jargon. — Penitentes (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks very much – I've made most of these amendments.
- Clarified wording in a few spots and rephrased.
- Added links to climbs. Sources refer to them as Ballon d'Alsace and Petit Ballon (not Col), so I've left that wording w while linking them. Interestingly, I had considered adding links to them previously – but considered it to be MOS:OVERLINK !
- Mechanical – sources usually specify what the issue is (i.e. a broken part of the bike, a puncture etc) but in this case, I can't find what the issue was – even in a specific article about the incident! I've amended to "an issue with her bike" as suggested.
- Sources (and the governing body Union Cycliste Internationale) have WorldTour without a space, so I've followed their example. Unsure why the wikipedia article name differs!
- Turini2 (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, good changes all! Assuming the source concerns below (incl. spotchecks) get addressed I will be a support. — Penitentes (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- CyclingWeekly is a work title and should be italicized, and be consistent in whether it's presented as CyclingWeekly or cyclingweekly.com. Ditto letourfemmes.fr vs Tour de France Femmes, Cycling News vs cyclingnews.com... check throughout
- Fixed
- Check wikilinking as well - eg you've got a wikilink on Tour de France Femmes in FN82 but not FN1. Why is there a publisher included in FN1 and not FN2? On 80 and not 81? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Be consistent in whether "The" is included for publication titles that use it, and if so whether it is capitalized
- Fixed
- Why The New York Times but just Washington Post? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed
- Be consistent in whether you include ISSN - for example FNs 60 and 75 are to the same publication but only one includes it
- Fixed.
- FN5 is missing author. Ditto FN16, check throughout
- Fixed and checked.
- FN6 is dead
- No thanks to the Washington Post not allowing archiving of their old posts! Found a fixed link, and changed citation to News.
- Be consistent in whether author names are presented first or last name first
- One author name replaced with first/last.
- FNs 12 and 13 are the same work. Dittos FNs 31 and 32 - check throughout
- In both cases, one citation is supporting a quote, and the other citation is supporting a wider sentence/paragraph. Believe this is correct approach?
- Not sure I follow what you're saying here - why do you need different citations to the same source, rather than calling the same citation multiple times as you do elsewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because I specifically want to include a quote in the citation? The quote then does not support the wider sentence/paragraph, so I've used the same source for a different citation. Another example would be FN71 and FN77 - same source, two separate quotes to support two separate bits. Turini2 (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fn14: title doesn't match current source and archive link is non-functional
- Fixed
- FN16 title also doesn't match source - check throughout
- I blame the autofill visual editor citations! Also fixed.
- If that's the problem, it looks to be a broader one - eg FN46 has the same issue. Suggest checking the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- These have all been checked and fixed. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Stopping there and oppose for the moment - lots of cleaning up needed for consistency and functionality of citations. Happy to revisit once that's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Edits and fixes made - I believe that's everything checked and resolved! Turini2 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria Resolved! Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Checked and fixed - what happens when you reinsert a footnote!Turini2 (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like some of the responses haven't yet been addressed - for example, publisher in FN1 vs no publisher in FN2 is still the case, and there's no response on it above? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I will do that - thanks for the heads up! @Nikkimaria, would you consider this resolved? Turini2 (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Turini2, if you would like Nikkimaria to have another look, you will need to ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quote marks nested within quote marks should use single quotes
- Wikilinking is still inconsistent - eg you've got Cycling Weekly linked in FN 33 but not 5 or 34. You can do all, none, or first, but not random.
- Fn71 has reversed author too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have referenced the first of all references (unless they have no article about said publication), and removed all other wikilinks. Reversed author fixed. Did not know about MOS:QWQ, also resolved! Turini2 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Edwininlondon
[edit]As today the 2024 race kicks off, I will try to find time to review. My comments for the lead:
- avec Zwift --> this only appears in the lead. Should also be in the body somewhere. With source.
- took place from 24 to 31 July 2022 --> that 2022 is redundant. Already used at the start of the sentence
- the first sentence should say that it was a cycling race for female professionals
- I don't get what footnote a adds. Is this somehow controversial?
- media coverage, and was highly praised by the public, media, teams and riders --> why an Oxford comma after coverage, but not after teams?
- polka-dot jersey or polka dot jersey?
- so we have yellow jersey and GC link to the same place, which I think is fine, but then we should link polka dot and green and white jerseys as well. But then we end up with a sea of blue links. This would argue for not linking the yellow jersey.
- which brings me to the jerseys: the white one is explained well, but the others not very well. Queen of the mountain needs to be explained, points classification needs to be explained, and the general classification is such a misleading name (suggests some sort of average) that it needs to mention fastests time.
More to come later. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Majority have been resolved.
- in terms of the footnote, there were previous "women's Tour de France" races - called things like Tour de France Féminin. The footnote clarifies that the race is the first of the Tour de France Femmes races, as well as responding to a talk page comment. The first women's Tour de France took place in 1955, for example!
- In terms of the jerseys, it's already substantially more detailed than featured article 2012 Tour de France - and I don't want the lead to become longer, given previous feedback. Expanded a little in the race overview.
- Turini2 (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that FA 2012 Tour de France as a reference. That helps.
- I don't think a footnote is the right mechanism for explaining previous versions. This should be more prominent. I would take the first paragraph from Grande Boucle Féminine Internationale, condense it a bit, and place it as the 2nd sentence. And then reposition the "followed years of campaigning" to connect it.
- held primarily in France, first held --> that duplication of held is not particularly elegant
- Since the mid-1980s --> I don't get why the ones prior to the 1980s are not mentioned
- using the Tour de France Féminin name from 1984 to 1989 --> other names should be listed as well
- sexism and trademark issues --> sexism, and trademark issues
- pushing for a women's Tour de France --> pushing for a revival of the women's Tour de France. Or a fully equivalent women's TdF. Or something distinguishable
- The one-day stage race would take place prior to the final stage of the men's race in Paris.[12] Between 2014 and 2021, La Course took place in a variety of locations across France in conjunction with the men's race --> this confused me. The "would take place" suggests to me that that was the plan, but actually did not happen. Then the location: first it is Paris and then it's all over France. Then the timing: first it is prior to final stage, then it is in conjunction.
- 'sharing the stage' --> why the ' and not "? Or no quotes at all?
- welcoming the live TV coverage and visibility of taking place alongside the men's race --> not sure about visibility of taking place. Let's assume it was held in January. It would still be visible.
- However, La Course was criticised --> by whom? and when, given that initially there was praise
- Riders and campaigners pushed for La Course to evolve --> when?
- mean that a men's and women's Tour de France would not be able to be staged simultaneously --> but no one seemed to have argued for that, so that would not be pushing back
- Dutch rider Anna van der Breggen stating --> that's 3 times the verb to state in short succession
- Cecilie Uttrup Ludwig stating --> sorry, 4
- "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France" --> add comma: "it's long been a dream for many of us to compete in a women's Tour de France",
- Zwift had signed a four-year agreement to sponsor the race --> what is missing here is the bit about the official name
- The 24 teams which participated in the race[25] were --> why put the ref 25 mid-sentence?
- selected by Amaury Sport Organisation (ASO), the organisers of the Tour --> we already knew that, so just selected by ASO
- selected by --> is anything known about the selection process? Highest bidder?
- covering a total of 1,033 kilometres --> should this not also be mentioned in the lead? The FA 2012 Tour de France does have distance in the lead
- on the same day as the final stage of the men's tour --> before or after the men's finish? Ah I see that's mentioned later. I would put that here
- Vosges mountains (including the longest, stage 5), and a summit finish on stage 8 at La Super Planche des Belles Filles in the Vosges --> this isn't working for me. That last Vosges thre me, because I thought "stages in the Vosges mountains" already had dealt with that
- including the longest --> repetition including
- as men's Tour de France --> as the men's Tour de France
- as the UCI does not allow women to compete over identical distances as men --> may I suggest to remove this bit and instead add something like "whereas the maxima for men are x km and y days" after the paragraph's 1st sentence
- In the stage characteristics table it is odd to show the riders' nationality instead of their teams. This race is really about team tactics, not like the Olympics. I was surprised by this omission, as the lead rightfully listed the team name of the jersey winners rather than their nationality. But I see that 2012 Tour de France does the same. Was it discussed there? Or also overlooked?
- Paris: Tour Eiffel --> Paris: Eiffel Tower
- tipped for the points classification --> tipped for winning the points classification
- The Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> not sure if the classification is the thing being awarded
- The Queen --> perhaps add something like "similar to King of the Mountains in the men's race"
- referencing --> this word choice looks a bit odd to me
- was very positive --> given that there was criticism, I would drop the very
- outsprinted Marianne Vos --> link Marianne Vos
- In the final, Vos --> not sure if it is obvious to non-cycling fans what the final is. I would just avoid and simply use "at the finish"
- to take the yellow and green jerseys --> was this straight on time or was there any bonus time involved?
- Femke Gerritse (Parkhotel Valkenburg) took the lead in the Queen of the Mountains (QoM) classification --> remove (QoM) as this abbreviation was already given. One could question the need for QoM at all, if it is not used
- her to lose a minute and a half --> just to be clear, I'd say finish a minute and a half after the winner. Or whatever the difference
- was the longest of the Women's WorldTour calendar --> was the longest of the 2022 Women's WorldTour calendar
- due to bonuses --> is there no place to link to, explaining this?
- On the descent of the penultimate climb, a small group including Wiebes and Lotte Kopecky (SD Worx) crashed on the descent, --> that's descent twice
- with everyone involved finishing the stage --> but everyone involved ultimately finished the stage
- A group of fourteen riders that --> who instead of that?
- had gained time ahead of the peloton in a breakaway --> "who had been ahead of the peloton"
- by a large group of riders in a bunch sprint --> this makes me think earlier sprints were not bunch sprints. Is that true? If not, the term should be introduced earlier.
- for the stage win as the race headed towards the mountains --> by adding "as the race headed towards the mountains" a non-informed reader may wrongly infer that there are some bonuses given to the winner of the last race prior to the mountains
- five category 1 climbs --> is 1 for easy or hard?
- eventual winner of the general classification (GC) --> GC was already introduced and used
- 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) of vertical climbing --> isn't climbing by definition vertical?
- with 86 kilometres (53 mi) remaining, --> for context it would be good to give the length of this stage somewhere
- ensuring that the yellow jersey --> not necessarily. She could have caught up
- following her crash on stage 6 --> Given the position of this in the paragraph, I assume she started but then gave up. Perhaps better to provide some description of causality.
- achieved an impressive stage win --> better to use quotes here, otherwise find more neutral words
- Vollering, who took the polka-dot jersey as leader of the QoM --> this is puzzling: how come van Vleuten did not become QoM, as she seemed to get to the tops first?
- while Katarzyna Niewiadoma --> while Niewiadoma
- rounded out the podium --> not sure the tone is right here, sounds more something a fanzine would write
- Vos continued to hold the green jersey --> a little help for the reader would be good, something like "as only x points were awarded in this stage"
- Stage 8 was the second mountain stage --> given that for stage 7 we got the number of meters of climbing, why not here as well?
- stage of the Tour, --> now we have Tour, but earlier we had tour
- The final climb to La Super Planche des Belles Filles was 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) long with an average gradient of 8.7 percent, with the final --> final duplication
- With 57 kilometres (35 mi) to go, --> again, for context, how long was this stage?
- Van Vleuten rejoined the peloton at the foot of the second climb, the Ballon d'Alsace --> this tells the reader little about how long she was behind for, so some km reference would be good
- attacked from the peloton --> I have never heard this expression
- She passed the remnants of the breakaway --> which breakaway? this was never mentioned
I'll check the last bit as soon as I can. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Edwininlondon - I'll take a look at this today, there are some great clarifying points in here thank you. I will note that some of this detail was previously cut from the article for being too much detail for summary style! Turini2 (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Here is the last batch.
- Why is the results information organised differently from the FA 2012 Tour de France? What that FA does well in Classification leadership and minor prizes is lots of explaining all the classifications and extra info about price money. That FA does nt have reception info, but here I would put that in its own section
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> is there any kind of rule you're applying when you use GC and when general classification?
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) --> feels repetitive to keep saying which team she is in
- In the final general classification, van Vleuten (Movistar Team) won the Tour de France Femmes --> can you really say it like that? How about: In the final general classification, van Vleuten came first
- advantage over Vollering (SD Worx) --> advantage over Vollering
- of almost four minutes while Niewiadoma was third at more than six and a half minutes down --> of almost four minutes, and of more than six and a half minutes over third-placed Niewiadoma
- Vollering won the mountains classification --> this seems to me the best place to use Queen of the Mountains phrase
- while Vos (Team Jumbo–Visma) won --> while Vos won
- and the super-combativity award --> should be explained on what basis
- won the young rider classification --> 2 issues here: 1) the lead explains how this works, so this should be explained here as well 2) the lead mentions the white jersey, so that should be mentioned here as well
- Her rival Vollering considered that they --> who is they referring to?
- fourth-place overall Juliette Labous --> fourth-placed Juliette Labous ?
- Cycling Weekly stating --> stating repitition
- and L'Équipe stating --> and again
- Race director Marion Rousse stated
- with the 2024 edition of the race set to visit the Alps --> on Sunday this likely will have to go pas tense :)
- the column headers in the table Classification leadership by stage should all be links, just like the 2012 FA
- The 2012 FA has links for terms in the Legend table
- Final general classification (11–109) table width is different from 1-10. Looks broken
- + 1 h 00 min 49" --> + 1 h 00 min 49 s
- + 1 h 01 min 01 s --> for me, from here on the text in each row starts wrapping. This could easily be fixed
- in the young rider table, number 8 has a slower time than number 9?
- This is just under half the audience of the men's tour --> I would use past tense and give the 2022 year
- The 2012 FA has a section UCI World Tour rankings: does this not exist for the women?
That's it for now. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): SounderBruce 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
One of the most exciting games in American soccer history, which pitted Hollywood money against a blue-collar underdog, and broke several records (and one leg) in 130+ minutes of action. Most of this article was written in the days before and after the game, but has undergone a fair amount of changes through a GAN last year and a more recent GOCE copyedit. I believe it is my finest match article so far of the four MLS Cup articles I have sent to FAC. SounderBruce 00:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder
[edit]Putting a marker down, I will look at this one when I get a sufficient block of free time (most likely tomorrow evening) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Image review by Generalissima
[edit]- File:LAFC vs Philadelphia Union (2018) by Subashwilfred (20180630233148).jpg CC-BY-SA
- File:Steven cherundolo.jpg CC-BY
- File:Andre Blake - Philadelphia Union (cropped).jpg CC-BY
- File:Jack Elliott (cropped).jpg CC-BY-SA
- File:Los Angeles FC vs Philadelphia Union 2022-11-05.svg is CC-BY-SA
- File:John McCarthy leaps (cropped).jpg - CC-BY-SA
All look good to me. All have appropriate alt-text, are relevant to the article, and are laid out well. Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks like this still needs a source review, so I'll do that this evening! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- "Both clubs finished the regular season atop the Supporters' Shield standings" - pedantically, they can't both have finished atop the standings. Maybe say something like "the two teams tied for the most points in the MLS, but LAFC topped the Supporters' Shield standings based on......" (also at the equivalent point in the body)
- Fixed by mentioning conference tables.
- Soccer is linked in the lead but not in the body
- Fixed.
- "and was contested by 28 teams that are organized into" => "and was contested by 28 teams organized into"
- Fixed.
- "MLS Cup 2022 was the fourth final to be contested between two regular season winners" - "winners" is a bit vague, maybe say "conference champions"....?
- Used "seeds" instead.
- "LAFC took first place in Western Conference during the streak" => "LAFC took first place in the Western Conference during the streak"
- Fixed.
- "By the mid-point in the season in late June" => "By the mid-point of the season in late June"
- Fixed.
- "LAFC had amassed a 11–3–3 record" => "LAFC had amassed an 11–3–3 record"
- Fixed.
- "The Union sent Blake, and defenders" - don't think that comma is needed
- Fixed.
- "who were without forwa rd Talles Magno" - there's a random space in the middle of a word
- Fixed.
- "but instead finished a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense" => "but instead finishing a mis-timed clearance from the NYCFC defense"
- Reworded to be more clear, the sequence was quite chaotic.
- Elliott image caption needs a full stop
- Added.
- "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute they almost used to score" => "LAFC won a free kick from a similar spot in the 39th minute which they almost used to score"
- Fixed with some tweaks.
- "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized through a Diego Palacios cross that Gareth Bale headed in" => "In the 128th minute, LAFC equalized when Gareth Bale headed in a Diego Palacios cross"
- Fixed.
- McCarthy image caption needs a full stop
- Added.
- That's all I got, and it's all pretty minor. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for catching all of those! I have completed fixes for each one of them. SounderBruce 02:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Eem dik doun in toene
[edit]- "(now known as BMO Stadium)" - don't think this is relevant as this name came into use after the final was played. I would either remove this or say "from ... known as BMO Stadium"
- Moved to the Venue section, since it still has some minor relevance.
- Would add "from 2023" instead of "now" since the latter word is a bit vague.
- Changed and cited.
- Would add "from 2023" instead of "now" since the latter word is a bit vague.
- Moved to the Venue section, since it still has some minor relevance.
- "... but LAFC won the Supporters' Shield with the wins tiebreaker." ==> So LAFC won the tiebreaker and were allowed to play the match at their home stadium. Why was/is there no neutral ground to host the final?
- The highest-seeded finalist hosts; the explanation is given at the MLS Cup article and probably doesn't make sense to repeat in the articles for each edition.
- Understood, thanks
- The highest-seeded finalist hosts; the explanation is given at the MLS Cup article and probably doesn't make sense to repeat in the articles for each edition.
- "LAFC also finished as runners-up in the 2020 CONCACAF Champions League but missed the playoffs in 2021" ==> these are different competitions, I therefore think something like "..., and missed..." (or what you prefer) would fit better here than "but".
- Fixed.
- Maybe link words such as goalkeeper (in the body of the article), corner kick and draw (in the body and lede)?
- Added.
- "11–3–3 record" ==> maybe use the template here to explain that this means 11 wins, 3 losses and 3 draws?
- Added.
- "Five minuites later" - typo
- Fixed.
- "equaled the highest-scoring MLS Cup final alongside the 2003 final" ==> who were the teams in 2003 and what was the score?
- Added.
- "in the Champions League semifinals" ==> semifinals is written with no capital letter, but e.g., "Conference Semifinals" is. Is it standard practice to write the stages of the American competitions with a capital letters but the continental ones without one?
- There is a long-running MOS dispute over capitalization and how it works in American sports, but the gist is that the "Conference Semifinals/Finals" are a proper title and branded separately (similar to the Divisional Series in baseball) while in international competitions they are not given special treatment and thus not capitalized.
- Ah that's clear, cheers
- There is a long-running MOS dispute over capitalization and how it works in American sports, but the gist is that the "Conference Semifinals/Finals" are a proper title and branded separately (similar to the Divisional Series in baseball) while in international competitions they are not given special treatment and thus not capitalized.
- Fine work. It's comprehensive and well-written. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and look forward to further feedback. SounderBruce 03:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just the one minor remark from me left, cheers. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: Answered that last remark. SounderBruce 01:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just the one minor remark from me left, cheers. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and look forward to further feedback. SounderBruce 03:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Quotation marks within article titles should use single quotes
- Removed the ones I could find.
- FNs 18, 39, 67... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spotted a few more and I think I have them all this time.
- FNs 18, 39, 67... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the ones I could find.
- FN25 is missing agency
- Added.
- FN48 is a broken link. Ditto FN91, check throughout
- Replaced FN48 with a new link as the Wayback Machine seems to have not archived a live version. Found a different website with the same article for FN91.
- FNs 125, 119... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed 125, but 119 is live.
- FNs 125, 119... Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Replaced FN48 with a new link as the Wayback Machine seems to have not archived a live version. Found a different website with the same article for FN91.
- FN51: author name doesn't match source. Ditto FN85, check throughout
- Fixed the typo for FN51. The author for FN85 seems to have changed his name since the time of publication.
- What makes Brotherly Game a high-quality reliable source? Angels on Parade?
- Replaced; these SB Nation publications are at a reliable level, but most probably do not meet the "high quality" criteria. Some have become independent outlets of their own (such as Sounder at Heart) and should qualify as high quality for their subject matter.
- FN86: is there no independent sourcing for this material?
- The only other sources I can find are social media posts. I don't think this would be controversial enough to require independent coverage.
- Not controversial per se, but is there any evidence it's significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It's standard practice in sports finals articles to describe the festivities and build-up around the actual event (for example, the Super Bowl fan zones and the half-time show). SounderBruce 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- IMO there's a very big difference between the Super Bowl half-time shows (which all qualify for standalone articles!) and a local restaurant's hot dog. If no independent sources saw fit to cover this detail, why should we? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Removed the hot dog sentence, but I do think the lighting and flag-raising at various landmarks should be mentioned to remain consistent with previous sports articles (such as MLS Cup 2019). I am trying to find an independent source for these, but Google has become appallingly bad in recent months and my preferred newspaper archives are non-functional at the moment. SounderBruce 05:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- IMO there's a very big difference between the Super Bowl half-time shows (which all qualify for standalone articles!) and a local restaurant's hot dog. If no independent sources saw fit to cover this detail, why should we? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: It's standard practice in sports finals articles to describe the festivities and build-up around the actual event (for example, the Super Bowl fan zones and the half-time show). SounderBruce 05:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not controversial per se, but is there any evidence it's significant? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- The only other sources I can find are social media posts. I don't think this would be controversial enough to require independent coverage.
- Why is CBS Sports italicized and BBC Sport not? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- SounderBruce ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, this one got buried in my watchlist. @Nikkimaria: I have responded to your source review. Thanks for the comments. SounderBruce 08:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- SounderBruce ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Jozo Tomasevich was a Yugoslav-American economist and historian whose works on Yugoslavia in WWII continue to be widely cited today despite his first book on the Chetniks being published nearly fifty years ago. According to the German historian Klaus Schmider, it is a tragedy that he died before completing the third volume of his planned series on Yugoslavia in WWII which was to be focussed on the Partisans. Even his second volume had to be published posthumously in 2001, with editing by his daughter. I have used his works right across my WP contributions on WWII on Yugoslavia, and his work forms the foundation on which many more recent historians have built. This is my second nom of a historian of WWII in Yugoslavia after Radoje Pajović. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Matarisvan
[edit]Hi Peacemaker67, some comments:
- "the former Yugoslavia": just "Yugoslavia" would be fine, no?
- yes, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why is SFSU linked in the lead on second use and not first?
- Good question. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps clarify that The Chetniks was part of the 3 volume series and not a standalone book? I thought so till I read the Biblio section.
- Is "so-called" really needed? We have to be neutral and we already say it was a puppet state. Consider removing in the lead and the body?
- Actually it is necessary in my opinion, as it was named that, but ironically far from independent. Tomasevich himself called it an Italo-German quasi-protectorate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Klaus Schimder, the RMAS lecturer": Use "a" instead of "the"? I'm assuming Schmider was not the only lecturer at the RMAS.
- Yep, whoops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the Mihailović picture be better placed at the start of the World War II subsection?
- Good call, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Consider adding the ISBN for Tomasevich and Vucinich 1969. Is this the one: 9780520015364? Also, Google Books shows Vucinich here was an editor and not an author.
- Done. No, Google Books is often wrong about such things, Vucinich was the author of two chapters as well as the editor. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Link to The American Historical Review and Nationalities Papers, as done for other journals?
- Are there any details on his collaboration with Wayne Vucinich?
- Not beyond him contributing a chapter to the book. They taught at different universities in California and I understand they were close colleagues and co-received an award in 1989, and I'd love to know more given the Vucinich brothers were Serbs and Tomasevich a Croat, but they appear to have got along very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure military biography is the right WPMH task force here, you should consider removing it and retaining only the historiography task force tag.
- Excellent point, he was not a military person. Removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Has anyone endeavored to publish the Tomasevic papers at HILA or Volume 3 of his series? I found one article on this from the Washington Post but it was paywalled.
- Not that I'm aware of. It would be wonderful if Vol 3 was published. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
That's all from me, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for taking a look, Matarisvan. I reckon I might have addressed all your comments. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan. Strictly speaking, the short "review" citations do not need a page, as the page range given in the long citation is only 2-3 pages long, and anyone wishing to verify them need only read a page or two, and in any case their comments should be read in the context of the whole review. I have added pages for the Baletić and Prosecutor vs Vojislav Šešelj short citations, as they are longer pieces of work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Peacemaker67, above comments all OK. A minor issue I forgot to spot last time: we need page numbers for a couple of the sources, namely Baletić 1997, Prosecutor versus Vojislav Šešelj 2008, Irwin 2000, Auty 1976, Dragnich 1976 and Campbell 1976. The other sources are only one pagers, so those don't have any problems, but these one have multiple pages, so you will need to add the page numbers for them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Matarisvan, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Gog the Mild, I just had one suggestion to add for @Peacemaker67. I think the following categories could be added here:
- Category:Stanford University staff, Category:Harvard University alumni, Category:Yugoslav historians; Category:Yugoslav officials of the United Nations or Category:American officials of the United Nations, whichever one is best suited; Category:Federal Reserve Bank people or Category:Federal Reserve economists, the latter one only if we're sure he was an economist at the Fed, we don't have any details on his role there in the article, if not then the first one works too. Matarisvan (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, I forgot these two: Category:ACLS Fellows and Category:People from Palo Alto, California. The last one can be added here as his obituary says he lived in Palo Alto for 48 years. Matarisvan (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to now support for promotion to FA class. Matarisvan (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- G'day Matarisvan, sorry about the delay. I think I have completed all these now. It isn't clear whether he was US or Yugoslav at the UN, so I went for a different cat. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments Support by Pendright
[edit]Placeholder - Pendright (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
- Tomasevich was born in the Kingdom of Dalmatia, [then] part of Austria-Hungary, and after completing his [formal] schooling
,[he] earned a doctorate in economicsat[from] the University of Basel in Switzerland.
- Look these changes over
- His final book was the second volume of the series – War and Revolution in Yugoslavia 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration – which was published posthumously in 2001 after editing by his daughter Neda.
- after usually means -> in the time following an event or another period <-> in which case, it soumds like the book was edited after its publication - what am I missing?
- In an obituary in the Slavic Review, Tomasevich was described as "a master of scholarly skills, a person of bountiful erudition, wit and human dignity".
- Why is an not his?
- All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Early life
- Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is today part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia.[1]
- today?
- Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know when the village became a part of the municipality, and now means at the present time. This is accurate at the present time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>I hate quibbling further, but now means at the present time, at this moment or very soon. So, how about dropping the word, or replacing it with something like this: -> Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and in (year) became part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia. Pendright (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "now". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- today?
- Nado returned to the village in 1894, [and he] married the daughter of his first cousin and worked as a farmer.
- Suggest these changes
- In 1938, he was the recipient of a two-year Rockefeller fellowship and moved to the US,[3] thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University".
- "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
- Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Thank you! Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. This is not an opinion quote which would require attribution to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Interesting! You can further my education by referring me to something authoritative on the subject. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Quotes don't have to be attributed, just closely cited. In this case, it is, to Vucinich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" -> If this is a direct quote, should there be attribution-if not, then should italics be used?
- The other brother living in Košarni Do received the share of the fourth brother who, by then, was a merchant mariner living in New Zealand.[4]
- Could drop "other"
- I'm not sure I can. There were two brothers living in Košarni Do, and "other" indicates that this is not the one who received Jozo's share of the farm. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Could drop "other"
of World War II – and now known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California.
- and then known
- In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century.
- Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
- Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>He was married in 1937 and moved to the U.S. in 1938? In any case, it's your call.
- Not really. He married, they had children, then he wrote a essay about his family history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow,Chronologically, these sentences seem out of order?
- His widow Neda died on July 5, 2002, at 88.[8]
- Is where she died relative?
- I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- <>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I've added it for completeness. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- <>Probably a matter of opinion. Pendright (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so, although it was Palo Alto, like Jozo. Do you think it needs to be added? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Is where she died relative?
Yugoslavia's economy
- The first appeared in German in 1934 and was titled Die Staatsschulden Jugoslaviens (The National Debt of Yugoslavia).
- during 1934
- The following year, he had Financijska politika Jugoslavije, 1929–1934 (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia, 1929–1934) published in Serbo-Croatian, covering much of the same material but more accessible to Yugoslavs.[1]
- Does 1929-1934 need to be repeated?
- which covered
- A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization – described Novac i kredit as an important work that filled a large gap in Yugoslav economic literature, and also gave a vivid picture of then-current economic theory.[9]
- and it also
- These all done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- and it also
International marine resources and Yugoslav peasants
- The first [book] was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources
,[that was] published by Stanford University Press in 1943.
- Suggest the above changes
- The second book, Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia [was] published in 1955,
was[and] described by Vucinich as "a study of monumental scope [which] has been widely recognized as the most comprehensive and accomplished study in the field".
- Suggest the above changes
- These are done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest the above changes
World War II
- In 1957, Tomasevich received a San Francisco State University grant for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
- Suggest -> In 1957, Tomasevich received a grant from San Francisco State University for Slavic and Eastern European studies.[12]
- The first volume focused on the Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, which was subtitled The Chetniks and appeared in 1975.
- In the context used, what does appeared mean?
- Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty, professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University.
- Replace the comma with "who was a
- The third volume in the planned trilogy, which was to cover the Partisans, was 75 per cent complete at the time of his death,[1] and remains unpublished.
- and it
@Peacemaker67: This is it for now. Pendright (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Pendright, I may have addressed all your comments now. Let me know if anything needs tweaking or you see anything else. As always, thanks for your detailed review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker: Supporting - it's always a pleasure working with you. Pendright (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Hurricanehink
[edit]I figured I'd review this considering I have an FAC of my own.
- Could you add a caption for the infobox image?
- Other than his name, there is really nothing to add. We don't know when it was taken, photos of him are quite rare. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Google says Jozo's birthday is March 16, 1908, but there's nothing in this article. Any reason for not including the birth date?
- lack of a reliable source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Between 1943 and 1955, Tomasevich published two books on economic matters; one focused on marine resources and the other on the peasant economy of Yugoslavia and both of them received positive reviews." - the last part seems like an add-on, and makes the sentence a bit too long. Perhaps - "Tomasevich published two well-received books on economic matters"?
- I went with "positively received" as "well-received" is used earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- The book was positively reviewed, and twenty-five years later was described as still the "most complete and best book about the Chetniks to be published either abroad or in former Yugoslavia" - the quote doesn't seem important for lead. First, it's unattributed - I see in the body of the text that it was from the Croatian historian Ivo Goldstein, but that doesn't mean his quote should be in the lead. Could you write the same meaning without the quote?
- I think it is important for the lead. T's contribution in this area is key to his impact, and Goldstein is eminent. Given it is an opinion, I have attributed it to him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- the so-called Independent State of Croatia. - "so-called" seems a bit biased and pointy for my liking. Could you word it differently?
- it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- But not on Wikipedia. I would rather "Axis-aligned" or something, since "so-called" is too biased for my liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- it is often described in this way (eg by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and others), as ironically it was far from "independent", being essentially an occupied quasi-protectorate propped up by large numbers of Axis troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "remains unpublished despite being 75 per cent complete at his death." - is there a reason you don't write it as 75%?
- Per MOS:PERCENT, in non-scientific articles either is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You mention Jozo's father's name, but what about mother?
- An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I cannot find a RS for either of their given names, Nado is a nickname, I've clarified the latter and its meaning. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- An excellent question, I am popping into the library tomorrow to look at a source that might have it, but failing that, it isn't in any RS I am aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Jozo completed his secondary education in Sarajevo – then part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia – before moving to Switzerland to study at the University of Basel where he earned a doctorate in economics. " - when? This is a pretty important part of his life that you glossed over. Is there anything more about this part of his life?
- Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Have been able to locate a bit more on this period of his life, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just waiting on a source that might help with this, no more than a couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- thereby "availing himself of the rich resources of Harvard University" - who said this?
- it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion? I would say it is WP:BLUE. Who would challenge the idea that Harvard has "rich resources"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Rich resources" is an opinion. The rest of the article says "According to Vucinich". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- it is cited to Vucinich. Given it isn't an opinion, it doesn't need in-text attribution, just close citation, which it has. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- You mention the siblings, but never by name. Any reason?
- They aren't provided in any RS I'm aware of. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Some more year/date references would be nice for "Early life" section. For example, "After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco." - When?
- I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- And a bit more timeframe information from a newly-located source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a bit on this where it was available. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California." - again, when? The war broke out in 1939, so there could be a variety of dates.
- The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've reworded this based on the dates of his Rockefeller fellowship documentation which indicate about when the name change occurred. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source that might provide some answers is at a local university library which I will be able to look at over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- When did Jozo meet Neda Brelić? For a marriage of 57 years, there's very little on that.
- Not known. It appears he was quite reticent about this personal life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- "He became an American citizen." - when?
- Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- What did Jozo die from?
- Not known. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The article is fine, but it seems to focus too much on what other people think about his writings, and too little about his actual life. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- There are still a lot of unknown parts, which I'm not a huge fan of, like when American citizenship happened, what he died from, any siblings' names, the mother's name, when he went to SF, even the birthday. I get that a lot of this information isn't available, but it's a shame when you Google his birthday, and it says "March 16", but that there's no reliable source for it. The article is decent, for sure, but it's a shame that so much is unknown. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've responded to a few of the above to clarify what I have been able to add. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- In terms of a response to Hurricanehink's post-review summary, unfortunately Tomasevich was not very forthcoming about his family details in general and even in the chapter he wrote for Byrnes' book (perhaps for privacy reasons given it was during communist times), and neither was his obituarian, Alexander Vucinich, who must have known him and his family well. Given that, and because his notability relates to his work rather than his family, I think I can be forgiven for not being able to find any of these family details. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Joy
[edit]Since the name is only partially anglicized, it might make sense to figure out what was the pronunciation. We don't happen to have one at Jozo, while we do have one at Josip, but in case of Tomasevich it would specifically make sense to note how the Americans pronounced his first name because it's not clear it would have been the same as the original. --Joy (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was, but don't have any evidence for my opinion. I'll see if I can find some. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, we can leave a note to this effect on the Talk page for later. --Joy (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, Joy, I have drawn a blank here. It would be great to find a video where an American historian (like one of the Vucinich's) pronounce his name, but I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note
[edit]As this nomination has been open for five weeks and has yet to garner support, it is liable to be archived in the next few days unless there's a pickup in activity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks David. I've been out of town, but have now addressed the first two reviews and have a crack at HH's shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just working through the remaining comments over the next few days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Tomobe03
[edit]- I may be nitpicking here, but the first paragraph of the Early life, education, career and family section and the first sentence of the second paragraph of the same section may give impression to casual readers that Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia existed at the same time.
- No, that's a fair call. Have added a better explanation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In "His widow Neda died in Palo Alto..." I'm wondering if either "his widow" or "Neda" is redundant because she's already introduced in the same paragraph as his wife.Striking this, as I realise that he had a daughter of the same name.- Regarding Financijska politika Jugoslavije (Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia) - is that the English translation of the title the book is known as generally? I'd expect Fiscal Policy of Yugoslavia to be translation of "Fiskalna politika Jugoslavije"... or that the English translation of the title is "Financial Policy of Yugoslavia". That is, of course unless the offered English translation is common translation of the title.
- Doh, well spotted, not sure what I did there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Overall, I'd say the article appears comprehensive, i.e. I feel I have no question to ask that is not already answered by the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's a mention of Peasants, Politics, and Economic Change in Yugoslavia in Splivalo, Josip (1958). "Naučno djelo našeg profesora u Americi" [Scientific Work of Our Professor in America]. Naše more (in Croatian). 5 (1). University of Dubrovnik: 52. ISSN 0469-6255. The short article might be illuminating because it says that the book consists of three parts. The first one provides a review of historical development of of Yugoslav peoples and their common characteristics in economics. The second part reviews agriculture during the WWI and the third one examines agriculture in the interwar period. The review of historical development gives (at least to me) an impression that there's the point where Tomasevich's interest started crossing from economics alone to history. The article also indicates that Joseph S. Davis wrote a foreword for the book.--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- No problem. Happy to support.Tomobe03 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- All done I think, Tomobe03. Thanks for taking a look! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for spotting that, added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
SC
[edit]Review to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- There are two ellipses that should have non-breaking spaces before the ..., per WP:ELLIPSES
- Fixed, thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Lead
- "a master of scholarly skills": as this is a quote it should be cited, per MOS:LEADCITE
- Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll leave it to your judgement. I suspect that when this hits the front page people may make waves about it, but it's your call. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I could, but I think "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" applies here, given the quote is cited and attributed in-text in the body, and no-one else has raised it, I really don't think it is necessary here. I'd be happy to attribute it in-text in the lead as well if that would make you more comfortable? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Early life
- "He became an American citizen": any date on this?
- I wish. No, I had to find an oblique reference to it in a war crimes trial transcript after failing to find a direct source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It feels odd to have a section titled "early life" that ends with his death age 88. Maybe just call the section 'private life' or similar
- Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- That, I think, may be a bit of overkill. Again, I'll leave to to your best judgement. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it has education, career and family in the title and section as well, not just "private life". I could add "death" to the end? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Legacy
- "a master of scholarly skills – needs a closing quote mark
- Well spotted, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That's the lot: very minor stuff in a very readable article - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look, SchroCat and sorry about the delay in getting to your comments. See what you think of the above and my changes. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Gog, I've been hunting a source to try to address a few comments, but will just get on with what I can do now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peacemaker67 ? It's been a couple of weeks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments by RoySmith
[edit]I took a look at some sources:
Josip "Jozo" Tomašević was born in 1908 in the village of Košarni Do on the Pelješac peninsula in the Kingdom of Dalmatia , which was then part of Austria-Hungary . [1]
probably a nit, but the source doesn't categorize Dalmatia as a "Kingdom", nor does it say anything about Austria-Hungary.
- I think it's a nit. I'm working on the basis of WP:BLUE here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Košarni Do is a hamlet of Donja Banda and is now part of the Orebić municipality within the Dubrovnik-Neretva County of Croatia . [1]
I'm guessing you've just got the wrong citation because the source doesnt say any of those things.
- Yep, I have added citations to the Croatian post office website which details the local government status of these places within the county. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Before the outbreak of World War II – and then known by the anglicised Tomasevich – he moved to California. He was on the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute within Stanford University . During the war, he worked with the Board of Economic Warfare [1] ... After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco
. The source says
so I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP. I get that much of this is just a chronological history and full of proper names, but it still seems a bit too close to the original. Also, while the source does use the spelling "Tomasevich", I think it's a bit of WP:SYNTH to say "then known by the anglicised ...".Before World War II he moved to California where he was a member of the scholarly staff of the Food Research Institute at Stanford University. During World War II he was affiliated successively with the Board of Economic Warfare and UNRRA in Washington, DC. After the war he was with the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco.
- I've changed wording here, hopefully enough. Also, I've found a ref for a year by which he was definitely using the anglicised name, the Rockefeller fellowship in 1950, and have added that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
and then the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Washington, D.C. from 1944 to 1946. After the war, he initially worked at the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco. [1] [7]
Maybe I'm just not familiar with how harvard refs work, but I had to dive into the wikisource to figure out that OAC meant "Online Archives of California". And once I got there, it doesn't say anything about Washington, D.C.
- Harv footnotes can be shortened for brevity. If you click on it, it takes you to the footnote list and if you click that it takes you to the full citation. There is no requirement for the footnote tag to be the full name of the organisation. I've tweaked the wording and added a citation to the UNRRA that says its HQ was in DC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
His preference was for a position combining teaching and research, so in 1948 he joined the San Francisco State College (later San Francisco State University). Tomasevich taught there for twenty-five years until he retired in 1973 – except in 1954 when he taught at Columbia University . [1]
The source says
This seems like CLOP again. I wasn't sure about this so I asked for a second opinion from my wife (who writes and reviews scientific papers professionally). She agrees that while it's not word-for-word, its the same sentence and paragraph structure with just a few words changed here or there, which is, as WP:CLOP puts it, "superficial modification of material from another source".Preferring a professional assignment combining teaching and research, he joined San Francisco State College—now San Francisco State University—in 1948 and stayed there until his retirement in 1973. In 1954 he taught at Columbia University for one year.
- I get what you are saying, but there are only so many ways to present the same factual information about his work. I have attempted to move it a bit more away from the source formulation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
In 1937, Tomasevich married Neda Brelić, a high school teacher. They were happily married for 57 years and had three children – Anthony, Neda Ann, and Lasta. In 1976, Tomasevich contributed an essay to a book in which he conducted a sociological and historical analysis of his extended family reaching back to the early nineteenth century. He became an American citizen. [9]
This appears to be mis-cited; it's in [1], not [9].
- Not sure what happened there, cited to Vucinich, the citizenship is the only bit that should be cited to the trial case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to stop at this point. Most of the sources used are off-line, which is fine. But in almost every case, when I spot-checked a source that was available to me, I found problems. This does not give me confidence that the rest of the sourcing is correct. Perhaps I'm just being too picky, so maybe somebody else should do some more spot-checking.
Here's some more:
Tomasevich died ... in Palo Alto, California.[10]
The source just says he was a resident of Palo Alto, not that he died there.
- Fixed, also for his wife. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
A 1940 review of the book in Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv , by Professor Mirko Lamer – who later served with the United Nations as an expert at the Food and Agriculture Organization ... [12]
This is not in English so I'm unable to read it, but I'd wager that a review written by Lamer in 1940 says nothing about Lamer's future employment.
- Yes, added a citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
The first book was International Agreements on Preservation of Marine Resources , that was published by Stanford University Press in 1943 ... [1]
The cited source says 1949. WorldCat does indeed say 1943, but you're not citing WorldCat.
- Replaced citation with Tomasevich 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Soon after it was published, the book was reviewed by Phyllis Auty , who was a professor of modern history at Simon Fraser University ... [16]
The source does identify Auty as being from Simon Fraser University, but doesn't say anything about being a "professor of modern history".
- Added a citation from her obit in The Independent which shows her role there at the time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The third volume in the planned trilogy ... and it remains unpublished. [22]
Nit: this should be qualified with {{asof}}.
- This is rather difficult to cite, as I am trying to prove a negative. I'm going to leave it as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Roy, I really must have been tired when I wrote some of this. I will get on to addressing these comments in the next day or so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi RoySmith, I am assuming that this constitutes a source review? Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would call it a source-to-text spot check. I was mostly looking for WP:V issues. If I spotted any copying problems along the way, I brought those up too, but they weren't my main focus. I believe what you're talking about as a "source review" is more about formatting, consistency, and style which you may have noticed by now aren't what excites me, so I'll leave that stuff to somebody else. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm in a quandry how to answer that. The important issues have all be resolved. Some of the items I noted above were nits. I recognize that I let my personal preferences show through in a few places and agree that WP:FACR has been satisfied in all of those instances.
- Where the quandry comes in is that if the spot-check is supposed to be a statistical sampling, I'd have to say that I found more problems in my sample that I should have, and since I restricted my sample to those sources that were available to me on line, it's reasonable to ask whether the sources that were not available to me would also have the same failure rate. I hesitate to speak for @Jo-Jo Eumerus, but it sounds like he agrees with me on that.
- So, let me propose that @Peacemaker67 take some time to review the sources on his own, and when he tells me he's satisfied they're in good shape, I'll pick 5 more at random, concentrating on those that are not available to me on-line and ask him to send me scans (or whatever) and I'll verify those. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is very reasonable. Give me a few days to check everything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's sound logic. When a sample of 10 out of e.g 100 sources shows that 7 sources have problems, that implies that of the 100 sources about 70 might have problems and thus all 100 need to be reviewed. That said, when evaluating offline sources I've found that asking the nominator to send screenshots or photos of the source by email or Google Drive usually works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough RoySmith, thanks. In the light of Peaacemaker's responses would you consider the spot check a pass or a fail? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Source review with caveat
[edit]I'll do the consistency-and-reliability check, but given what RoySmith found above, another spotcheck or general source-to-text integrity check is necessary IMO. Anyhow, #20 is throwing a harv error. I am not sure that academic publications need a retrieval date. It seems like we are mostly dealing with sound academic publications here, although I am not deeply familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- harv error fixed. Had left ref=no in the template when I copied to to the refs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a not-quite shield volcano in Argentina. It is not a particularly remarkable volcano, other than the fact that it was discovered from space imagery and that it is a large volcano in the wider Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Replaced link, although I don't remember which options I chose on the webpage to find the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720
[edit]Non-expert prose review.
- No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
- In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
- Infobox checked and no concerns.
Lede check:
- "Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
- Put "South America" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
- Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
MyCat
[edit]- Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- For some reason the coords of the highest point aren't showing for me- it's just blank next to "Coordinates"
- Mm, they do show for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Weird then- guess my viewer is just being odd MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
- There is more than one elevation estimate - these mountains aren't frequently mapped and measured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
- Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
- That makes it more difficult to source a specific part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Efn c doesn't really make sense to me- clarify with some geology knowledge perhaps?
- Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- They run mostly to the east - I'd avoid using "they" since multiple objects are mentioned in the previous sentence
- Quebrada Cienago[d], - put efn outside of comma
- That makes it look like a citation, which this efn isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
- Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like a lot of the first three paras of "Geology" are about the CVZ, not specifically about the Cerro Panizos- how is Panizos relevant here?
- Aye, that's contextual information as Panizos is part of the APVC and CVZ so a lot of this is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
- I got the opposite impression - older date first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
- Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's all I got- I also split the sources list into two columns so it doesn't take up as much space (feel free to revert if you oppose). Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense then- happy to support! Also, I need a source review on an FAC nom of my own, and would appreciate one if you get any time. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy
[edit]- Introduction
- "it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
- "Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
- No, I don't think so? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Geography and geomorphology
- "The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
- "surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
- "Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
- "The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
- "The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
- Hydrology and human geography & history
- "Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
- Climate, flora and fauna
- "The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
- Geology
- "reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
- Used a different formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Neogene-Quaternary volcanic rocks". I'm not sure but I think the hyphen should be an en dash here.
- Not sure myself, so leaving this for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Lascar is the most active of them". Maybe swap "is" with "being"?
- "The largest assembly of volcanoes in the CVZ is the 70,000 square kilometres". 70,000-square-kilometre (27,000 sq mi).
- "Within the crust under the APVC is the Altiplano-Puna Magmat Body". Magmat → Magma.
- "At 9–31 kilometres (5.6–19.3 mi) depth". 9–31-kilometre (5.6–19.3 mi).
- "One northeast-southwest trending line". En dash.
- "Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
- Geochronology
- "Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
- "Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
- The Puna region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "With the bulk dating to the late Miocene to Pliocene". I think the first "to" should be changed to "from".
- "Tara and Puripicar Ignimbrites". I'm not sure if "ignimbrites" should be capitalized here.
- I think in these cases we do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
- "Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
- Composition
- "And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
- "Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
- Probably, but the sources don't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Eruption history
- "12.4 million years old Cusi Cusi ignimbrite". 12.4-million-year-old.
- "It is the source of two major ignimbrites: The first". I'm not sure if there should be a capital letter after the colon.
- I think it should. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- "a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
- "The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
- "The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
- "The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
- "Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.
That's all I've got. Volcanoguy 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Done save as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Going to note here for @FAC coordinators: that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. By the way, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is still in need of a source review. Volcanoguy 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Source review
[edit]Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nice consistent sfn formatting.
- Ahumada 2010: this is not "via ResearchGate" (no link is given), and has incomplete bibliographical data (missing volume/page numbers). Journal is here: [35], and our article is at Número 13 -> Articulos -> [36]. (Same as [37]). The ISSN leads to a non-working search, but I guess that is beyond our control here.
- It is from this webpage; in these cases I say "via ResearchGate". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then why don't you link this as URL if it is your actual source? You are basically saying "hey, you can find this on ResearchGate but you'll have to search for it yourself".
- It is from this webpage; in these cases I say "via ResearchGate". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Burgoa 2007: remove "1ed". Why OCLC instead of ISBN? Missing publisher and location.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I figure it's the bot who added it. The author is reliable and there is actually a publisher given. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad.
- Coira 1993 does not actually have a ResearchGate link given; is there a web link / ISBN / ISSN / OCLC?
- Here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still missing in the article.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Still missing in the article.
- Here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Prettify bibliographic data for Coira et al. 2004
- Sorry, what does "prettify" mean here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
- No, that was a typo. Current version isn't pretty but it's accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Make more pretty. "[Geology sheet 2366-I / 2166-III Mina Pirquitas] (pdf) (Report). Boletín;269 (in Spanish)." looks messy. Is the series really called "Boletín;269"?
- Sorry, what does "prettify" mean here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- DeSilva 1991: Volume 220 of what? ISBN?
- Swapped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Echevarria 1963: what do you mean by the page numbers in the sfn? Should probably reference the paper version?
- The PDF version, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (this journal).
- Yes, added this info. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you are talking about this PDF? If you are citing this, it should have page numbers to complete the bibliographical data. And it actually seems to be a journal article, not a "report"? (this journal).
- The PDF version, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- Gorustovich 2011: incomplete bibliographic data (editor, publisher, location?) From this book?
- Seems like, so added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Guzman 2017 needs a language tag.
- Jujuy: this is a bit muddled,
|trans-title=
translates the wrong thing?- Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You could fake it:
|series=Zona de seguridad de fronteras y áreas de desarrollo de frontera [Border security zone and development areas]
- You could fake it:
- Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Which URLs have
|url-access=
parameters?- None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some have
|hdl-access=
though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.- This is another bot thing. I confess that in many cases I am not sure what the right parameter is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some have
- None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mazzoni 1989: This seems a better link than "via ResearchGate".
- It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
- Then link the page you used.
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- Then link the page you used.
- It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
- Ort 1989 does not have a ResearchGate link, do you mean [38]?
- Ort 1993 is not "via ResearchGate", and neither is Salisbury 2011.
- Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how
|via=
is supposed to be used. - Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how
- Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
- Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- You could get rid of
|format=pdf
to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.
- You could get rid of
- Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- A few answers above. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- I won't hold it against the article that OAbot has randomly added some green unlock symbols. Other things are consistent now, so the source review is a pass. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Comments by David Fuchs
[edit]Look for comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
- Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
- Did that small rewrite, but I'll caution that I am not that great at spotting terms that need to be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
- Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
- No; would it make sense to only keep the elevation of the highest dome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
- No; would it make sense to only keep the elevation of the highest dome. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Cerro San Matias borders Panizos to the north" — I assume these are other volcanos or at least mountains, but it's never clarified.
- "The only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs. " consists, surely?
- "Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
- "During the 21st century, ongoing uplift was discovered at Uturuncu" - what does this mean? Is it indicative of something?
- It probably signals the entry of new magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Both rocks define a peraluminous potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." - don't know what rocks "define".
- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not particularly. Jo-Jo and I disagree on the crit1 stuff and outside additional feedback on that point I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Penitentes
[edit]Some comments from a brief non-expert pass through this.
a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano
- But not a shield volcano, I assume? It trips me up a little bit. I'm sure there are only so many ways to describe a broad and sloping volcanic complex, though.Incapillo is one of several ignimbrite or caldera systems that, along with 44 active stratovolcanoes, are part of the CVZ.
- When I read this I struggled to understand the relevance. Is "Incapillo" supposed to be "Cerro Panizos"? Or is Incapillo related to Cerro Panizos beyond them both being part of the CVZ? If so, that could use more explanation + a link to Incapillo.- Throughout the article
Panizos ignimbrite
andPanizos Ignimbrite
are used interchangeably. I would pick one version of the capitalization and run with it if I'm not misinterpreting those as referring to the same thing.
— Penitentes (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, not a shield volcano as these are defined as flat volcanoes formed by lava flows. Incapillo seems like a copypaste error. Standardized the spelling, save for the image as it's more descriptive there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@FAC coordinators: is it OK if I ping some participants in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1? This is rather slow-moving, and I think we need outside views on the disagreement between me and David above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see why not. FrB.TG (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
SC Coming here because I was pinged. Just looking at the discussion above first, my opinion is below, but I'll come back for a more complete review shortly.
Looking at it from the point of an ignorant reader (which I really am with these things), I do find some of the notes/bits of blue a little distracting. Partly it's because of where they are placed. Having them after Cerro Panizos and Cerro Panizos is part of the issue – maybe moving them to the end of the sentence may be more helpful. If you combine the refs using the {{sfnm}} template to slim down the number of blue digits at the end of the sentence to leave one number and the note, it would make it a bit more manageable. Thus:
Header text | Header text | Header text |
---|---|---|
Cerro Panizos[a] lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[2][3] | becomes | Cerro Panizos lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[4][b] |
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[6][7][8] | becomes | Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[9][d] |
Using a range conversion would also work, so the above | becomes | Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-to-5,494-metre (17,152–18,025 ft)-high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle. [9][e] |
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
|
It just makes the whole sentence easier to scan through without tripping over the note at the beginning and without losing any references. Having several sentences with big clusters of numbers at the end of them does stand out a lot - there are three with three citations in that section that stand out a bit. Just my opinion and others may see it all differently. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've changed some of these footnotes and also applied sfnm to the multiple cites; how does it look? Kind of a shame that sfnm needs the entire 1a1 thing, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments from RoySmith
[edit]Just a few random ideas to improve readability:
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) ...
Can you just say "approximately 5300-meter (xxx ft)" and then have a footnote which details the various values given by the three sources?(often ephemeral[20])
I think the style guide prefers the citation after the paren.- Bit concerned that then people will assume the reference applies to the content before the parenthese too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I feel your pain on that one. RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
most days of the year have frosts
I'd drop "of the year", and it probably makes more sense to say "most nights" rather than "most days".Animals include ... Birds include
Birds are animals. Also, I find the long multi-level list ("the large guanacos, llamas, tarucas and vicuñas,[33] the smaller chinchillas, vizcachas and numerous mice genera, and the carnivorous Andean mountain cats, cougars, culpeos, Pampas cats and South American gray foxes") difficult to read. It's partly that it's long and partly that some of the "and"s go with different levels. You've got a similar problem in the next sentence. One "and" joins "Andean fmaingos", "Chilean flamingos", with "James's flamingos. The other "and" joins "flamingos", "geese", "rheas", and "ducks". You have to read with care to parse it properly.- Did a recast, but I am not sure it solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
a giant pile of rock-magma mush
is "mush" a technical word?- Yes, but it means pretty much the same as colloquial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
9–31-kilometre
I suppose this is technically correct, but the juxtaposition of the en-dash and the hyphen looks funny.- Probably, but I confess that endash/hyphen are among the things I am less familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
up to a billion years old,[59] but it reached its present-day thickness only during the late Cenozoic
for those of us who are not geologists, it would help to give some context to "late Cenozoic". Is that not quite a billion years ago, or half a billion, or a tiny fraction of a billion?- Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
one northeast-–southwest trending line
you've got a double-hyphen; I think you want some flavor of longer dash.- Is this where one uses an en dash? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
with several recognizable "flare-ups"
why the scare quotes?- Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
That's it; just a few things I spotted on a quick read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)