Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



George Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC), Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC), Hoppyh (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

An FA nomination/review is being requested for the George Washington (main) article, now stable after months-long focus on grammar, context, citations, and sources. The Washington biography is an extraordinary article and very involved in early American history with numerous topics to cover, including his early life, the American Revolution, the Constitution, two terms as president, and more. Hence a well written, comprehensive and self-contained summary has by necessity proven to be rather long but appropriate.

Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Cmguy777 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hoppyh (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

References needing formatting.
  • Citation # 28 "Real Estate Investment" -- fixed Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation # 180 Ferling 2000 pp 146-147 -- fixed Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation # 321 Waldman & Braun p 149 -- fixed (sfn anomaly with dual authors in a consolidated citation: split into separate citation: cite 321 now 315) Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The above citations need formatting. When clicked, they do not point to anything. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was issued for a rather small Virginia city in 1936. There was no particular scandal, but the coin is made more interesting by the fact it was the first U.S. coin to show a living person by him or herself (to date, I think it has happened only three times). Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil[edit]

Have read through over last hour and made some trivial copy edits. This is the usual accomplished stuff by this editor; very tight writing. Support on prose; for some reason the phrase "with no known hoards" tickles my imagination. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The Death of Superman[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Death of Superman" is an infamous 1992—1993 crossover event in which DC Comics killed their icon, Superman. Now, comic book publishers killed major characters all the time— Uncle Ben, Elektra, Jason Todd, the list goes on. Those characters were minor ones who did not have a significant impact on the wider public. But Superman—the Big Blue Boy Scout, the first superhero—was an American icon. Chances are, if you can remember what was going on in late 1992, you can at least vaguely recall the media storm that followed the news that Superman had bit the dust because of a giant sunburned Ninja Turtle. Of course, you can't make much money off of the licensing of a corpse, so DC then published this lengthy storyline that involved five different versions of Superman, Green Lantern, Mongul, a missile, and a robotic city. Because comics. "The Death of Superman" has been adapted numerous times, including in the successful but critically panned 2016 film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Anyway, I've been building this article since April and got it to GA status in May. Since then, I've greatly expanded the article, with numerous interviews, reviews, retrospectives, and other sources. I'd also like to thank Argento Surfer for lots of invaluable research. Now, you'd better review this article quickly before Doomsday comes for you and you lose your chance! JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Jane Manning James[edit]

Nominator(s): Audrey (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jane Manning James, a black pioneer and convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who walked over 800 miles to join the church, and another 1,200 miles to Utah. Despite her being denied an individual endowment in her lifetime, she lived a faithfully and died on good terms with the church. A film came out recently about her relationship with Emma Smith, which has brought her into public view once more, making her article an excellent and interesting candidate for a Featured Article. Audrey (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Planet Nine[edit]

Nominator(s): Jehochman Talk 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune. It hasn't been discovered yet, but there is considerable evidence that it exists. I am hopeful that this nomination will be thoroughly disrupted by the actual discovery of the Planet. Because of it's likely position in the Solar System, it is most likely to be observable from Earth in the late Fall and early Winter. Please read the article to learn more. It's absolutely fascinating and the best page on the Internet about this topic. We've gone through the toolkit and fixed whatever defects were pointed out. Surely there will be some more, but we have a good core of editors who will jump on any needed changes. It would be nice if this was an FA in time for the discovery. Up to now about 30% of the target area has been searched. By the end of this season about 70% will have been searched. Therefore, there is a 50/50 chance it will be discovered this hunting season, if it exists. Be sure to credit Agmartin (talk · contribs) for he has done the most work. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Probably best if you sort the [improper synthesis?] tag for FN 42.  Done
  • There are a few paragraphs or bullet points (mostly lower down in the article) that are unsourced: these should be sourced.
I have no knowledge of this subject, but I'll wrap a cold towel around my head and see how much I can understand! The bits I skimmed through are quite interesting, so I look forward to the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

I'll take a look at this and jot queries below:

However, the infrared survey by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) may have the capabilities to detect such a planet - this is ambiguous. Does it mean a planet with the diameter of Neptune or 2-4x earth? Also should specify whether this is a past, repsent or future survey.  Done
the region with stable aligned orbits shifts... "stable, aligned orbits" or "stably aligned orbits"?
detection is a Really Big discussion point - I feel that more could be added on this topic.

more later.

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Not really. For one, there's a range of possible masses for super-Earth's. And then, removing the super-Earth reference takes away the important information what class of planets it belongs to. So, both refer to different bits of information (maybe one specifying the other). Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't know where it is right now (it would be easy to find if we did). We know it's not at 200 AU since that makes it too bright to have escaped detection, but it may be anywhere between a few hundred and well over 1000 AU. Statistically, it is likely near its aphelion well beyond 700 AU. Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to address these points. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Planet X[edit]

I've added a section to the article's talk page about the Not to be confused with Planet X note at the beginning of the article. This note is confusing, and should probably be done differently to reflect actual usage of the term Planet X. Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Planet nine path in orion2.png: suggest scaling up this image in the article
  • File:Planet_Nine_comparison.jpg: on what datasource is this based? Same with File:Planet_nine-etnos_now-new3.png, File:Planet_nine-etnos_now-close-new.png, File:Tilting_of_Laplace_Plane_by_Planet_Nine.png
  • File:Secular_evolution_of_eTNOs_induced_by_Planet_Nine.png: there seems to be a query on the image description page about claiming this as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Compulsory figures[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about compulsory figures in figure skating, the now-defunct discipline from which the sport gets its name. This is my first FAC in about three years, and my first article about figure skating I've submitted here, despite not living up to my username before now. I believe that it's now ready for FA-ship. I look forward to any and all suggestions for improvement; specifically, ways in which I, as a non-skater, can describe, summarize, and paraphrase more effectively. It's an interesting topic, foundational to the sport of figure skating. Thanks for your input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Polaris (UK nuclear programme)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the UK's Polaris nuclear program, which replaced the V-bombers in the 1960s. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Seleucus VI Epiphanes[edit]

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A king so horrible that he was burned alive by his subjects. Thats what ancient historians wrote about Seleucus VI, and this reputation became dominant and many modern historians believed it. Whether this was the case or not, we will not know for certain since we have fragmentary sources and some coins to establish the career of Seleucus VI, who, non the less, was able to put an end to his uncle and rival to the throne; a feat that Seleucus's father could not achieve during a civil war that lasted 17 years. The article is short due to the scarcity of sources. I made sure to include any piece of info that is available in academic sources. An editor from the GOCE did the copy editing. Hope this will be an interesting article. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66[edit]

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • Overlinked Cilicia
  • and himself prepared for war Delete "himself"
  • marched against his nephew but lost and was killed awkward
  • He was resistant to allowing the cities He resisted allowing...
  • Lede says Tryphaena was probably his mother, but that's not repeated in the main body.
  • Priene met Seleucus VI probably in Cilicia Priene "probably" met...
  • this was not widely accepted by scholars "has not been"...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. I created a section for your comment. I hope this was not inappropriate. If it is, please revert me. And thanks for taking the time to review this.
No, not a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United States[edit]

Nominator(s):KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the events leading to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. KAVEBEAR suggested a "start article" for DYK to commemorate the November 17 anniversary of the trip. In research, as with all things related to Kalākaua, the subject matter took on a life of its own. As KAVEBEAR might be tied up off-wiki, I'll be the main respondent here.

The king himself is one of the most fascinating and multi-faceted subjects I've researched. Who knew (I didn't) – that the 19th century public collected autograph books, and that celebrities of that era handed out autographed photographs. This guy was a professional at handling the public and politicians. In many places he visited, either a private entity or a government entity picked up the financial tab for his expenses. US office holders fell all over themselves to accommodate him.

At home in Hawaii, he was like a lot of 21st century politicians, spending obscene amounts of money on his pet projects, and choosing enablers for cabinet posts. And as noted in his bio article Kalākaua, he did much to revive Hawaiian culture from near-extinction. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment
you should check the date formatting for spaces (December 5–11, 1874) and (December 12 – 22, 1874) are the two different ones you use throughout. I will make time for a proper review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised that I didn't notice that, and that the error exists. Because I routinely run the User:GregU/dashes.js tool, and it didn't flag those at all. But I'll check more thoroughly. Thanks for bringing up. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I just did a run-through, sentence by sentence. As far as I can tell, the inconsistency was confined to the section headings. If I missed anything, please let me know.— Maile (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just looking at the lede, so far. Mostly phrasing or word choices.

  • "King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. " I'm not sure about "breadth". The difficulty is that he did it twice, back and forth, which is hard to express. I might try something like " ... journey across the United States, and back again, began on ..."
  • Done
  • I might move what made this visit distinctive from the second paragraph to the first, and relegate K's personal details to paragraph 2.
  • Done, if I understand you on this one.
  • "he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat" I'd lose the comma.
  • Done
  • "His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks." I might conclude (after D.C.) "saw two diplomatic firsts." Maybe a colon rather than the period but I can see both sides on that.
  • Done
  • "One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him." An audience with him is him receiving them, rather than the other way around as was the case. I would make the final clause "specifically to receive him."
  • Done
  • "Washington D.C." or "Washington, D.C."? You are not consistent.
  • Excellent catch - fixed all with the comma.
  • "to secure an agreement to provide tax relief for its sugar planters," I would frame it as "to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane" or similar. It should not be framed as a tax.
  • Done
  • "ailing" perhaps "ill".
  • Done
  • " the king abided the relentless attention," I might put a "patiently" or "with patience" in there. Abided by itself doesn't say as much.
  • Done
  • "Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington D.C., that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. At Niagara Falls, New York, people waited for hours in frigid temperatures just for a glimpse." The lede is a summary. Do we need two examples?
  • Removed the second one.
  • "The treaty, however, became a link in a chain of events that led to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893." I would cast this something like "The resultant close economic ties between islands and mainland became a major factor leading to the overthrow of the ..".
  • Agree, and changed accordingly
  • Actually, I made a little change. In 1874-75 "mainland" was not a term used in 19th century sources, since Hawaii was an independent kingdom. I changed it to United States.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px
  • Suggest adding alt text
Alt text added to all
  • File:Kalakaua_state_visit_to_Washington,_colored_engraving_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published?
First published Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 1875; newspaper did not credit the artist
  • File:Kalakaua_and_Reciprocity_Commission_(PP-96-13-03).jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Added to the Commons file description. Photographer partner company, both died before 1900
KAVEBEAR I don't have the answer to death date for E. Bedford Grey. Can you find anything? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not know. The only other place with information about this image is [1] and it doesn’t give Grey’s lifespan. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniature[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at. User:Attic Salt has been especially helpful with a series of detailed copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

This is a most interesting article and I don't think I'll be the only reader who comes to the subject with no prior knowledge at all and learns a lot. A few suggestions about the text

  • Engvar
    • It isn't clear which variety of English the article is intended to be in. At first I thought it was in BrE ("categorised") but then ran across AmE ("coloring") and from a quick skim-check I make it AmE 4 (artifacts, coloring, medalist, modeling) and BrE 5 (categorised, categorises, organised, realised, specialised).
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • False titles – fine if in AmE, but not in BrE, where a definite article removes the pain: "to [the] art historian Lynn Jacobs", "to [the] art historian Frits Scholten" etc.
      yes, absolutely - done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Punctuation
    • The MoS bids us use straight rather than curly inverted commas (style’s, saints’ soldiers’ etc).
      Ok Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Another thing the MoS prescribes is to put the full stop after the quotation marks for a quote that ends a sentence. (I'm forever falling foul of that myself.)
  • Lead
    • Is "gebedsnoot" definitely German? It looks Dutch to me, and a quick Google rather points in that direction too. (But if it is a German noun it needs a capital G.)
Its definitely Dutch - changed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "sixteenth century" – but "16th century" in the previous paragraph.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "heaven and hell" – but "Heaven and Hell" with capital letters later in the text.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Due to their rarity" – fine if the article is in AmE, but in BrE "due to" has not yet been generally accepted as a compound preposition, and "owing to" or "because of" is wanted.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "relatively understudied" – relative to what? Rather leaves us in the air unless we are told what other studies you're comparing these studies to.
      Clarified in the lead, but could do with expansion in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Production
    • I'm not sure why the phrase "evenly soft and tactile surface when polished" is in quotes. Usually if words are in quotes one expects to be told inline whose words they are.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "overlaid onto one another" – your meaning is perfectly clear, but looked at logically they can't all be laid on top of one another. "One on top of another" is a bit wordy, but more accurate, I think. You might want to canvass opinion on this: perhaps I'm being too fussy.
      • No agree, and trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "larger scale counterparts" – hyphens are not my strongest point, but I think I'd hyphenate this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "straightedge" – the OED hyphenates this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "high born" – I'd hyphenate this too, I think.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "first attributed person by the art historian Jaap Leeuwenberg" – we've already been introduced to this expert, so I'd omit "the art historian Jaap" here.
    • "may have lead" – "may have led"
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "some 60 of surviving examples" – I'm wondering where you draw the line for giving numbers as words. We've got as high as sixteen in words earlier.
      Because i was too lazy to look up how to spell sixthy. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz, is usually used by art historians". – it doesn't bother me, but some people get really exercised about the use of the passive voice, of which there's a fair bit in this article. Here, for instance, you could use the active: "but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz". (Either way, perhaps "generally use(d)" to avoid the jingle?)
    • have always struggled with this passive voice thing, as I dont know what it means, frankly. Its a term Ive only heard on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Last para of section: does ref 35 cover all four preceding sentences?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Henry V III" – one or the other, I imagine. [Later: the penny's dropped: it's an unwanted space in VIII.]
ok Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Iconography
    • "depictions of the Crucifixion" – not capitalised earlier.
  • Formats
    • "similar coloring, however" – stronger stop than a comma wanted here.
    • "memento mori's" – the authorities think the plural of memento mori is memento mori, and given its Latin origin that's no doubt true, but I don't see why you shouldn't make it an English plural – but not, please, with an inverted comma.
  • Prayer beads
    • "turned by a bow" – this caught me on the back foot: a bow? Is there a useful link you could add?
    • "a sphere, which they then cut in half, hollowed out and attached a fastening hinge" – there's a preposition missing here, as you can see if you mentally omit the words in brackets: "a sphere, which they then [cut in half, hollowed out and] attached a fastening hinge".
    • "apotropaic" – I know the MoS discourages blue links from within quotes, but I think you might make an exception here. I certainly needed the dictionary, and I'm sure most other readers will too without a link.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "A sweet-smelling fragrant substance" – is there a touch of tautology here? If it's sweet-smelling it must be fragrant, and vice vera. (Now I check, I see the OED defines fragrant as "Emitting a sweet or pleasant odour, sweet-smelling.")
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "a single bead, more rarely" – stronger stop wanted.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "the bead stand, his cross; and the interior reliefs, his divinity" – I was taught to give the pronoun a capital letter when referring to the Deity. Perhaps that's gone now, but I just mention it.
      No your right. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Triptychs
    • "fixed hinge" – wants a hyphen, I think.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "for lay persons used for private devotion" – a comma after "persons" would make it clear that it was the objects and not the persons that were used for private devotion.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Christ Carrying of the Cross" – either Christ's Carrying of the Cross or Christ Carrying the Cross, I suggest. The capitalisation seems a touch lavish here, too, but I don't press the point.
    • Now Christ's. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "many of these type of altarpieces" – singular-v-plural clash: either this type or these types
    • "contract between" – contrast?
    • Hmm. I was only out one letter. But fine. Changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Part of the appeal of the Passion" – I struggle with this sentence. I get that there was a contrast between A and B, but can't work out what is setting what in deep relief.
  • Collections
    • "is with the dukes of Bavaria" – "is that of…" possibly?
      yes, better. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "fiancier" – a pleasing typo: one who regularly gets engaged to be married, no doubt.
      No comment. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Study and conservation
    • "comparatively little research" – comparative to what?

That's all from me. I really enjoyed this article. I note what you say about the inability of photographs to do these works justice, but the ones you have chosen look pretty stunning to me. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, those suggestions have really helped add polish. Most done down, a few to get back to this evening. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tkbrett

An interesting article about a subject I wasn't even aware existed.

  • The following sentence strikes me as awkward, maybe because of a missing comma: 'Such stylistic traits include broad and densely populated animated scenes, often placed in the words of art historian William Wixom, on "steeply angled ground planes of tiled floors".'
    Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prayer bead (AGO 29365)..." Is it normal to mention the accession number of a piece in the body of an article? I ask because I'm not used to seeing it done that way, though I understand this case may warrant it given that some pieces may not necessarily have a title.
    Its added because "Prayer bead" is so generic, and refers to the overall type rather than the specific example. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's fair. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a more general comment, I'm wondering if there's any more information regarding Adam Dircksz? You mentioned that almost nothing is known about him, but the article left me wanting to know more about the origin of the miniatures.

Tkbrett (✉) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for comments, and yes it is fustrating that the origions are not well understood. Have dug deep on Dircksz, and this is it; but as the object type has seem a huge resurgence of interest in just the last 3 years, no doubt a fuller picture will soon emerge. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Hopefully more research comes out. In the meantime, this will work great. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Am considering having a crack at a bio. We'll see. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "In some instances, boxwood miniatures were lined with or encased in silver." - source?
  • FN1 appears to be dead
  • Is working ok for me [2] Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN2 should list both speakers
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN33: don't see a matching entry under Sources
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN36 is missing author. Same with FN39
  • FN43: page formatting doesn't match Sources
  • Some but not all Sources periodicals include page numbers - should be consistent
  • FN66 has some odd formatting
  • Be consistent in whether volume and number are capitalized
  • Thornton punctuation doesn't match other entries
  • Be consistent in whether you use "NY" or "New York"
  • No citations to Gow Mann or Porras. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks as ever Nikki, all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Interesting topic, about which I was happy to learn more. A few quibbles:

  • "highly intricate" "extremely intricate" sounds better to my ear, YMMV.
  • I prefer "highly", but not wedded to it. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "while others are standalone triptych altarpieces or statutes." No doubt "statues" is meant.
  • done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Their iconography can be linked to contemporary panel painting, sculpture, woodcut engravings, and altarpieces." should painting be plural?
  • yes done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "members of high nobility." suggest "high-ranking nobles"
  • better, and changed Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Some of the original owners can be identified from markings, usually, initials or coats of arms, left by the sculptors.[5]" I'm not sure "left" sounds best here, maybe "included" or "placed"?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Boxwood is a hardwood with fine grain and high density, and it is resistant to splitting and chipping—all ideal characteristics for wood carving, although its application is limited by the small size of available wood pieces." I might say "use" for "application", and the ending feels a bit clunky.
  • The lining with silver sentence needs a citation.
  • "Other shared features include various spatial devices, figures in contemporary dress, and draperies are arranged in angular folds.[27]" shouldn't the final clause be some sort of noun phrase? It reads strangely to my ear.
  • "A minority contain plates of arms " is this like coats of arms?
  • " were probably intended to evoke church setting.[37]" Is "settings" meant?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The rosary beads are mostly around the same size so that they fit into a hand," Shouldn't there be more explicit discussions of the size of these things?
  • working on this Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "His divinity.[53][44]" Are you going by numerical order for refs?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The panels are usually quite shallow, with just enough dept in the niche, to position the figures, which can either free-standing or carved in high relief." The second comma seems to me unneeded.
  • Yes it was; done Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The earliest modern collection where they were considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic, rather than merely functional, value is that of dukes of Bavaria, as recorded in a 1598 inventory which contains several boxwood miniatures.[66]" Likely a "the" before "dukes".--Wehwalt(talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence you mention has been rewritten. Think I have all these now, if you would care to revisit, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Constantine 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the eighth Abbasid caliph. A younger prince who under normal circumstances would never have become caliph, as a person al-Mu'tasim was in stark contrast to his erudite predecessors, by being a military man through and through; indeed he cemented his fame as a warrior caliph by leading one of the most famous early Muslim feats of arms, the Sack of Amorium. More importantly, his reign saw the completion of the process of dis-empowerment of the older elites, including the Arab settler communities that had held power in the provinces since the Muslim conquests, in favour of the Turkish slave soldiers as the main military (and inevitably also political) support of the monarch. In this way, he inadvertently created the preconditions for the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, but also established a new norm of political organization that was widely emulated and prevailed in large parts of the Muslim world even until the early modern era (think of the Mamelukes or the Janissaries). I've been working on this since 2013, and the article in previous forms has passed GA (2015) and ACR (2017). Gog the Mild recently copyedited it and made some critical suggestions on content and structure. I think the article now provides a thorough, balanced, and approachable coverage of its subject, and is suitable for FA. Constantine 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all three maps and the family tree
  • File:Dirham_of_al-Mu'tasim,_AH_221.jpg should have an explicit tag for the coin itself
    • Done, with PD-art, as a coin is well-nigh a two-dimensional work. Constantine 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The [Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet Commons documentation] indicates that that tag shouldn't be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The coin photo itself is licensed as a photo with the CNG license; the coin as a design or artwork (which is what I understood by "an explicit tag for the coin itself") is two-dimensional art. Constantine 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • You've understood my comment correctly, but the coin is legally considered 3D art, not 2d. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • But surely that rationale applies to the photo of a coin ("Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image"), not the original artistic design of the coin itself, which, especially in the case of a coin featuring nothing but Arabic text, is 2D. Constantine 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
              • I think we're talking past each other a bit here. What I'm trying to say is, we need a copyright tag for the photo and for the coin itself, and the tag for the coin itself can't be PD-Art because the Commons documentation doesn't allow that tag to be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The discussion and court ruling referred to in Commons is that a coin should be regarded as a 3D object when considering the photo of a coin, as the photographer might position it in such a way that an artistic effect is created; for that, the CNG license suffices, as they took the photo. The design of the coin is two-dimensional design (text), which happens to be expressed on a (barely) three-dimensional medium. Anyhow, to avoid going around in circles over this, I've changed the tag to {{PD-1923}}, I hope that is suitable. Constantine 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Babak_parleys_with_the_Afshin_Haydar,_the_Caliph_al-Mu'tasim's_general_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Abbasids_Ninth_Century.svg is sourced to a Commons file that does not itself have a source - suggest adding a reliable reference that verifies the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. The beginning of your description here reminds me of a certain modern day Arabian prince, much less successful on the battlefield, tough... FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of duplinks, this script[3] can be used to highlight them (I may have linked it before).
  • Any relevant buildings that could be shown in the article for flavour?
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this on, looking forward to your comments. On the duplinks, I've followed the rule of always linking in the first occurrence in the body, not counting the lede, per MOS:DUPLINK. I will re-check though, it is likely that some have slipped through. On buildings, the most notable buildings of Samarra and Baghdad date from different periods; I am not aware of any building of Mu'tasim's reign still surviving to this day. I might add some fragments of pottery or frescoes, though. There's not much in Commons, but perhaps something suitable can be found elsewhere. Constantine 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't say "a lot" of duplinks on second looking (maybe I was confusing it with Alodia that I looked at right before), Baghdad is linked twice within the intro, and a couple of words are linked after first instance in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Political instability at the highest levels" This WP:Easter egg link to Barmakids is not very transparent (who would guess what was meant here?), I'd suggest making it clearer what is meant.
    • Done
  • "inspiration for the first of the stories of the Thousand and One Nights" Does that story have a name? If so, could be mentioned.
    • Clarified, not the "first story", but rather among the earliest stories
  • "supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi" This appears to have been his "half uncle", perhaps worth a mention?
    • Indeed
  • Mashriq could be explained in parenthesis (supposedly as "countries bounded between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran").
    • Done
  • "he supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi against al-Ma'mun" You don't explain how he could turn from al-Mahdi to al-Ma'mun; there were no hard feelings between them even after that?
    • He did not play a prominent role in the opposition, and Ibrahim's regime was more a protest by the Baghdad elites at al-Ma'mun's long absence from the capital, even after winning the civil war, rather than a serious attempt to dethrone him. Will add this in a footnote.
  • "one of the original Arab conquerors of the country" and " since the Muslim conquest of Egypt", why don't you place the link to "Muslim conquest of Egypt"at the first mention?
    • Done
  • "won a minor skirmish against Theophilos in person" Against him and his army, I assume? Reads like it was just the two...
    • Clarified
  • "but he suddenly fell ill and died" Any idea from what?
    • There are only anecdotal stories, and no definite or even half-way reliable indication. One tradition holds that he caught a cold from bathing or washing in the river, another that he fell ill after eating some dates, another that Ibn Hanbal prayed for his death, etc. I've included the couple of stories that blame Mu'tasim (almost certainly to be disregarded as slander) in a footnote Constantine 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "with the regnal name of al-Mu'tasim" The meaning should be stated here.
  • "disappear from the court, and distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased" Why jump to present tense out of nowhere?
  • "to reject Tahirid control (see below)" I think such internal directions are discouraged, but I can't find a relevant guideline.
  • "and of being accorded divine status" I wonder if Shirk (Islam) would be a more appropriate link than Sacred king.
  • "that the Quran was created" You should probably specify that what is meant is it wasn't created by god...

Brie Larson[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If you dislike pop culture icons but are a fan of cheese, dolls, architecture, rice, or latex, then there's plenty for you here. If not, I sure won't be clapping for you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes within quotation marks should use single quotes
  • FN4, FN40, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN67, FN114, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN95 is missing author, same with FN92, check for others
  • FN135, FN139 (agency), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN98, FN119, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN4: author name doesn't match source, check for others
  • FN105, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN45, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Channel names shouldn't be italicized
  • FN7, FN23, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Website names generally should be italicized
  • Archives and retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links - the links are courtesy
  • Issues with FN32 and 22, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't be overspecific with book publication dates
  • FN17, FN20, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Edition statements aren't part of the title
  • FN30 and others: not all Vulture articles are from New York, check that things are properly attributed
  • FN32 is incomplete
  • Currently using the article title as the publication title - those should be separate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN52: publication title doesn't match source, check for others
Nikkimaria, this seems fine to be. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That link gives the publication title as Slant; the citation gives the publication title as Slate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN73: date doesn't match source, check for others
  • FN95 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN98 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN107 has an odd author format
All done. I hope I haven't missed anything. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, all done now, hopefully. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
'Fraid not. I realize it would be time-consuming to check each ref, but that might actually be the best approach in this case - it seems for whatever reason there is a significant rate of errors or omissions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I went through each of the references and have fixed the errors. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I have a question about this sentence (She was mostly homeschooled, which she believed allowed her to explore innovative and abstract experiences.). How can one be “mostly” homeschooled?
  • For this part (be featured in the Untitled Avengers film), I am uncertain if “Untitled” needs to be capitalized.

Wonderful work with the article. I could not find much that needed improvement. Surprisingly, I have never actually seen any of Larson’s work (film or television), but I still very much enjoyed reading this article. I hope you find this review to be helpful. I will support this once both of my nitpicky comments are addressed. Have an excellent rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Aoba47. In response to your first comment, I'd say that it's a bit tricky. This source says that she was "home-schooled for much of her childhood" and this says "mostly homeschooled" as well. My best guess is that she briefly attended public school but I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Thanks, Aoba. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about another underwater mountain in the Marshall Islands which was formerly an atoll, similar to the other recent FA Wōdejebato, and has a similar history although it is located in a different part of the Marshall Islands: It's a former volcano in French Polynesia which became first an atoll as plate tectonics moved it north, then it disappeared below the water and is now a seamount at the southeastern end of the Marshall Islands. It's somewhat less known than Wōdejebato but IMO there is enough material on this seamount for featured article status as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A little postscript: While this is my fifth FAC it's the first one where I didn't ask for a pre-FAC prose review so that might need some more prose reviewing than my previous nomination. If folks think that its prose needs more rewriting than what can/should be done in a FAC, just say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Will say so, Jo-Jo, and while my feeling is that this will pass, as you mention it will need a steer re prose. This is my first geography article review, so be patient :)

  • Overall its not phrasing so much as the claims seem jumbled up and hard to follow at times - I note your FAC blurb here (which I just read) is clearer than the lead (which I have spent the last hour trying to tease apart). Go figure, but maybe think of a reader who is slightly less intelligent and technically proficient than you have been aiming for.
  • Much improved. I'm a bit confused by it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to them through a volcanic ridge - is it Mili or Knox Atoll that is joined to them. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The sources only discuss Mili, but given that the bathymetric map shows that Knox is basically a portion of Mili, all three are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we really need footnote "e" (Among the species of foraminife) with its I dont know how many red links
  • "Footnote e" originally was part of the article text but I moved it down as it's almost certainly of no interest to most readers. I don't think it's really needed although someone with keen interest in foraminifera may be interested. Do we think it's useful for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No frankly Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • lead: Can you trim File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf so it does have the illegible text to the right
  • After the volcanic episode - can we say eruption or activity or something, rather than episode, as it seems obtuse
  • Lead: "a phase of erosion" - needs explanation; what happened and over how many years
  • There is no time constraint, but I can say that Limalok was flattened so that's now in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is believed - may have
    Removed the "believed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • After a hiatus, sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition - leading to. Is commenced right? Maybe "sediment formed on the seamount..."
    I think "commenced" is a good word to use. "Formed" sounds a bit off, as if rocks appeared out of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Link needed for Atoll. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Similar with "which then became barrier reefs " - over what length of period
  • The development of barrier reefs is a general process that doesn't have a set starting or stopping point, so I don't think we can say "when" or "how long". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes volcanic activity occurred - dont like "sometimes" as it gives no approximation of frequency
  • The source does not specify how frequently renewed volcanism occurs, and it'd be difficult to tell anyway as most seamounts have not been researched enough. Hence "sometimes". I don't like the weasel wording either but that's all I can do.
  • Then say that. Unknow frequence is better than "sometimes" Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • modified by phosphate - vague, explain the effect of the modification.
  • After a hiatus - vague, x million years presumably.
  • - drowned 48 ± 2 million years ago (during the Eocene) - above in the blurb you make this much clearer re the sequence, also drop the (brackets).
  • Thermal subsidence lowered the drowned seamount to its present depth - "further lowered"; can we not say "drowned" again; submerged is another word but maybe just "seamount"
  • The seafloor beneath Limalok is 152
  • where the carbonate platforms were lifted above sea level erosional features such as channels and blue holes developed - maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features....
  • I am a bit confused on what maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features.... means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Doh! That wasn't meant verbatim. What I, and I hope you, mean is that the impact of the rising platforms is evident on the landscape, as seen in features such as...It was the "sea level erosional" combination that confused me. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Pacific Ocean seafloor, especially the parts that are of Mesozoic age - didn't check but presume seafloor has already been linked (yes extreme nick-picking)
  • the region of the Marshall Islands was located in the region of present-day French Polynesia during the time of active volcanism. Both regions display - prose: vary the language, here region(s) appears 3 times
  • Limalok was one of the seamounts targeted for drilling during the Ocean Drilling Program;[6] the low recovery rates during the oil excavation have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history - Understand that drilling would impact the physical formation, but why you attribute low recovery rates (I assume yield, but that makes it even more puzzling) whatever they are, is unclear.
  • But how did "not all material is pulled up" make "it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" - I suspect sources are jumbled here, or at least there is an unexplained technical connection. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Limalok has erupted basaltic rocks[10] which have been classified as alkali basalts,[41] basanite[34] and nephelinite.[42] Minerals contained in the rocks are apatite,[43] augite,[36] biotite,[43] clinopyroxene, olivine,[44] nepheline[43] and plagioclase,[44] and there are ultramafic xenoliths.[45] - holy moley. Please please please trim this down, and do we not have one single source that can be used to back each of the individual rock and mineral seems unlikely that only one of each would be mentioned in each available source, and an accusation of ref stacking could be made
  • The term "carbonate platform" appears 24 times in the article.
    Would replacing it with "platform" in some cases help? That's the technical and sorta-intuitive term for such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes please. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
They have been trimmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Am enjoying reading this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Working through these, a few notes:

[Nevermind, moved them underneath every comment in Ceoil's list]

Also, Ceoil, the seamount was drilled for drill cores, not for oil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
NP. will revisit in a few days. Sorry for posting several hundred times on this page; was distracted. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
S'OK. Also, per your edit summary I've moved each of my replies below the bullet it is addressing so that it's clear what I've done and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. that makes it much easier from this side. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In terms of backtracked hotspot locations, the first hotspot; "hotspot" x2 and dont like "In terms of".
  • Catching up on your work since last weekend. Looking better, but my overall impression is that it remains slight, in part because you are assuming that the general reader is familiar with all the technical blue links, and you are not walking them through enough. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I got the most recent things done. Regarding the technical terms, I think I'll need to put in footnotes or in-text explanation for at least some of them (I was thinking "flood basalt", "Ocean Drilling Project", "Volcaniclastic", "blue holes", "fringing reefs", "hotspot", "lithospheric", "crystal fractionation", "cementation", "diagenetic", "breccia", "paleomagnetism", "oncoids", "rhodoliths", "hardgrounds", "photic zone"), are there other parts which are problematic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Given the quick responses, hope to be able to close out this review today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I think I got these now. Some sections are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that "the low recovery rates" in "low recovery rates[e] during the drilling for drill cores have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" means yield, but once again, how does this connect with "made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history". This encapsulates my remaining issue with the page; you have made great strides wrt to prose, but there are still some (to me) logical gaps. I note, you seem to prefer putting these in notes, I prefer in the article body; as a casual lay reader, when I'm reading a page and something doesn't makes immediate sense, I don't go to the footnotes, I click out and google. Footnotes should be (to me) for interesting asides, not making basic connections. Re some sections are for technical people only, the article is 2000 odd words long, so a ten minute read; I don't think that "are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there" cuts it or is wise; maybe in an article twice this size with a very delineated TOC. I'm beginning to suspect we are talking past each other. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like that ("we are talking past each other") might be the case. To me it sounded like you were complaining about overly technical text which is a concern other people have noted with my writing in the past. I did try to mend the logical gap now in the drill core statement; does it work now and are there additional things that need explanation?
The reason why I put the explanations in footnotes is mainly because I know (from User talk:Iridescent) that some readers read an article offline so they can't click on a link or google a term. And because in many instances trying to explain a term inline would jerk the flow of the conversation.
When I was talking about the "more technical readers" section I was thinking "Composition". I've added explanations for some terms but I can't find any definition for "fractional crystallization" other than the one on our page on it.
Ceoil Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll wait a few days to let other reviewers weigh in, and see how it pans out. Note I take the points in your last post, but not totally convinced. Re technical terms, its sometimes helpful to include a snipit form the lead sentence of the linked article to give the reader grounding. I'm still leaning support however, have really enjoyed the article, and learned a lot. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
  • Suggest using the specific USGS tag for the lead image
  • File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source for the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Upscaled one map, removed the other as mentioned above. I've removed the hotspot map for the same reason that it was removed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wōdejebato/archive1; for some reason I didn't remove it from Limalok after that. Changed the tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

Will post these asap. ceranthor 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a first pass:

  • I'd add or Harriet to "formerly known as Harrie"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Limalok (formerly known as Harrie) is a Cretaceous[a]-Paleocene[b] guyot/tablemount " - why guyot/tablemount if they're basically the same thing?
    Because "tablemount" is a bit more intuitive. This is a change I did after a relative comment in the Wōdejebato FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform" - |adj=on
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Located at a depth of 1,255 metres (4,117 ft), with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform, it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to each of them through a volcanic ridge." - lots of info... might be better to split into two shorter sentences
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "nutrient rich" - think this should be hyphenated
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and also known as Harriet Guyot;[4]" - grammar seems a bit off here, for the "and also known... bit"
    Remedied. I am wondering if "Harriet" is a typo by the source, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "by obtaining drill cores from the oceans.[7][6]" - nitpick, but switch to ascending ref order
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "forming a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) " - |adj=on
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "guyots (also known as tablemounts[25])." - nitpick, but why the reference inside the parentheses?
    Because it only sources the content of the parenthese; the rest of the sentence is carried by a different citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "95-85 million years ago, followed by the Rurutu hotspot and the Society hotspot by 75-65 million years ago.[40]" - think these have hyphens rather than endashes, should be switched if so
    I'll admit that I am not certain which to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aragonite, pyrite[58] and organic material formed by alteration of living beings within the clays and limestones.[59]" - this is a fragment
    Joined it logically to the preceding sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • " Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[62] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[63] that is it existed by the Cretaceous;[33] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[64]" - lots going on in this sentence. might be better split into two, and removing the semicolon?
    Rearranged this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "56 - 33.9 million years ago" - same note about the endash
    Commented above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "After a Paleocene phase with open sea or back-reef conditions lagoonal environments developed on the seamount during the Eocene,[72] which periodically emerged above sea level leading to erosion of the platform[54] although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated.[73]" - seems like a bit of a run-on
    Broke it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to link storms
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The duration of the platform is about 10 million years,[77] " - honestly unsure what "duration" means here - age?
    Reworded it. I am a bit unclear how to word this; it's supposed to say how long carbonate was being deposited on Limalok. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ceranthor 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Actioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Melodrama (Lorde album)[edit]

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Melodrama, the second studio album from New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde (Ella Yelich-O'Connor). It was released on 16 June 2017 to widespread acclaim, earning a nomination for Album of the Year at the 60th Annual Grammy Awards. The majority of the album was co-written and co-produced by Lorde and Jack Antonoff over the course of four years shortly after the release of the singer's debut studio album. It performed moderately on national charts, earning gold certifications in several countries. De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Media are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47[edit]

  • I believe this part (The album, which was recorded after Lorde's relationship with her long-time boyfriend James Lowe broke down in 2015) could be reduced down to something like (The album, recorded after Lorde’s breakup with long-time boyfriend James Lowe in 2015) to make it more concise.
  • I do not believe the reference in the lead is necessary. I understand you are using it for the quote, but I am uncertain if the quote is really necessary for the lead. The quote and reference are great for the body of the article itself, but I think you can safely paraphrase this without losing anything.
  • I have been told by some reviewers that the link for “critics” is not necessary, but I will leave that to your preference.
  • Link Lorde on the first mention in the body of the article.
  • Why are four references necessary for this sentence (Melodrama was released through Universal, Lava and Republic Records on 16 June 2017.)? Four seems to be a lot just for the release date and the record labels.
  • I am slightly confused by this part ("Perfect Places" was inspired after the deaths of David Bowie and Prince occurred, two musicians Lorde states were the most influential while recording Melodrama.) as it could read one of two ways. One being that they were the most influential for the recording of the album or the most influential in the world while the album was being recorded. I am assuming you mean the first as the second one is a bold claim that I doubt could be fully supported. Maybe something like “the most influential for the recording of Melodrama.).
  • How have your structured the “Critical response” subsection? I would like to hear your perspective, as it seems somewhat random to me, in terms of concepts/ideas. A stronger structure for this would make it appear more like a narrative than a random assortment of critics and their quotes.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Jill Valentine[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character from the Resident Evil franchise. After an exhaustive [5-month] campaign of contacting everyone who contributed to every single FAC and peer review, I'm renominating this article for Featured Article inclusion. This is a somewhat contentious topic, and I'm aware that fictional character articles have a tenuous chance of being promoted to FA, for one reason or another, so I've tried my best to approach this entire project with the aim of achieving as much consensus from as many contributors as possible. A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available here. I believe I've addressed all of their concerns, even if the majority of them said they wouldn't be available for comment at this FAC. I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: @ProtoDrake: @Adityavagarwal: @Tintor2: @Beemer69: @Sergecross73:. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake
  • Having looked through the article, I think it more than deserves to become an FA. If the others share my opinion, or share it after any edits they suggest have been attended to, then you should have little trouble. I Support a promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment by Tintor2
  • I don't consider myself an expert in these article (well, there are so little FA characters) but I wonder if the first paragraph could introduce Jill rather than wait for the second paragraph to mention her. Appearances could have a subsection simply titled "In the Resident Evil games" to make it more distinct since there is another one titled "Other appearances". Other than that, I give it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your comments. ;) @Tintor2: I've re-arranged the lead and added the requested sub-section heading in 'Appearances'. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I am not sure that “developer” and “publisher” needs to be linked in the lead’s first paragraph. Same with the link for "heroine".
Replaced both of the former with generic term "company"; removed link to "heroine".
  • For this part (Valentine is an American counterterrorism officer who regularly works with her partner,), I do not believe that “regularly” is needed here.
  • For this sentence (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" for the remake, although she remained a tough and muscular character.), I do not believe the “for the remake” part is necessary as it is clear from the context provided in the previous sentence. And maybe rework the last part slightly to make contrast clear and for more concise language, with something like (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" while keeping her a tough and muscular character.)? Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've rephrased that whole sentence.
  • This sentence (Voth's likeness was again used in the 2007 title Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, as well as 2009's Resident Evil 5.) is rather wordy and I think you can make it more concise with this revision (Voth’s likeness was reused for Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007) and Resident Evil 5 (2009).).
  • I have a question about this part (The director of the latter game said its designers tried to illustrate how both Valentine and Redfield had changed with time). Is it really important to know that the director said this? Could it just cut to something like “The latter game’s designers tried to…”? I am also not certain about the word choice “tried” as it implies to me an unsuccessful attempt. Maybe something like “wanted to” would be better?
  • For this sentence (In the game, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject in biological research experiments.), specify which installment you mean by “the game”.
  • For this part (The style of this costume was based primarily on military clothing and sportswear.), I do not think you need the word “primarily”.
  • You use the phrase “alternative costume” three times in a single paragraph. I think you can cut down on this by revising this sentence (The miniskirt appears as an alternate costume in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) to something like (The miniskirt is reused for Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) or something similar.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's a repetition I'd never have noticed myself. I've rephrased the entire paragraph.
  • For this part (for the original game were credited by their first names only), I would put “only” between “their” and “first” instead.
  • This sentence (In Revelations, she was voiced by Michelle Ruff, who provided her voice in the non-canon game Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City.) seems rather repetitive, particularly with “was voiced” and “provided her voice”, and I was wondering it should have some variation. Maybe just say “who returned for the non-canon game” instead?
Thanks again. The way this article was left following the last peer review, I have to admit that I was struggling to find synonyms/alternate phrasings for some of these basic points. I've rephrased to your wording.
  • I think that this sentence (The character appeared in several entries of the Resident Evil film series, where she was portrayed by British actress Sienna Guillory.) should be in the present tense.
  • This sentence (Until its destruction at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, every game in the series took place in the fictional American metropolitan area Raccoon City.) needs to be reworded. The initial, dependent clause (specifically "its destruction) is connected to the noun at the beginning of the: next part (every game) so it literally reads that every game is destroyed at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.
  • Link Wesker on the first mention
Darn. Things not being linked until successive mentions is one of my pet peeves. And this was something I saw happening on the article following its last peer review. So I hoped I'd be able to get all high-and-mighty about it, if needs be... but it turns out I've done it myself. C'est la vie. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • I do not think that the Mediterranean Sea needs a link.
  • For this part (were used as the basis for the creation of the Uroboros Virus), I think you can just say "the basis for..." and remove "the creation of" part.
  • Specify which game you mean for this part (During the game, Redfield discovers that Valentine is alive.).
  • For this part (Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal.), I am not quite sure if "this" is contextualized. Maybe something like "Despite Mikami's intentions," would make it absolutely clear?
  • How does Voth's cosplay and appearances at cons fit in a section about merchandise? I am a little confused there.
It seemed like a notable event, but I couldn't figure out any other way of having it included on the article. Removed.
  • For this part (a quip delivered in awkward voiceover by Valentine's partner), is the partner Chris Redfield? If so, I would just say his name to avoid confusion. Apologies for this, as I have not seen this scene (or played any of the games surprisingly enough lol).
It was actually Barry Burton who delivered the line. Rephrased.

I think you have done a good job with this article. It is nice to see another fictional character up for an FA. My review only covers the prose, and does not touch on the sourcing/images. I hope that my comments are helpful; I admit that I am not the best reviewer, but I felt compelled to help with this considering my involvement in the past FAC and peer review. Good luck with this, and I hope this gets plenty of discussions. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, @Aoba47: I would've pinged you, but I wasn't sure if you had retired yourself from Wikipedia or not, so thought it best to err on the side of caution. I think I've done everything you mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else you can do. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for birthplace?
  • FN4: source says issue 101 not number 101
This seems to be a problem with the cite journal template, and not any specific usage found on the article (I've used |issue=). I tried fixing this by using the cite magazine template, which didn't work. I'm stumped. Any suggestions? Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • FN5: is the interviewer credited?
Afraid not. Header for the interviewer simply says "by Edge Staff", nothing specific. I can add "Edge Staff", if it'd help. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Don't use |publisher= for work titles
Done, except with ref #66: 'Cite comic' shoots an error when I replace |publisher= with |work=. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • FN11: date doesn't match source. Same with FN16, FN60 part 2, check for others
I'm sure it was the archive bot which did this, but I can't find a diff to confirm (don't remember if it did it on my sandbox or on article main space). But I remember seeing it and thinking "Well, it's a bot, so it must be right". Evidently not. Fixed the ones you mentioned. Checked at least 10 others, couldn't find any further problems. Will check every online source over the next day or two, just to be certain. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are included for periodicals
  • FN23: author name doesn't match source. Same with FN48, 72 part 1, check for others
  • Don't italicize developers, publishers, or associations
  • FN47: should cite original source. Same with FN68
  • FN57 needs a time code
  • FN66: see MOS:NOTUSA, but other comic refs don't include location at all
  • FN66 part 2 is incomplete
  • FN67 part 1: don't see author credit at cited source
  • FN71 is dead. Same with FN 81
  • What makes FN84 a high-quality reliable source? Morbid Creations?
FN84 was Joystick Division. Removed.
  • FN85 is a journal article and should be cited as such
  • FN104: title doesn't match source. Same with FN105, check for others
  • Nicholson: source link gives an additional author
  • Chapter titles shouldn't be italicized, and be consistent in how you approach pagination
  • Geyser title should use title case. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Nikkimaria:. I've fixed everything you mentioned above, aside from the few points I responded to. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as WAVES. Pendright has been working on this article for several years. It went through GAN in 2016 and MILHIST ACR earlier this year. I have nominated the article for FAC on behalf of Pendright, per request on my talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations. The Article was promoted to A-class on 18, April 2018. To those who choose to review the article, thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Criterion 1a, lead:

  • "The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported in the Congress or by the Navy, although some members did support the need for uniformed women during World War II." You might drop the second "by". "members means members of Congress, I suppose; slight possibility it might refer to members of the Navy. Let's avoid the gendered "Congressmen" ... would "lawmakers" fix the problem?
The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported by the Congress or the Navy, although some of the lawmakers and naval personnel did support the need for uniformed women during World War II. Pendright (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "For enlisted, the eligible age was ..."—unsure what that means. "For the enlisted"? (i.e. the already-enlisted). Or "For enlistment"?
= "other ranks" in British English, and perhaps Australian. Not officers or NCOs. But perhaps there are readers equally unfamiliar. See Enlisted rank (or Other ranks for a range of links). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Enlisted was changed to enlistment as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. In U.S. English, enlistment is described as the action of enrolling or being enrolled in the armed services. No entry rate or rank, just a recruit. Pendright (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "indoctrination"—most narrowly, yes, it is the right word. But several sources I consulted give it a "brainwashing" tinge. Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. to often repeat an idea or belief to someone to persuade them to accept it." Two examples are provided: "Some parents were critical of attempts to indoctrinate children in green ideology. They have been indoctrinated by television to believe that violence is normal." The second meaningn concerns "religious/political/ideological indoctrination". Perhaps a more neutral word? "training"? "induction"? There are other synonyms, too.
Substituted training for indoctrination - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Specialized training for officers was held on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities." ... training was "held"; perhaps "was conducted", but it's ok. And possibly, too: "Most enlisted members received initial training at Hunter College in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Some women then attended ...".
Specialized training for officers was conducted on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women then attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • False match between fields and practitioners: "Many officers entered fields previously held by men, such as doctors and engineers"—medicine and engineering? And you mark gender in the next sentence, but not here (Many female officers).
Many female officers entered fields previously held by men, such as medicine and engineering. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, many of the women were experiencing hostility in the workplace by some of their male counterparts."—I think the first phrase could go. Simpler is better: "Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts."
Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • cause for ... I think better might be "source of"?
The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies, early on, was the source of many of the difficulties. Pendright (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Upon their demobilization"—who was being demobilized? The women or the bosses?
Upon demobilization of the officer and enlisted members, Pendright (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, this is a great topic, and I'd really like to see it promoted. Going by the lead, I think it needed a more-thorough copyedit before nomination—though the lead is hard to get right. I haven't looked at the rest. Do you have collaborators who could go over it with fresh eyes? (That is, editors who haven't yet worked on it?) Tony (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I seem to have exhausted my circle of fresh eyes – but let me see what I can do elsewhere. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I have read through parts of the article and generally agree with your comments, that it could use a thorough copyedit and that the prose is not currently up to FA standard. I'm willing to have a look and see what feedback I can offer. Catrìona (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


I’ve reviewed the MOS reference. Also looked at other articles, FAC and AC, and image-wise I don’t see any differences between them and those in this article. I’m ready to try to fix the problem, but I need a better grasp of the problem. Would you mind elaborating further? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more specific. In the "Uniforms" section the image exceeds the header, which is probably necessary, but it is awkward to then butt up against an unrelated image "A Campus view of Smith College", which I would recommend deleting because it is only tangentially relevant. The layout of the "Personnel" section is also awkward. Both the images are relevant, but they should be kept within the section. Personally, I might try using the {{multiple images}} template, either side by side or one above the other. If you aren't familiar with templates, I could try reformatting that part myself. Catrìona (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(a) Deleted image of Campus view of Smith College - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(b) I'd apprecite any
reformating help you are willing to provide. Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, see if you like it. I took the liberty of shortening the captions and ALT text a bit. The ALT text should not be duplicative of the caption, per WP:Alt text. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: I've not come across this way of adding images to the article before. It appears to have broken the links to the commons images. Factotem (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: I've added the links manually. Catrìona (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:Alt text; it is intended to describe the purely visual content of an image for the benefit of the visually impaired. For an example of alt text done correctly, see Bratislava Working Group.
I’ve rewritten the alt text more in the prescribed manner. If you find fault with any of it, let me know. Thanks for the alt text rewrites on the stacked images, which look good. Is the image under Uniforms awkward enough to justify deletion? Pendright (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:CREDENTIAL (TLDR: in most cases, don't use titles like Dr., Mrs., etc.)
Deleted Dr. from Dr. Ada Comstock image. Pendright (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Dr. from Dr. Chung in text - Pendright (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are these indented? They don't appear to be quotes.

    • In More Than a Uniform, Winifred Quick Collins (a former WAVE officer) described Director McAfee as a born diplomat, handling difficult matters with finesse.[18] She also said McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men and in their assignments, housing conditions, and supervision and discipline standards.
Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose.
Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The quote attached to Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. is sourced so it's difficult to tell what information is from which source. Also, it's best to cite direct quotes to a secondary source where possible. Just taking a guess at what information is supported by which source, you could do something like:

Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name.[1] She explained:

I realized there were two letters that had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So, I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps.[2]


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goodson p. 11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Goodson p. 113, quoting Hancock p. 61
This is how the text read in 2016, before someone other than my self changed it:
They also recognized the importance of a name: agreeing it should be one suitable for the organization envisioned. To Reynard fell the task of finding such a name.[12] In explaining how she came up with the nautical name, Reynard said: "I realized that there were two letters which had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps."[13]Raynard was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES.[14]

Any suggestions? Pendright (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, from a Gbooks search, I can confirm that the quote appears in Hancock, and also on page 38 of one of the editions of Crossed Currents. If you can confirm that that's the same edition you used (see Factotem's comments below), I'll fix it myself. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I Confirm it's page 38 - read the comment, and thanks. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, but it should read, Goodson P. 111, not 11. It confirms the tasking and 113 the commissioning Pendright (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: FYI - Pendright (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • denied the benefits of their male counterparts This is a vague statement. Although not directly related to the article, consider adding a footnote stating how the benefits for women differed than those for men; it also isn't clear in the article if/how WAVES' benefits were different.
  • In her book, Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock quotes his reply: Suggest "He replied," (Alternately, state Hancock's source for the statement; she didn't seem to be a witness to the conversation)
Here is the text: Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose (not in quotes).
Why is this not just an account of relevant characteristics or qualities of someone being described? Pendright (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Bureau of Personnel Is this the Bureau of Naval Personnel linked above? Best to be consistent.
Bureau of Naval Personnel - Pendright (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In Crossed Currents, the authors describe Chung and her involvement: Suggest breaking up this quote and paraphrasing in your own words, per Wikipedia policy to minimize quotes and brevity.
Still, the Bureau of Aeronautics continued to believe there was a place for women in the Navy, and appealed to an influential friend of naval aviation, Margaret Chung.[6] A San Francisco physician and surgeon, Chung was known to have had an interest in naval aviation. Many of her naval friends referred to themselves as sons of Mom Chung. In Crossed Currents, the authors describe how Chung used her influence:
Having learned of the stalemate, she asked one of these [sons], Representative Melvin Maas of Minnesota, who had served in the aviation branch of the U.S. Marine Corps in World War I, to introduce legislation independently of the Navy. On 18 March 1942 he did just that.[7] Pendright (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the political party of the politicians relevant to mention?
Debatable, of course, but it's a historic fact, part of the story, and relevant as well. Pendright (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Maas's House bill was essentially the same as the Knox proposal, which would make a women's branch part of the Naval Reserve Suggest "Like the Knox propose, Maas' bill would create a women's branch of the Naval Reserve", unless there were other similarities that would be appropriate to mention in the article.
Changed artice text: The Maas House bill was identical to the the Knox proposal, <> Went to the source and it says "identical" -Pendright (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On 16 April 1942, the House Naval Affairs Committee reported favorably on the bill. which bill?
Maas bill - Pendright (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • But Knox asked the president to reconsider. You should be more clear on whether or not the bill passed and/or if Roosevelt signed it.
The Senate committee eventually proposed a naval version of the WAAC, and the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, approved it. But Knox asked the president to reconsider.
Roosevelt only approved a Senate committee proposal. Pendright (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Creation of the program[edit]
  • You state Because of her efforts, eight prominent women agreed to serve on the council. However, from the list that follows it looks like only seven of them served at once, and according to Google, Graham was a man. Phrases like "national authority" and "noted lecturer" are potentially WP:PEACOCK issues.
Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. They included:
Meta Glass, president of Sweet Briar College
Lillian Gilbreth, a specialist on efficiency in the workplace
Ada Comstock, president of Radcliffe College
Alice Crocker Lloyd, dean of the University of Michigan
Mrs. Malbone Graham, a lecturer from the West Coast
Marie Rogers Gates, the wife of Thomas Sovereign Gates, president of the University of Pennsylvania
Harriet Elliott, dean of women at the University of North Carolina
Alice Baldwin, dean of women at Duke University, served after Elliott's resignation.[9]
Source confirms it is Mrs. Graham as does Google - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that looks good, except that we do not usually refer to women by their husband's name. If her husband was Malbone Watson Graham, professor of political science at UCLA, (which is what I got to when I googled Malbone Graham), what was her name? Catrìona (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Gladys, per Google - Pendright (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Her first-rate performance as Jacobs' assistant silenced any fears the Navy may have had about women educators. WP:PEACOCK
Deleted - Pendright (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The task of convincing McAfee to accept and persuading the Wellesley Board of Trustees to release her was difficult, but successful. McAfee was reluctant to accept the position and the Wellesley Board of Trustees initially refused to release her, but eventually she was freed ...?
but eventually she was freed - Pendright (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mildred McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy. move this earlier in the paragraph, to explain why McAfee was chosen for the position
The council knew the success of the program would depend on the woman chosen to lead it. A prospective candidate would need to possess proven managerial skills, command respect, and have an ability to get along well with others. Their recommendation was Mildred H. McAfee, president of Wellesley College, as the future director.[9] The Navy agreed. McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy.[10] Pendright (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • who did not favor the WAAC concept, cut, already stated
Cut - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Council members Advisory Council members
Added - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • each took it on themselves to write suggest "separately wrote to"
As a matter of procedure or rule, a council usually acts as a body, not individually. That’s why I used this language.
  • Women's branch of the Navy reserve odd capitalization, since this isn't the official name, suggest "women's branch..."
Lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "... Lieutenant Commander McAfee was simply told by the bureau that she was to 'run' the women's reserve and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions. Unfortunately, the decision was not made known to the operating divisions of the bureau." attribute this quote, and I would start it "McAfee was told..." (the hanging ellipses are distracting and unnecessary, imo)
The bureau "told McAfee that she was to run the women's reserve, and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions."[19] -Pendright (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No plans existed to help guide her; in fact, no planning had been done, by anyone, in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act. Suggest "No planning had been done in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act."
Deleted "by anypne" - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • By August and September 1942, another 108 women confusing dates, do you mean "In August and September" or "By September"?
Deleted August - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The age for officer candidates was between 20 and 49, with a college degree, or two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. The enlistment age requirements were between 20 and 35, with a high school or business diploma, or equivalent experience. The change has made this passage excessively confusing. I strongly suggest going back to the previous version, since this isn't any more help to BrE speakers.
Suggested replacement:
To be eligible for officer candidate school, the age requirement was 20 to 49, posses a college degree, or have two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. To volunteer at the enlisted level, the age requirement was 20 to 35, posses a high school or a business diploma, or with equivalent experience.
Pendright (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Source Review by Factotem[edit]


  • No unsourced paragraphs found;
  • The statement that Dr. Ada Comstock was "...President of Radcliffe College (1925–1943)..." in the image caption is not sourced either in the article or in the image description over at Commons (and the WP article on her gives her years as president as 1923–1943);
Changed, 1923 is correct - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The information provided in the captions of the two images in the Personnel section is unsourced. Strike that. The way they are formatted prevented me from accessing the commons descriptions. I was able to do so from a revision in the article history before that formatting was applied, and verify that the captions are sourced to those descriptions. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical checks

  • References formatted correctly;
  • Not sure it's necessary to link locations in the bibliography, but just pointing out that New York in the last publication is not linked.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

External links

  • Ext link checker does not report any serious issues;
  • The ISBN number provided for Ebert and Hall's Crossed Currents relates to the 1999 edition of Crossed Currents: Navy Women in a Century of Change, published by Potomac Books. This is a 400-page book. The rest of the bibliographical information, however, specifies the 1993 edition published by Brassey's. Worldcat lists two different editions of works by Ebert and Hall published by Brassey's Washington facility in 1993, both with the different title of Crossed currents : Navy women from WWI to Tailhook. This one has the ISBN 9780028810225 and runs to 321 pages, while this one has the ISBN 9780028811123 and runs to 341 pages. As well as apparently being two different publications, the three different paginations might affect the page numbering in references sourced to the work;
Corrected Ebert to Ebbert
Added subtitle: Navy Women from WWI to Tailhook
Corrected ISBN # to: 0-02-881022-8
Confirm: 1993 edition
Pendright (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct name is Ebbert, in the process of changing - Pendright (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality and reliability of sources

  • Nothing to indicate any problems here. I have made the assumption that university and military presses are reliable, and found nothing of concern in an admittedly quick search for information about Brassey's and Free Press.


  • A Gbooks search for United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve) did not reveal any potential sources not already used in the article.

Spotchecks I was able to access the MacGregor and Hancock works, though the last two references to Hancock (pp. 216 & 232) were not available in the GBooks preview.

  • The statement "The legislation that established the WAVES contained nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of color, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white" is sourced to MacGregor pp. 74–75, but I see nothing in that source to suggest that the Navy Department made a conscious decision, only that the WAVES "...celebrated their second birthday exclusively white."
  • The statement "Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by September 1946" is sourced to MacGregor p. 247, but that information appears on p. 248. Also, the source dates its information only relative to VJ Day which, I believe, was in August, so where does September come from in that statement?
  • Paraphrasing issue:
  • In the article, " WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations."
  • In the source, "Although black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations..."
  • Paraphrasing issue:
  • In the article, "...the rationale was to teach the fundamental traditions of life and work in the naval service, focusing on administrative procedures."
  • In the source, "...the aim was to teach the basic fundamentals of life and work in the naval service with emphasis on administrative procedures..."

That's all. Factotem (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite all. Given that I found two issues of too-close paraphrasing, I did a little more digging. The Earwig copy-vio tool reports "violation unlikely", but with a low level of confidence. It also identifies that the first three sentences in the lead are almost a verbatim copy of text published on the Stony Brook University library web site. Factotem (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: I’ve never been on any University of Stony Brook site, until I read your comments. Since then, I found that the text to which you refer was published on 3 March 2018, while the WAVES article was already approved as a GA on 16 February 2016. BTW, in case you did not observe, the site has no substantive information on the general history of the WAVES. Pendright (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Didn't occur to me to check through the article history to see which site copied which. Well spotted. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Jason Sendwe[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Jason Sendwe, a prominent politician of the Democratic Republic of the Congo's early years. For a time he was the preeminent leader of the Luba people of Katanga Province and was the central government's "in-man" inside the territory, fraught with secessionist bitterness. He rose and fell like man of legend; in the words of British journalist Ian Goodhope Colvin, "Jason had battled so long for his Baluba idea...had seen victory, worn the leopard skin, been carried on the shoulders of his people...become a minister, touched power and money, lost his aura and perished." This article passed GAN back in March, and since then I've filled in the biographical details with other sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


1a, just the lead:

  • "He served as Second Deputy Prime Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (then Republic of the Congo) from August 1961 until December 1962 and as President of the Province of North Katanga from July 1963 until his death." Does "second" need the cap? Surely it's not part of some title? Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name. There are lots of caps even without that. But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all? I see a fully capped BALUBAKAT. A comma after "1962" would be in order in a sentence of that length and complexity.
    • The Manual of Style reads, "Standard or commonly used names of an office are treated as proper names (David Cameron was British Prime Minister; Hirohito was Emperor of Japan; Louis XVI was King of France)". Thus, for all of the specific government offices I refer to directly, I capitalize them. Sendwe was indeed Second Deputy PM, as Christophe Gbenye was the First Deputy PM at this time (it appears to have been a matter of protocol). BALUBAKAT is not quite an acronym, but is shorthand for the party he led (it's pronounced Ba-lu-ba-kat, not B-A-L-U-B-A-K-A-T). About half of the sources list it in all caps. Comma added.
  • "He also espoused nationalism"—what does "also" add?
    • I was differentiating from his pro-Baluba stance. Seeing as the way I've worded it has that former ideal embedded in foundation of the BALUBAKAT, I've excised the "also".
  • "after the termination of Belgian rule"—why not a simple word? "end". Then, "desired to obtain" ... why not "wanted to gain"?
    • Changed to "end" and "wished", respectability.
  • "but lost the power struggle to his rival"—"the" says to the reader, you know which power struggle I'm referring to: it's been mentioned above, or it's common knowledge. I think you need "a".
    • It seemed to me it would be obvious there was some maneuvering to be done if Sendwe wanted to "to obtain control over the government"; apparently not. Changed to "a".
  • "Sendwe opposed the breakaway state and rejected Tshombe's entreaties for him to join the rebel government, rupturing relations between the two." What are the two? Between Tshombe and the rebel government?
    • Clarified as between the two men.
  • Suddenly present tense? "In early 1963, he increasingly focuses his activities"
    • Typo corrected; changed to "focused".
  • "His popularity dramatically decreased"—among whom? This brings up a major point ... nowhere are we told something critical: is it a voter democracy or a closed system of power?
    • Clarified as His popularity among the local population dramatically decreased. To what system of power are you referring to? A provincial presidency in the Congo at this time was an office awarded to a person on a vote of the relevant provincial assembly. That was the normal process, though things in the country were a little hectic at this time and the relevant source for the information isn't clear on whether Sendwe assumed the office by virtue of a vote or simply took over when he forced his predecessor to resign.
  • "Sendwe's demise greatly demoralised the Baluba, and his image thereafter drifted into obscurity."—what does image mean here? reputation?
    • Changed to "reputation".

It's not of FA quality. Perhaps it might be brought up to standard throughout, but we expect not to have such a density of issues in the lead, and don't want this on the list for six painful weeks. Do you have copy-editing support from others? Tony (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • The "density of issues" in the paragraph I wrote a few hours ago was some clunky word choice (which I just fixed, so they are easily rectifiable), your misconception of MOS on office names, and some unfamiliarity on your part with the sources' information on the subject. Must this stall the FAC right here before a look is taken at the rest of the text? -Indy beetle (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Being accusatory isn't helpful. What gives you the idea that I'm micsonceiving MOS on capping of job titles? I wrote: "But it's up to you." Did you read my post? I'm not happy at your response. Tony (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Did I fail to act upon your comments? -Indy beetle (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        • You issued a false accusation (as yet not withdrawn) and yes, you did act on my comments. Tony (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
          • The false accusation being the MOS thing? You said "Personally, I'd be inclined to downcase all position-names (president, too), unless they come directly before a name...But it's up to you. I see "deputy premiership" and "president" below ... that's nice and smooth ... so why not take the easy path and to it for all?" That statement still contradicts MOS, I believe. We have don't a choice on whether or not to follow MOS (it's not "up to" me). I'm sorry for my initial hostility, but I still don't see how I was technically wrong. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • And I'm getting rather sick of hostility from reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum (see below for that). My understanding is that MOS leaves it open. That is why I said "It's up to you". You're complaining of "my misconception of MOS". I can do without the bullying. Tony (talk) 03:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • If I may, "reviewers, who are ending up corrupting this forum" and "bullying" don't sound any less "accusatory" than anything I've said so far. Shall we both start over? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You haven't withdrawn your accusation. Tony (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Well let's agree to disagree on the nature of the applicability of MOS. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
          • No, that's completely irrelevant. You accused me of "misconception of MOS on office names". I did not refer to en.WP's MOS. It was not the source of my comment. Tony (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Were you unaware of the relevant MOS section? MOS and and policy aren't exempt from application because an individual hadn't recalled it. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Are you unaware that we are talking completely at cross-purposes. This is a waste of time. You accused me falsely. You should withdraw the accusation. Tony (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I am aware this is a waste of time, but I'm not going to withdraw an accusation on the grounds of falsehood when I don't believe it was. You didn't answer my question ("Did you read my post?"). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Bratislava Working Group[edit]

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bratislava Working Group was the only Jewish organization in an Axis-aligned country to attempt to save Jews in other countries from the Holocaust. I created the article in June based on content in the article in one of its key figures. The article was promoted to GA in August; since then, it has received a peer review and a GOCE copy edit. I believe it is finally ready for FAC—my first nomination. Courtesy ping to @Vami IV, Kaiser matias, and Dudley Miles: who kindly offered feedback on earlier versions of the article. I have pdf copies of most of the works cited in the article and would be happy to provide them to anyone doing a source review. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • It's covered under FoP Slovakia: According to section 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author. and now has been tagged accordingly.
  • You can verify the license here:[4] In fact, it is PD-US-Army because it was taken by an American military aircraft; Fortepan obtained it from the (United States) National Archives. I marked it accordingly.
  • Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information on this photograph than stated on Commons.
OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Indy beetle[edit]

  • Other language variations of the name, such as Bratislava Pracovnd Skupina should be mentioned in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: The name is actually a bit difficult. The common name, used by most English-language sources, is "Working Group", but since that article is a disambig page, I chose Bratislava Working Group as the title since that name is also attested in RS. I have not seen "Bratislava" attached to any of the foreign-language versions. Pracovná skupina is by far the most common, and I want to avoid the impression that the second-most-common name, German Nebenregierung, means "Working Group". The relevant MOS section seems to recommend not giving an exhaustive list anyway, so I've added only Pracovná skupina. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've BOLDLY moved the article to Working Group (resistance organization). Catrìona (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That works. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Bloger[edit]

Opinions of some important historians on the subject are completely ignored in the article. In particular the opinion of David Kranzler and Abraham Fuchs on the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus in 1942.

Kranzler’s and Fuchs opinion are much more in line with the opinion of the members of the group. This info should be added to the article in order for it to be more encyclopedic and not one sided. Bloger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Bloger (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: There are several reasons why we should be cautious about giving undue weight to this opinion. First of all, both books to which I think you may be referring—Thy Brother's Blood by Kranzler and The Unheeded Cry by Fuchs—are somewhat out of date, having been written in the 1980s before Bauer's or Fatran's studies of the Working Group. In this 2001 Yad Vashem publication, Fuchs' book The Unheeded Cry is described as part of a "Haredi counter-history" which seeks to distort the facts about the Holocaust in order to indict secular Jewish leaders for being indifferent to the death of their co-religionists. Kranzler is respected for his scholarship in this area, but it would be important to make sure he did not change his opinion later on after better research became available. Did he repeat these claims in his 2000 book, The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz? (Quotes and page numbers would be helpful; since these books were not published by academic publishers, I cannot access them). In addition, that section is already crowded with the informed opinions of historians with a good reputation for solid scholarship. We would need a good reason to include other authors. Catrìona (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding.
Firstly, even if you are concerned with “undue weight”, it clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a “smaller way then the majority opinion - except “flat earth” style minority opinion. So in the same vein, even the opinion of Kranzler should at least be mentioned. This won’t violate the “undue weight” rule at all.
Secondly, there are a series of You Tube videos where Kranzler tells the story of the working group from late in his life, and he reiterates all his points from the book. I can provide you with the links. In addition, I will try to look up in The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz if he specifically writes about the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus. It may be he doesn’t since this is not the focus of that book. But Kranzler wrote several books on the Holocaust and rescue, for example, “To Save a World”- "Profiles in Holocaust Rescue" where info like this is more likely to be mentioned.
The opinion on Fuchs’s book in the link you sited is just that, an “opinion” of one person, it’s not put out by Yad Vashem as the “Yad Vashem opinion” – unlike BTW the links I provided in the Working Group ”Talk page” – so its “he said he said” as far as I’m concerned.
The last point about the section being crowded, I can understand that, but then maybe other opinions should be omitted since all the opinions mentioned are on the same “side” in agreement that the Working Group were wrong about the bribes even in Slovakia. I think that since we have a respected historian that holds that the ransoms did work, it has to be clearly written out. Bloger (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bloger: Per WP:HISTRS, we should prefer sources that have been a) written by recognized historians, b) published by academic presses or otherwise peer-reviewed, and c) positively recognized by scholars. Sources that are signed by recognized authors are to be preferred over institutional sources, such as Yad Vashem's "online exhibition" on the Jewish community of Bratislava. As far as I can tell, Kranzler meets a but not b, and Fuchs meets neither; they both published with Mesorah/ArtScroll, which is mostly known for its Jewish religious texts. You are of course welcome to provide favorable scholarly reviews; I was not able to find any such reviews of Thy Brother's Blood. It is cited in scholarly sources for facts, but not interpretation as far as I can tell. In The Man who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz, Kranzler does discuss the Europa Plan (pp. 52-53) but does not give a reason for its lack of success. Catrìona (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona:I fully understand your reasoning for relying more on Bauer then on Kranzler and Fuchs – although as I stated. It is my opinion that Bauer is highly biased, still – given Bauer standing in the field I can see why you would take his word over others. In other words, I’m in no way suggesting you omit Bauer’s opinion, not at all.
All I’m saying is that the opposing view shouldn’t be completely ignored. It should be mentioned even only in a smaller way than the opinion of Bauer but not totally omitted.
And I say so for several reasons.
1) Kranzler may not be an as recognized as Bauer is, but he’s a recognized historian nevertheless, and straight out shouldn’t just be ignored. 2) Kranzler’s expertise and writing are more focused on this particular part of Holocaust history, where Bauer is a more of a general historian on everything holocaust related. So a good argument can be made that Kranzler as a “specialist” and given the extensive research he did in this area, he should be given much more weight. Maybe not more weight than to Bauer – although I wouldn’t dismiss even such an argument right away – but at least more weight than he would be given in a different scenario.
3) Since we’re evaluating the work of this group, their own opinion and “feeling” at the time shouldn’t be dismissed. "After all is said and done" “on the ground” reporting has to carry some value. Now, if no historian would’ve agreed with their opinion than I could see how one can be of the opinion that their own opinion can be totally dismissed. But, since we do have at least one school of thought substantiating what they felt to be taking place “on the ground” “at the time” to be the truth, it definitely deserves to at least be mentioned in the article. Bloger (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you had not noticed, but the article does in fact mention this point of view: Weissmandl and Fleischmann believed that the Europa Plan failed because too little money was provided too late, due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations. Perhaps influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories exaggerating the wealth and power of "world Jewry", Fleischmann and Weissmandl believed that the international Jewish community had millions of dollars readily available.

This is in the section for notable but minor viewpoints on the topic, rather than the views of most mainstream scholars. I find it difficult to see how you could make the case that Kranzler is more of a subject matter expert on this than Bauer; the latter published an entire book on Nazi-Jewish negotiations (1994), which focuses on the Working Group. Perhaps it would be appropriate to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion. However, so far you have not provided any evidence that Kranzler has actually supported this point of view. I checked out one of his more recent books, the 2004 study of Rabbi Schoenfeld, which discusses Weissmandl but doesn't mention why the Europa Plan failed. Ditto for the The Man who Stopped the Trains, although that book could hardly be classified as favorable to Saly Mayer or Nathan Schwalb and their colleagues. On Google Books, I am only able to see a limited snippet view of Kranzler's earlier books, (which are not carried by local libraries). In To Save A World p54, Kranzler mentions that Weissmandl maintained until his death that the plan might have succeeded; the preview was cut off before I could tell if he endorsed the view. In Thy Brother's Blood I could not find anything useful. In short, that opinion is not "totally omitted", and so far I am not able to find evidence that Kranzler supported it. As I said, quotes and page numbers would be helpful. Catrìona (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the mention, but to be honest, I think the way it’s mentioned is probably worse than completely ignoring it…
To mention this in the penultimate paragraph of a long article, when this really is the main crux of the debate on the group is almost an insult to their memory and sacrifice. And to group it and place it right next to the “opinion” that they were “collaborators” when you very well know that this really is a fringe – earth-is-flat – style opinion, may even be a bit of a disgrace. Not that I blame you in any way, or suggest you did so on purpose.
In my opinion, this perspective should be put in the article right at the beginning of the conversation about the effectiveness of the group’s efforts. Since this is what they thought they were doing successfully, and there are at least some respecter recognized historians who agree. Then you can add about the dissenting opinion, and even state that this is the mainstream opinion if you will.
Although it’s not really a “mainstream opinion” per se only the opinion of Bauer and others who took his opinion on face value. Other opinions - besides Kranzler, some included on the page – very and don’t agree with Bauer completely either. This is how any article on the subject would put it in my opinion even just for aesthetic purposes, to give the proper perspective to the chronology and evolution of the opinions on the group’s efforts. See for example here a book by historian Mordecai Paldiel from 2017.
And I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that “to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion” will suffice. I understand the respect you have to Bauer and his opinion, and that you take it as the ultimate truth, still it’s my opinion that you don’t give Kranzler his due.
It’s true that Bauer is a major name, but let’s not forget that Kranzler dedicated his life to this very subject. It’s no comparison between someone who wrote a book about a subject – even if he is a respected scholar - and someone who dedicated his life to this very subject.
Moreover, if you took Bauer at his word completely, you would’ve been under the impression that Weissmandl simply lied when he claimed that he came up with the plan to bomb Auschwitz and the rails leading to it! Of course, now that proof of it has been found Bauer took back his words – very derogatory and racist words in my opinion – and was forced to concede the fact that he significantly underestimated Weissmandl.
Also, in previous books, Bauer’s perspective was that the group’s efforts were completely not effective and made no difference whatsoever, whereas now he does agree that at least some efforts – like bribing the Slovak officials – were helpful.
So you see, one cannot take the opinion of a certain perspective to be the 100 percent positive true even if the person is a respected historian. And much less so if a different opinion is out there by other respected scholars. Bloger (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bloger, I'm concerned about the potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer, which are unsupported as far as I know. In fact, Bauer emphasized how honest Weissmandl was, while disagreeing with his interpretation of events. Whether you agree or disagree with a certain perspective is irrelevant, what matters is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not endorse one view over another, but in this article I do think that it makes sense to separate the mainstream academic views with other views that are outside the mainstream. Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive; although his conclusions were debunked, they were originally published by a reputable historian in a peer reviewed journal. In the sections for mainstream scholarly research, I've included several notable historians who have all done independent research and arrived at similar conclusions. As I've said several times before, it would be helpful to have quotes and page numbers for what Kranzler actually wrote. Then one could figure out how to represent him in the article according to Wikipedia content policies. Catrìona (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to emphasize that its important that we discuss the content in a detached manner, and not speak of our edits as slighting the subjects of a Wikipedia article and thus committing "an insult to their memory and sacrifice." Framing our arguments in such emotional/sentimental terms will not contribute towards the building of consensus. I have no familiarity with this historiographic debate and therefore no opinion on the substance, but I encourage everybody to be considerate in their choice of language. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle:I appreciate your comment as it gives me the opportunity to explain myself on something that I now realize sounds wrong.
I don’t think you are implying that one should not partake in editing an article if one is passionate and\or emotionally attached to the subject matter. Of course, it’s only expected that if someone should volunteer his time and effort to write about something or edit a page, it probably is something he cares about, and sometimes strongly.
That said, I absolutely unequivocally am not implying that one let his feelings interfere with the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thus, a fact is a fact, no matter how one feels about said fact.
But, certain parts of Wikipedia are inevitably shaped by the discretion of the editors. This is true in many instances, for example where there are no “clear rules or instructions” or in instances where there are “truly two equal choices” Etc.
In such in instances, one’s personal feeling will inevitably play a role even if it is – at least initially – unintentional. I personally would say that if it’s truly an instance like the ones I describe, it shouldn’t even be a problem if it is done so intentionally, of course as long as it really doesn’t interfere with the facts.
We now come to this matter.
The way I see it is as follows. We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as “mainstream” – I disagree with this characterization, but will address that separately – 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called "flat earth style" a characterization Catrìona took issue with, I will hopefully address this in a separate post –, 3) and then we have the “in between” opinion. That is the opinion from at least some historians and numerous other sources, is is also the opinion of the individuals of the subject matter.
We could, of course, do three separate sections for each school of thought. But if we don’t and decide to only do two sections, we have to combine two of the three in one section.
This is an instance that I see as being up to the discretion of the editor. One can put the “middle ground” opinion together with the mainstream and then differentiate between them so it’s clear what the more mainstream opinion is and what the less popular opinion is. Or the editor can combine the “middle ground” opinion together with the “fringe” opinion.
In instances like this, I think that the subject matter should play a role. And if the subject matter are – as is in this instance - historical figures that risked their life’s to help others, and it happens to be that their own perspective is more in line with the “middle ground” opinion, we should go out of the way – as long as the facts are clearly stated and not in any way skewed - to be as respectful to them as possible.
To clump together the opinion held by them - when we have respected and recognized historians and scholars agreeing with their view -, and in addition to mention this opinion at the very end of a lengthy article where most readers don’t reach, and even if they do are already influenced by all that precedes, is in my opinion wrong. Bloger (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I would add that the characterization of the three opinions is my own, and I appreciate that others might disagree, still, the point is a valid one generally even if one chooses to characterize them differently.
I will still address the previous comments by Catrìona concerning Bauer, and will at that opportunity farther explain my characterization of the opinions. Bloger (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bloger: would you mind laying out what your concerns are exactly, and which views you're referring to as "flat earth" views? I also have concerns about the article's neutrality, but it would take me some time to write mine up, and I'm not keen on doing that if the article needs to be withdrawn and reworked. @Catrìona: I see there has been recent reverting, and there's ongoing discussion on Talk:Working Group (resistance organization), so I wonder whether this is ready for FAC. This is an enormously complex topic, and one that's hard to write up for a readership not familiar with it. The article would benefit from a detailed peer review, where all these issues could be discussed without time pressure. SarahSV (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I am interested to hear any feedback you have. I did put it up for peer review, but got very little response. I put it up for FAC after receiving encouragement from multiple editors to do so, and only then did Bloger start to make comments on the talk page (which have resulted so far in only very minor changes being made). I don't object to withdrawing and reworking the article, if that's what needs to be done, but it's not clear to me what (if anything) needs to be reworked. Catrìona (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There are major changes that need to be made IMHO, I will post what I think needs to be changed after the weekend, it can then be reviewed by others to reach consensus.
So far SlimVirgin, Emesz and myself have expressed concerns about the article's neutrality. I think that anyone else familiar with the subject will come to the same conclusion after thoroughly reviewing the page. Bloger (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Bloger, thanks. I was hoping you'd clarify which views you're calling "flat-earth style". As I understood your initial comment, you were talking in general about how fringe views should be handled. (You wrote that WP:UNDUE "clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a smaller way then the majority opinion - except 'flat earth' style minority opinion".) Catrìona interpreted your "flat earth" description to refer to the views of the historian John S. Conway; she wrote "Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive". Then you wrote: "We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as 'mainstream' ... 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called 'flat earth style' a characterization Catrìona took issue with ... 3) and then we have the 'in between' opinion."
Can you say, just very briefly, which view you're identifying as the fringe view? Also pinging Emesz.
Catrìona, it's hard to find editors who can comment on this. If it does go back to peer review, I suggest pinging anyone who has worked in this area, and posting a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin:As per your request, I posted my concerns with the page on the Talk page here.
To your other question, when I first mentioned the point on "flat-earth style" opinions it was as a response to Catrìona. She cited the page on fringe views, so I pointed out that according to that page the opinion of Kranzler shouldn’t be ignored.
Catrìona responded that the opinion of Kranzler is not completely ignored, and is indeed cited at the end of the page. To which I responded that although it’s technically not completely ignored, grouping it together with the fringe views of Conway – which I referred to as a "flat-earth style" opinion – was worse than ignoring it altogether. (In retrospect calling it “flat-earth style” is perhaps exaggerating, but I did so because it was a continuation of the previous conversation where the distinction between the minority and fringe opinion was discussed and the flat-earth expression was used.)
@Catrìona: Please see my response on the “Talk page” concerning the “potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer” issue. Bloger (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Kaiser matias[edit]

As someone who peer reviewed the article earlier, I am inclined to support, however I am going to wait to see the how the discussion above with Bloger goes. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hector Berlioz[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has FAs or GAs on thirteen French composers – Alkan, Bizet, Boulez, Debussy, Fauré, Josquin, Massenet, Messager, Messiaen, Offenbach, Poulenc, Ravel and Saint-Saëns. It seems right that one of France's greatest composers should join them as an FA. The article has had the benefit of a peer review as thorough and helpful as any I can remember, and I think it now meets the FA standards. I look forward to your comments. – Tim riley talk 21:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support I had a spare hour sitting around earlier and took that long time to read through the copy I had with me while waiting for my very late guest to turn up! A few minor typos picked up with these edits Three very minor points to pick up on here – they read slightly inelegantly to me, but you may disagree and it won't affect my support.
  • "graduated from the medical school": "from medical school"? I'm a big fan of the def article, but not sure it's needed here.
  • "suggested law as an alternative profession, but refused to" "but"? Wouldn't "and" work better?
  • "Berlioz's wife, Marie, died": do we need the name, only two paras after the wedding?

My review has been on prose and formatting only as I know nearly nothing about Hector, and even less about musicology. Interesting stuff, nevertheless. – SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not rising to "guest", above. Agree on all three drafting points, and will change the text accordingly. Thank you for your input here and at peer review. And thank you for your support here, too. Tim riley talk 08:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Double sharp[edit]

Can we have some more on Berlioz's musical style? Currently we only significantly cover his orchestration; his use of harmony, phrasing, and structure is barely touched on. IMHO Chopin's article is an excellent model for covering those aspects of technique as well as one can without tons of musical examples. Double sharp (talk) 04:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been mindful of the length of the article: I was hoping to keep it to under 9,000 words (the average for composer FAs is almost exactly 7,000 and although Tchaikovsky became an FA at 12,600 words he has subsequently been pruned to 8,000, leaving only three FA composer articles with more than 9,000 words) but I have added another 238 words on harmony and counterpoint, not too full of technical terms, I hope. Tim riley talk 08:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Looks great; I have nothing else major, so I'll support. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Your support is greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 16:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Regarding the notation images, is there any reason they're different sizes? I see one of them's 2.5 (good—as it's very detailed), but the others (although they seem as equally detailed?) between 1.3 and 1.
    • This was my attempt to get the notes roughly the same size on the page, but if anyone can make them more so, I'll be very pleased. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I think the portraits could be their normal sizes, but maybe my eyes are getting manky.
    • I think I have used "upright=" less than 100% for a couple of images to stop them clogging the text too much, but am not ferociously committed to those sizes, and will not object if the consensus is to put them at 100% Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Could cantata be linked?
    • Definitely. The earlier link is more specific. Now done. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reputation and Berlioz scholarship"—I would have thought the subject of the scholarship is probably obvious by now!
    • I think without the "Berlioz" it wouldn't be immediately clear whether we were referring to his scholarship or other people's scholarship about him. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Article is cool beans though, cheers. ——SerialNumber5412914:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for these points. Tim riley talk 15:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)


just to stir the pot as I flit by....

The article is first class, the FA proposal has my support.

Some thoughts on the operas. In the 'music' section you don't give the dates of the operas which could be helpful (I know BC and LT are dated in the 'life' section, but B&B isn't mentioned there). You might also mention what Berlioz was up against at this time, i.e. grand opera and Meyerbeer, whom B memorably said had the "luck to be talented and the talent to be lucky" (and who also to B's subliminated resentment was wealthy in his own right). Grand opera sucked up the resources and audiences for opera in Paris. As Cairns writes, for BC "Berlioz ...was an opera composer on sufferance, one who composed on borrowed time paid for with money that was not his but lent by a wealthy friend", and effectively none of his operas was written to contract or with any promise of performance. Which makes them even more remarkable imo. Some of this might be mentioned. (or not).--Smerus (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Smerus. I've dealt with the dates and will ponder how to accommodate the Meyerbeer and money points (without further inflating the word count too much!) Tim riley talk 16:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
And now done, though I'm dithering a bit about whether it might be better in the Life than in the Works section. Shall ponder further. Tim riley talk 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
It's a six and two threes situation.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose by Tony1[edit]

1a, lead:

  • I'm allergic to a colon within a succession of semicolons. Needs surgery there. And do you really want to list individual work-names rather than simply listing the genres he wrote in? ... Maybe, but it becomes indigestible after the first few. More important to briefly convey at the opening the big-picture of his place in music history. Symph Fant was, after all, a turning point in the onset of romanticism in music, wasn't it?
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. None of the peer reviewers mentioned the point, but other reviewers here may think differently. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "As the elder son of a provincial doctor"—just checking: he had one brother, right?
    • Right. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph beautifully written. Except for this: "those who thought him an original genius and those who thought his music lacked form and coherence". The grammar's a bit arch, and jerks the reader when they get to the second "thought", which is very different grammatically. "regarded him as an. 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)"?
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art,"—I'm slightly uncomfortable about using this association, presumably between a flush of oxytocin in the brain, and the complex social, political, and technical aspects of romantic style in music. Makes for cute wording, but it's misleading.
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not used to the lowercase "f" in "fantastique" (in an English-language context).
  • "musical journalism" or "music journalism"?
    • Happy with either. Fractional preference for the first, but the second is also fine. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • tension between 'throughout" (the whole span) and "much" (a subset of it): "throughout much of his career". During much, or throughout his career. And you've got the th-word again in the same sentence.
    • Happy to change if a consensus agrees with you on this point. Tim riley talk 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for prose until things are sorted out, and I'd like to go through more than just the lead. Tony (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Comments added. Tim riley talk 16:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm not used to being challenged by having a consensus required for my points. On the contrary, you need to present reasons why those points are not actionable. Tony (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Off-topic remarks
Oh, get you! I suggest you get used to it. Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Oppose by all means. Tim riley talk 16:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Tony1, I have thought your points on my previous FACs were good, and I was extremely grateful for them, but there are occasions when points are not always necessary, given the perfectly acceptable difference in styles between writers. There is always more than one way to crack an egg, and so it is with well-written English. For example, a colon to introduce a list followed be separating semi colons is acceptable (or at least it was when I was taught it); "those who thought him an original genius" reads perfectly well to my British English eye, but maybe the slightly less formal Aussie English eye thinks it stuffy - who knows? At the end of it, many of the points you have here are not about grammar or structure being "wrong", per se, but about a personal preference on the style - and I think De gustibus is a point that should play a part in prose reviews, I think. Tim is an excellent writer, very approachable and eminently flexible when good points are made. He also rarely makes grammatical errors, and I am sure he will look at the points you have made again to see if there is a good enough reason to change things, rather than just for stylistic reasons. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not buying this trick to weaken the role of reviewers. This is a slippery slope: soon we'll find every prose issue a reviewer raises is met with a retort of "only if there's consensus". It's an oppose, and until he fixes the issues or provides detailed reasoning for why they should not be fixed, the oppose stays. I have yet to go through the rest. Tony (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
There is no 'trick' here, Tony. I'm looking at your comments and seeing that most of these are not actual errors, but stylistic preference. I've given two examples above that I do not see as being problematic: the colon introducing a list, with semi-colons breaking up that list; and the "those who thought him an original genius" phrase. I'll dig out my Fowler later to see what he says on the first point. As to the second, perhaps changing the second "thought" to "considered" would ease part of your concern, although I think we obsess a little too much about a repeated word, and "considered" may feel false in comparison, who knows. Either way, this isn't my article, or my review, but I do think you could add little more flexibility into your position, rather than being quite so absolutist and thinking that they are the only way to do things: English is flexible, particularly when you consider the differences between the various variants. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Actually, I don't like the repetition of various variants, and so I must oppose you forever. ——SerialNumber54129 11:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm with Serial on various variants, which is surely a hill worth dying on. Schro THIS IS THE END ;) Ceoil (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
It was the best I could do with the hangover that is only just clearing... out watching Pixies last night. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
...Mmmm; a timely reminder to dig out my copy of Pilgrim... ——SerialNumber54129 13:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
The top and bottom of this is that if a reviewer at PR or FAC makes a suggestion I agree with I adopt it forthwith. If I don't agree with it I will of course adopt it if other reviewers think it preferable. If Tony is going to oblige with a review of my main text I shall adopt any of his suggestions I agree with, and also any I don't agree with but other reviewers do. That is how Wikipedia works. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Reviewer's response

Off-topic remarks

I'm afraid I'm not one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants, even if I did accuse him of having "beautifully written" the second paragraph. Rather, I take a more neutral, technical attitude to his writing; it's very good in many places, but it's speckled with issues that need fixing—most of them are minor, but together they subtract the prose from FA standard.

I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation ("Your assumption of a monopoly of wisdom is arrogant"). Nor do I take lightly his crude attempt to undermine the FAC review process by demanding consensus-gathering on almost every point ("I suggest you get used to it", he writes). It's unseemly behaviour by a nominator. What I care about is our readers, who are apparently absent from consideration by those posting here.

We're going to have to put up with a lot of RFCs on this page: I'm prepared to start a run of them if consensus has to be debated. And I hope no one minds if I insert advice at every nomination page that there's a simple way of rebutting FAC critiques: you just demand consensus.

Now, let's examine just the first point in my review of the lead: a colon within a succession of semicolons. On this matter I consulted two linguists today. Both supported my objection. One advised me to "make the point about readability. Readers will find it difficult to follow. ... I think it doesn't belong".

But a deeper problem surrounds the first point: the opening paragraph is an indigestible, winding path, cluttered by no fewer than 11 parenthetical years in 75 words. There is little point in gumming up what should be a broad sweep that introduces the topic by describing the big picture of one of the great composers. The years zig-zag from earlier to later and back, so conveying chronological development is clearly not the rationale; and the years of composition appear below in the main text, where the chronological can be nested in a more detailed, explanatory narrative. If the purpose of the laundry list is to show the array of genres in which he wrote, that's fair enough. So why obscure this by making readers hack through redundant numerical undergrowth and unnecessarily elaborate punctuation, which at one point is unusual and disruptive?

Here is the current opening, which will turn off all but the hardiest readers, followed by a version the nominator might well have politely suggested to overcome the problem I raised, instead of shooting bullets of personalised rudeness:




I don't agree with a comment below that "hybrid" might be opaque to too many readers. Tony (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I really don't want to disrupt someone else's FAC, but "I'm not going to descend to issuing ad-hominem insults and intimidation" does not parse in any way with accusing seven other reviewers of being "one of Tim Riley's lickspittles or sycophants". If you want to be taken seriously, at least try not to treat the rest of us like dross.
I spoke to four linguists... and other nice stories. Fowler does not query or debar the practice, which is certainly good enough for any British English speakers. Were the "linguists" you spoke to British, or one of the other variants of English?
I go back to my original point: there are several ways of phrasing something, and just because you happen to prefer one way does not mean that other versions are not equally as good or even (shock horror) better than yours. Stop being so bloody didactic and dictatorial in your approach with people and maybe they may take you seriously.
I'm going to step away from this, as dealing with inflexible viewpoints on something as flexible as an opinion on what grammar works best is not something I enjoy. Love and kisses, a lickspittle. - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Vue_de_la_nouvelle_salle_de_l'Opéra_prise_de_la_rue_de_Provence_-_NYPL_Digital_Collections.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Marie-Moke-Pleyel.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Berlioz_young.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:NiccoloPaganini.jpeg, File:Gustave_Courbet_-_Portrait_of_Hector_Berlioz_-_WGA05492.jpg
    • Done. Again, I hope correctly. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • What's the publication date for the second? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The original Ingres portrait is dated between 1818 and 1831 by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but I'm afraid I don't know a publication date for the engraving of it used here. Ought I instead to use a copy of the original, as Ingres is known to have died in 1867? Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Berlioz_-_cordes_col_legno.PNG should include details and a tag for the original work.
    • Do you mean for the first publication of the music or its first performance (for this and the idée fixe one, below?) Grateful for guidance. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Idee_fixe.PNG needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Both music examples tagged as suggested. I've given the composer's dates as well as the date of composition to be on the safe side. Tim riley talk 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, as always, Nikkimaria, for your review. I've a couple of points on which I'd be glad of a steer. Tim riley talk 15:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I've put you to more trouble than usual, and I'd like to repeat my thanks for your guidance. Tim riley talk 20:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Dmass[edit]

Picking up where I left off at peer review:

Struggling Composer

  • First para, first sentence: comma needed after ‘1830 Revolution’.
    • Fifty years ago and more I was being told off by my Eng Lang masters for opening a subordinate clause with a comma and then forgetting to close it. Plus ça change!Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Para 3: hyphen for ‘well-founded’?
    • I don't think so. I agree with Gowers that "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I am reasonably OK on this aspect: if used attributively it's "a well-founded suspicion", but when used predicatively, as here, "a suspicion is well founded". – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Possibly brackets round / dashes before and after ‘rather than the German "architectural"’?
    • Yes. I sometimes worry that I rather overdo parenthetic dashes, but they do make things crystal clear sometimes where commas don't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Where you say: ‘in operas, and to a large extent in orchestral music’ it’s unclear whether you’re referring to Berlioz or to French music generally. It’s also very sweeping - Saint-Saens is architectural; Pelleas hasn’t got any self-contained numbers ect ect (I realise I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs...). Maybe worth making clear that it’s a French tradition, rather than the French tradition?
    • I have to tread a bit carefully here: I think what I have written accurately reflects what Rushton says, whereas what you suggest – though I think it correct – isn't quite what he says. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say the paragraph beginning ‘Berlioz’s compositional techniques’ is pure TR: packed with info, yet concise and clear.
    • How very kind! One can never tell which bits of one's immortal prose will get the nod from readers and which won't. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • When you mention “Romeo's arrival at the Capulets' vault” I suspect you feel that naming the work would be a statement of the bleeding obvious, but I think it’s a bit odd as you haven’t yet done so in the Works section. Ignore at will.
    • I could have my arm twisted, but if you refrain from such a course I think I'd rather leave it. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Might ‘the classical pattern established and continued by German composers and those who followed their traditions’ be simplified to: ‘the classical pattern of the German tradition’?
  • ‘Tell a narrative’ - I'm not sure that verb belongs. I can see you’re avoiding ‘tell a story’, which you use in the next para. Unfold? Recount?
    • You have an exasperating knack of homing in on the bits of my prose that I have sucked my teeth about. I was never quite happy with this, but couldn't think how to improve it. I'll try "recount a narrative", but that doesn't strike me as ideal either. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ’described by the musicologist Mark Evan Bonds as a work traditionally seen as…’ is a bit of a mouthful. Maybe snip 'traditionally seen as'?
    • Again, I am trying to be faithful to the source: what you suggest is crisper, but implies that Bonds has signed up to the idea, which I don't think he specifically does.
  • Could the para on Harold be trimmed - maybe one too many assessments (interesting though they all are)?
  • Same point re Roméo.
    • Tricky. What can I lose? – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Looking at it again, I would have to say the one that could go would be Chabrier. Rushton says the same thing but more explicitly (and in English). But I"m not going to suggest you cut Chabrier because it made me laugh. Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Footnoting the Chabrier comment is very funny - but (reluctantly) shouldn’t it be translated?
    • Well, I suppose it should be translated if we apply the MoS strictly, but nobody else has suggested it so far (perhaps they are too nice-minded) and I am inclined to think that the wording of the main text makes it clear enough to the most obdurate non-Francophone that the one word is a rude one. If there's a consensus for a change I'll go along with it, but I'll resist if I can. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • When I read ‘for giant wind and brass band’ I momentarily wondered what you meant by giant wind. Maybe reverse them?
    • Indeed. Giant wind is not a wholly alluring proposition. I'll redraw as you suggest.


  • Maybe add a few words giving the subject-matter of Benvenuto Cellini to save the reader having to follow the link? You could nick ‘inspired by the memoirs of the Florentine sculptor’ from the linked article.
    • I'll ponder on this. Truth to tell I've never seen the opera and am swimming with one foot on the bottom here. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It's a marvel - as was Terry Gilliam's production at the ENO (which you mention). Dmass (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

More later. This article is superb. Even by your standards. Dmass (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these points and your kind words of encouragement. Looking forward to more comments, though I am conscious of other calls on your time, e.g. earning a living. – Tim riley talk 20:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Picking up from:


  • ‘… necessitating larger ensembles than sufficed for the concert hall’ - perhaps plainer language might do: ‘calling for larger ensembles than were needed in the concert hall’?


  • First para: ‘group’ instead of ‘grouping’?
    • My reason for choosing "grouping" was that the songs in Les nuits d'été were not conceived as a cycle and were grouped together after they were written, but perhaps this is not a distinction that needs making here. I'll prune. 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘originally for voice and piano, later orchestrated, and now usually heard in the latter form’ might be tightened to: ‘originally for voice and piano but now usually heard in its later, orchestrated form’.


  • You have ‘Memoirs’ here, but ‘Mémoires ‘ in the next section. In fact (wait for it) the final score seems to be 4-2 in favour of the latter.
    • [Pause to remove knife from ribs. You may also be pleased to note, after my finger-wagging chez Boulez, that this article exceeds 9,000 words. Ahem!] I have dithered about whether to call them Mémoires, Memoirs or memoirs. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • If you're referring generally I think 'memoirs' is fine; where you're specifically referring to the book I'd go for Mémoires. Dmass (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing reputation

  • First para: ‘regularly performed’. I have a colleague at work for whom this is a bête noire. She would say: ‘you mean “frequently performed”’ - as opposed to performed at regular intervals'. Whether you listen to her is a matter for you.
    • Your colleague has a point. I have a similar tic about "significant" used as a mere synonym for "important" or "big". I'll amend. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I love the Debussy comment you’ve found – in fact you’ve used some cracking quotations throughout.
    • Good! As always with a biographical article there is so much good material that one has to leave out. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ‘What Cairns calls "the mere repetition of cliché" about Berlioz, which persisted well into the second half of the 20th century, has become rare.’ Hasn’t he said much the same three paras earlier?
    • Lose the whole sentence, you think? Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


  • The von Otter recording of Nuits is from 1999 and Gens from 2001 so maybe not ‘recent’ – perhaps Karen Cargill (2013) and Susan Graham (2014), both of which I think were well reviewed. Nice to see PB in your list of fantastiques…
    • True. One of the two versions you suggest disappointed me rather (I shall not say which) but that's no reason to ignore it. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The Notes are a joy in their own right. I see that another kind editor is going to look at Sources so I will leave that. That’s me done, except to say again Congratulations. A pleasure to read and I’ve learnt a lot. Wholeheartedly support. Dmass (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Excellent comments, and your support is most gratefully received. Tim riley talk 14:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Ceoil[edit]

As I said at the PR, this is first rate and has opened my horizons. Will certainly support with some suggestions;

  • lead: hybrid genres Non-specialists are not to know what this means.
    • In conversation one would say they're neither one thing nor the other, but that's a bit informal. Suggestions for saying so more formally will be welcome.
      • We have an article cross-genres. With electronic music (my area) we say 'blending of genres', which is very informal indeed, and hardly "neither one thing nor the other" - its a deliberate crossing over, but none the less but some such construct might avoid the off-putting 1930s SF futurist word "hybrid", which makes me think of tentacles on the one hand and overt cold intellectualism (or even smooth jazz) on the other. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Vary opening para structures: there are more, but "In 1824 Berlioz composed" is followed by "In August 1826 Berlioz was admitted" (both from 1824–1830: Conservatoire student)
    • Always a trap when writing Life and Works articles: I'll comb through for any more. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Indeed Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In the same year he made the first of his four attempts to win France's premier music prize - That year... the first of four.
    • Omitting the preposition feels on the slangy side to me, but others may disagree. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      ok, but 'that year' rather than "In the same year"? Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz started learning English in 1828. - Keen to read Shakespeare in the original, Berlioz began to study English in 1828. Dont like "keen" unexplained, I assume there was a career objective.
    • I need to make it clearer that he was simply knocked sideways by Shakespeare and wanted to be able to read him in English. (As well he might: I once saw A Midsummer Night's Dream in Paris and was underwhelmed: the rhythms are all wrong.) Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beethoven became both an ideal and an obstacle for Berlioz - was both an ideal and obstacle; while I know what you mean it seems labored and could be teased out better.
    • We've tweaked this at PR, and I'm not sure I can think of a better way of getting the point across. Suggestions welcome. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • No its fine. I see now the subtlety. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Some hard to follow logic: "At around the same time he encountered two further creative inspirations: he heard Beethoven's third, fifth and seventh symphonies performed at the Conservatoire,{{refn|The Conservatoire concerts were conducted by François Habeneck, whom Berlioz honoured for introducing the Beethoven symphonies to French audiences, but with whom he later fell out over Habeneck's conducting of works by Berlioz. and he read Goethe's Faust in Gérard de Nerval's translation. - can we simplify.
    • Not sure what your concern is here: if it's the reference to Habeneck in the footnote, I put that in in response to a request at peer review. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The sentence is too long. By the time I got to the end, I'd forgotten the beginning. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Now split into two sentences. Tim riley talk 09:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I see tense issues throughout: to take an eg: "Paganini, known chiefly as a violinist, had acquired a Stradivarius viola, which he wanted to play in public if he could find the right music." I suggest settling on one, or reducing to constructs such as "the violinist Paganini acquired a Stradivarius viola".
    • I think, in that instance at any rate, the tenses are right. P had already got the viola when the suggestion came up that B might write something for him to play on it.
      • Yes ok. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beware of excessive detail, for eg between December 1842 and the end of May 1843
    • Yes. I can't remember why I thought that detail necessary. Shall prune. Any others come to mind? Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The section beginning with "The last of Berlioz's operas" (in "Operas") is top heavy with quotes that might be paraphrased.
    • Yes: one quote could be unquoted easily enough. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In "Changing reputation", the phrase One important reason seems to break the fourth wall. I say this as somebody who was first attracted this website by Geogre, but times have changed.
    • You've lost me here, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what you mean by breaking the fourth wall. Tim riley talk
      • It seems to me like from the transcript to a lecture - maybe i'm odd or stupid, and both are probable, but "An important reason" seems more the wiki voice. 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm still unsure what alternative wording you would prefer here. Any suggestions?
  • As more and more Berlioz works became widely available on record: "as his works became more wide available on..." to avoid "more and more".
    • I'd prefer to stick with this. Repetition has its place, and this strikes me as one. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Not so sure, but fine. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A milestone in the reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957, when for the first time a professional opera company staged the original version of The Trojans in a single evening - "The reappraisal of Berlioz's reputation came in 1957 when the first professional staging...". 'when for the first time' isn't right either, ad this seems like a simplification. Surely the staging was the culmination of many factors.
    • When you're back in circulation I'd like to discuss this point further, because what I have written accurately conveys what I understand to be the accepted facts. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Tis ok, see that it was within a continuum. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still" - Northcott concluded that, and no comma
    • Hmm. I was using "concluded" to mean that this was the writer's envoi rather than what he deduced. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • By 1963 Cairns, viewing Berlioz's greatness as now firmly established - greatness? If 1963 is established, we dont need to say "now"
  • Among the milestones in the subsequent Berlioz discography are the recordings conducted by Colin Davis - not sure why "subsequent" is needed here. Is it just referring to all extant recorded material? "milestones" is management speak.
    • I'll ponder on rephrasing this. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • And now done. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks. The next dry Martini is on me. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • By the 1950s the critical climate - "critical climate" is not ideal. Critical opinion?
    • It's a bit less definite than "opinion". It's more the general atmosphere. Some critical opinion had always been pro-B, but it was now becoming more part of the mainstream, if that makes sense. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Yes; if you mean a cultural shift; ocean currents rather than beach waves. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In recent decades Berlioz has been widely regarded as a great composer - vague - either "today" or "Since recent decade x". Maybe replace "has been" with "is".
    • With WP:DATED in mind I shy away from "today" (though it is certainly correct), and B's widespread acceptance into the pantheon (though not, alas, the Panthéon) can't be pinned down to a particular decade. What I've written is a fudge, but a necessary one, I think. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I cant formulate anything better than "In recent decades", and also, yes "today" is euff. ok. Ceoil (talk)
  • Nevertheless, Northcott was writing about Davis's "Berlioz Odyssey", consisting of seventeen concerts of Berlioz's music, featuring all the major works, a prospect unimaginable in earlier decades of the century.[197][198] - tense issues & and don't like "was writing", construct is a bit confusing for a thick paddy like me. The tense issue is not helped by the following sentence: "Northcott concluded, "Berlioz still seems so immediate"
    • It looks right to me on rereading, but I'll mull it over.
      • ok. my main, ahem, concern, is "was writing" vs. "consisting" Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All of Berlioz's major works and most of his minor ones have been recorded for LP or CD - "All of Berlioz's major and most of his minor works". Can we say "recorded on" (strictly speaking its 'transferred to') and its 'vinyl' rather than LP if we are distinguishing vs CD, which usually can play longer than LP, if you catch me drift. Plus vinyl is mistily cool, and does imply long play (vs. a 45) - Berlioz didn't release top 20 singles that I am aware of.
    • From memory I think most of the works were available on LP. I daresay my references to LP and CD will look antiquated quite soon, with streaming being the current trend, and perhaps "commercially recorded" would be better. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Redrawn accordingly. Tim riley talk 20:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I havnt streamed since 06; torrents dear man. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's about it; you are free, Tim, to disagree at will. Apologies for my tardy detailed response; work related "events" got the better of me. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Moving to support - given that I will be gone for the next week or so, and nothing I have highlighted is either beyond the nominator nor fatal to my opinion of the article, and I trust his diligence to respond and adjust where appropriate. Ceoil (talk) 07:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the support and for the above points, which I shall enjoy going through. Tim riley talk 13:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • And now done. Shall away with tweaking shears in hand. A couple of points I'd like to discuss with you further, but no rush. Tim riley talk 13:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Tim, the only reason I bring there things up is flow; keeping reader engagement. reader attention these days is fleeting, and an off word can cause a person to click out. obv you are superior at this; my suggestions were thick paddy suggestions only, rather from a technical POV, and have enjoyed the back and fourth. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Having had my, very limited, say on this at PR, I'm pleased to pick up the Source Review. It'll take a couple of days. Usual excellent stuff, by the way. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Have checked the accessible online refs., 72, 121, 127, 132, 148, 152, 158, 162, 166, 186, 196, 197, 200 and 203. All work and all support the content. My only queries relate to 196 and 202. 196 takes me to the search engine for Operabase and, for some reason, I can't make it search for 2017-2020 performances of Les Troyens. I also wonder whether running to 2020 isn't a little Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. But perhaps not really an issue as I'm assuming the works are scheduled and are likely to go ahead. Mind you, so was Covent Garden in 1940! Re. 202, I'm sure this is fine, but I don't think I seen the Worldcat entries used as ref.s like this before. But they do support the content.
    • Operabase: The blighters revamped the site a few days after I first started using it for this article. The new improved site, as usual in such matters, doesn't work as well as the old one, or doesn't so far, at any rate. I've sent them an email and hope the info will be restored, failing which I'll revisit this statement in the article. I can't think of any alternative source for it. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Citations of CDs: I could flesh this out in the citation if wanted, on the lines of "Name of Work, Decca 2010 recording OCLC XXXXXXX". Would that be preferable? Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Cannot check the online subscription ref.s, nor the offline book/journal sources, but they all appear appropriately cited and the nominator isn't one for whom spot checks are required.
  • All appear to be appropriately cited. I'm sure I've raised it before, but is the Earl of Harewood better given as EofH or George Lascelles? Also, he's Lord Harewood in Note 22.
    • He should certainly be Harewooded and not Lascellesed. He signed himself "Harewood". I don't deal with all that many earls (though I used to work for one, years ago) but my practice, which I think is the norm, is to say "The Earl of Thingummy" at first mention and then "Lord Thingummy" later, and I think "the Earl of Harewood" would look odd in note 22. But he can be "the Earl of Harewood" or "Lord Harewood" throughout if wanted. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
External links
  • Find a Grave - I don't think it's doing any harm, but this site's not considered a reliable source as it's user-driven.
    • Truth to tell I hadn't spotted it was there. I must take care to check external links. It's right enough in this case, mind you: I've visited Berlioz's grave, but the reference can of course be removed if you prefer. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Very little indeed to quibble with and impressively researched and sourced. Pleased to Support (on the basis of the SR and the earlier PR). Apologies for the delay in completing. KJP1 (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and for your support, KJP. Greatly obliged. Tim riley talk 09:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support per my detailed comments at the peer review. I do not believe the oppose should delay promotion in any way.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and your support here. Both are greatly valued. Tim riley talk 09:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to weigh back in to associate myself with Indrian's excellent review and thoughtful comments, in their entirety.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Support From Indrian[edit]

  • "A romantic in his personal life as well as in his art" - I am afraid I have to agree with Tony here (don't worry, this will not be a theme). While a cute turn of phrase, it is misleading in its application of the term "romantic" in two different definitions.
    • I've redrawn – rather reluctantly, as in Berlioz's case I think the two mingled inseparably, but so be it. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "It was he rather than she" - This feels awkward to me, and I think we could word this in a way that gets rid of the "it was" while still conveying the meaning.
    • Revisiting the paragraph I think we can lose the whole sentence without detracting from the substance. Now blitzed. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "he later had flute and guitar lessons" - I think we can find a more interesting verb than "had" in this instance.
    • Any suggestions? "Had" seems the natural construction to me. See my comment on Plain Words, below. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Maybe "took"? In this case the simplicity of the verb does not bother me so much as the phrase "had lessons" feels wrong to my ear, though it may be a British versus American English thing. If "had lessons" is considered normal in British English, then perhaps we can leave it be. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later contended that this was an advantage" - "That" is unnecessary.
    • Perhaps it's a generational (or even geographical) thing, but omitting the "that" would grate on me. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Go ahead and leave it then, as its no great issue, I have just been personally conditioned to remove "that" when it feels unnecessary to the meaning. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the age of twelve Berlioz fell in love for the first time" - This introductory clause is right on the borderline of a mandatory comma, so I did not put one in myself as I sometimes do in these reviews, but when I read it aloud it does feel like a pause is appropriate after said clause.
    • There are distinct differences in the international varieties of English on this point. I notice that my American colleagues are much keener on commas in such places, even in simple sentences such as "On Monday comma she went out." When BrE writers use them it is usually to avoid ambiguity. The example I often use is "On first reading Joyce, Beckett was excited", where the comma removes the fleeting thought that there is someone called Joyce Beckett. I don't know how many BrE writers would want to put a comma in this sentence about HB. Few, I think. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I called it borderline, so will defer to your judgment. Commas are certainly a tool for avoiding ambiguity, but I think us Americans also use them to indicate natural pauses in the flow of a thought such as might occur when one is giving a speech. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "made it clearer" - Again, not at all incorrect, but can we avoid "made"?
    • I suspect we may have a different attitude to Plain Words. Other things being equal I prefer the simple word to the more elaborate one. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, unlike the one above lets just keep this as it is. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The first concert of Berlioz's music was given in May 1828" - Passive voice.
    • I know, and I originally wrote this in the active voice, but it seemed to me to shift the focus from the concert to Berlioz, which was not what I was after here. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Afterthought: would you be happier with "The first concert ... took place"? Avoids the passive but keeps the concert as the focus. Tim riley talk 08:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Why don't we take that for a test drive. I understand the narrative impulse, but would love to avoid the passive voice if we can. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The hall was far from full, and Berlioz lost money, but he was greatly encouraged by the applause from musicians in the audience, including his Conservatoire professors, the directors of the Opéra and Opéra-Comique, and the composers Auber and Hérold, and by the vociferous approval of the performers." - This sentence is long and a bit tortured, with three independent clauses joined by conjunctions and a list within a list. If there is a good way to break this up a bit, I would encourage you to do so.
  • "Berlioz's fascination with Shakespeare's plays prompted him to start learning English during 1828, to let him read them in the original." - "so he could read" maybe"? "Let" just feels awkward here.
    • Again, to an elderly Englishman like me "so he could read" is horrible. I'd be happy with "so that he could read", if you really dislike "let". Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fine. Why don't we make that change? In this case my real goal is to improve the sentence flow and "so that he could read" moves the sentence along better to my ear. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Until the end of 1835 Berlioz had a modest stipend" - I am once again not a fan of "had" in this context.
    • Happy to consider alternatives, but my general presumption is in favour of plain words. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm still not sold on this construction, but lets not hold up the FAC for it as it would be picking at the tiniest of nits. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Although he complained – both privately and sometimes in his articles" - Not sure that the qualifier "sometimes" is strictly necessary here.
    • The point I'm seeking to get across is the HB complained loud and long privately, but only complained in print every now and then. He was not a egotistical writer, and didn't go on at length in his articles about his own problems. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fair, let's keep it. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Should "bêtes noires" be italicized as a foreign phrase? I am seeing contradictory information on this.
    • Me too. Of the five style guides on my shelves. I make the score 3:2 in favour of not italicising. If writing on my own account, and not for Wikipedia, I should unhesitatingly italicise it, but I'm an old fogey who has only recently stopped writing "première" and still capitalises "Lieder" (but not here, of course). Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Well then, let consensus rule (despite what some reviewers might think). Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am going to hold off on supporting this article until these concerns are addressed, but would emphasize that they are all minor, and a few of them are stylistic preference rather than imperative correction. While I normally refrain from commenting on the reviews of others, I feel it important in this instance to go on the record to agree with Tony that this is a well-written piece only slightly marred by a handful of minor issues, but to disagree vehemently with his assertion that his stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written. Therefore, I do not find his oppose in this matter, nor his defamation of fellow editors, to be particularly helpful to the process. Indrian (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic remarks
You're telling blatant lies, further suggesting that the FAC process is becoming increasingly corrupted—by several editors here, User:Indrian. First, where is my assertion that my "stylistic preferences should dictate how the article is written", please? And where have I defamed fellow editors? I wrote that I am not this nominator's lickspittle or sycophant. I. Don't twist what I say. Your claims are themselves defamatory. Tony (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Tony, you are clearly an accomplished writer and editor with a firm grasp of the English language and much to offer on the critique of Wikipedia articles. You have, however, blown through the project like a hurricane since your return from a self-imposed exile, which I am sure you are clever enough to have noticed without me pointing it out.
As an editor of long standing, you are also well aware of the article history function, granting anyone who cares to look awareness of how you changed a support to an oppose here merely because Tim riley failed to enact or fully engage with all your proposed changes to the article, which is pretty much the text book definition of attempting to "dictate how the article is written." Others have already provided examples drawn from your recommendations that evince personal preference, so I will not retread that ground. I will note, however, that you have declared on this very page those who have rejected said recommendations are uncaring towards the readers of the project -- a defamatory statement if I have ever seen one -- and lickspittles for the nominator (and yes Tony, you did not call out any specific individual by name as a lickspittle or sycophant, but we are smart enough to parse the innuendo that you are equally too intelligent to have cultivated by accident).
I honestly believe most of your suggestions across FAC have been solid, even a few that Tim riley chose not to enact here, but I know few people who like the idea of an editor, no matter how erudite or insightful, proclaiming his positions like Moses descending from the Mount. Your attitude comes off as entitled and superior, and I am not close to the first person to point this out. I think you would find many editors far more receptive to your highly salient points if they did not come off as a sermon. It might also help if you showed enough engagement with the process to progress beyond the lead on more than a handful of the articles that you review. That you lash out at many who grow tired of this behavior as bullies, tricksters, and corrupters only worsens a tense situation that need not exist in the first place. Just the two cents of one lickspittle who is apparently out to subvert the FAC process. Indrian (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Mostly lies and exaggerations. Tony (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I shall enjoy working through these points. I have a more general grammatical point I'd like to discuss, but I'll set it out on your talk page, if I may, rather than clog this review with it. More on the above tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't resist looking in, and then, of course, got drawn into looking at all your points. Actioned, or not, as outlined above. Some v. good points there: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Those few trouble spots flow much better now. I am largely satisfied, with just a handful of rejoinders above. I expect to be supporting quite soon. Indrian (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And we are good here. I will happily support. It was a pleasure working with you. Indrian (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Indrian. I heartily reciprocate those sentiments. I don't think we've run across each other before, but I hope to do so again. Tim riley talk 22:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for expanding another fascinating composer. I planned to come to the PR but it was over before I got to it. Minor remarks only:


  • "choral pieces" sounds a bit too small for his Requiem, - I'd understand it for anthems and motets.
    • An accurate description, I think. In Rushton's analytic works it is put under that category. The Cambridge Companion to Berlioz groups them under "Religious works", but that does not feel quite comfortable a category for Berlioz, an agnostic: how truly religious his works are is open to question.
  • Native French speakers told me that it should be (or rather: has to be) "Le Damnation de Faust".
    • If so, they are wrong. The gender of "damnation" is feminine and not masculine, and as to capitalisation, there is no standard French usage for such titles. The version here is the more common, I think, although the version you quote is also often seen. Kern uses the capital, Grove and Rushton the lower case, Cairns and Barzun both give the title in English (as I was much tempted to do were our WP article not titled "La damnation de Faust").
      • I am sorry about the wrong article, was too tired, so kind of blind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Symphonie fantastique, in which an idealised depiction of her occurs throughout" - I wonder if the clause is lead material, because it seems too short to describe the complexity of the work, and can't be longer, or would be undue weight. If anything short, isn't it rather a depiction of his feelings for her, than of her?
    • I think the text here accurately reflects the sources, and to my mind it would be odd not to mention the matter briefly in the lead.
  • "he wrote musical journalism" - it may be my lack of language, but it sounds strange to me. I'd understand "he worked as a music jounalist", "he wrote for the musical press", or saying precisely what he wrote.
    • Idiomatic BrE, I think. And AmE, too, I presume, as several AmE writers have been happy with it at PR and here.
      • Thank you, learned a new phrase then. --GA

Early years

  • Why the redirect Roman Catholic Church, when Catholic Church would suffice?
    • The reader won't be affected, but this is for the sake of strict accuracy. The RC is not the only catholic church. See the Nicene Creed, used by other catholic and apostolic churches.
      • Do I understand right that you take La damnation de Faust because our article has it, but not Catholic Church although our article has it? --GA
        • I don't think my religious scruples need airing here; I think the title of the RC Church article is incorrect, but I don't make a song and dance about it. I'm not dogmatic about following the titles of WP articles when mentioning the relevant works: following Barzun, Holoman and Cairns, I have used "Harold in Italy" although our article on it is headed "Harold en Italie", which in fifty years of knowing the piece I can't remember being used by any English speaker. I could be persuaded that we should have "The Damnation of Faust" in English too, as Cairns and Barzun do: one hears the title given in both languages in Britain, but a spot of Googling suggests that the French title is the more frequently used, which is why I stuck with it here. A similar consideration applies to Roméo et Juliette and Les Troyens to some extent. Cairns even translates the Fantastic Symphony, which looks rather odd to my eye. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • Sorry, the question wasn't about religion ;) - For titles of music, I'd tend to go with the original, especially in an article about its creator. I religiously believe that we can't say that Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman (and convinced the FA writer in the FAC), while we can say that The Flying Dutchman was performed, suggesting "in English" by saying so.
  • Can we get a c. dating for his father's portrait without clicking on it?
    • I haven't seen one. Cairns prints the picture but doesn't date it. If it is OK for Cairns without the date I think we can reasonably follow suit.
    • After a bit of investigation I still can't give a date for the picture that I feel sure about, and I'd prefer not to put one in the caption unless I'm confident about it. Tim riley talk 10:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I wonder where "c. 1840" in our file comes from then? --GAI
        • I'm afraid I can't answer that. I uploaded the picture, and obviously I'm sure I didn't just invent the date, but where I got it from I cannot now remember, or discover by this morning's digging. Tim riley talk 12:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For quotations, such as "saved me from the tyranny of keyboard habits ...", I'd like to have the French original, at least in a footnote, when it's not available in an online source. (I don't trust translators.)
    • I agree about translations, and when I am writing for WP I include the ipsissima verba in a footnote if I am offering my own translation, but this one is from David Cairns's translation of the memoirs, as the citation makes clear.
      • I'd still like the flavour of the original, but accept. --GA
  • "The dominance of Italian opera in Paris, against which Berlioz later campaigned, was still in the future" - The why say it at this point?
    • This is where the source mentions it, and I agree that it is appropriate here: there was Rossini on offer, but the repertoire was largely French at this point. We touch on the Italian opposition again later, and this prepares the context.
  • "Royal Chapel" - is a link possible?
    • I looked for one when drafting, but concluded that there was no helpful one available. The chapel was part of the Tuileries Palace but has no separate article, and I think a link there would be more irritating than enlightening for readers.

More to come, need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies, learning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Conservatoire student

  • I am not too happy about the header in French + English, but you will have your reasons.
    • No worries on that point: "conservatoire has long been absorbed into the English language. The OED cites examples of Anglophone use for local music colleges as far back as the 1930s. I have a strong feeling it is now more usual than "conservatory" in this context, though I cannot positively assert that. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I confess that I had forgotten that his first opera was linked two sections before, and believe that a second link here, where he actually writes it, might be excused?
    • Sometimes I find Wikipedia's rules on links very unhelpful to readers. If you continue to read this article you will pass through at least half-a-dozen places where I'd have liked to put a duplicate link to help the reader. We seem to have established by custom and practice an unofficial dispensation in life & works articles to have a link from the life and another from the works, but I don't think I am comfortable with pushing that any further. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • link counterpoint? - or will all readers who got this far know?
    • The link is in the wrong place, some paragraphs below. I'll move up here. I am obliged to you for spotting this. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Prix de Rome

  • "Le retour à la vie (The Return to Life, later renamed Lélio)" - please teach me. I am used to either give an English title in brackets, in Italics and title case, if such a title exists, or a simple translation, in sentence case (The return to life).
    • I am in no position to teach anybody. I haven't found any MoS guidance on this point, and have just done my best. The present renditions are clear enough, I think, though I am not opposed to another style if others prefer it. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • He wrote "the poetic memories formed from my wanderings in Abruzzi", - I suggest to not use the quote but reword, for two reasons, 1) to avoid third person in the beginning vs. first person in the quote, 2) to avoid a link from a quote, and a strange one, because the link goes to a region Abruzzo, and the plural appears nowhere in that article, not even for the mountains, and Abruzzi (disambiguation) is also no help. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The plural form used to be usual, I think. cf. Edward Lear: "There was an old man of th'Abruzzi, Was so blind that he couldn't his foot see..." I'd prefer to stick with the oratio recta. Tim riley talk 19:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • All understood so far. More tomorrow. Singing Bach was good, WO, as we say, concerts 8 and 9 December. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Benvenuto Cellini: I'd first say when it was performed, then reception.


  • "His reception was enthusiastic. The German public was more receptive than the French to his innovative compositions" - I could imagine that combined, avoiding "reception - receptive".
  • "and his conducting was seen as highly impressive", - I'd say "and impressive conducting".
  • "The following year was spent mostly in conducting and writing prose." - why passive voice? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Works first section fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for these points. I'll wait for any more and then deal with them together. Tim riley talk 19:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ragnar Garrett[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Belatedly following on from John Wilton and Reg Pollard, I present another chief of the Australian Army. Like Wagner conceived his Ring Cycle, I seem to be doing things in reverse chronological order. Unlike Wagner, I can stop at three episodes, because Garrett's predecessor is already FA. While we're talking Wagner, one leitmotif unifying the stories of these three chiefs is the Army's short-lived experiment with the pentropic divisional structure -- Garrett enthusiastically initiating it, Pollard reluctantly implementing it, and Wilton mercifully killing it... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Thoroughly and widely sourced, as well illustrated as one could expect in an article about this period, and in top-notch and highly readable prose. Not the longest FAC I have read, but the text seems comprehensive. Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


1a: Support. You know how to do this!

A few things:

  • "it "affected me more than the bombing... I was very sorry to lose Garrett, who served me splendidly over the hectic days of the recent past"." I think there must either be a space before the three ellipsis points as well as after, or a point (if at sentence-end), a space, and the three points, and a final space.
  • born at Northam—more usual to write "in", but I don't mind. Born at Northam Hospital.
  • "He oversaw the brigade's return to Australia prior to its disbandment in March 1946." Well, perhaps we all should be ditching the Latin—me too. Nominator tkbrett, below, linked me to this short vid of the sadly departed David Foster Wallace on a few items he didn't like.
  • In that frame, you might consider "On retiring" rather than "Upon retiring", plain and simple. Tony (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Tks for those Tony, I think I've actioned all -- I try to encourage brevity/simplicity in others' writing but seem to use "prior to" almost unconsciously so am happy to be reminded, and I don't know how "Upon" escaped my attention so long... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: This looks pretty good to me, Ian. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

  • do we know if Garrett had any siblings?
    • ADB says he was a second child, but as that didn't discount other children I thought I'd leave it...
  • I wonder if it could be made clearer that service in Greece and Crete was in combat/during the fighting against the Germans?
    • Fair point but my key source for these bits, the ADB, seems to take for granted we know who he's fighting -- I was hoping that linking to the campaigns would suffice for the broader picture.
      • Ok, I wonder if potentially it could be made clearer that he was there when they were actually fighting, though? For instance, briefly seconded to Savige Force, which fought in Greece, under Brigadier Stanley Savige. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ext links all work, and there are no dab or dup links
  • in the References, perhaps consider adding the edition number for the Dennis work?
  • same as above for the Dexter and Long works
    • Will add editions.
  • course at Staff College, Camberley: --> "course at the Staff College, Camberley"?
    • Done.
  • He died on 4 November 1977: do we know what he died from specifically?
    • ADB doesn't say and searching Trove didn't help either, I'm afraid.
  • "File:Ragnar Garrett 064074.JPG": the caption (in the article) for this says "April 1944"; however, the AWM source indicates it was taken on 4 February 1944. The description page on Commons says "2 April 1944", so I wonder if the 2 and 4 haven't been transposed?
    • I think you're right -- altered in Commons and in the article.
  • the citations appear consistent, and the sources look reliable to me
  • citation density appears good to me
  • as an aside, the role of "adjutant/quartermaster" is not fun at all. Garrett seems to have had this role for many years, with different units, so I assume he was a humourless, dour man... ;-)
    • Well I daresay he was very serious in his younger days -- per Stretton, perhaps he loosened up a bit as he advanced and had less to prove (it can happen!) Tks for taking a look Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: why the double entry title?
    • God knows, I'm sure it didn't when I first put this together -- made more consistent now.
  • Be consistent in when you include access dates
    • Done, I think.
  • Is OUP in Melbourne or South Melbourne or South Melbourne, Victoria?
    • Well the last-mentioned is just plain inconsistent, and I've eliminated "Victoria". I've double-checked all OUP instances and there are some cases where it says South Melbourne and others where it just says Melbourne.
  • The second Long book appears to have the wrong OCLC number
    • Fixed.
  • Can you double-check the publication date for Palazzo? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Tks for all your thorough checks, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

This is only the second article about a pterosaur to be nominated as FAC (after Istiodactylus). This particular pterosaur is unusual for having one of the largest cranial crests of any animal, and for both its genus and specific names apparently being misnomers. There has been speculation that the only known skull of this animal was lost in the National Museum of Brazil fire (though not confirmed by reliable sources), which will perhaps make the info currently in this article all we'll ever know about it (unless more fossils are found). The article is a GA, has been copy edited, and covers the entire relevant literature, as far as I'm aware. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum.

1a, lead:

  • "proportionally-largest"—MOS and the big style guides say no hyphen after -ly adverbs. There's another one further down.
Removed both. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Just noticed there are a lot more of these throughout the article (added during copy-edit), will remove soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • CMOS, and many editors, advise preference for "that" over "which" where there's no preceding comma. There are good reasons for this. Two examples in the opening paragraph, and one in the second paragraph.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth due to its crest being supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."—consider straighter grammar: "and the specific name refers to the Egyptian god Seth because its crest was supposedly reminiscent of Seth's crown."
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the repetition here: "and they are grouped in a clade which has been placed within Tapejaridae (as Thalassodrominae) or within Neoazhdarchia (as Thalassodromidae)"
Do you mean the part in parenthesis? One is a subfamily version of the name (inae suffix), while the other is a family (idae). I've specified this now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry! I looked three times to see a difference. Need new specs. Tony (talk) 06:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Singular–plural clash, in a generally unsatisfactory sentence: "A number of theories have been suggested for the function of the crest of Thalassodromeus (including thermoregulation and display), and it most likely had more than one function."
Changed to the following, any better? "Various theories have been suggested to explain the function of Thalassodromeus's crest (including thermoregulation and display), but it likely had more than one function." FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The crests of thalassodromids appear to have developed late in growth (probably correlated with sexual maturity), and they may have been sexually dimorphic." The crests may have been dimorphic?
You could say so, if there are such differences in the crests, the crests themselves are dimorphic. So it can apply both to the species and the crests. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Singular–plural tension: "Thalassodromeus was originally proposed to have fed like modern skimmer birds, by skimming over the surface of water and dipping its lower jaws to catch prey." Make the skimmer bird singular?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I recall I wrote "skimmers" plural because there is no single skimmer species; it is the common name of a genus that containts three species. So I wonder if it is more appropriate to say "skimmers" after all? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking of "like a modern skimmer bird", which conveniently dodges the issue but avoids singular–plural tension. Tony (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, of course, took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "This idea was later criticised for a lack of evidence"—remove "a"?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "relatively ... relatives".
I'm not sure I follow, but changed "relatives" to "related species" anyhow. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not bad, so far. Tony (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks (credit to the copy-editor), I've addressed the issues above. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good: thanks, FM. Tony (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

"Description"—just the first para:

  • "indicating that it was an adult"—you could go with "indicating adulthood", if it works for you.
Nice to be concise, done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If you really want to give British Empire unit conversions, consider using range dashes to reduce the clutter: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span is estimated to have been between 4.2 to 4.5 metres (14 to 15 ft)." But second point: "between ... and" (not "to"). "from ... to". So: "to have been 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)". Third, you've already covered the provenance of the claim (for WP's narrative) with the "Based on" and the two refs, so why not: "Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft)"? Now it's shorter, you could re-organise the text this way: ""Based on related pterosaurs, its wing-span was 4.2–4.5 metres (14–15 ft), making Thalassodromeus the largest known member of its clade, Thalassodromidae. Of similar proportions, its skull was heavier more heavily built than that of its relative Tupuxuara.
Took your version. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Are you on the look-out for ambiguities? "relatives had unusually short and blocky neck vertebrae and well-developed limbs of almost equal length (excluding the long wing-finger)." So the limbs are of similar length to the neck vertebrae?
Changed to "with well-developed front and hind-limbs that were almost equal in length", is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The hindlimbs were 80 percent of the forelimb length, unique among pterodactyloids (short-tailed pterosaurs)." The first clause isn't grammatical ("that of" needed). But why not simpler? "The hindlimbs were 20 percent shorter than the forelimbs." What was unique among the pterodactyloids? We talking limbs or lengths, and which ones? Anatomical descriptions (one burden of your chosen topics) require precision.
Added "that of", but since the source says "80 % of", and though I know it means the same, I wonder if it is best to keep the emphasis the same as in the source? I changed the last part to "a unique ratio among pterodactyloids", better? FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good size schematic. Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, makes it more tangible, seems you could just about look it in the eyes... FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All good; but some of these points have generic dimensions that can be applied through the rest of the text. It's a big job for reviewers to bulldoze through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And the comments so far are much appreciated. I wonder if that first paragraph is a bit more unwieldy because of all the numbers. In any case, with such science articles, it is unfortunately always necessary to have "layreaders" plough through the text to see if it is comprehensible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Aim for scientists in other fields, and try to retain intelligent non-scientists as much as possible. People are interested in these monsters. This is why making the prose as straightforward as you can is so important. Do you print it out and use a pen? Tony (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Haven't tried that, does it make it easier to spot issues, or how? Doesn't help that my printer only produces annoyingly faint, grey letters (even with new ink)... FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Just passing by, I always follow these palaeo FAs to learn more about the process and what sort of things to look out for when writing articles myself. But may I ask what "NB Insulting and attempting to discredit reviewers are not regarded acceptable strategies at this forum." is doing as a header for this review? It seems very out of place and against WP:AssumeGoodFaith. It might make sense if the nominator is being intentionally disruptive, but I don't see any of that occuring here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:44, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it is a general statement in response to some arguments in other, unrelated FACs, not necessarily to anything here... Seems there's a bit of drama going on. FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed there is.[5] Also, I just noticed that the mural behind the Irritator mount actually depicts Thalassodromeus, which might be worth pointing out in the caption. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, for copyright reasons, it's probably best to pretend the painting isn't there, hehe... As for the drama, well, I'd rather stay out of it... FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling Tony's review won't continue (based on the discussion you linked), perhaps you have more to add, PaleoGeekSquared? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


I'll start my review later today, FunkMonk, since I'll be busy for the next several hours. You've helped me a lot with Irritator already so it's only fair I do something in return. Plus, I'll pick up some knowledge on this animal and pterosaurs in general along the way, which is always fun! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, not to mention getting to know more about another animal from the same formation as Irritator. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed to generic. "Species name" can apparently also refer to the full binomial. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • pointed out that that the crest - "that that".
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara, and they are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae - Perhaps this could be The closest relative of Thalassodromeus was Tupuxuara; both are grouped in a clade that has been placed within Tapejaridae.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • by skimming over the surface of water - Again, could be more concise: by skimming over the water's surface.
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • T. oberlii? should be bolded in the lead as well, right now that occurs only in the taxobox.
Yeah, added. I wonder if that issue will ever be solved... Kind of another parallel to the Irritator/Angaturama issue... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
And it's in regard to a jaw tip as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


  • (the front bones of the snout) - Could also be (the frontmost snout bones).
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • horny (keratinous) - should be keratinous (horny), since this is the format followed in the rest of the article; the technical term going first, with the explanation parenthesised after it.
Swapped. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The upper jaw of T. sethi was primarily composed of premaxillae and maxillae; the suture which formed the border between these bones is not visible. - There is a duplink of premaxillae, might be worth using the "Highlight duplicate links" tool to check for more of these.
Done, seems this was another case of a redirect not showing, so yeah, it seems to be something that needs to be fixed in the script. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The palatal area at the tip of the snout in T. sethi - could be The palatal area at the tip of T. sethi's snout.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Instances of the ridge of the palate could be replaced with the palatal ridge.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • were oval-shaped --> were oval.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • possibly a different genus Link genus on first mention, same thing with species later in the discovery section.
Done. You could argue that linking "species" is WP:overlinking, but I'll let others decide. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Added "depression", I think it's purpose is explained by the latter part of the sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

History of discovery

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it really necessary to link three-dimensional?
Perhaps not, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Added to the taxobox, but I wonder if it might be a bit much to add it to the article body; people will ask why not every single year mentioned is linked likewise. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I usually link only the years when a certain taxon has been named, since most of the earlier "XXXX in paleontology" articles don't have sections on general discoveries or new information on known taxa, just genera or species that were named during that particular year. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it'll be bit much here, I usually keep them in the taxobox, and I was even asked to remove the link from the article body once. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Another duplink with holotype specimen, this is the last one I'll point out since the duplink tool should help you see the rest of them.
Strangely, the duplink script doesn't show duplinks for me if the second link is a redirect... Does it do it for you? Perhaps something that could be brought up to the bot operator... FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've also had that problem in the past, I'll leave a short message on the op's talk page. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
As above, I'm not sure if we should really link every single year mentioned in a palaeontology article... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Answered above. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


  • a paraphyletic (unnatural) group - Ah, I could explain paraphyletic this way in Irritator as well, don't know why I didn't think of that.
It's probably the most concise way of explaining an otherwise complex term... FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (such as keratin, as in bird beaks) - The wording seems a bit awkward to me, not sure.
Said "such as the keratin in bird beaks" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Removed the second link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • reconstructingThalassodromeus' fishing method - Apart from the obvious need to separate two words, I feel like Thalassodromeus's would look less awkward in text than Thalassodromeus'.
Whoops, fixed, personally I would just say "method of Thalassodromeus", but I guess the copy editor did this to make it simpler. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • short and tubby. - is "stubby" meant?
The source actually says tubby. The copy editor also changed it to "stubby", but this has a different meaning, so I changed it back. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Alright, didn't realise that was an actual word. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Quetzalcoatlus sp. - Explain with (of uncertain species).
I just removed sp.; the taxonomic intricacies of a completely different genus aren't really relevant here, and once that species is named, we can just add the new name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Good idea. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Was done earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Santana Group is not linked, (remember it now has an article).
Not sure how that happened, now linked. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On a much broader note, this section could benefit from the content that has now been added to its equivalent in Irritator, especially in regards to fauna.
Copied some more taxa from Irritator, but much of the other text seems to be specfically about aquatic predators and aquatic habitats, which are not so relevant for a pterosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Image comments

  • Interestingly, the Thalassodromeus skeletal mount in the taxobox image is exhibited at the same museum (the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo) as that of Irritator, which you could point out in the caption. Yet another mutual feature between both articles!
Oh, and by that I mean the museum name, not the fact that both of them were displayed at the same building, which would obviously count as very trivial info in the article.
Added, seems there might have been a room of Brazilian mounts? FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, looks like it was part of an exhibit called "Dinosaurs of Gondwana"[6] ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty nice idea linking restoration to paleoart, I must say!
Maybe something we should do generally, I did it because some FAC reviewers have been unsure what was meant by the term "restoration" in the past... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • genus could be linked on its first caption appearance as well.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I might add more comments later, but unfortunately I can't do a more in-depth review due to time constraints, so mostly it's just links and minor grammatical and prose concerns. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, no rush, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
All my comments have been answered so Supporting now, though we need more experienced reviewers here. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, but you caught a good deal of stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • All images appropriately licensed, except:
  • The sourcing on File:Thalassodomeus skull.png is unclear and needs to be cleaned up. I believe that the artist uploaded it himself, but it's hard to tell from the info in the summary. And the link to the artist's website isn't up to date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, yeah, I think the problem is that he uploaded it without a description template (way back in 2006 when uploading was less refined), so a bot later filled that stuff out with half-gibberish. I have now cleaned it up and added a link to his current website. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Page numbers aren't needed for Witton in the Bibliography
  • FN9: authors are backwards, it appears location has been bundled in with symposium name - check formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Tom Thomson[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Tom Thomson, the Canadian artist inextricably linked with the Group of Seven. Tkbrett (✉) 01:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • There are a lot of images in this article - somewhat understandable given the topic, but I think we're stretching the bounds of WP:GALLERY
  • My basis for this page was the FA for Vincent van Gogh which seems to have a similar number of images (I haven't actually counted so I'm not certain on that). If you have something more specific then let me know and I can work on it. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
You can take or leave this but if image count become a further issue, and it might;
  • File:Thomson, View from the Windows of Grip Ltd.jpg could go as rather uninformative
  • Sandbank with Logs, Fall 1916 & The Drive, Winter 1916–17 are similar enough that one only could represent the style
  • The "Nocturnes" section doesn't have enough text to justify six image Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Adding alt text will take me a day or two given how many images there are but I will get on it! Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this - with art articles like this the danger is repetition or original research. Or at least I would be sparing; the painting titles are pretty descriptive anyway for the most part. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the details provided in captions don't appear to be sourced anywhere, such as his spending habits
  • Images hosted on Commons should have tags reflecting status in both country of origin and the US - some (eg File:TomThomson23.jpg) do not
  • When/where was File:Tom_Thomson.jpg first published? For all newly added tags, check that sufficient information is provided to support them. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The tag currently in use requires pre-1923 publication for US PD status. Can that be demonstrated? Check same on other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Young_Tom_Thomson.jpg: Thomson is the subject, not the creator
  • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? When/where was this first published? Same with File:TomThomson23.jpg, File:Profile_of_the_painter_Tom_Thomson_wearing_a_hat.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • All of the images of people (i.e. not paintings) on the page are from Library and Archives Canada and each page indicates "Copyright: Expired," "Restrictions on use: Nil," but not much more info. For example, File:TomThomson23.jpg. I'm not sure which tags to use to indicate that there are no copyright restrictions. Where I should I ask to confirm? Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You can try WP:MCQ, but I would expect that the LAC indications represent Canadian status, whereas for the purposes of Wikipedia we also need US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I started a thread in order to get help from people who understand copyright rules better than I do. I'll let you know when I hear back and can clear this up. Tkbrett (✉) 04:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I found instances of the photos being published early enough to qualify for C:Template:PD-old-auto-1996. They meet the criteria of (1) they were first published outside of the U.S., (2) they were published before 1 March 1989 without a copyright notice and (3) they were public domain on the URAA date. I updated the copyright info on the Commons. Here are the publications:
File:TomThomson23.jpg, LAC, published in Silcox & Town (1977)
File:Young Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Profile of the painter Tom Thomson wearing a hat.jpg, LAC, published in Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson with fish.jpg, LAC, published in Little (1970), Murray (1986)
File:Tom Thomson, standing on a rock fishing in moving water.jpg, LAC, published in Reid (1975) Tkbrett (✉) 19:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Tom_Thomson_Memorial_Cairn.jpg: what is the copyright status of the plaque? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The plaque was designed and inscribed by J. E. H. MacDonald in 1917 (Hill 2002, p. 142). He died in 1932, so I do not think there are any copyright issues there. Tkbrett (✉) 07:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We'll need to add a tag to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the plaque. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not clear on what type of tag is needed to indicate this copyright status. Tkbrett (✉) 22:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In this case, we can demonstrate both an author death more than 70 years ago and a publication date before 1923, so the tag that is problematic on the above images would work here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil[edit]

Extensive, knowledgeable and wonderfully written article on an artist whom I had previously only known from a few isolated paintings. One quibble, the measurements debacle at the Go-Home cottage doesn't seem like the most inspiring way to open the "artistic peak" section - it breaks flow. I would remove or push up into the last section. Otherwise this is a yard stick for visual arts bios at FAC. The nominator has a lot of ability. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Measurements debacle moved up. Thank you for the kind words! Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. We get a better sense now at the start of "artistic peak" that he opened up. 05:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Other suggestions:

  • In the "Early recognition" section, ths detailing of his comings and goings outweigh and mask the more important internal difficulties with shyness he was going through. Similarly by the way details like the price of his rent ($22 a month (equivalent to CAD$480 in 2017)) breaks from the dialogue.
  • How exactly should I fix the dialogue breaking? Should I have the inflation calculations included a footnote instead or remove them all together? Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Unless the rent was very high or very low (in which case say it was very high or low), I would cut such detail altogether and stick with the central drama. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I've cut out the inflation calculations for his rent (While I see the $1 rent explicitly mentioned in almost every source and feel surprised at how ridiculously low it sounds, the sources don't seem to go out of their way to say that it's very low). Should I also cut out inflation calcs for purchases of his paintings? (There are three of these currently) Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
No these seem fine. How do you mean "the $1 rent" - the article says $22? Ceoil (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
$22 was for the ground floor of the Studio Building while $1 was for the shack out behind. "In late November, [Thomson] returned to Toronto and moved into a shack behind the Studio Building that Harris and MacCallum fixed up for him,[128][129] renting it for $1 a month." Tkbrett (✉) 05:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I missed that. Have applied for a visa to Canada. Ceoil (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Ha! Might want to retract your application. Tkbrett (✉) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I would keep the "notes" as brief as possible, as far as cutting down extraneous words were you can.
  • I cut out two notes entirely since they seem better suited to their own articles (one on Lawren Harris's WWI experience and the other on William Brodie who probably deserves his own page). I also worked to cut out extraneous words. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Newspaper stories" in the references is unneeded, given they are not used, and we have google. Ceoil (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. It's gone. Tkbrett (✉) 01:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe more be more judicious and sparing in use of detail such as the following (unless it advances the narrative): Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist [...] especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again). The difficulty is augmented by the fact of stopping to sketch at intervals along the way."[100] Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter.[98] Note this is an example only; I dont want the story bogged down in bio detail or blusterous later recounts.
  • I adjusted the sentence you mentioned and cut it down to "Wadland has noted that if this timeline is correct, it would require "an extraordinary canoeist," made further difficult given the constant stopping for sketching. Wadland suggests that Thomson traveled via train at some points and by steamship thereafter." I also cut some others slightly, but for the most part there are still those two paragraphs in the Early recognition (1914–15) section that deal primarily with his location and routes. I'm wondering how much you think they should be cut down, if at all? Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do. FFIW, I went through a similar dilemma with Nick Drake, who also suffered from severe shyness and died young. There is a balance between conveying his personal and artist development and recounting his going hither and thither. Cut if not germain, though I get that a lot of it dove tails with his discovery of nature. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I cut out some unnecessarily detailed parts covering his traveling routes. If someone really wants to duplicate his canoe trips they should really just get the Addison & Harwood (1969) or Waddington & Waddington (2016) books instead of reading the Wiki page! (And listen to Pink Moon on the way too) Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Hallelujah the John Cale piano inserts. Ceoil (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Overall you are probably top-heavy in quotes, maybe some could be paraphrased. Ceoil (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you're right and my writing is a little overly reliant upon quotations. I went through and paraphrased some. Let me know if you think any others ought to be. Tkbrett (✉) 07:13, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • To be clear, your writing is excellent, as mentioned by perhaps our best arts FAC writer[7], and I have already supported; these points are just icing on the cake. Ceoil (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Watch out for overuse of the word "Thomson", when "he" would do; eg (now fixed) Thomson's financial future became uncertain. Thomson briefly looked into. Ceoil (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I went through and changed all the instances I thought warranted pronouns. Tkbrett (✉) 21:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • yes this is resolved now. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Beyond being is not ideal
    Reworded: "Primarily a fisherman's bible, the book also provided..." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Once back in Toronto - 'on his return' or something
    "Upon returning to Toronto, Jackson...", O.K.? Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • similar to the one illustrated in Henry David Thoreau's 1854 book, Walden, or Life in the Woods - as we are taking about a painter, should it be "described" rather than "illustrated" to avoid confusion; also "similar to that..."
    Reworded. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ben Jackson wrote of Thomson's character: "Tom" - more consecutive Toms! & "wrote of" seems also dated
    Reworded: "Ben Jackson wrote: 'Tom...'" Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thomson was introduced to Dr. James MacCallum at MacDonald's studio - who cares where, "by MacDonald". Next sentence begins with "It was there", which is a bit dated, would merge the sentences so we can have "..where he met"
    Reworded. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • another eventual member - a later member
  • The Group of Seven had seven original members (hence the group's name) and three members who joined later on. I wanted to keep it clear that A. Y. Jackson was an original member so I went with, "MacCallum introduced Thomson to A. Y. Jackson, a later founder of the Group of Seven.... if that's alright. Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • and decided to leave commercial art - "leave" isn't right, I'd prefer something more active, eg to travel around Ontario...
    The next sentence covers that, so how about if I simply cut the bit about leaving commercial art? i.e., "Thomson accepted MacCallum's offer under the same terms offered to Jackson. He traveled around Ontario with his colleagues..." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    This seems like a good idea. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • engaged to Thomson for a marriage - Ceoil (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean this as a tautology: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson" is the first part of the sentence and "for a marriage in the fall of 1917" is the second part. I reworded it to avoid this ambiguity: "Trainor was later rumoured to have been engaged to Thomson with a wedding planned for the fall of 1917." Tkbrett (✉) 19:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfect. Although, Christ, I think I should probably unwatch the article and this review as, even post support, I keep on coming back to torture you with nick-picks. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's all good with me! I've been glad see the prose of the article improving so much. Tkbrett (✉) 21:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
To progress this, maybe ping Tony if he wants to support. You and him seem to be of a single mind. I might do the source review. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


1a, lead only:

  • "His painting utilizes broad brush strokes"—the simpler "uses" would be less ungainly.
  • Wallace: excellent vid. I've saved it and will pass on to offending clients! Tony (talk) 05:10, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and did not display any immediate artistic talent"—consider the simpler wording: "and displayed no immediate artistic talent"
  • worked ... worked. Perhaps the second one could be "was employed in"?
  • Is the first comma necessary? "There, he met those who eventually formed the Group of Seven, including J. E. H. MacDonald, Lawren Harris, Frederick Varley, Franklin Carmichael and Arthur Lismer." (Considering you're justifiably OK with no comma in this stretch, later: "paintings such as The Jack Pine and The West Wind have taken a prominent place in the culture of Canada and are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art.")
  • The very next sentence opens with another "there" wording. I can't see an alternative at the moment.
  • I haven't been able to come up with anything good either. Perhaps "In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time. It was at the Park that he acquired..." Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "following the advice of MacDonald"—simpler as: "following MacDonald's advice"?
  • I didn't like this: "Thomson is often considered an unofficial member with his art typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's." (i) Could we have a comma before the connective "with"?) (ii) there are two, close "with"s that have different grammatical functions (would it work as: "... member, and his ..."? (iii) the ending "the Group's" is pretty awkward. An ellipsis right at the end ...?
  • Do you think it would work better as two separate sentences? For example, "Although he died before the formal establishment of the Group of Seven, Thomson is often considered an unofficial member. His art is typically exhibited with the rest of the Group's, nearly all of which is located in Canada—mainly..." The problem with this is that it's ambiguous as to whether the "nearly all of which" is referring to Thomson's work or the Group of Seven's (although it is true in either case). I'm not sure how else to reword this, hmm... Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Much better. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Nearly all his work is located in Canada, mainly at the Art Gallery of Ontario in Toronto, the National Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, the McMichael Canadian Art Collection in Kleinburg and the Tom Thomson Art Gallery in Owen Sound."—You might consider "all of his", but it's a personal thing. Might it be easier to insert a dash after "Canada"? "located in Canada—mainly at ...". "located" is not watertight: it could, I suppose, refer to the subjects of his paintings, rather than "housed in Canada", or similar. But I could live with "located" if you're fine with it, too.
  • I added the "of" and added the dash. I think "located" should be fine since the paragraphs beforehand make it clear that his painting was done exclusively outdoors or in his studio, and the list includes only museums. Tkbrett (✉) 17:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Personally I'd go for "Nearly all his work is still in Canada ..." or "remains in". Locating and housing, and still more residing, are best avoided for art - see WP:VAMOS. There's another "housed" elsewhere. I don't know why WP editors love these Time-Life expressions so much. You never see them in propper art history. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point. I changed "located" & "housed" into "remains in" & "found", respectively. Tkbrett (✉) 17:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nit-picked, but it's fine writing indeed. It will be a support, but I'd like to return to look at more. Tony (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SarahSV[edit]

Hi Tkbrett, I'm enjoying reading this, and I've tried to do a little copy-editing as I read. I've found a few of these, which are best avoided:

  • "The circumstances surrounding his death have been of particular interest to many, with unsubstantiated rumours that he was murdered or committed suicide becoming common ..."
  • He was known to be stubborn ... with his brother Fraser Thomson writing that ..."
  • "He did not yet take painting seriously however, with Jackson saying that ..."
  • "Much of his artwork from this trip ... has been lost due to two canoe spills ... the first spill being on Green Lake ..."
  • "Thomson often experienced self-doubt, with A. Y. Jackson recalling that ..."

It's usually better to use a semicolon: "he was known to be stubborn; his brother wrote that ..." Tony wrote about this somewhere (see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing), but I can't find it right now. SarahSV (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your edits and for the link to the guide. I've noticed these shortcomings in my writing for a long time but I've never been sure how to combat them, so the guide should prove helpful. I'm confident I'll eventually be able to tame a semicolon and get it to serve my wishes! Tkbrett (✉) 06:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Spot checks[edit]
  • There are quite a few citation errors (e.g. Jackson 1933b doesn't point to a long citation). If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to User:Tkbrett/common.js, you'll see them. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What does Silcox and Town, p. 49, say about the accidental drowning? Re: "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning," another source (MacGregor) says that only one person examined the body (a professor of neurology who happened to be there on holiday), and that the coroner didn't. SarahSV (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm a little baffled as to how that citation ended up there since it doesn't really back-up the two independent examinations statement. Silcox & Town, p. 49 appears a few times in that paragraph but backs up the other information given. It says, "The official cause of [Thomson's] death was 'accidental drowning,' though it was noted that he had sustained a four-inch cut on his right temple and that his right ear had bled." The two primary sources provide more information (Howland 1917 and Ranney 1931), but given WP:PRIMARY I don't want to use them as citations unless it's to support a good secondary source. None of the sources I have on hand have mention the particulars of the post-death events, except to say that he was hastily buried, only to be dug up and moved away soon after. They seem so laconic partly because of their admitted weariness of advancing the alternative theories (Hunter and Silcox & Town come out and say this). Should we use MacGregor here for that information? I have been hesitant to use him because I did not want to lend too much credence to the alternate theories. Tkbrett (✉) 18:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the citation errors. I'm not familiar enough with the sources to be able to advise about MacGregor. My question was whether it's correct that two people examined the body (a doctor and the coroner). I was also wondering what's meant by "independent" examinations. SarahSV (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I reworded that sentence to conform with the citation because I'm not completely sure given the secondary sourcing I have. Let me know if you think more detail is needed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's better, thanks. SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I notice that you cite several sources after apparently simple points, and I'm not always able to find the text in the sources. I did a spot check above of Silcox & Town, p. 49, and couldn't find the text attributed to it (the two independent examinations by a doctor and coroner, etc). There was nothing like that on p. 49 (although I know there are different editions, and Google Preview may not be showing me everything).
    I'm now looking at this: "After Jackson moved out in December to go to Montreal, Carmichael took his place.[27][94][95] They shared a studio space through the winter."[96][97] First, do you need three sources for the first sentence? Re: the second, I can't find it in Klages 2016, p. 207, which is footnote 96 (again, this may be a Google Preview issue). Also, "they" who share the studio: that's Thomson and Carmichael, is that right? SarahSV (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I clarified that it was Thomson and Carmichael that shared the studio space. Tkbrett (✉) 06:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What does Silcox and Town 2017, p. 49, say to support the following? "It was noted that he had a four-inch cut on his right temple and experienced bleeding from his right ear. The cause of death was officially determined to be 'accidental drowning'." Also, why do you cite different editions of the same book (Silcox and Town 1977 and 2017)? SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I see you've already addressed the first question above (about what p. 49 says). SarahSV (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tkbrett, in which edition of Silcox and Town is that text on p. 49? SarahSV (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's from p. 49 of the 2017 edition. I have used both the original 1977 text as well as the 2017 "revised and expanded" edition b/c the texts are different in places while still containing useful information. Is it inadvisable to use multiple editions of the same text? The Klages citation you mentioned is from the print version and not the Ebook that appears on Google Preview. I can confirm that, I'll just need a few days before I can run over to the library and grab a copy. Should I limit how many citations I have per sentence? During the Peer review it was recommended that I limit things to three citations in a row. I haven't found anything directly in the MOS concerning this. Tkbrett (✉) 04:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Regarding how many citations, there's no rule about sticking to three citations. The best thing is to offer one. That makes things easy for readers and reviewers. If you need to add more than one, it's helpful to explain what each source says. See WP:CITEBUNDLE. For example:
<ref>For year of birth, see {{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; for graduation year, see {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
If several sources say the same thing, you can bundle them without explanation: <ref>{{harvnb|Smith|2017|p=1}}; {{harvnb|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref>
There is no rule about this. You can cite however you choose. But it's hard to review an article when each source supports a part of a sentence or paragraph, with no sense of which ref supports which words.
As for citing different editions, I can't see a reason to do that. If there's something important in 1977 that's absent from 2017, you could consider it, but be careful in case it was removed because inaccurate. If you want to say "Smith alleged in 1977 that x, but in 2017 said y," then you can cite 1977. Can you expand on why you're doing it here? SarahSV (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────I only use the 1977 version twice: the first instance is unnecessary since it's bundled w/ a citation from the 2017 ed., so I'll remove it. The second instance is for a quote that is present in the 1977 ed. but seemingly absent from the 2017 ed. The quote is found in Wadland (2002) so I've gone and used that instead. Where I have several citations in a row, they cover the entire sentence. Tkbrett (✉) 05:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

They each cover the entire sentence (i.e. each could stand alone) or they cover it jointly? SarahSV (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The former. I'd have to look through and confirm it's true for all of them, but I believe so. Tkbrett (✉) 05:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, that's good to know. It makes things a lot easier. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi TKbrett, did you get round to checking Klages 2016, p. 207? It's for "Thomson and Carmichael shared a studio space through the winter." See footnote 99. SarahSV (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, sorry, I forgot to respond to this. I went back to my university's library a few days ago but unfortunately they don't carry a copy of Klages' book. Instead, I consulted with King (2010) and confirmed the other citation backs up the information provided. I'll remove the Klages citation since it's not needed. Tkbrett (✉) 04:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Spot checks continued[edit]
  • Thanks. Continuing the spot check:
  • footnote 33 (King 2010, p. 14) is fine;
  • footnote 69 (Klages 2016, p. 23) is fine;
  • footnote 55 is fine apart from the canoe trip; Klages 2016, p. 21, doesn't mention a canoe, but I assume the others in the bundle do;
  • footnote 99: Klages 2016, p. 207, doesn't include the relevant text (sharing a studio space) and is about his death;
  • footnote 163 (Silcox & Town 2017, p. 49): "Independent examinations of the body by a doctor and a coroner concluded that the cause of death was accidental drowning". Failed verification; now removed.
  • footnote 175 is too large a page range (Klages 2016, pp. 274–297), but more importantly Klages 2016 is only 253 pages long, including footnotes (and I would change "substantiation" to "substance").
  • What a bizarre typo. It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page. My apologies, I should have done a better job reviewing things before leaving them in. I'll try to look through and see if I can find any other instances of this happening. For now, I'll simply remove the page range since this is the thesis of the entire Klages source. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • footnote 238 is fine (Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71), but I wonder why you're citing three sources for a quote from Jackson. If it's that you haven't seen Jackson yourself, that should be cited as "Jackson 1958, cited in Sloan 2010, pp. 70–71".
  • I haven't been able to find the specific page within Jackson (1958), so I included the other sources (which say it's from his autobiography but unfortunately don't give a page). I've fixed the citation to confirm that it was quoted from another source like you suggested. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • footnote 248: Grace 2004a, p. 96, says that Thomson is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for Lee and Kiyooka, not for artists in general.
  • Fixed. I also added a David Milne quotation as well to further emphasize the point in that paragraph. Tkbrett (✉) 18:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
SarahSV (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The most tedious part of nominating an article for FAC is doing the final check of the text-source relationship. Things get moved around during rewrites and copy editing, and older sources that seemed like a good idea at the time may need to be removed. I'm wondering, based on the spot checks and your comment above ("It looks like the page range was from before I even started editing the page"), whether you made that final check.
    There was also a query about Silcox and Town, p. 49 (the four-inch cut). The edition I had didn't say that on p. 49 or anywhere near it; it was in the book but much later. But I didn't have 2017, so I accept that the pagination may have changed completely, so long as you're quite certain that p. 49 is correct.
    I also wonder how we can verify the content of the letters, e.g. "Jackson, A. Y. (August 4, 1917). 'Tom Thomson' (Letter). Letter to Mrs. Henry Jackson." SarahSV (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have made sure that the citation and source information is accurate, but obviously the three mistakes above slipped through the cracks. I have again confirmed that the four-inch cut info is on Silcox & Town (2017), p. 49 (I'm looking at it right now). Keep in mind that the 2017 version is "revised and expanded" so the page numbers are quite different from the earlier version (to the point where some things that appear around page ~200 in the original '77 version are near the front of the '17 edition).
    Many of the letters appear on Gregory Klages' (author of The Many Deaths of Tom Thomson) website, Death on a Painted Lake. Should I link instances of the letters to the sources on this page? Other instances are from publicly available archives, though I'm not likely going to be able to go and double-check them anytime soon. In anything from Reid (2002a), the specific letter is typically mentioned in a footnote, though I guess at that point the "so-and-so quoted in Reid (2002a)" format should be put to use, as is the case with the example you mentioned. Tkbrett (✉) 00:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for confirming the p. 49 issue. I take your point about three mistakes only (four if you count no mention of a canoe trip on Klages 2016, p. 21), but I suppose my concern is that it's a large percentage of the ones I checked, and checking isn't easy because almost nothing is online. Even works that appear to be online show very few pages; one source supposedly available for preview on Google Books shows only the front and back covers. Your use of multiple sources to support one point, without saying which source supports what, makes checking very difficult. Which source(s) would you say you relied on most?
I don't think your fix works: "Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them." Why quote someone quoting/paraphrasing them, rather than those artists directly?
As for the letters, the citations must include where they were published. The point of citations (for Wikipedia) is (a) to show that you're using reliable, published sources; and (b) to give readers enough information to find those sources. SarahSV (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am confident in the other citations given that I have them physically but have not been as lucky at finding a physical copy of Klages. I went through and added "quoted in" to make it clearer where some of the letters can be found. The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017).
    Grace's (2004a) book is about Thomson's last impacting in the art world and Canadian culture in general. If it's a reliable source, I would think it would be acceptable to use for this purpose.
    Do you I should link to the Canadian Mystery site then? I'm not clear. I've seen this done on pages like Vincent van Gogh. Tkbrett (✉) 01:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Re: Sherrill Grace (will respond to the rest later), I'm not saying her book isn't an RS. It's just an odd way to write it. Did those artists say those things to her? If so, say "X told Sherrill Grace that ..." or just use her as the source without attribution if you know that she's quoting them. If they said it elsewhere, tell us where. As you've written it, suddenly they're mentioned, with their views attributed to someone else (under Legacy):

Since his death, Thomson's work has grown in value and popularity. Group of Seven member Arthur Lismer wrote that he "is the manifestation of the Canadian character".[198] Another contemporary Canadian painter, David Milne, wrote to National Gallery of Canada Director H. O. McCurry, "Your Canadian art apparently, for now at least, went down in Canoe Lake. Tom Thomson still stands as the Canadian painter, harsh, brilliant, brittle, uncouth, not only most Canadian but most creative. How the few things of his stick in one's mind."[246] Scholar Sherrill Grace has written that he is a "haunting presence" for Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee and that he "embodies the Canadian artistic identity" for them.[247]

Also better to say when they made those comments. And please add what year David Milne made his. Re: "contemporary", in what sense? People often use that word to mean "contemporaneous". SarahSV (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────That's fair. I've reworded it to simply, 'For Canadian artists Roy Kiyooka and Dennis Lee, he is a "haunting presence" and "embodies the Canadian artistic identity".' I don't think I'm going to be able to find any direct quotes from either artist saying this though; Grace is interpreting Thomson's constant presence within their letters and poetry.

You're right, it should be "contemporaneous"; Milne was an early 20th century Canadian painter, as well. I added the David Milne year as requested. Tkbrett (✉) 02:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how other editors here handle these things, but I don't add anything to "Works cited" (the section you call "Sources") unless I've used it directly as a source. So I would not include "Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). "Letter to McRuer" (Letter). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer" (that's a confusing citation; why repeat the word "letter" three times?), unless I had seen it and could include the publisher. Otherwise, it's no use to the reader. As this is something that you're citing via someone else (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT), then I would write <ref>Thomson, Tom (October 17, 1912). Letter to Dr. M. J. (John) McRuer, cited in Murray 2002a, p. 297.<ref>, then I would include the long citation for Murray in "Works cited". Or I would just cite Murray, especially given that, in this case, you mention the letter in the text. SarahSV (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't understand your answer to my question about which sources you relied on most. You wrote: "The most heavily used sources include anyone in Reid (2002a) (that includes Hill, Hunter, Murray (2002a/b), Stacey, Wadland), Murray (1999), Silcox (2015) (which is available in its entirety online) and Silcox & Town (2017)". It's the "anyone in" part that confused me. What I'm trying to work out is which secondary sources you relied on the most when writing the article. I can't tell from looking at the sourcing because of the bundling. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
O.K., I will remove those sources that are not directly cited (mostly the "Archives and letters" sub-section) and instead cite only where I'm getting the information from. The confusing repetition is due to the unfortunate formatting of the Cite letter template; I'm happy to be rid of it!
Reid (2002a) is a book that is multi-authored, which is why those sources are given as, for example: Hill, Charles (2002). "Tom Thomson, Painter". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 111–43. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. Here is the list of my most heavily used sources:
  • Hill (2002)
  • Hunter (2002)
  • Murray (2002a/b)
  • Stacey (2002)
  • Wadland (2002)
  • Murray (1999)
  • Silcox (2015)
  • Silcox & Town (2017)
Tkbrett (✉) 05:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that list is very helpful (and I understand that filling in the templates can be trying, especially as the output can differ in unexpected ways). SarahSV (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, more confusion. Reid 2002 (Tom Thomson) is a collection of essays, but the first footnote cites "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", which leads to "Reid, Dennis, ed. (2002a). Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3."
Reid 2002b is a paper in Reid 2002a: "Reid, Dennis (2002b). "Tom Thomson and the Arts and Crafts Movement in Toronto". In Reid, Dennis. Tom Thomson. Toronto/Ottawa: Art Gallery of Ontario/National Gallery of Canada. pp. 65–83. ISBN 978-1-55365-493-3. SarahSV (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, in addition to editing the book, Reid also contributed an essay (which I designate as Reid (2002b), while the entire collection is designated as Reid (2002a)).
In the first citation, almost all of the essays in the book mention Cruikshank as possibly being Thomson's instructor. Since I already have three other sources (Murray 1986, Silcox 2015, and Silcox & Town 2017) I didn't want to have several more lined up and so joined them into Reid (2002a). This seemed a little too chaotic:
  • Hill (2002), pp. 113, 113n18
  • Murray (1986), p. 6
  • Murray (2002b), p. 309
  • Reid (2002b), pp. 70, 70n21
  • Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
  • Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43
  • Stacey (2002), p. 52
I thought that this looked cleaner:
  • Murray (1986), p. 6
  • Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18
  • Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100
  • Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43
Is any of this recommended? I realize I probably don't need seven sources for a single point, but I wasn't sure which to cut out. Tkbrett (✉) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You can't cite "Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18", when Reid is just the editor. He didn't write the material on those pages, unless they all refer to his essay, but given the page range, that's unlikely. You need to cite the authors. But why do you need to cite (a) so many pages in Reid, and (b) so many authors, for "Thomson may have briefly studied under British artist William Cruikshank around 1905"? The sources for that sentence are "Murray (1986), p. 6; Reid (2002a), pp. 52, 70, 113, 309, 324n21, 329n18; Silcox (2015), pp. 9, 100; Silcox & Town (2017), p. 43". SarahSV (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────O.K., I won't cite Reid (2002a) in that case.

Yes, those are the sources I cited—I listed them in my last post to question which ones I should keep. I'll just pick three as best I can then. Tkbrett (✉) 07:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Initial comment Comments and Support from KJP1[edit]

Just wanted to record my appreciation of a fantastic article. It reads beautifully and is amazingly well-researched and wonderfully illustrated. Having read it through twice shall certainly come back to review/support but can't get to it before next week unfortunately. In the meantime, many congratulations. KJP1 (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "the stark beauty and vibrant colour of the Ontario landscape" - here, and sometimes elsewhere, e.g. "The tragic circumstances of his drowning", you apply adjectives that might just shade into POV. I'm all for "colour" in writing but I'm not sure the adjectives are necessary.
  • That's true, I've removed them. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "was seen by his contemporaries as a tragedy of Canadian art" - "for" Canadian art?
  • "in the Park" - does Park need capitalisation here, and elsewhere?
  • A few people have noticed this in editing the page and I thought it was a little strange as well, but every source I've used seems to do it. Specific sources include: Silcox (2015), Silcox & Town (2017), everyone in Reid (2002a) and every book by Murray. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling" - "they illustrated an above-average ability in composition and colour handling"?
  • "Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint" - not quite getting the meaning here. "Through his development" seems redundant and I'm not sure what the "vary" applies to. Is it that there are different approaches among his later works, or that his later works differ from his earlier ones?
  • Removed "Through his development". I'm trying to express that is later paintings have several different approaches. Would it be alright to write, "His later paintings use several different methods of composition, have vivid colours and thickly-applied paint."? I'm worried it's a little to wordy. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "are some of the country's most iconic pieces of art" - to avoid the double "art", and the slightly odd "pieces of art", which reminds me of "pieces of eight", perhaps "are some of the country's most iconic works" or "artworks"?
  • "The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with his image as a master canoeist" - this puzzled me a bit. Did he have an "image" as a master canoeist? I see where you're going though and can't think of a better way to express it. Two other things - Algonquin Park, which you link here, is first mentioned in the para. above (and the lead). And would the 3rd and 4th para.s be better combined?
  • Is the word "image" your main problem here, or the sentence as a whole? If it's just the former, perhaps, ""The tragic circumstances of his drowning on Canoe Lake in Algonquin Park, linked with the public's perception of him as a master canoeist...". Fixed the linking. That's a good point, since they're both really about his legacy. I've joined them. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Early years
  • "in the Municipality of Meaford" - do we need the capital M?
  • "an appreciation for nature" - "an appreciation of nature"?
  • "Thomson worked briefly as an elevator operator at the Diller Hotel" - you could bluelink the hotel.
  • Didn't realize it was that notable! Added, thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Exploring Algonquin Park (1912–13)
  • "According to Jackson, Thomson did not think painting "would ever be taken seriously" - painting generally or "his painting"?
  • Hunter (2002), p. 25–26 is ambiguous, so I went back to the original letter: "I do not think he ever had the idea his work would ever be taken seriously, in fact he used to chuckle over the idea." (my emphasis). Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Early recognition (1914–15)
  • "would even throw burnt matches at his paintings" - I'm sure this is what the source says, but to what end? Lit matches would appear to make more sense.
  • Here's what the source (Hill 2002, p. 117) says: "'Tom had no opinion of his own work,' Lawren Harris later wrote. 'He might sit in front of a canvas that was set with thick paint and flick burnt matches at it in a kind of whimsical scorn...'" I agree that it makes more sense to throw lit matches, I'm just a little hesitant to change or interpret what Harris originally wrote. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Pff. I would just go and say lit. Hill may have needed a better copy editor for this sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "the recognition was unheard of for an unknown artist". Not so unknown that the director of the NGC hadn't heard of him. "little-known"?
  • The source says, "Such recognition was remarkable for an emerging, unknown artist, though the money he received was not sufficient to live on." What you say is true though. Maybe it could be changed to, "...the recognition was unheard of for an emerging artist.", that way it still aligns with the source? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Artistic peak (1916-1917)
  • "naivete" - does the source not have the accent, naiveté?
  • It does not have the accent. Should it be included anyway or quoted exactly as written? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" - again, a quote, but shouldn't it be "and in his work reveals himself to be a fine colourist" or "and his work reveals him to be a fine colourist"? But not, of course, if that's what the source says.
  • I double checked and that is exactly how it is written in the source. Should a Sic template be added? Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and were applied thickly" - perhaps, "Thomson produced many sketches which varied in composition, although they all had vivid colour and thickly-applied paint"?
Artistic development
  • "such as Vincent van Gogh, whose work he may have known from books or visits to art galleries". A query, does the source expand on where Thomson may have seen van Gogh's work? The Armory Show appears not to have got further west than Chicago, and from the article, Thomson appears not to have ventured further into the US than Seattle. It would be interesting if the source does have more detail.
  • The sources do not directly say this. I think this is a relic of an older edition of the page, which listed many artists that Thomson "may have known from books or visits to art galleries." I only found Van Gogh's name in my sources and removed the other artists, but failed to properly edit the rest of the sentence. I've fixed it now so that it only says, "Thomson's art also bears some stylistic resemblance to the work of European post-impressionists such as Vincent van Gogh." Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "that eventually brought international attention to his work" - I'd probably flip this, "that eventually brought his work to international attention".
  • "Thomson often spent his nights laying in his canoe" - "lying"?
  • "Other times, given the difficulty of painting by only moonlight" - perhaps, "Other times, given the difficulty of painting only by moonlight", or just "painting by moonlight"?
  • I went with, "Other times, given the difficulty of painting by moonlight..." Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • " E. H. MacDonald—himself deeply invested in floral imagery—was so captured by the former that he kept it for himself" - which one is "the former" of the three cited?
  • There are only two paintings listed: (1) Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch and (2) Wildflowers. It's made difficult to read because of the "and" in the title of the first, so I've simply specified the painting by name: "...was so captured by Marguerites, Wood Lillies and Vetch that he kept it for himself". Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies - my careless reading. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Industry in nature
  • "Thomson's and the Group of Seven's work is often absent of criticism for the typical Canadian attitudes of the time, namely that the available natural resources were meant to be exploited" - sorry, not quite getting this. I think it's something like, "Thomson's work does not challenge contemporary attitudes to the forestry industry, namely that natural resources were there to be exploited", but am not sure.
  • I'm trying to get across here that in Thomson's time and earlier, Canadian's saw the vast expanse of trees and rock in the north simply as resources to be exploited for profit. Today, some criticize Thomson's work for not criticizing those attitudes, and that is what Harold Town is responding to. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The outdoorsman & Alternate death theories
  • This is purely personal preference, but I wasn't keen on this ending. Almost all of it, except the romanticised view of his canoeing ability, is/could be in the Death section and I'd probably briefly expand that to cover these points, ending the article with the Legacy and influence section. It's a great article on an important artist and, for me, concluding it with a discussion of "fringe" theories regarding his death doesn't quite work.
  • I hadn't considered the lingering sour taste that the current format may leave readers with. I've moved things around like you suggested; the Legacy and influence section was a bit empty as a result, so I expanded it with material that I had moved to the Death and legacy of Tom Thomson article. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Much of the above is by way of comments/suggestions, and you are, of course, quite free to ignore them after considering them. It's a really great article and you've done a superb job, here and elsewhere, of covering Thomson, his works, and his death. The prose is of high quality, the sourcing is extensive and well-researched, and the article's beautifully illustrated. It is quite long but not too long, in my view. Above all, the passion for the subject shows through, which makes it such a good read. All in all, an incredible achievement for anyone, and for one who has only been here two years, it's amazing. Delighted to Support. KJP1 (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind words and for your help! I really appreciate it. Tkbrett (✉) 18:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The pleasure was entirely mine. And thanks for thinking about the ending. To me, it is now a much more fitting conclusion, to his life and to an excellent article. And really pleased it's getting the interest it deserves. KJP1 (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • The lead immediately mentions that the main oeuvre falls into two groups, but these are not easy to distinguish in small images, and none of the captions give dimensions. This needs to be addressed somehow. The larger works should probably have both dimensions given. For the small sketches just giving the width is probably enough. Or you just adopt (and explain) a convention that if a caption calls an image "small" or a "sketch" it means the longest dimension is less than 30 cm (or whatever).
This is a good point. I'm worried that by including the exact dimensions it will make the painting info not immediately decipherable, so I would prefer a shorthand convention if possible. Maybe include the dimensions for larger works and write "sketch" for the smaller ones, along with an initial note that "sketch" refers to works around 21.6 × 26.7 cm (8½ × 10½ in.). I'm open to suggestions here. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, try that. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
O.K., I added dimensions for the larger works, as well as the "sketch" designation with a note on the first instance. Should I also include inches in the dimensions or is it enough to simply provide cm? Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if there's a rule, but some people turn up & add conversion templates. Personally I'm ok with just cm; the two look rather cluttered. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of his short career, he produced roughly 400 oil sketches on small wood panels along with around 50 larger works on canvas." - mention the other stuff? At least that it exists. "oil sketches" links to oil painting not oil sketch, which would seem more appropriate. "on small wood panels" doesn't actually seem correct - the image files for the mini-gallery of 1912/13 sketches give a variety of descriptions for the support:
oil on paperboard
Oil on paper (with embossed canvas texture) on plywood
oil on canvas on wood
oil on canvas
oil on canvas mounted on paperboard

- but none are what is usually meant by a panel painting.

This division is the one used in most sources. For example, Silcox & Town (2017), p. 181: "Thomson's art can be divided into two main bodies of work: the small oil sketches on wood panels he did when he was 'on the trail,' canoeing through Algonquin Park or elsewhere in 'the North'; and the larger canvases he made when he was in his studio in Toronto. He produced about 400 oil sketches during his last five years, although the total number might exceed that. There are, in addition, only about fifty canvases,..." I'm hesitant to change this as sources don't describe it differently. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The descriptions of the supports in the image files, evidently drawn from museum metadata in most cases, are sources too. Adding "mounted" before "on small wood panels" might well cover it. Are any of the works identified by the owning museum as actually painted directly onto wood, or prepared wood in the traditional style? This is actually a very fiddly and somewhat expensive technique, which is why the vast majority of artists switched to canvas some centuries before. I'm sure some of the sources must cover this with a a bit more precision than the one you quote. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
You're correct in noticing that he used a few different techniques in 1913 and earlier, but to give you a rather succinct answer: yes, with his sketches he was painting directly onto wood panels. In the Further reading section, Webster-Cook & Ruggles (2002) has a lot of information regarding his supports. Before 1914, he painted in many different ways, but by 1914 and on he was using either a composite wood-pulp board or a softwood panel (possibly from disassembled crates). Webster-Cook says that, "This is an unusual support for oil painting and may been manufactured as a bookbinder's board." The information regarding the supports is mostly on the Materials section of the Artistic development of Tom Thomson page. I can include some of this information in the Artistic development section on this page to help clear this up. (As a side note: all the information on the Commons was inputted by me with what I have found on the Tom Thomson Catalogue Raisonné and, if needed, from exhibition catalogues. Any errors are my fault in transcribing). Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it would be good to add. Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting trees, skies, lakes, rivers and other nature scenes" - "and other nature scenes" seems a bit lame, & not sure what is left after the list - rocks I suppose. Maybe "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers of Ontario." Or something.
Good point. I've changed it to, "They consist almost entirely of landscapes, depicting the trees, skies, lakes, and rivers." I didn't include "of Ontario" because that is how the sentence that follows ends. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe that's what it's referring to; here's the full source: "There he picked up the rudiments of penmanship; a good copperplate hand was still a requisite for a clerk, private secretary or bookkeeper, despite the growing dominance of the typewriter." Of course, today no one seems to care much about penmanship so the sentiment may be lost. Should I expand the current sentence to make the context more clear or do you think it's fine as is? Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
It reads oddly - the "rudiments of penmanship" would be covered at school, one would think, as they still are. I think at least one of "rudimentary" and "penmanship" needs changing, or a new approach: "learnt a professional clerk's handwriting" or something. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I changed both the body and lead phrasing of "rudimentary penmanship". It now reads, "There, he developed abilities in penmanship and copperplate—necessary skills for a clerk." Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "In May 1912, he visited Algonquin Park for the first time" - I'd give his age here. You might expand on Algonquin Provincial Park in case anyone thinks it is like Hyde Park or Central Park. After looking at its article, I'm still unclear how far from Toronto it is.
It would certainly help to have a sentence or two describing exactly what Algonquin Park is. I included some information near the beginning of the 1912/13 section to help clarify. I also included Thomson's age at the time of first visit. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they illustrated an above-average ability with composition and colour handling." - reads a bit oddly. "ability with" for one thing, and the "above-average" idea. Something like: "While his earliest paintings were not outstanding technically, they showed a good grasp of composition and colour handling." Composition (visual arts) is linked, not sure we have anything for the other.
You're right, I've reworded it to your way. "Colour handling" is a paraphrasing of "handling of colour," so I'm not aware of any relevant page to link to. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Through his development his later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint". The second bit (after "and") has already been said, & the first bit seems confused - is that "through" as in "throughout"?
KJP1 mentioned similar issues with this sentence above that I fixed before I got to your response. It was reworded to, "His later paintings vary in composition and have vivid colours and thickly applied paint." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "After Thomson's death, MacCallum worked to preserve and advocate for his work.[73]" - "worked ... to advocate for" is clumsy.
How about, "After Thomson's death, MacCallum helped preserve and advocate for his work." Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "In late April 1914, Thomson arrived in Algonquin Park, where he was joined by Lismer on May 9. They camped on Molly's Island in Smoke Lake, travelling to Canoe, Smoke, Ragged, Crown and Wolf Lakes.[102] He spent his spring and summer divided between Georgian Bay and Algonquin Park, visiting James MacCallum by canoe. His travels during this time have proved difficult to discern, with such a large amount of ground covered in such a short time, painting the French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay from May 24 through August 10.[103] H. A. Callighen, a park ranger, wrote in his journal that Thomson and Lismer left Algonquin Park on May 24.[104] By May 30, Thomson was at Parry Sound and on June 1 was camped at the French River with MacCallum.[104][105]" - some indication of distances between these places would be good, also in the following section.
The sources I've used don't list distances. The closest I've found is a promotional pamphlet that says, "In this distance there are twenty portages of varying length." Mapping them out and figuring out the distance probably doesn't fall under WP:CALC, so I'm not sure what else to try. Tkbrett (✉) 23:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Any times in hours/days? Without some sense of scale the passage doesn't convey much. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
That is as specific as the sources get, giving the same time as the one I've written. Here's Wadland (2002), p. 105: "Yet no author has yet satisfactorily explained how he got to the sites where he painted images at French River, Byng Inlet, Parry Sound and Go-Home Bay in such a short time—i.e., between May 24 and August 10." It's in a footnote where he writes, "It is not impossible to do this, but one would have to be an extraordinary canoeist to manage it—especially on the open water of Georgian Bay, from the mouth of the French to Go-Home Bay (and back again)." Without it being directly written, I don't want to provide anything that may violate WP:NOR. Tkbrett (✉) 20:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (2nd tranche) "Many theories have gathered around the nature of Thomson's death...", reads a bit clunky. Don't know deaths have a "nature". Maybe "There has been much speculation about the circumstances of ...." or something.
Fixed to your version. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Andrew Hunter has pointed to Robinson as being largely responsible for the suggestion that there was more to his death than accidental drowning." - presumably this is "Park ranger Mark Robinson", but this is the first mention of him.
Fixed. Tkbrett (✉) 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

More later. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Deferring to KJP1 and Johnbod as experts on the visual arts, I'll put my inexpert two penn'orth in as a makeweight. I'll have more after a thorough read-through, but for now, two quick points on spelling from my preliminary canter through. First, just checking that Thomson did indeed spell "lilies" with three "l"s; and secondly ditto that the two "noctures" are not meant to be "nocturnes". More anon. Tim riley talk 20:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

All were typos and have been fixed. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
I think you changed them back when doing some of my points though! Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Keen eye. Fixed them. Thanks! Tkbrett (✉) 03:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll need at least two goes at this, as there's a lot of text to scrutinise. These are my comments to the end of the Life section. Meagre gleanings, as the prose is of v. high quality.

  • Early years
    • "including a respiratory issue" – "issue" seems an odd word. More a "problem", I'd have thought.
    • "spent it relatively quickly" – relative to what? A pity to use this precise term as a mere synonym for "quite" or "rather".
  • The source is guilty of this as well: "He appears to have frittered it away in relatively short order..." I've simply removed it. It's now, "...but seems to have spent it quickly." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Graphic design work
    • "he left despite a good salary by the end of 1904" – I might be inclined to put commas in here for clarity: "he left, despite a good salary, by the end of 1904". Or reorder as "despite a good salary he left by the end of 1904".
  • I separated it into two sentences: "He eventually moved on to a local engraving company. Despite a good salary he left by the end of 1904." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Painting career
    • Not an important point, but does "squall" really need a link?
  • Fair enough. De-linked. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "In October, Thomson was introduced to Dr. James MacCallum by MacDonald" – I am not as agin the passive voice as some people are, but I do think this looks a bit effortful, and might flow better in the active: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum". I admit this then presents the problem of how to start the next sentence, so ignore if you wish.
  • Your's is much better. I put it in and changed the sentence that followings: "In October, MacDonald introduced Thomson to Dr. James MacCallum. A frequent visitor to the Ontario Society of Artists' (OSA) exhibitions, MacCallum was admitted to the Arts and Letters Club in January 1912. There, he met artists such as John William Beatty, Arthur Heming, MacDonald and Harris." Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "a later founder of the Group" – later a founder of the Group?
  • I'm worried how the entire sentence reads with that alteration: "In October 1913, MacCallum introduced Thomson to A. Y. Jackson, later a founder of the Group of Seven." I'm not absolutely sure here, it's just that to my ear it sounds as though something is "off". If you think it's fine I'm still O.K. to change it, I just wanted to double check. Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "planned for the fall of 1917" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating events by season if possible, as some readers in the southern hemisphere are put off by our northern hemisphere assumptions. When the seasons are relevant, as in your "Early recognition (1914–15)" section, it's fine to use them.
  • Wow, I had never even thought of that (someone in my family married a Kiwi so I should really know better). The source doesn't get more specific and writes, "Later, [Trainor] was rumoured to be engaged to Thomson for a marriage in the fall of 1917..." Should I write "late 1917" instead? Tkbrett (✉) 02:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all I can find to complain about in the Life section. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


Great read.....but I take it the review will fix the image problems ? People do look at mobile view during the review right? Because its a scrolling gallery nightmare with 50 images that have fixed image sizes and 2 instance of sandwich text. Remember 50%+ are mobile viewers--Moxy (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I mentioned up in the image review that my basis for this page is the FA Vincent van Gogh and it seems to have a similar number of images and galleries. It doesn't have five images in every gallery though, so I've gone ahead and removed some of the ones Ceoil thought might warrant removal. If you have anything more specific just let me know. Tkbrett (✉) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Moxy - Moxy's quite right - the needs of mobile readers need to be borne in mind. That said, I've just gone through it on my iPad and iPhone and they both looked fine. But I'm no expert on image accessibility, so I'll go and ask someone who is to take a look and advise. KJP1 (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I removed a some images (here and here). Moxy, what do you mean by "sandwich text"? I haven't been able to find this term in any guides. Tkbrett (✉) 07:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
"sandwich text" is when images on the left and right partially overlap vertically and push the test into a narrow central band. I'm not seeing it in this article. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • An article about an artist can be expected to have lots of images in it. The viewing figures for the last 30 days are:
  • desktop: 5,879 pageviews (190/day);
  • mobile web: 5,051 pageviews (163/day) (and the images look mostly fine on that; a bit crowded at the top);
  • mobile app: 100 pageviews (3/day).
Please don't remove images for the sake of three pageviews a day. SarahSV (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Art, and indeed architecture, articles benefit hugely from images and I wasn't in any way arguing for removal. But accessibility's also important and I've asked another editor, who's helped me greatly before on this issue, for their input. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the images in desktop view and in mobile view on several mobile devices and emulators, as well as the Wikipedia App on my phone. Apart from the infobox image, only the gallery images have fixed sizes, and I didn't find a device or setting that caused me problems with how the images displayed, with two principal exceptions – on any screen around 800px wide there can be sandwiching of the text:
Otherwise, the layout remains good to my eyes at anything less than a 4K screen, but as it becomes increasingly difficult to cater for the extremes of screen sizes when you mix images and text on any web page, I think Wikipedia can be forgiven for assuming that nobody will be reading our articles at 100% zoom on any browser width above 1920px.
I hope this may be a help in resolving some of Moxy's concerns. Please let me know if you'd like me to elaborate further on any points. --RexxS (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, it's very helpful. Are they bad sandwiches? Some mild sandwiching on wide screens is inevitable & fine. About how many words per line do you get in the sandwich filling? Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thanks RexxS, this is solid guidance. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone in this thread for the help. I've followed RexxS's suggestion and moved the Northern Lights image lower. Tkbrett (✉) 21:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Johnbod: At its worst, it's pretty bad sandwiching, John. At a screen width of 860px in Desktop view with TOC hidden, Early years looks like this:

Thomas John
Thomson was
born in
Claremont, Ontario, the sixth of John and Margaret

. You can duplicate that yourselves on desktop by hiding TOC and narrowing the browser window bit-by bit while keeping the Life section in view. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • All good.....after looking at a few FA articles about art and artists I see many galleries is the norm. Not sure it's very accessible friendly....but I guess if your here its because of the art to begin with. Sorry not familiar with art articles....was reading the article because of the Canadian aspect of the topic. --Moxy (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Emanuel Moravec[edit]

Nominator(s): Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the collaborationist Minister of Education of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the dismembered Czechoslovak state created and occupied by Germany during World War II. Prior to the occupation of the Czech lands, Moravec was widely known as a leading proponent of democracy, and as a celebrated author and journalist. This article recently passed both GA and A-class review. A note on sources ... this article makes use of a handful of Czech and Slovak-language sources, however, there has only been one comprehensive biography about Moravec published in any language (by Jiří Pernes). The article does not use that as a source as it was the subject of a plagiarism scandal and was withdrawn from publication. The allegation was that it was plagiarized from a dissertation and whether or not this dissertation actually resulted in the awarding of a doctorate is unclear; therefore, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I don't believe either the book or the dissertation from which it was allegedly copied is a WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Before reviewing, I just wanted to clarify, have the Czech language sources identified in the Milhist ACR been consulted? For reference, these are ones used in the Czech wiki article, such as Borovička, Michael, Kolaboranti 1939–1945 Praha: Paseka, 2007; Pasák, Tomáš, Český fašismus 1922–1945 a kolaborace 1939–1945 Praha: Práh, 1999; Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Emanuel Moravec. Český nacionální socialista. In: Historie a vojenství, č. 2, roč. 2006, s. 25 – 39 a č. 3, s. 49 – 63; and Uhlíř, Jan Boris, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech Praha 2008 and possibly some others. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, with two exceptions; on further inspection, Protektorát Čechy a Morava v obrazech appeared to be a visual history, or book of photographs; Kolaboranti 1939–1945 I wasn't able to obtain through any means. The others I did consult but found their information to be duplicative of that already in text. Chetsford (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
If that is the case, then I would strongly suggest citing the material that can be sourced to these publications, even where it is already cited to existing sources, otherwise reviewers and other readers will assume that the Czech sources have not been consulted. This goes to the comprehensiveness criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Good point, that makes sense. I'll add this in. Chetsford (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 I've added these in now; LMK what you think about how I handled it. For the Magazine of Military History (Czech) I just added a single citation on a one-source sentence to avoid WP:OVERCITE (this is kind of a subject matter extraction of his visual history so is image heavy ... and there are a lot of good ones, I wish we could use some of them). On Czech Fascism and Collaboration I actually included it in a new "Further Reading" section instead as it seems like a pretty nice reference that deals with the whole period (Moravec only gets smattering of mentions sprinkled throughout but, contextually, the volume should be of interest to someone curious about this period). Chetsford (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll have another read through, but given I looked at this in detail at Milhist ACR, I doubt there is a lot for me to nitpick about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

A few things from me:

  • his political party affiliation is given in the infobox, but I couldn't find it in the body
  • it is probably worth pointing out that the all ministerial appointments were subject to approval from the Protector anyway. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe p. 135 is a reference for this.
  • it could be mentioned that revision of Czech school textbooks was undertaken, and universities were closed and student leaders arrested and killed or sent to labour camps. Lemkin pp. 138–139 is the reference for these matters.

I reviewed this article in detail during its Milhist A-Class review, and that is all I have from this run through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 - thank you very much, I've made these updates. For #1 (political party) I just deleted it entirely. I'm not actually sure where that came from; I think it was probably a leftover field from the original, stub article, but there's no actual source that confirms Moravec's membership in the National Partnership and it wasn't really a political party in any case so I should probably have notice and removed it long ago. 02:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
The way that you phrased the closure of the universities (the nation's universities had been closed) is not ideal in my opinion. Before the war, many Czech universities had a German-language section and a Czech-language section. Only the Czech universities were closed, as Lemkin states. Also, the Protectorate was not exactly a nation. Catrìona (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Good points, Catrìona. I've revised; LMK if you think it looks okay. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by Catrìona[edit]

After reading over this nomination, I don't have any additional comments to make. I believe that Chetsford has addressed concerns that the article might not be comprehensive. It's very well written and consistently referenced to reliable sources, and has been thoroughly picked over already at MILHIST ACR. Catrìona (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Pleased to pick up the Source review. Will try for today, but could be tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Publishers' locations - I don't think they're a requirement, and you didn't use them for Ames, but I find them helpful.
  • Blue-linking titles to Google books etc. I personally like these and think they help readers, but I know other editors don't. That said, it's not a bar. One editor also complained I used Google Books, as they're a commercial seller, so I now use Worldcat unless the Google Books link gives a useful snippet. Just a thought.
  • Source 1 - Do we need both the isbn and the oclc (also 7/12/17/18/21/25/27/34)? Also, I've not seen a review used as it is here, in Lay summary. I rather like it, but I've just not previously seen it. But it also appears as Source 2, which seems overkill.
  • Source 2 - see Source 1 above.
  • Source 3 - should this have the date of authorship (8 August 2017) as well as the archive and retrieval dates?
  • Source 9 - again, does this need a date (November 2007)?
  • Source 20 - as above, although here I can't see a date on it.
  • Source 28 - as above but again I see no date.
  • Source 30 - as above, 13 May 2015.
  • Source 24 - You've a 10-figure isbn here, and 13 elsewhere. The converter gives me 978-1-58477-901-8.
External links
  • 1 - This has been removed from YouTube for CV.
  • 2 - Would this read better as "...a collection of speeches and broadcasts by Moravec"?
  • 3 - Aside from looking rather like The Addams Family, I'm not sure this gives the reader very much.

That's Batch 1. I'll do a spot-check of the accessible sources against content later.

Thanks very much, KJP1. I've made all these updates with the following notes:
  • Source 20 is undated.
  • The condition of this passing A class was that I add the explanatory note and lay summary on source 1 and both OCLCs and ISBNs throughout.
Let me know if I missed anything and thanks again! Chetsford (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
That's just fine, if it's what the Milhists wanted. I'll do the spot check and wrap up later today. KJP1 (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks very much, KJP1! I've updated with the paywall template for your note below. I appreciate the time you took in this very thorough review. Chetsford (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Spot check of accessible online sources (non-Czech language)
  • Sources 2/3/6/9/15/22/23/26/28/29(see below)/36/37/38/41 - all function and all support the content.
Offline sources
  • All look reputable to me, but having no Czech and not being a specialist in this area leaves me at a certain disadvantage. However, I'm much fortified by the Milhist A class review, which discussed the sourcing extensively and was satisfied.
  • Source 16 - I think this needs a "subscription required", or similar. Certainly, I can't access it.
  • Source 20 - The original is giving me a 404 error but the archive copy works.
  • Source 29 - A dissertation, but permissible under Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP I think. It's certainly been reviewed.

Within my limitations, and mindful of the Milhist review, I'm satisfied the sources are verifiable, comprehensive and support the content. Am therefore pleased to Support myself.

Media review[edit]

  • Generally looks good, a couple of comments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Why use such a close crop of the face for the infobox image? As it is fair use, you could use just about any other photo.
  • How can we be sure the author of this photo[8] was anonymous/unknown?
  • To supplement FunkMonk's comments: If you have a properly licensed fair-use image of the subject in the article, you can't use an additional non-fair-use image, so the infobox photo needs to go.
  • File:Plk.Gst.Emanuel.Moravec.(1893-1945).Tablo.Valecna.Skola.1931-1934.gif needs a US license.
  • I'd like to see more source information on this photo to verify the anonymous author claim. Where was it published and by who?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sturmvogel 66 and FunkMonk - thanks for the review. I don't have any info on that image and didn't notice it had even been added to the article; I agree with your comments, so have removed it entirely. Also, per your suggestion, I've updated the infobox photo with a less closely cropped version. Let me know if there's anything else and thanks again for taking the time to check on this. Chetsford (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Teresa Sampsonia[edit]

Nominator(s): LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a remarkable woman of the 17th century. Though often overshadowed by the "legacy" of her husband (Robert Shirley), Teresa had an unique life story. Born into a noble family in Safavid Iran, alongside her husband Robert, she travelled far and wide, and became the subject of numerous contemporary literary and visual works during her own lifetime. The article has already had a pretty extensive review by Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Final comments from Ceranthor
  • "After her husband died of dysentery, and due to impediments from grandees at the court and the authorities during the reign of Abbas' successor and grandson Safi (r. 1629–1642), she decided to leave Iran." - I'd replace the "she" here with Teresa
  • "she mentions their travels, and refers to her noble Circassian origins." - I'd cut the comma after "travels"
  • Is it possible to add the son to the infobox?
  • "The favourite of Emamqoli Khan, who still wanted to marry Teresa, sent his servants to the Carmelites in Isfahan to capture her. " - to whom does "the favorite" refer?
  • Name not known unfortunately. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "After three years in Safavid Iran since returning from her last trip with her husband" - seems a little wordy; maybe rephrase?

Otherwise, I think the prose is engaging enough. References seem reliable. Little concerned that the last picture of the headstone isn't actually public domain, but I'll leave that to an image review expert to confirm. Otherwise, support. ceranthor 17:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, the photo is taken from an angle, so that the three-dimensionality of the surroundings can be seen, and therefore PD for 2D objects doesn't apply. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I was the GA reviewer, and have been watching Ceranthor and LouisAragon's very thorough preparations for FAC. This is in excellent shape and I expect to support. A couple of minor points:

  • Suggest giving the year of her husband's death at the start of the second paragraph of the lead. Perhaps "Her husband died of dysentery in 1628, and due to...".
  • The link to Circassian in the lead goes to a dab page.
  • According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time"; however, he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more: suggest "According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more.
  • Suggest moving the "(Greek or Georgian Orthodoxy)" parenthesis to a note.
  • She was named Sampsonia by birth. Do you mean "at birth", or something else?
  • Yeah I meant at birth! Thanks, fixed it. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving note [d] to directly after footnote 11, where it immediately follows the mention of her aunt.
  • Ali Qoli Beg (the King's ambassador: I assume this is Abbas's ambassador, but since we've mentioned other kings since the last mention of Abbas I would be explicit here.
  • There, Teresa came to know the Carmelite nuns, particularly Mother Beatrix de Jesus (the niece of Saint Teresa, from whom she received a relic of Teresa: unclosed parenthesis: I'd have closed it but I'm not sure if you intended it to go after "Saint Teresa" or at the end of the sentence. An em dash instead of the opening paren might work just as well.
  • In the paragraph starting "During Shirley's diplomatic missions", it's apparent there were several portraits. You say "retained a symbolic item", but it appears it varied from portrait to portrait since you say "a pistol in one portrait". How about "but for each portrait she retained a symbolic item", or (perhaps simpler): "but retained symbolic items" and assume the remainder of the sentence lets the reader know these varied?
  • However, a favourite of his wanted to marry Teresa: suggest "a favourite of Allahverdi Khan's" since it's not easy to parse this. Perhaps "a favourite of Enamqoli Khan's, who wanted to marry Teresa, reminded the Khan...". I also think you could lose the "However".
  • the happening would take place: "the happening" is ugly. I see that "the questioning" would be repetitious, but could we just say "that she and the mullah would meet"?
  • Since he favoured the Carmelite Fathers: perhaps "Since the Khan favoured"?
  • Why is it relevant that the prefect is a Georgian?
  • Because, like Emamqoli Khan ("the governor"), he was of Georgian origin as well. At least, I thought it would be interesting to add, but we can leave it out as well of course. Please let me know what you think, and I'll adjust the sentence. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, but as someone who knows little about the period or the culture, I don't know what that implies. Perhaps the fact that they are both Georgian means they automatically collaborated in political or religious matters? Or that they shared certain views? In an article about US politics, I would know what "..., also a Republican, ..." implies, but I think you'll have to supply the implication here, perhaps in a footnote. A minor point, in any case; I've supported below and I trust you to do what you think best with this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This text shows that Teresa subverted...: suggest attributing this inline, which would also allow you to avoid the awkward "This text shows". Perhaps "According to Andrea (2017), the text demonstrates that..."

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. I've left one reply above, but it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Use upright scaling rather than fixed image sizes
  • @Nikkimaria: You mean by substituting "...px" with "upright"?
You can see soemthing similar at the first image on the left in Mascarene grey parakeet. You can control the size by writing different numbers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Shirleys.JPG: source link is dead
  • File:Teresia,_Countess_of_Shirley,_painted_c._1611-1613.jpg: some of the details in the caption are not sourced
  • As far as I can see (but please, do correct me), the only thing thats not explicitly stated in the source is "(...) and dressed in then contemporary attire". I decided to add that to the caption, because the source does state that "The Shirleys travelled a great deal, but were in England from 1611 to 1612/13 - a date which fits with the costume of this portrait." Your thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The image description page isn't a source per se - these details should have an inline citation in the article. However, on clicking through to the source from the image description page, I note that the caption is almost identical to what's given there, without any indication of quoting. That's a plagiarism concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmm thats really odd. Thanks. I just corrected it, I believe. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Er, this doesn't seem to have been changed at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On 28 October 2018, I added the name of the author (art historian Patricia Smyth), signifying that its clearly stated by her.[9] However, I now realize I had forgotten about quotation marks, so I just added those as well (as its basically entirely Smyth's statement, word for word verbatim). - LouisAragon (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Teresia,_Lady_Shirley_(etching,_possibly_late_18th_century).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Trastevere_-_santa_maria_della_scala_01586-9.JPG: as Italy does not have freedom of panorama, this will need an explicit tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
What is meant here is that you need to add a PD old tag for the building itself. Similar to here:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

I think that R. Bip is an odd publisher name and if it's a shortened form it should probably be expanded; otherwise the formatting of the sources seems OK to me. I take that "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend.", "Van Dyck, 1599-1641", "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration, by Mirza Naqi Nasiri." are reliable sources? Nothing else jumps out as problematic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:46, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • "Shah Abbas: The Ruthless King Who Became an Iranian Legend." -- David Blow is a historian who specializes in Iranian studies[11] I.B. Tauris is a high-quality publisher.
  • "Titles and Emoluments in Safavid Iran: A Third Manual of Safavid Administration" -- by Willem Floor, a renowned authority in Iranian studies, specifically the Safavid/early modern era.
  • "Van Dyck, 1599-1641" -- by Karen Hearn. She's well-known art historian specializing in the era of van Dyck. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Some additional source formatting notes, assisted by this handy script:

  • You're inconsistent about using locations in your book sources: three have locations, but the rest do not. It doesn't matter which you choose but they should be consistent.
  • Globe should come before Hannay in the list.
  • Can you supply a page range for Andrea (2015) and Andrea (2017b)?
    Could you elaborate? :-) What do you exactly mean with page range, and where do you want me to write it down? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Those are chapters or essays in an edited work, aren't they? I meant the start and end page of that work within the volume. I see you have what is presumably the start page for Andrea (2017a); it's helpful to give the whole page range. If you prefer not to, I think for FAC it would be OK if omitted, but if so I'd drop the page number that you do have, for consistency. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    That looks right for 2017b, but there's something wrong with 2017a -- the page number in the list of sources is just "124", rather than a range, and that doesn't appear to be the start of the article because pages 33 and 34 are cited in footnotes 34 and 35. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    2017a is entirely written by Andrea, whereas 2017b and 2015 are compendiums in which Andrea has just written chapters. The 2017a issue should be fixed now. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll do a spotcheck of sources for close paraphrasing shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Spotcheck I don't have access to the main sources. Checking Schwartz 2013:

  • The cite for the translation of the headstone is fine.
  • Source: "In the small circles in which they moved, Robert and Teresia became sights to see for their rich, exotic dress". Article: "In the small circles in which they went, they were sights to see for their rich, exotic attire". This is much too close; please rephrase.
  • The cite for "made of silk and velvet" slightly misquotes the source, which says "silk and silk velvet": if you leave the quotes in place it needs to match the source. Otherwise this citation is fine with no close paraphrasing.
  • The cite for "wide variety..." is fine, but I noticed a story about her being poisoned in Madrid on that page. Any reason why you left that out of the article? It's not treated as definitely true by Schwartz, but he doesn't dismiss it.
  • Because its only Schwartz who mentions this, apparantly. I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on a possibility. Please let me know if you think that I should include it nevertheless. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    Your call; it seems interesting to me, and I think most readers would agree. You could give whatever caveats are necessary in the text or a footnote. But no, it's not necessary; I trust your judgement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Checking Tuson 2013:

  • "Buried in the convent..." OK
  • "partly self-created..." OK, appropriately quoted.

Since I found one issue, I'd like to ask for the source for one more randomly selected citation. Could you post here or email me the source for "In the Safavid Empire women were prohibited from traveling abroad without permission", which you give as p. 292 of Chick & Matthee? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mike Christie: Sure thing.[12] Not sure whether you can view the page though, as Google.books acts strange sometimes. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    I can't see it; I get "not part of the example or reached your viewing limit". Nikki, since you apparently have access to a copy, could you check this one? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The search in that link doesn't return page 292, but here's the corresponding text: "there is in Persia a law forbidding any woman to leave the country without first obtaining a special permit to that effect". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks, Nikki. The spotchecks seem good enough to me; Nikki, up to you if you want to look at a couple more, since you have access to that source, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
LouisAragon, just pinging to make sure you saw this request. I've replied to a couple of points above; the only one that needs action is the page range issue; the other points are optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at the Chick & Matthee source and have additional concerns about close paraphrasing. Compare for example "the King advised her not to be afraid, because it would be harder for him to put one woman to death than a hundred men" with "he told her not to be afraid, because it would be harder for him to put a woman to death than 100 men". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • This looks very interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • First, I see a good deal of duplinks, try this script to highlight them:[13]
  • Fixed by the always helpful Ceranthor. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph under "Departure from Safavid kingdom and later life" is a bit of a text wall compared to the rest of the article, perhaps break it up somewhere?
  • Good point, I agree. Do you have any suggestion? - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps split before "She had the headstone inscribed". FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "probably the first child born in England of Iranian descent" Who is this quoted to? Direct quotes should always be attributed in text, or just rephrased.
  • Done. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mentioned within note "g", right behind the sentence. If you think it should really be mentioned outside within text and not inside the note, please let me know. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Then I don't see why a direct quote is needed in the article body, though, if it isn't disputed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "reportedly saved her husband's life on two occasions" Any details on this?
  • There is, but I didn't want to put WP:UNDUE weight on an anecdote. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, if this is part of the historical "myth", it needs to be mentioned for comprehensiveness, all you need to do is specify if the claims are dubious. Would warrant at least a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "(the former capital)" I think you could specify Iran, as this is in a new paragrapgh.
  • "They disgraced her to the King, and it was published in the court that the King intended to execute her by burning." If apostasy was illegal at the time, this should be stated.
  • "he didn't" Contractions are discouraged.
  • "The prefect, also a Georgian" Like who? You stated Tersa was Circassian?
  • Yeah I meant to say that the prefect was a Georgian just like the governor of Shiraz. I rephrased it in order to prevent confusion. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The frame in this[14] image is three dimentional, so is not PD; it could be cropped out.
  • Just made a section at graphics lab/illustration workshop.[15] Will be solved momentarily. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the main text could mention their son died young.
  • The intro seems to be out of chronological order, might be better to follow the structure of the article body. You jump form her early life to after Shirley's death, and then back to her travels with Shirley again.
  • Valid point I think. Do you have a suggestion? I don't wanna mess up the grammar and overal coherence. @Ceranthor: Would like to have your opinion on this as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it would just be a matter of moving the existing text around. So that this part comes before the death of her husband: "Teresa was received by many of the royal houses of Europe during the voyages, such as English crown prince Henry Frederick and Queen Anne (her child's godparents) and contemporary writers and artists such as Thomas Herbert and Anthony van Dyck. According to Herbert, Robert Shirley "was the greatest Traveller of his time", but he admired the "undaunted Lady Teresa" even more." FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Please let me know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Tuson (2013) argues that Teresa's story has been overshadowed by "the partly selfcreated myth of the Shirley's"" What does this allude to?
  • "An emancipated figure" Only stated in the intro which should not have unique info.
  • You could spell out Henry Frederick in the article body as well.
Unrelated note - @FunkMonk: thanks for that script; it is incredibly helpful for cleaning up overlinking (see my recent contributions ha). ceranthor 18:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm trying to spread the word in as many reviews as I can, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I took care of the duplinks for you. ceranthor 18:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

@LouisAragon: Per the FAC instructions, please remove the "done" templates. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Done! - LouisAragon (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LeGabrie (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Notified: , Wikipedia:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa

After a withdrawn FA nomination six months ago and a large rework in the meantime I hereby nominate this article again. It is about Alodia aka Alwa, a Christian Nubian kingdom in what is now Sudan. LeGabrie (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Attar-Aram syria[edit]

I will slowly review this. Looks interesting

  • I notice the name in Greek in the lede, followed by a citation. It is preferable that citations are not present in the lede. Suggest moving the citation to the first sentence of the Sources section. It could be like this: Alodia, written as Aρογα (Aroua) in Greek,[citation] is by far the least studied of the three medieval Nubian kingdoms.
  • Same regarding citation number 4. The literal quote should be moved into the main text with the citation. Maybe in the lede you can reword the quote to keep the meaning and eliminate the need for a citation.

─────────────────────────Thanks for reviewing. However, I would object that there are numerous FA's which have citations in their lede, like the Byzantine Empire (which I used for orientation while reworking Alodia), the Han dynasty or Macedonia (ancient kingdom). LeGabrie (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Those featured articles should probably change this. The same case happened a while ago. The FAC coordinator Ian Rose had this to say: Generally, anything in the lead and the infobox should be cited in the main body, meaning the mentions in the lead and infobox do not need citation. An exception is when a quote is used in the lead. Hence, no need to delete the citation from the qoute, but I maintain my point regarding the Greek name --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I can just delete the citation and leave it be, without shoving the Greek name into the main text? I also have a question since you can write Arabic: can you maybe transliterate 'Alwa (including the apostrophe) into the Arabic script? That's the name the kingdom has in the Arabic sources. LeGabrie (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
That should be suitable. As for the Arabic name, its: علوة .--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I notice the lede is too short for such an article. A lede needs to summarize the article and prepare the reader for what he will read in the main text. The current lede is mainly about the political history and does not cover the Administration and Languages sections. It also does not give adequate space for the economy section. I suggest an expansion to the lede.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Better now? LeGabrie (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes. More to come soon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Support. I finished and the article is comprehensive and well sourced. I suggest asking the Guild of Copy Editors for help though. Some sentences were clunky and the prose could use the help of a guild editor--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Initiated a request. LeGabrie (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead map, and is there a reason for that caption to use smaller text?

─────────────────────────You mean the text that appears right under the map? Isn't that the default text size? LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make it small on purpose, that has to be the default size. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Approximate_extension_of_Alodia_based_on_accounts_of_Ibn_Hawqal.png: what sources were used to identify areas of uncertainty?

─────────────────────────Will rework parts of the map soon. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The infobox is using flag parameters for icons that aren't flags

─────────────────────────Isn't that permitted? We don't know the flags of Kush or Fazughli. The "flag" used for the Funj is their royal insignia. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • At icon size maps are pretty much indistinguishable, and aren't representative of a place the way a flag would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Deleted the maps. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Africa_in_400_BC.jpg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Same with File:Kingdom_of_Fazughli.jpg

─────────────────────────First image: No idea, didn't make it. Second one: Mohi El-Din Abdalla Zarroug: "The Kingdom of Alwa". LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Is there any source that supports the data in the first image? For the second, suggest providing complete citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest scaling up the ground plans

─────────────────────────Upscaled them by +10% each. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • File:King_Moses_George_of_Makuria.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:ArnoldvHarff3holzschn1859.jpg, File:King_sennar_1821.jpg

─────────────────────────Added tags for the last two pics. What tag should I use for the first one? The original painting is from the 12th century, but it was published only in 1967. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • It's a wall painting, which would mean it was legally published significantly earlier. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Added tag. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Ground_plan_of_Mound_C_church,_Soba.jpg: any more details on source?

─────────────────────────Somers Clarke: "Christian Antiquities in the Nile Valley", 1912. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Looks like the source and author have been reversed in the template. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Soba_capital.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────1926. LeGabrie (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Okay. Template should use publication rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Hi again LeGabrie. Disclosure, I assessed this for GAN. It is looking good.

  • I have fixed some referencing errors. You will want to check that you are happy with the changes.
  • It is on the request list for a GOCE copy edit, which would be helpful. I shall wait for this to be completed before commenting further.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Changed my mind.

  • All images need alt text.

─────────────────────────How? Simply by adding "|alt=(repeat caption)"? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • That's the idea, but the alt text should be a description, eg 'The stumps of three stone columns emerging from an expanse of sand' or similar.
@Gog the Mild: Good enough? LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@LeGabrie: I have tweaked some. The idea is that the alt tells a visually impaired reader what they would see if they could (see). Feel free to change or revert any you aren't happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It needs checking for duplicated Wikilinks.

─────────────────────────Is it ok to have a Wikilink to a certain entry in both the lede and the main text? LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes.
Done. LeGabrie (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Where there are several cites they should be in number order. Eg cites 132 and 85.

───────────────────────── I don't understand. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Why is note 2 in italics?

───────────────────────── You mean the second annotation? Fixed. LeGabrie (talk) 08:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Good. Just waiting for GOCE to get round to it now. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
This looks very interesting, but since the article will probably change a bit after a copy edit, I will wait for that to happen before I review. In the meantime, there are a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script:[16] FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

HMS Erin was one of the two battleships being built for the Ottomans when World War I began and was seized by the British, which probably contributed to the Turkish decision to enter the war. Like almost all of the British dreadnoughts she had an uneventful war; even more so than the others as she was the only British dreadnought not to fire her main armament during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. After the war Erin became a training ship before she was sold in 1922. The article passed a MilHist A-class review earlier this year and I've recently tweaked it a bit. As usual I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and any unexplained or unlinked nautical jargon that I may have missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


Lead and first section, 1a:

  • "The class was designed to be at least the equal of any other ship afloat or building."—> "afloat or under construction"?
  • "When the First World War opened in August 1914,"—I've not seen that verb used for a real war. It's more what I'd expect if at the opera. "started"?
    • What, you don't think of the war as a tragedy of epic proportions? ;-) I went with "began".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agency is weird (same as first bullet above): "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April" ... ships don't construct. "Construction of X had only begun in ..."
    • This gets into the anthropomorphization of ships where they are given agency as a stylistic shortcut even though everyone knows that the only actors are the humans aboard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC) \
      • It's very bizarre. I trip over it. We don't want readers to do that to. And it's so easy to fix. Tony (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Later: I consulted a linguist on this example—he's an English-language professional. He agreed immediately with my objection. Tony (talk) 11:32, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agency again: "The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a maximum speed of ..." ... those turbines have a mind of their own. "were intended", surely.
    • And my linguist friend suggested this would be better, avoiding my objection: ""The turbines were rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW) and intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies—I pasted the old version in rather than his suggestion: "The turbines, rated at 26,500 shaft horsepower (19,800 kW), were intended to give the ship a ...". Tony (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
That reads nicely.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • As well as reducing the density of she/her, we can tame an already-cluttered sentence: "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil to give her a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph)." –> "The ship carried enough coal and fuel oil for a maximum range of 5,300 nautical miles (9,800 km; 6,100 mi) at a cruising speed of 10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph).
  • 'A', 'B', 'Q', 'X' and 'Y' ... I thought MOS insisted on double quotes. Maybe it's changed.
    • I'm using MOS:SINGLE as these actually aren't quotes, but rather names.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I should look at MOS more closely. Tony (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick." It's close enough to elide, I think. Or maybe even: "The main gun turrets were 11 inches (279 mm) thick and they were , supported by barbettes 9–10 inches (229–254 mm) thick."
    • I think just the "they" should be deleted as your last suggestion reads rather oddly to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Generally pretty good so far. Tony (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for looking this over; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments support by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see the article on this interesting ship at FAC. However, it seems a bit under-developed compared to other recent FAs on battleships. I've noted some areas below where the article could be broadened, sources permitting of course (which I suspect may be the underlying issue)

  • "The second of the two ships of the Reşadiye-class battleships would have been known as Fatih Sultan Mehmed." - not sure that the name of the other ship in this class needs to be in the lead (especially the first para) - I found this a bit confusing
  • "Fatih Sultan Mehmed had only begun construction in April and was broken up for scrap." - ditto: this doesn't seem important enough to include in the lead of this article
  • "Another ship, Sultan Osman I, originally ordered by Brazil but being fitted out for the Ottomans, was also seized" - also a bit confusing here (and not mentioned again in the body of the article - I'd suggest moving this material from the lead into the body, and possibly augmenting)
    • I've cut everything on the other ships out of the lede.
  • "A proposal by the British government to compensate the Ottomans for the loss of their battleships was ignored" - it's not clear who ignored the proposal: did one part of the British government make this proposal (can you say which part?), and another ignore it?
    • I've never seen any other info on this, so I'm deleting it.
  • Should the role which the British seizure of the ships had in bringing the Ottoman Empire be noted? (though I think historians tend to now regard this as being marginal at best)
    • Added a paragraph on the effects of the seizure on the Turks.
      • The statement in the lead that "There is no evidence that the seizure played any part in causing the Ottoman government to declare war on Britain and the Entente Cordiale." doesn't seem to be directly referenced later in the article (though I think it's correct). Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
        • None of my sources explicitly say that. So I laid out the whole Ottoman road to war so readers can judge for themselves.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • How was a crew so quickly found for the ship? - presumably they were very competent given that they were conducting operational patrols a few weeks later. Did they have any problems using a ship customised for Turkish sailors? (dials in the wrong language, unusual accommodation, etc?)
    • Based on some comments by Jellicoe on the other seized ships, I'm pretty sure that she was still effectively working up for most of the autumn. Annoyingly, Jellicoe really doesn't mention Erin in any significant detail.
      • Fair enough. I take it Hough doesn't cover this? Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Right, he focuses on Agincourt and doesn't discuss Erin much. Jellicoe says ..."on the evening of September 17th, the Erin, a new battleship bought, incomplete, from Turkey, being in company for the first time in order to accustom her officers to working the ship with the Fleet." Which I'd interpret as working up still, but that's my inference and I haven't found anything that says when he thought Erin was combat ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The summary of Erin's career doesn't actually have much material on the ship. While this isn't surprising given that she was just one of many battleships in the fleet, can you add when she underwent periods of major servicing and any other incidents which affected the ship and her crew?
    • Her wartime history is very poorly documented outside the archives and I've added everything that I can find about her activities. If I hadn't been pointed to Jellicoe and the Navy Lists, there's no way that I'd be able to even pretend to satisfy the completeness criteria.
  • There's almost nothing about what did the ship did in 1917.
  • Regarding 1918, am I right in remembering that the Grand Fleet's battleship squadrons took turns escorting convoys to Norway, which presumably got Erin out of port.
    • Some of them did, but they're only mentioned in the published sources in conjunction with German movements towards Norway, so I cannot determine if she participated or not.
  • Given that Erin was designed to be as good as any other battleship in the world, why was she so swiftly relegated to second tier status and then disposed of after World War I? Is it because tbe delays to her construction meant she was nothing special or worse by the time she entered service, and she'd been made well and truly outmoded by subsequent designs such as the Queen Elizabeth class and/or was an orphan? Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Probably the latter two reasons, but nobody actually goes into the reasons why

Thunderer became a training ship rather than Erin. See if the changes that I've made are satisfactory. And thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. At first glance, the images seem rather crammed, perhaps align some of them left, wherever it makes sense? FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Don't want to play ping-pong with the reader's eyes, so I aligned everything to the right.
  • Some of the footnotes do not have citations.
    • They're not things that need citations. Looking forward to your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree with note 2, but not note 4, where you mention a specific source, without actually citing it formally. I see no reason why it doens't contain a citation to the source discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
What, a cite to Jellicoe's whole book? Seems kinda redundant to me.
Of course not, but for example the page number of the most prominent or first usage of this ship's name used in that way would make it verifiable. Citations are rarely redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Reşad V[2][10][11] in honour of Mehmed V" What is the correlation between these very different names? What does the word "Reşad" (and Reşadiye) itself mean?
    • They're variants of one of Mehmed V's names.
To prevent ambiguity, why not spell out the name "Mehmed V. Reşâd " then? The reader has no idea without clicking the article (which should be avoided, per "don't make the reader chase links"). FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill ordered the Royal Navy to detain the ships" Why?
  • Expanded.
  • "was too far away participate" Missing word, it seems.
    • Indeed
  • "as they fell back upon on the main body" Not sure what this means. And is "upon on" not redundant?
    • Extra word, I think
  • I think you could name and link the Battle of Jutland in the caption of the relevant map.
    • Added a header and main link to clarify what the map's for.
  • "Admiralty" is linked at last, instead of first, mention in the article.
  • "flagship" should be linked outside the intro as well.
  • The intro seems a bit short compared to the article body, there are plenty of interesting details it could cover. In addition to more background info (the seizure of the ship was a reason for Turkey joining the Germans in WW2?), there should be some description of the ship, as the intro is supposed to summarise the entire article.
    • I've added a little bit about the seizure and its consequences to the lede. I see no reason to add technical details there as they'd be redundant to both the main body and the infobox. It's impossible to summarize them in any useful manner; you can only give selected parts which seems pointless to me.
  • Thanks for your review. I've made some significant changes that I hope are satisfactory--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The added info gives nice context, I've made two replies above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Both added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - despite the lack of action, quite interesting. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

This is looking good. A few comments from me:

  • in the lead, suggest "the inconclusive Action of 19 August the same year"
  • the length conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • suggest "Erin was powered by two pairs of" as a set could be any number
  • what aircraft were the flying-off platforms for?
    • Probably a Sopwith Pup and a Sopwith 1½ Strutter, but that's only sourced for the battlecruisers and I don't know if the battleships were allocated anything different.
  • the "distant cover" for a convoy crossing the Atlantic seems weird. Perhaps this was more of a distraction/demonstration?
    • Probably not given the difficulties the Germans had in tracking British fleet movements. I think that they were simply prepared to intercept any attempt to interfere with the convoy.
  • drop the comma from "Reports of submarines in Scapa Flow,"
    • Indeed.
  • was the fleet dispersed (meaning "distribute or spread over a wide area") or relocated?
    • IIRC, one squadron didn't go to Lough Swilly, but none of the battleships remained in Scapa Flow, so either term works, IMO.
  • I think you could link Battle of Jutland in the body for the benefit of readers

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Parsecboy[edit]

  • I reviewed this article for A-class and my concerns were addressed there. There are a couple of dupe links that have crept into the article since then, though. Parsecboy (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced (eg yard number, order date); others differ between infobox and text (eg spelling of original name)
  • FN19: IA should use |via=; the rest should be the original citation details. Same with other similar refs
  • What makes Dreadnought Project a high-quality reliable source?
  • Generally author honorifics like Dr aren't included in citations
  • There appear to be some details in this source not currently covered
  • The Halpern ISBN appears to be for a different edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Luka Dončić[edit]

Nominator(s): Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about professional basketball player Luka Dončić of the Dallas Mavericks. In 2017 and 2018 with Real Madrid, he grew into one of the most promising international NBA draft prospects of his generation, being named most valuable player in both the EuroLeague and Liga ACB. The first featured article nomination of this article was mainly struck down because the nominator wasn't a primary contributor. However, I have made numerous more edits to bring this article to stronger FA consideration, enough to become one of this article's main contributors. Runningibis (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hoping to post comments today. ceranthor 19:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What makes The Smoking Cuban a reliable source?
  • Same with Mavs Moneyball?
  • Same with
  • Think it would be helpful to get someone familiar with FAC who can vouch for the Serbian and Slovenian language sources. Will try to run through the prose in the next day or two. ceranthor 23:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceranthor: I have removed the citations to The Smoking Cuban and Mavs Moneyball, which mostly referred to trivial information. Eurohopes is a reliable source in my opinion, with many of its former writers (including its founder) working for NBA, NCAA, and European teams. Runningibis (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can't speak for the other commenters, but my concerns weren't only about the nominator not being the primary contributor. My other real concern, which no nominator can really address yet, is that Doncic has just began his NBA career and the article will require regular updates that threaten its stability. Are you planning to keep this page updated so any changes don't degrade the article after this review? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Giants2008: Yes. The fact that his season is starting won't require his page to be updated on a daily basis... only when he has a notable performance. Runningibis (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Neville's Cross[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham.

The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France.

The article has just completed an A class review and I am hopeful that it is up to scratch. It is my first submission for FA, so be gentle with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article got a pretty thorough going-over at Milhist ACR, so hopefully most of what gets picked up here will be prose-related. I have a few comments:

  • I don't think the years of reign are needed in the lead
Removed. Inserted after first mention in main body. Let me know if I have misunderstood and should simply have deleted.
  • remind me why Scottish King is capitalised?
It seems to have happened during ACR. Relooking at it I can't think why. Done.
  • suggest "InBy 1346, England"
  • unless we end up with more Philip's and David's the ordinal can probably be dropped after introduction
Gah. I will if you insist. In a previous ACR an experienced assessor asked me to always include ordinals and I have consistently done it in all of my articles since. I don't see that it harms, so long as I am consistent, and it does occasionally avoid confusion: Edward's son (the Black Prince) was called Edward; the English-backed pretender to the Scottish throne was King Edward (Balliol); the king of Navarre at the time, who swung between England and France and who had arguably the best claim to the throne of France, was King Philip. And so on.
I don't insist, but be consistent. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • suggest Gascony instead of "south-west France" if that is what is being referred to
No, it means south-west France. As it says in the note straight after, a major part of the French difficulty was the loss of Poitiers, the capital of Poitou, 200km from Gascony.
  • note 3 should be "military service of approximately..."
I changed that, reread it, and realised that I actually meant "in". If you don't think that it works, I could easily rephrase.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I suggest changing the notes to lower alpha instead of [note 1] etc, as using numerical notes and numerical footnotes together is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
This would also use less space, [a] instead of [note 1], and therefore break up the flow of the text less. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is my aging eyesight, but I really dislike notes in the style [a]. I all too frequently read straight past them, either not noticing them or mistaking them for citations and am left not fully understanding something. The point of a note, it seems to me, is to attract the readers attention to something which may be of interest but which is not essential. This will break up the flow of the text, that is part of the point. If I am going to make it easy to overlook them, why am I including them at all. I note that the Wikipedia how-to guide on creating notes - WP:REFGROUP - uses the long form that I adopt, while accepting that this is not definitive.
Generally, IMO notes are often overdone, as they sometimes include information that is germane to the subject of the article, and should be in the body rather than a note. I tend to use notes mainly for technical matters, and this explains our differences in this area. Personally, I would have thought that note 1 could be included in the body, for example. As long as you have not included information in a note that really should be in the text, it isn't a problem, I just suggest that you re-examine the information in the notes, and ensure it couldn't be given in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker Thanks for taking this on. You seem to be impressively tireless. Responses to your comments above. I am not always agreeing with you, but given my inexperience I am more than open to discussion/persuasion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Everyone sees things differently, and I am trying to emphasise that the way you choose to do things can be more or less useful to the average reader, and you should challenge your choices regularly, as we are not average readers. You'll no doubt get a different perspective from other reviewers. IMHO, the idea is to question your editing practice and improve as you go. Things I did with my first FA, I've gone back and fixed, and wouldn't dream of doing now. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: One of the best things about editing Wikipedia is the amount of genuinely well intentioned challenging that I receive. If I ever respond negatively to anyone's friendly challenge to anything I do, please trout me. Certainly I winced a couple of months ago when I looked back over my first half dozen GAs. No doubt I will do the same with this in six months time. Ah well, I suppose that means that I am improving. I am by now quite used to telling other editors to aim their prose at the mythical ordinary reader, but strongly suspect that I do not manage to be as critical of my own work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Notes reduced from six to two in line with your suggestion above.
  • link Kirk Merrington, as that appears to be the relevant village
I thought that I had. Strange. Done.
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Cathedral here. Suggest using Durham Cathedral in full, as that is the proper noun
You are the second experienced editor with that view, so clearly I am wrong. Done.
  • once you've established them as battles, use that term, rather than units or formations
  • the commanders of the English forces are bestrewn with commas. Suggest treating them the same as the Scottish battles to break it up a bit

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Neville is given as Lord Ralph Neville, and then as Ralph, Baron Neville in a very short period of time. Was he elevated in the interim?
A battlefield promotion? No. Consistency imposed.
  • perhaps "Neville remained in overall command." as you've already said he was in command of the force.
  • suggest "Their fire prompted the Scots to attack."
Wording changed. You may wish to check.
  • which Scottish battle was the one that was first to reach the English lines? Randolph's?
Yes. Done.
  • suggest ", the third battle, under the Earl of March (you've already linked Dunbar, so a link to the title probably isn't needed here)..."
  • there's a David that needs a II
  • since he's been introduced, "John Randolph, Earl of Moray" could just be "the Earl of Moray", in the list of dead notables
I tried it, but my eye kept stumbling over the inconsistent naming of the two earls. But I am probably too close, so if you are (fairly) sure I'll change it.
  • link William Douglas, 1st Earl of Douglas
He's already linked, as William Douglas, Lord of Liddesdale. (Stumbling across the English in the mist.)
  • drawn then hanged? I thought it was the other way around?
Well now. There is some modern confusion around this, specifically around the meaning of "drawn". The first paragraph of Hanged, drawn and quartered#Execution of the sentence discusses this. My source, Sumption, states "drawn, hanged and quartered" and I am not inclined to argue with the penal pedantry of a member of the UK Supreme Court. I also note that the article on him (John Graham, Earl of Menteith), differently sourced, uses the same order.
  • the indenting of the Sources is rather odd. Generally they are bulleted rather than indented.
This is genuinely intended to be helpful for the reader. It may, again, be my failing eyesight, but I struggle with Wikipedia's bullet pointed bibliographies. I will scan up and down with my eye not picking out the one I want, especially when there are several works by the same or, worse, similarly named, author(s). I have seen indention used in several articles and use it in mine when the number of references goes over 12-15. I find that with most or all of the relevant surnames protruding it is much easier to pick out the one wanted. I would actually like this to be generally adapted as good practice as an accessibility issue.
  • Do any of the Further reading sources have anything unique to say about the lead-up to the battle, the battle itself, or the aftermath?
Being critical, and thinking about reliability, no. So I have deleted. I have used one to source the addition "The site of the battle has been listed as a registered battlefield by Historic England."

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: All comments addressed. See above. An embarrassingly high level of sloppiness from me. Thanks for bearing with it. I am telling myself that from here I can only improve. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Fresh eyes always pick up things we miss. This is an excellent article, well done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Thank you for that, and thanks for the support vote. It is in good shape now. However, I do enough work at GOCE to recognise lack of rigour when I see it. I can do better than that, and shall try to next time. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

It seems to me that this article meets all the FA criteria. A few minor quibbles, which don't affect my support:

  • Lead
    • "approximately 6–7,000 men" – I am not at all expert in the arcana of the Manual of Style, but this looked a bit odd to me, and I wondered if "6,000–7,000" might be more the thing. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
You are quite right - MOS:NUMRANGE. I should have known that. Done.
    • "Strategically this freed ..." – I had to stop in mid-sentence and go back to the beginning to get the intended meaning; a comma after "against France" would break the sentence into its constituent parts more clearly.
  • Background
    • It's unlikely that many readers will imagine King David's army was massing in Western Australia, but I might blue-link Perth nonetheless.
  • Prelude
    • I'm not convinced by the quotation marks in the fourth sentence: the sources you mention didn't unanimously use the exact words you quote. I don't think anyone is going to accuse you of plagiarism if you remove the quotation marks.
Sumption has exactly those words. But I typo'ed the reference; I had page 551, it should have been 550. The first sentence of the first full paragraph here. He references the single sentence to the hilt. Given its context in the article I am unsure which way to go and would appreciate your advice in the light of the new information. And apologies for cocking up the citation. (My other source, Wagner, describes it as "the largest Scottish invasion force of the century", as I suspect you have already discovered.) Perhaps I should simply reword?
I'm not doubting that all your sources corroborate the statement. My only (minor) point was that what your text says is they all used the actual words in quotation marks, which of course only one of them did. Knocking off the quotes will remove the objection, and, as I say, is not going to get you accused of plagiarism. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Quote marks removed, text slightly tweaked. Forgive my first FAC nerves.
    • "Richmond" – London SW14 is not as remote as Western Australia, but it would do no harm to mention in passing that the one mentioned here is the Richmond in Yorkshire.
Good point. Done.
  • Battle
    • I think the sentence beginning "Seeing their first attack..." is trying to do too much, and I might turn the parenthetic description of Robert Stewart into a footnote or by some other means move this information from this rather involved sentence.
Another good point. Done.
    • "less than 100 were taken prisoner" – there are those who get frightfully exercised about "less than x", when x refers to people or anything capable of being enumerated, and insist on "fewer". There is a perfectly sustainable case that "less" governs the number itself rather than the people or things numbered. Nonetheless, I find it saves grief to preempt attempts at pedantry by going for "fewer" in such cases.
You are quite correct. (Only this morning I corrected another editor doing the same thing in a GAN.) Sloppy of me. Thank you.
  • Aftermath
    • "Legend has it" strikes me as bit of a cliché: I'd prefer something less hackneyed, such as "according to legend".
On reflection (geddit?) this is a bit WP:Peacock, so reworded.
    • "large scale raids" – I'd be inclined to hyphenate this double-barrelled attributive adjective.
This is a marginal judgement call, IMHO. Unless you wish to push it I am inclined to leave as is.
    • "an old Anglo-Saxon stone cross" – perhaps lose the "old"? Not many new ones about.
Most sources refer to it that way. I assume to distinguish the old cross, which was Anglo-Saxon, from the new one installed by Neville. Ie there was an "old" cross on the site, later replaced by a "new" one. "old" in the sense of no longer extant, replaced by another; rather than aged. I could reword?
As long as you're happy with it, that's fine with me. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
    • "St. Margaret" and "St. Cuthbert" – not sure why the antiquated full stops are wanted.
Done. (I was brought up with unstopped punctuation: eg, ie, etc, P G Woodehouse, etc, and struggle a little with what seems to me Wikipedia's slightly random approach.)
Me too! Don't get me started on the absurdly antiquated punctuation Wikipedia insists on! I blame Uncle Sam. Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • Note 5 – "A significant number..." – what did the number signify? A pity to waste the word "significant" as a mere synonym for "large". (I think the other "significant", in the lead, is fine, because the significance is evident.)
Tricky. "No less than 30" who reported their prisoners failed to hand them over; at least on first asking. The number of prisoners unreported is, obviously, unknown. (Cus they weren't reported.) But there were a number of attested cases and the (believed) total was high enough to infuriate Edward - at least one lord had all of his lands confiscated - and significant enough that a royal commission was set up. There is a lot of detail in King. So while very much taking your point I am struggling for a more felicitous phrase. Suggestions would be welcome.
Though I dislike seeing "significant" used unthinkingly when "large" or "important" is meant, I don't think it does any real harm in your note, especially given what you say about the difficulty finding a more satisfactory and accurate word here. "Considerable" came to mind, but if you don't think that fills the bill, by all means leave this "significant". Tim riley talk 21:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. Nothing, as I say, that stops me supporting promotion, but perhaps worth considering. I enjoyed this article, and learned a lot, too. Applause from me. Tim riley talk 11:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @Tim riley: Many thanks for the assessment, the insightful comments and the kind words. Responses to your points are above, and include a couple of areas where I would appreciate your further input. |Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tim. Quote amended as noted above. The other two I am inclined to leave as is, but I will sleep on and review. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Urselius[edit]

It appears to me to meet all FA criteria, it is a succinct account of the battle and is well written. I have only two minor quibbles.

  • The sentence: "Another 3,000 Yorkshiremen were en route to reinforce the northerners." This could be construed as implying that Yorkshiremen are not northerners - and woe betide anyone who implied that. I would suggest 'the northern army' or 'the other northerners' be introduced.
I am tempted to stand by my entirely accurate description, but I shall bow to your narrow provincialism. Face-wink.svg
  • The English combination of well-armoured, dismounted men-at-arms and longbowmen was still a relatively novel military partnership. The Scottish had fewer men-at-arms, being a poorer country, and the bulk of their army would have been spearmen. It might be worthwhile mentioning the contrast in troop types between the two armies - if suitable sources are available. Urselius (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Are they heck. At GAN someone asked after details of "Many had modern weapons and armour supplied by France." But that sentence, and the English being "dismayed" is the sum total of what I can find on equipment. I could have a very convincing stab at how the two armies were equipped, even the proportions of troop types. I would be fairly confident about it. But it would be OR. I could even source it, but that would be the more popular authors making their own informed guesses. You will have noticed the absence of the word 'schiltron' from the article. Because I can't source it, even though I am certain they were there.
You may have gathered that I am frustrated about having had to gloss over the actual crunch of the battle, but if the sources ain't there, they just ain't there.
Happy to debate this further and would love to find something. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

The infobox image needs a proper description template on Commons (and could need a link to an online source, if possible). The rest looks good, sourcing and licensing-wise. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi FunkMonk. Thanks for taking on the image review. I hope that you will bear with me while I try to climb the learning curve - I only learnt last week how to add a US PD tag. (On this very image.) By "a proper description template" do you mean something like the below? Which is taken from the Commons information on a different image from the same chronicle.


English: French army besieging the citadel of Auberoche, catapulting an English messenger over the walls



Unknown date


style="background: #ececec; color: #2C2C2C; font-size: smaller; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="unknown table-unknown"|author

(Reusing this file)


Yep, exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Done, I think. I would appreciate a check. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good, I would incorporate the text hanging above the template into it, though. Seems you already put it in a note, so it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Oops. Sorry. Over focused. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Good. Thanks. Any chance of a "Support"? ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd have to read the article for that (can't support based on an image review), and that was actually what I was going to do until I saw it already had three reviews (which usually means a pass). But I'll have a look if it drags out. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @FunkMonk: No, no. My error. My first FAC; I thought that an image review needed a support, as it does at ACR (at MilHist anyway). Thanks again for the input and for bearing with me. So, fingers crossed, a source review, which is the thing I am probably most relaxed about, and I have my first FA. Given the quality of the three reviewers who have contributed so far I am hopeful that they will be sufficient. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that surprises me, actually, since I've often seen you around the review pages. Well, good luck, having reviewed so much also gives good insight in the process! It's an interesting article, so I might come back for a review of the text. FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks. I have been getting my QPQ in early. And, as you suggest, picking up tips. I got 30 GA under my belt before submitting my first ACR, so now have a queue of wanabe ACRs. I am restricting myself to two at a time, and will roll them straight into FAC, if there is a space. You may want to hold back, or look at one of my ACRs (Siege of Berwick (1333) and Battle of Auberoche). I anticipate wanting to call in some favours for FAC assessing before too long. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
See you there! FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this Commons image could be of use:[17]
Thank you for that. I am not sure how I missed it. Unfortunately its nice neat depiction does not match any account of the battle I have come across and bears little relation to the account in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Gog, just a couple of minor nitpicky comments. Apologies if these have been raised and discussed earlier in the review, I typed these out whilst travelling, so these may have progressed since I wrote them. Anyway, hopefully they help in some regard: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • in the References/Sources, there usually isn't a need for accessdates for courtesy links (see Brown)
  • remove "p. 330" for Maxwell in the long citation (in the Sources section) as it is not required here
  • slightly inconsistent: "Faber and Faber" or "Faber & Faber"?
I just copy what WorldCat says ;) . Now consistent.
  • the hyphenation of some of the ISBNs appears to be different (e.g. compare Sumption 1990 with Wagner)
Frankly, I am all at sea with hyphenating ISBNs. Now both consistent and correct, but I am unsure if FA compliant.
  • Fraser appears to be self published -- is there a need to use this, or is there anything that can be pointed to IOT demonstrate it is a reliable source?
Well, now. The evidence is a bit bitty, but the Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography is named after him, see here. The Dictionary of National Biography seems to like him, see here. Note that he drew up most of the reports on Scottish historical manuscripts for the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts for twenty years. He was the (full time) deputy keeper of sassines and subsequently deputy-keeper of the records.
There is more. Let me know if you would like me to dig it out.
Given that, it seems ok to me. Equally, Fraser is only being used once now, along with a ref to another source, so it should be ok, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The information cited to refs 26, 27 and 28 is sourced to works published between 1776 and 1913 - is there anything more recent that could reference this?
This came up at ACR. I commented then "Dalrymple (1776) and Fraser (1878) are only used to support the list of Scottish prisoners. Older sources are fonder of listing noble involvement than more modern ones and I consider them reliable for this, limited, purpose." For Fraser, see above. I have, a little reluctantly, replaced Dalrymple and Fraser with Oman. (I am not keen on using Oman as I don't really trust him. But that is probably just me and he is widely considered a reliable source.)
Ack, no worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Maxwell - remove the space before the colon in the title
  • "J. Maclehose and sons" --> capital letter for "Sons"
  • long as possible.[37][25] --> suggest reordering the refs numerically
Drat. I thought that I had caught all of those. Done.
Good day to you AustralianRupert. It is good to hear from you. And many thanks for stoping by to look at my first FAC. I am nervous, as you might expect, and a little annoyed at all of the things I have missed. Your points addressed above. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a couple of follow up points: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Dalrymple is now not used as a citation, so should probably be in a Further reading section
I have removed him. He was only there to evidence the Scottish dead, now covered by Oman. He doesn't otherwise add much IMO.
  • Note 2 appears unreferenced - suggest adding a citation
Oops. Done.
  • Citation 19 (Prestwich & Rollason 1998) lacks page numbers -- is it possible to add these in?
Sloppy, sloppy. Done. Thanks for picking that up. Embarrassing.
@AustralianRupert: Additional points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Nice work. All my points have been addressed, so I have added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done[edit]

  • Lead says half a mile from Durham, text says less than half a mile - which is correct?
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Previous discussions around Measuringworth have raised doubts as to its accuracy and value
I didn't know that, but am not surprised. Nevertheless I think that it helpful to give a reader an idea of the value of money amounts, both in inflation terms and earning power, however arguably flawed the methodology. A raw figure, 100,000 marks, or even £1,000, is either meaningless or positively misleading in my opinion. Would you like me to take the inflation and earning power comparisons and notes out? I notice that the MoS says under money that "In some cases, it may be appropriate to provide a conversion accounting for inflation or deflation over time. See See {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}."
I think the note about expected wage is useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN15: what is the significance of "n"? Is it a footnote on the given page? If so, suggest saying that explicitly
  • The Boardman and Webster refs are both to ODNB but don't match in formatting
Webster removed.
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and the cite family of templates
  • Why include county for Ware but not East Linton? Why country instead of county for Harlow?
  • Brown: don't be over-precise on publication dates for books
  • The Sadler ISBN corresponds with an edition from a different publisher than the one listed, and the Sumption citation lists the same ISBN.
Er, looks like the Sadler ISBN still corresponds to a different publisher edition? Sumption is now correct. Nikkimaria
@Nikkimaria: According to WorldCat they match - click on the link. Unless I am being unusually stupid - which I am perfectly willing to believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Not sure Worldcat is correct on that point - multiple ISBN searches, including the Worldcat link from Special:BookSources, say that ISBN is for the Routledge edition. Can you verify in whichever edition you consulted what the correct ISBN and publisher are?
@Nikkimaria: I am a little confused, but if that is not the ISBN, then it is 9781405840224. Although I note that Google Books gives Pearson Education as the publisher and 2006 as the date, while WorldCat gives Pearson/Longman and 2005. I am not sure what to make of that, and suspect that this discrepancy may be why I ducked the issue and attempted to refer to a different edition; I don't recall. I have not, yet, changed the ISBN in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
In the case of discrepancy, we should include the publisher and ISBN of whichever edition was actually consulted, as recorded in that edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I only added it a week ago, in response to a request on this page. I am not sure how I botched it, but have now redone it from scratch. (It is only there to establish that Robert was David's nephew and I could easily lose it, but it is now a challenge.) I have copied the ISBN directly from the title page, so hopefully this is now settled. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria. Thanks for taking this on for my first FAC, and apologies for the large number of beginners errors. I look forward to the results of your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sloan–Parker House[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

This article details the history and architecture of a significant historic property on the National Register of Historic Places in Hampshire County, West Virginia. This article is consistent with other NRHP-related articles in Hampshire County that are Featured Articles, including Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), Literary Hall, Old Pine Church, and Valley View (Romney, West Virginia). I welcome your reviews and suggestions to further improve this article so that it fulfills FA status. Note to reviewers: I have addressed issues noted during this article's first FA candidacy. Thank you in advance! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


1a, lead and a bit further:

  • "The Sloan–Parker House (also historically known as the Stone House, the Parker Family Residence, and the Richard Sloan House)"—Do you need "also"? (You do need it in the first section, though.)
  • Tony1, first and foremost, thank you so much for taking the time to engage in this thorough review! I appreciate your guidance and suggestions, and I will be addressing them all as soon as I can. Because the alternative names do not fit neatly into any of the sections, I have moved them into an explanatory footnote. Please let me know if this is acceptable. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the link to a list of all US states of any relevance to readers at this point? Or, frankly, at any point in this article? Does "Ireland" need to be linked?
  • "was erected in about 1790" might be a smoother ride for readers; up to you.
  • In the tradeoff between bumpiness and rhythm/meaning, what do you think about removing the first comma? "Sloan eloped with Van Horn's daughter Charlotte, and they settled in the Mill Creek valley, where they built the original "Stone House" of the Sloan–Parker House."
  • But here, you might consider inserting a comma before "who": "The Sloans had ten children, including John and Thomas Sloan who each represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates." Children in the legislature? How modern. ", who both went on to represent"?
  • "Counterpanes"—very unfamiliar, but linked to the whole article "Quilt". Probably a link is good, but please, why not to the section "Block designs" at that target article? And if it were me, I'd write "[[Quilt#Block designs|counterpanes]] (quilts with block-designs)" to save us the trouble.
  • Do we need "stage" and "line" twice? Maybe, but not if we don't: "operated a stagecoach line on the Moorefield and North Branch Turnpike stage line".
  • "and its use as a stagecoach stop ceased after the completion of the Hampshire Southern Railroad in 1910."—maybe, but "ceased" is a marked word (cease and desist). Need to be that strong? "ended" would be more neutral.
  • Do we need "positioned"?
  • "The majority of the stone section's flooring"—we're calculating percentages here? "Most of ...".
  • "approximately": English can be ugly. "about"?
  • "upon" ... whilst, amongst, within. Choose the plain version where possible.
  • And way down, a caption I noticed: "North and west elevations, as seen in July 2016". How can that be freed of redundant fluff?

I'm not saying this deserves to be withdrawn, but it would be a good idea, soon, to print it out and go through it in detail with a slashing pen. Commas, linking, redundant wording. Tony (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Tony1, thank you again for your review and helpful suggestions above. I have addressed each one, and I will continue to remove superfluous language as I find it. Please let me know if you have any further guidance in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Support from Vami_IV[edit]

This article was a pleasant read, very nicely portrayed some vintage Americana. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Vami_IV, thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to review this article and provide your guidance and suggestions below! I will post here once I am finished addressing each and every one! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "They paid each of their laborers a wage of 6½ cents per day of labor." Irrelevant?
  • "became well known in the region." What region exactly?
  • "He also served as a justice of Hampshire County from 1824 until 1828,[20][23] a surveyor of Hampshire County in 1827,[24] a sheriff of Hampshire County in 1839,[20][25] and a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing Hampshire County from 1825 to 1827.[26]" There are three too-many mentions of Hampshire County in this sentence.
  • "Frederick, Hampshire, and Morgan counties." Link to Frederick and Morgan counties here.
  • "The Sloan–Parker House, as of 2018," Is the property subject to change?
  • "as is the old rear door on the stone section's south elevation." Move to the paragraph on the south facade.
  • "This fireplace, along with an outdoor summer kitchen, was used for cooking." Superfluous, remove.
  • "Widely spaced unhewn logs" This links to "Log house", but doesn't actually say loghouse. Is that what you meant?
  • "The Sloan–Ludwick Cemetery[49] is approximately 415 feet (126 m) northeast of the Sloan–Parker House, and is located in a grove of trees at the edge of an agricultural field." Simplify
  • Vami_IV, thank you again for your review and suggestions. I've addressed each and every one in the article's prose. I incorporated all your suggestions, and where there was a question or recommendation to remove, I removed that content. Please let me know if you have any further comments or suggestions in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
"The south elevation (rear façade) of the stone section remains intact, and serves as the northern wall of the wooden frame section. A window in the stone section's second story was removed to connect the second story of the wooden frame addition. Likewise, what used to be the stone section's rear door now connects the first floor of the stone section with the wooden frame section.[48] This door is also topped by a four-pane transom window.[48]", "They still contain markings of letters and numbers that enabled the proper placement of components as they were lifted from the ground during construction.[48] The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors, are original.[48]" and "The interior of the stone section contains two floors, each with two rooms, in addition to a basement and attic. The former kitchen and dining room (or "keeping rooms") are on the west side of the basement level, and feature a large fireplace.[48] The east side of the basement serves as a large storage area.[48]" Combine citations here. There is a lot of this in the prose. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vami_IV, thank you for your continued review of this article! Your time and guidance are much appreciated. I have modified this section so that there are not so many redundant citations. Please take a look and let me know if you see any outstanding issues. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from KJP1[edit]

An interesting article. Some comments/suggestions below.

  • "who each (later) represented Hampshire County in the Virginia House of Delegates" - following an earlier point, would "later" work here?
  • "and a wooden frame addition (built c. 1900) perpendicular to the original stone section" - here, and in the Architecture section, you use "perpendicular" where I'd use "at a right angle". Just ignore me if it's a US/UK thing.
  • The chronology of the lead stops c.1910. Should it not have a line on the later Parker history, opening etc.?
Geography and setting
  • This is very detailed. Too detailed?
Sloan family ownership
  • "After encountering healthy cattle from Old Fields in Hardy County, they decided to relocate there" - this sounds rather odd. Did they meet on the road and exchange pleasantries? "observing" / "noticing" or some such?
  • "the large house afforded the couple sufficient space to raise them. The house also provided the family with the necessary space..." - to avoid the close repetition, could you replace the first "space" with "room"?
Parker family ownership
  • "She and her husband opened the Sloan–Parker House for tours in 1962 and in July 1976 when..." - I don't get the timing here. Did they open just in 1962, and again in June 1976? What about 1963-75, and post-June 76? Could the wording be clarified?
  • The full list of the present owners' children almost strays into Facebook territory for me. Does it really have any significance in relation to the house?
  • Sources - as a general observation, this section is heavily reliant on the single source (48). I well appreciate the challenges around finding sources for minor buildings; most of my Monmouthshire Grade II*s are sourced to Pevsner and the CADW site. And that's sometimes it. Are there any other sources available? My guess is not, otherwise you'd have used them.
Stone section
  • "The majority of the stone section's flooring, and the hardware on the doors". You could link hardware. I see it's US usage, but it's less clear to us Brits, and I suspect even less clear elsewhere.
Ancillary structures
  • "Widely spaced unhewn logs are located within the barn's interior and on its south elevation". This threw me and I'm still not sure I get it after reading Source 48. At first I thought they were just logs strewn around for decorative?/illustrative? purposes. But the source says "on" the interior, not within. Are they actually cladding? I think it needs clarifying.
  • Waybacked newspaper clippings, e.g. 39, 41, 44 - it may be my machine but these don't work for me. They don't let me get into the actual articles, just the first bits.
  • The two images of the North & West elevations are very similar. You don't have any of the other frontages?

All in all, a well-researched article on an interesting building. I'll be happy to support after you've had a chance to consider, but not necessarily action, the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • KJP1, thank you so incredibly much for your review of this article. I have indeed actioned most of your suggestions, which have greatly improved the article's flow and quality! Unfortunately, the archived newspapers are not rendering properly at the present. Do you have any suggestions for how to handle this in the citations? Perhaps remove the archive links and add the subscription templates? I also kept perpendicular after trying right angle. Everything else has been integrated into the article per your guidance. Thank you so much for your time and expertise! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • KJP1, I went ahead and removed the archival links from the source, and added the subscription required template. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
All looking good to me. It's a shame about Wayback as I don't generally like using paid-for sites if they can be avoided, but probably better that than the frustration of not being able to get in. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
KJP1, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and for providing your guidance above! I share your frustration, and will continue to look for a solution to this issue in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


Nominator(s): RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a (primarily) North American shorebird. It is found both inland and on the coast. I became interested in it after I saw a few at school last spring. Recently, I tried to bring it to FA status, but failed. I have improved the article and gotten a GA review, so I hope it is better now. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

From FunkMonk[edit]

  • Seems many issues were fixed by the GA review, so definitely the way to go before FAC. I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this is a clearer, or at least more dramatic, photo of the injury faking:[18]
It definitely displays the "broken-wing" better; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's always good to show how a bird looks in flight (can aid birders, for example), how about one of these?[19][20] Perhaps under habitat?
Added the first one, as it more clearly shows the underparts and underside of the wing. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, looking again, maybe th Cuban image should be moved under distribution then? Since the point of it is to show a local population. Now it is kind of crammed under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be the last point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this one, and I think I agree with you; moved. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You made a point of adding location to image captions at the GAN, why not in the taxobox caption?
Added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This binomial has not been changed" I don't think this needs to be its own sentence, it could be better tacked onto the former sentence as ", a name which has not changed since" or some such.
Used a semi-colon to connect the two sentences. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "an account of it" Give year.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Introduce people mentioned.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "in the fourth-century Vulgate" Add "bible".
done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The specific vociferus" Spell out specific name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "C. v. peruvianus (Chapman, 1920)" If the parenthesis is because it was originally described as a separate species, this should be mentioned.
It seems that it described by Chapman under the genus name Oxyechus, at least according to AviBase. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
In that case it needs a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Added as a footnote. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The killdeer's name" Common name.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems some of those external links are redundant. If the article contains all the same info, we don't need extra links.
Removed 3 external links. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No word on most closely related species and evolution?
Nope; I can't find anything on it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
A quick Google search gave me these[21][22], sure there is more. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that first one. Thanks; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The description is a bit of a wall of text. Perhaps split it at "The female's mask"?
Sounds good. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and very locally south to Panama" What does this mean?
It's basically what HBW said; I assume, though, that it means while it does breed to Panama, it only does so on an irregular basis. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and those with cattle"? Why?
Added in parentheses. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" This section is usually called behaviour and ecology in bird FAs, with predators as a subsection.
I don't think that's correct, most bird FAs actually have just "Behaviour" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "although another estimate... gives about two million" Why "although>", it doesn't contradict that the population is large, but confirms it.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 06:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • " While egg-laying" This is ambiguous. Do you mean brooding, or laying eggs?
Not specified; I'm pretty sure it means the period of egg-laying itself; changed "while" to "during"
  • "until a normal response is calling at a stand" What does this mean?
I seemed to have misread the source a tidge; it said "standing calling". I removed "at a stand". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and charges at the intruder." With the rump first?
"While in this crouched posture, the bird lunges towards the intruder in an apparent effort to halt its approach." It seems so, heh. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Ground chases occur when a killdeer has been approached multiple times by another killdeer; similarly, flight chases occur when an individual has been approached from the air. Both are forms of territorial defense" Is any of this related to breeding, though?
Yes, as they forms of territorial defense; I have no information on them being used as a mating display. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "keep the nest cool or to help conceal the nest." Last "nest" could be "it".
Done; also removed last "to help". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and there are occasionally two broods" What is meant by this? In the same nest, or in separate nests?
I couldn't find this, but I found that they usually laid in the same nesting territory; added. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In these two parents broods" Parent's? And why is "two" needed? It is a bit oddly worded this sentence.
Removed "two parents"
  • "The young are brooded, until about 15 days after hatching, during rain, and, until about 18 days after hatching, at night." I'm not sure what this means. They are brooded less during rain and more during night?
It means that if the young are under 15 days of age, they are brooded during rain, and if they are under 18 days of age, they are also brooded at night; rijigged and replaced "at" with "during". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae." Too much detail for the intro, the name of the describer is enough there.
Removed extraneous information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • ""the originally described population)" That would be the originally described subspecies. Population is not the same.
Ok; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The nest itself is a scrape" Only stated in intro.
Added to body. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "This likely evolved because of increased insect abundance and reduced predation during the night." Evolved is a bit strong here, "this is likely because" would probably make more sense.
I agree; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A "why" tag has been added after the sentence "About 53% of eggs do not hatch", which should be dealt with.
This has been dealt with. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 11:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)


1a: I reviewed this not long ago, right? Hmmm ... the lead is still faulty.

  • "there are two black breast bands on the breast"—do we really need "breast" twice? And there's a third two seconds later, awkwardly making est est.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This is not a good sentence: "It is seen year-round in the southern half of its breeding range, and the subspecies C. v. ternominatus is likely resident to the West Indies and C. v. peruvianus inhabits Peru and areas of the surrounding countries throughout the year." and and and trips us up. Have you thought of creating two sort-of sentences using a semicolon? I can't digest it. And "likely" (meaning "probably"), an Americanism I've never been happy with in formal prose. Why? Because it creates a grammatical fork ("is likely to?") that has to be disambiguating shortly after.
Done. I don't really understand your reasoning for not liking "likely", but I've changed it anyways. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you ditch the "However-comma" and replace with simple "But ..."?
I've done that for its first occurrence in the lead, but not for the second, as "but" occurs shortly after. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Any chance of avoiding our need to hit the link to "nominate"? ... by (glossing) it?
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So, looking through, it's much better than it was. Probably good enough for FA this time, in prose. Possible to use range dashes for numerals? "2 to 6 °C (36 to 43 °F)" -> "2–6 °C (36–43 °F)" ... simpler to read. Tony (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer using "to" for consistency. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 00:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that one of the "breast" is redundant in the forth sentence. --Boothsift (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I'm short of time, so just few points for starters Read through nowJimfbleak - talk to me? 16:04, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • What about its parasites? No mention at all in your article: Jackson, B., J. Jackson. 2000. "Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)" pp. 1-28 in A Poole, F Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, Vol. 517. apparently claims it hosts at least 13 species (I don't have access)
I finally found the paper on it; added some information. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • According to a 1999 mitochondrial DNA study, the killdeer is closely related to the rufous-chested, and semipalmated plover, and the black-fronted and hooded dotterel—this concerns me. Two species from other genera are considered to be closest relatives, rather than others in its own genus, notably common ringed plover, itself the closest relative of semipalmated. I can't access the full reference, but I note that it's nearly 20 years old
Removed; I personally did have a few reservations about this (it doesn't even include the whole genus!), so I've removed it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The female's mask and breast bands are generally more brown than those of the male.—that's not quite what the source says. HBW has "tends to have", which is much less positive than your statement implies. Hayman, Marchant and Prater 1988 p. 287 has "sexing is not usually possible, but some breeding females show much brown admixed with the black on the face". Non-breeding males also often have some brown in the plumage, so I'd definitely hesitate to sex birds in that plumage
Changed to "tend to be". RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • There are three subspecies, including the nominate .—clunky here, why not just leave at There are three subspecies and then later have The nominate (originally described population) subspecies of this plover breeds from southeastern Alaska and southern Canada to Mexico, which clarifies what is currently an incorrect statement.
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The killdeer winters from its resident range south to Central America—should be the North American breeders winter from their resident range south to Central America
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as Charadrius vociferus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae;[2] this name has not been changed—clunky, try The killdeer was described in 1758 by Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus as in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae as Charadrius vociferus, its current name
Done. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 01:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
  • About 53% of eggs do not hatch—as it says, why not?
Specified. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • range of about 26.3 million kilometres (16.3 mi)—you are using a linear instead of area measure for the range, should be sq km and sq mi, also I think that 26.3 million kilometres is a tad more than 16.3 mi!!
Fixed both. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Average/maximum life span, survival rates etc?
I found the maximum life span; by the way, this site I just found seems to be really useful (I found the paper I used through this), if you didn't already know about it. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 23:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
RileyBugz私に叫ぼう, I wasn't aware of that, it looks useful. In practice, I usually write about species with a presence in Europe, where the Euring database does the job, but I guessed that there must be something out there for other regions. Anyway, that's my last point dealt with, so changing to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll be back with more detailed comments shortly, I hope, but meanwhile I am wondering what variety of English the article is intended to be in. It seems mostly to be in BrE (behaviour, centimetres, coloured, metres, colour, millimetres) but some AmE spellings pop up here and there (southeastern, defense, feces). Tim riley talk 11:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's mostly in British English. I've changed defense and feces now, but "southeastern"? RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 19:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd hyphenate "south-eastern" etc, but there's nothing wrong with "southeastern" if you prefer it. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments, as promised. First an apology. I ought to have made it clear in my passing remark, above, that given the habitat of these birds, AmE would seem to me to be the logical choice. I don't think it's mandatory, though, and if you prefer BrE I doubt if anyone will object. Here are a few general comments, down to the end of the "Habitat and distribution" section:

  • Lead
    • "Its upperparts are mostly brown with rufous fringes" – I could make a fair guess at what upperparts are, but rufous could do with a link too, I think.
Linked. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "The belly and the rest of the breast is white" – singular verb with plural nouns.
Fixed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "resident to the West Indies" – is that a technical term? Ordinarily "resident in" would be expected.
I'm not sure, to be honest. It just means that it stays there year round. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I think "resident in" would be right in that case. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
It sounds so weird to me, but I've looked it up, and it seems you're right; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "West Indies" – if you're going to link (which I'm not sure is needed) you should link at first, not second, mention.
Linked at first mention. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "fledge" – might be helpful to link? Borderline, perhaps.
I'd say it's probably better to link than not. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Description
    • "lores" – definitely could do with a link, I'd say.
linked. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "The killdeer also has a white collar that is black on its upper border" – I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean a white collar with a black upper border?
Yep; changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "more pale and grey" – "paler and greyer"?
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 18:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Habitat and distribution
    • "very locally south to Panama" – I'm not quite certain what this means. Is it that breeding is mostly in the first three countries but is occasionally known in Panama too?
It means that it breeds south to Panama, but not as widespread as it usually is found. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 21:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
You could make this clearer, I think. Something like "with some less widespread grounds further south, in Panama". Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

More to come. – Tim riley talk 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tim, just picking up on the variety of English point you made earlier, there are eight or nine English-speaking countries in the Caribbean part of the killdeer's breeding range that use BE, so it's just as appropriate as AE for this species, and the latter is certainly not necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Jim. Point taken. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)


  • Breeding
    • Next-to-last sentence: "It has" – means the bird, not the breeding, I infer. Best make it specific.
Changed. RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's because it's Friday night and I'm accordingly cheerful, but although there are quite a few drafting points I'd prefer written differently I don't think I need single them out, let alone ask for changes. The repeated use of "likely" instead of "probably" seems unidiomatic to an elderly BrEng user, but the meaning is clear, and the prose flows well enough.

I know nothing of ornithology, but as a layman I find the sourcing impressively wide and (many JSTOR refs – always a good sign) evidently authoritative. The prose is clear, and the illustrations splendid. As the coverage of the topic seems to me thorough, I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! RileyBugz私に叫ぼう私の編集 12:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Killdeer.jpg: source link is dead. Same with Charadrius_vociferus.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Ludwigsburg Palace[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome (back) to the "Versailles of Swabia," one of the largest palace complexes in Germany. After a detailed GAN, I nominated Ludwigsburg Palace for FAC at the start of August. The nomination ended in failure, so I let a month of time elapse before re-nominating and incorporating editor commentary on the previous FAC. Here's to progress! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


1a, opening two sentences:

  • "Ludwigsburg Palace (German: Residenzschloss Ludwigsburg), also known as the "Versailles of Swabia", is a 452-room palace complex of 18 buildings located in Ludwigsburg, Germany. Together W[w]ith the added gardens around the palace, its Ludwigsburg Palace's total area is amounts to 32 ha (3,400,000 sq ft), making it—the largest palatial estate in the country Germany." ... Does it get better? And why not a conversion to acres to save us the millions and millions. Does "German" (language) really need to be linked? "Germany" certainly doesn't need to be—unless the reader is Trump or a five-year-old kid. The country-link will be in the Ludwigsberg article, anyway. Later, I see the garden alone is "3,400,000 sq ft": how can that be?

Tony (talk) 10:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I couldn't find a source claiming it was the biggest palace in Germany - just one of. Even though, but total area, it definitely is (eat it, Würzburg!). I've added all your suggestions, also. –Vami
  • "In 2016, the Ludwigsburg Palace attracted some 330,000 visitors." Now it's "the"; but that's missing from the very opening. Which is it to be in a grammaticalised sentence (as opposed to the article title)? And why not "the Palace"?
    • Oh man, good catch! Fixed now. –Vami
  • Vami, I was indicating that you need to do far, far more than just fix what I pointed out in the opening two sentences. Have you printed out the text and struck through all the woolly wording throughout? Tony (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2017, 350,642 people visited Ludwigsburg Palace." It's a phone number. Good case for passive voice.
  • How do you "sort out" paintings?
  • English can be ugly if you want it to be: "Ludwigsburg Palace exhibits a great deal of Austrian and Czech Baroque influence,"—shows? reveals?
  • I see lots of "would" future tense. Use it a bit, but not more, please. "that was then carried out by" rather than "that would then be carried out by".
  • Fixed. –Vami

At least the spot-check found better prose than the opening two sentences (above). Tony (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I missed your comment, but it's okay been I addressed it now. Thanks for getting back to me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jmar67 (JM)[edit]

  • I was asked by Gerda and Vami to do another copy edit (first one several weeks ago). I have finished an initial pass and welcome feedback. Jmar67 (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • See also article talk page. --JM
  • @Vami IV: Should be "Alter Hauptbau" and "Neuer Hauptbau". --JM
    • Fixed, and thank you for your copyedits thus far. –Vami

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the invitation to an impressive article about an impressive building! I'll read the lead, but will comment on it last, and do little steps, commenting as I read.

  • I don't need such a long hatnote. The other palace, fine, but both the socalled "city" (town?) and the porcelain will be linked in the article, - let's get to the topic ;)
  • I formatted the infobox a bit. I don't see any advantage in having it collapsed, just more white space. The "alt" text shouldn't be a repetition of the caption, but explain to a blind person what you see on the image. Please, generally, avoid fixed image sizes, - upright factors (from 0.7 to 1.3) respect users' preferences.


  • The table of contents looks clear, but I wonder if "Hauptbau" is a good a idea, once we started with "palace", and readers may be unfamiliar with the term. Perhaps better use "main building" and introduce the German in the text?
  • Changed Old and New Hauptbau headers back to North and South wings and introduced translated text in parentheses. –Vami
  • Do we really need 5 headers for the references. (I normally have only 3: (foot)notes, references, and cited sources.)
  • No. That is why they are not headers. –Vami


  • What do you think of having the plan in the architecture section, where (hopefully) the German terms get explained?
  • Done. –Vami
  • How about the name of the builder in German, which would make the explanation of Ludwigsburg much easier? I strongly believe that his name should be at least mentioned in his article ;)
  • First paragraph: "Eberhard Louis renamed the estate after himself (German: Ludwigsburg, lit. 'Louis's Castle') in 1705" –Vami
  • That's what I mean. His name was "Eberhard Ludwig", or the place would be Louisburg or what. Really too bad that so many noble people travel in the English Wikipedia only by translated names. Common name is fine, but real name should also show, if you ask me. (Not your fault, but we could start adding a real name in an article like this.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. I've added a clipped image of the duke's portrait with his German name. –Vami
  • Can we link to the palaces of Munich, instead of the present-day city? (like you do for Versailles)
  • Done. Moved link to the same sentence I linked Versailles in and replaced the first mention with "Nymphenburg Palace." –Vami
  • How about linking "architectural trends ..." to Baroque architecture?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "city"? - Project Germany defines a city as something with at least 100,000 inhabitants. I'd prefer "town". See Town privileges
  • But later granted city status. --JM
  • I'd call it town status, or say that it receive town privileges. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed --JM
  • Perhaps it's just too late, but I don't get the meaning of the run-on sentence beginning "E L decided ...". Split in two, or three? And what does overture mean here?
  • Not a run-on sentence, just somewhat lengthy and awkward. I have changed. "Overture" = proposal, offer. --JM
  • No need to say "Duke E L" once he's introduced. Just name, or "the duke".
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • In an article about something German, I don't think you have to say "German:" everytime something is translated, - it should be default.
  • Done. –Vami

Need sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


  • I am no friend of squeezed text between images left and right, in general. In particular, the Courtyard image looks finished, not like construction ;) (actually: nor do the others) - Any other location for that? Better English names in the caption.
  • Unsandwiched a lot of the article. Did I go too far? –Vami
  • Done. –Vami
  • I am no friend of mixing English and German, as Old Hauptbau. At least Old Hauptbau. And a translation of the German part?
  • "Hauptbau" would produce "Main building," thus "Old Main building," which is thoroughly unsexy. –Vami
  • Don't get me wrong, I don't want you to use the thoroughly unsexy name throughout the article, but once explain please what Hauptbau means. Or: use Alter Hauptbau, after explaining once what that means. Or: say old Hauptbau. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind: keep the courtyard image, but in the caption use the terms from the text. Move the 19th century thing below.
  • explain "absorbing"?
  • Changed to "incorporating" --JM
  • please don't use the fixed template in FACs, - some of the FA people are allergic to templates ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Appears to be WP:OR from poor translating from Swiss German (Bieri), corrected. –Vami
  • Donato Giuseppe Frisoni - he was introduced before, but I didn't make the connection that Donato Frisoni was the same person. How about same name, or just last name, which would tell people that they should know him?
  • Fixed; abbreviated to "Frisoni". –Vami

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Use as a residence

  • Why not simply "Residence"?
  • Done --JM
  • Images: the view is decorative but not much more, Casanova should look "in" and could be normal upright.
  • Done. –Vami
  • For fairness: in "Duke Eberhard Louis left no heirs and was succeeded by Karl Alexander." - let both be Duke, or both not ;)
  • Done --JM
  • another "city"
  • Done --JM
  • "... use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775 and brought the Rococo style to Ludwigsburg in 1747." - I'd end the sentence after 1775, otherwise the chronology seems disturbed.
  • Tweaked --JM
  • "such as when" - really?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • It is OK but not elegant. The palace is elegant. Thank you for tha many fixes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I would not call it "elegant" either but it is not jargon. It is perfectly correct for giving an example. I would not have made this change. --JM
  • Will readers know what Schlosstheater means?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • What is an "opera hall"?
  • "himself succeeded"?
  • Is OK. --JM
  • just curious: why not simply "he succeeded"? - I try to avoid "however" and "himself" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This was there for rhetorical reasons, because he had succeeded his predecessor earlier in the sentence. I don't know what you have against "however". I use it often. --JM
  • "Charlotte, Princess Royal, daughter of King George III" - "Charlotte, the daughter of King George III" would suffice.
  • Done --JM
  • "Friedrich II, now Frederick I" - I'll never understand these noble names ;)
Anglicized every instance of "Friedrich II" and added the distinction of "Duke" –Vami
  • "felt that he had to express this accomplishment in architecture, as Eberhard Louis had attempted" - no way that Eberhard Ludwig could have expressed the same acomplishment (and which anyway) - the wording sounds translated to me, but I may be wrong.
  • Done --JM
  • "... remodeling, this time the Ordenskapelle and the king's apartment, which lasted from 1808 to 1811" - sounds like the apartment lasted.
  • Done --JM
  • "Neuer Hauptbau's" - just no, we can't add an English possessive to a German term.
  • Done --JM
  • Is this an established rule? I find it OK. We are using these terms for convenience and should treat them as English words. --JM
  • I have modified the prose to remove the possessive –Vami
  • "then-modern tastes" - not happy. "in the latest style"?
  • Done --JM
  • any better word instead of a repeated "take place".
  • Done --JM

More later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Later history

  • The first image caption is needlessly long, - all we'd need to know is that it was used for important contracts and trials ;) - Put rest in the body, if really needed. - Please link trial in caption, for those who only look at pics ;)
    • Done. –Vami
  • "restoration took place at"?
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Second paragraph: first sentence combines 2 things by "and" which are not connected, opening to the public, and ratification.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • Too much math: the following year - four years later.
    • Fixed. –Vami
  • How about combining the two Sitzmann visits? The second has more substance, - do we need the first at all?
    • Axed first visit, revised second. –Vami
  • Is the Lego thing notable if the company has no article in German?
    • Guess not; axed. –Vami
  • The sentence about the painting attribution is too complex to follow, - make it three?
    • Simplified and whittled down into two. –Vami
  • Am I the only one to find visitor numbers a bit boring? - How about one?
    • Axed. –Vami
  • "to arrange the Neuer Hauptbau" - arrange? refurbish? whatever, but not arrange. - More later. Vacation from tomorrow, be prepared for delays ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Done. –Vami


  • I'd not link Austro-Czech, and perhaps better not even use it. The later link (Bohemian Baroque) is the one that would fit, while Sudenten German is plain wrong.
  • Fixed. Not that it matters, but that was actually not an error of my making. –Vami
  • I don't understand the "but" in the sentence with the (too?) many names.
  • Removed. –Vami
  • It's debatable if the people mentioned before should get a repeated link, but certainly not a repeated red link. I'd give no first names to those mentioned before, reminding readers that they should know them.
  • Fixed. I translated one of those bios, and a number of others were faulty links (oops). –Vami
  • I don't understand the "also" in the sentence about the interior, nor what "Baroque influences" means.
  • Fixed sentence. I removed "Baroque" from the sentence and added a semicolon to punctuate the "also", a reference to the mix of Baroque styles that is the palace exteriors. –Vami
  • "King Frederick I, at the time Duke Frederick II" - I think "Duke Frederick II" would be better.
  • Done. –Vami

Sorry, the whole paragraph strike me as unconvincing. Perhaps I should read first what follows. An overview of the styles, perhaps with some years attached, is desirable, but a load of unknown names is not that. Tired, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll consider methods of expanding/improving the paragraph as you dictate. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The deed is done. How does it read now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Much better, thank you! - How about - once we are next to the plan, say which part was made by whom when - at least for major parts as Alter and Neuer Hauptbau? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
By ruler (Eberhard Louis built all the exteriors) or by architect? Both? I also cover that, building by building, in the following sections. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I am sure it will come in the details, but here is the plan, and here you could make the connections of architect, year and building, but only for important ones. That could actually also go to the lead then, pleasing Dr. Blofeld. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
In the lead now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Reading again:

  • Can we avoid repetitions more, Baroque, Czech Baroque, more Czech. - I wonder if Bohemian would be more precise.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Prague and Vienna come as a surprise after we heard of French and Italian.
    Can you elaborate? –Vami
    We heard about many influences from France and Italy, and then are told that it resembles places in Prague and Vienna, - wouldn't that fit the Bohemian influence better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    I've added a footnote detailing that Bohemian influence - does that help? –Vami
  • Can we avoid "whose work Eberhard Louis was familiar with"?
    Removed. –Vami
  • Where would Neoclassical begin?
    Where in the prose...? –Vami
    Yes. I began a new paragraph for rococo, and a third would be good for neoclassical, only where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
    Ah. I've moved the Rococo bit back into the first paragraph, since it was a single sentence, and gave the whole second paragraph to the Neoclassical. –Vami

North wing

  • "At the top of the stairs is a guard room and then the beletage's four suites, following the French Baroque model of a living room, audience chamber, and bedroom". Don't we need "are" (not "is") fofr more than one? I only count to 3, not 4, in the model.
  • No. There is one guard room, hence "is". I've made some revision to the sentence(s; I split the quoted material). –Vami
  • "Eberhard Louis's apartment is made unique by the addition of a hall of mirrors ..." - suggest: The apartment of EL features a unique hall of mirrors".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "houses the two galleries" - do we know them already? " houses two galleries"?
  • Oops. Removed. –Vami
  • General: How about using this paragraph to once more connect the German terms from the plan to what they mean in English, and in the later paragraphs use one or the other, without repeating the translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe you are referring to the "Eastern/Western Galleries" here. Since they're not named on the map nor a major part of the palace, I've taken their title-case names away. –Vami

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

  • "piece of clockwork" - why "piece of"? link "clockwork"?
  • As it turns out, that piece of clockwork is actually all the clockwork from Zwiefalten. Fixed now. –Vami
  • "joined to it"? - "connected to it"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • Why north wing, but Western Gallery? Add German names for galleries?
  • "peacetime - warfare"? Peace - War?
  • Done. –Vami
  • link the virtues, or Virtues?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Above the entire gallery is Colomba's Gigantomachy", - I'd offer a bit of explanation, what it is (ceiling freco?) and what it shows, - yes, there's a link, but I had no idea before clicking.
  • Added. –Vami

East wing

  • not sure how a building can begin a wing, as in the first sentence.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti, preserved from the 1720s" - I think saying something was different style and then back to the former is fine, but "on the ceiling of the beletage by Leopoldo Retti from the 1720s" would imply it was there all the time, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
    This is the Östlicher Kavaliersbau, not the Riesenbau. –Vami
     ?? We are under East wing, and the question is: do we need the "preserved"?
    Axed both instances of "preserved". –Vami
  • "Joined to the Riesenbau and Östlicher Kavaliersbau by a connecting room on its southern end is the Schlosskapelle" - please no, just to Germanish. Begin with Schlosskapelle, and use joined or connected?
  • Removed instead (couldn't make work). –Vami
  • King David is a redirect, and the story possibly begins before he was King, - how about David?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of the Apostles", - no, "restricted by Protestant doctrine to illustrations of biblical topics, such as Apostles ..." - link Apostles? - If it's Protestant it was not consecrated.
  • Done. The Apostles was already linked.
  • "Beneath the chapel is a crypt that contains all rulers" - how about "A crypt under the chapel is the burial site of all rulers"?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided ..." no, - a chapel can't avoid ;)
  • I... Done. –Vami
  • I boldly rephrased the ceiling fresco thing, please check and revert ;) - too tired to go step by step. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thankee. –Vami

West wing

  • Can you introduce the order right after "Ordensbau", for the connection?
  • Done. –Vami
  • "King Frederick I's" - looks strange. "... of King Frederick I"?
  • Changed to "the king's". –Vami
  • "due to the difficulty in transporting resources" - what? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Axed sentence. –Vami

South wing

  • The sentence about the servant passages comes as a surprise after we reached 1945 already.
  • Couldn't find a place to fit this, so I axed it. –Vami
  • "It is home to a statue" - not sure it's the best way to say that.
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "Next are the grand staircases" - same, "next" in what respect?
  • Removed all instances of "next" like this. –Vami
  • At the end of the sentence beginning "Pilasters and windows", I don't know what I read. Split? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed. –Vami

Grounds and gardens

  • "Surrounding the residential palace on three sides are the 32-hectare (79-acre) Blooming Baroque (Blühendes Barock) gardens, which attract 520,000 to 550,000 visitors annually." - Please no. I suggest we first learn about the gardens and their history, then about the strange name which sounds like a marketing name, and then about that the marketing worked. When were the gardens called Blühendes Barock? (A name which is pure nonsense.) And by whom?
  • "The gardens were to be focused" - hard to believe ;)
  • Changed to "centered". –Vami
  • Why south wing but South Garden? Actually I'd understand South Wing, as sort of a name. We just debated Luther monument vs. Luther Monument, ending with the latter.
  • Reduced garden stature. –Vami
  • "collection of broderie parterres, bosquets, and an orangery" - not sure that can be called a collection
  • Axed because who cares. –Vami
  • didn't we link the dukes often enough?
  • Enacted a link-pocalypse. –Vami
  • "filling in the North Garden's terraces to replace it with a large broderie" - replace "them" (the terraces)
  • Rewrote. –Vami
  • what are hillocks? link?
  • Link added. –Vami
  • "the garden east" - not sure we can say that, and the sentence in which it occurs is good for three
  • Also rewrote. Rewrites everywhere. –Vami
  • "the Hohenstaufens" - can we please avoid an English plural for a German word?
  • Changed to "House of Hohenstaufen". –Vami
  • Frederick I and/or II - I keep being confused (dropped him once)
  • Axed to just Frederick I, continuity be damned. –Vami
  • "which easily became a permanent landmark" - what does "easily" add?
  • Removed. Sorry about that, I guess the flowery writing of the Blooming Baroque website infected me. –Vami
  • "40 recreations of fairy tales" - recreations? - I suggest to find a way to link fairy-tale the first time, and be consistent about hyphen or space. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Hyphen added to "fairy-tale" as per Blooming Baroque website theme. –Vami


  • The repetition explaining history is too long for my taste.
  • Reduced. –Vami
  • "leaving only the road to the main palace" - what does "leaving" mean here?
  • Reworded sentence. –Vami
  • another link to that king, and the the following?
  • Axed. –Vami
  • "appointed an elector in 1803 and made a king in 1806" - "made" sounds rather infomal ;)
  • Changed to "and then a king in 1806". –Vami


  • "making it one of the largest in Europe" - I guess we need to say the largest what
  • Done. –Vami
  • I'd unpipe the manufacturers of porcelain, they have good names.
  • I think the sentence, "It also includes porcelain from the manufactories at Meissen, Berlin, Sèvres, and Vienna", works fine. It denotes those links as to manufacturies. Unpiping the links would lead to a lot of "[place] porcelain factory" in English and French. –Vami
  • do something about these stone sculptors of only local prominence, perhaps no link and just two names, - the French one has at least commons images.
  • I've banished the Ferettis and fixed the link to Johann Wilhelm Beyer. –Vami

General: the alt texts for images are not yet really telling a blind person what can be seen, - and could you help finding the ill-links for German, Italian, Danish ... people? - The ALT texts for this one, please, ill-links in the next FAC, or actually for all articles you write. Did you see that one of them turned blue, thanks to LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Understood. On it. Will update on completion. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Finished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Thank you for great willingness to change. You may go over the alt texts once more, the queens is more visible as described than Casanova, but that's no reason not to support. Good luck! Let's get to Schloss Köthen ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • Intending to review the prose here. ceranthor 14:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "In 2017, the palace attracted over 350,000 visitors." - "more than" probably works better than "over" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Philipp Joseph Jenisch, Johann Friedrich Nette, and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni " - presumably architects, but only the last has a link suggesting that... might add "architects" before listing their names
  • Added. –Vami
  • "It then survived World War II intact, the only palace of its kind to do so," - seems a bit vague - of its "kind" meaning what?
  • Changed to "It survived [...] of its size". –Vami
  • "Meanwhile, Nette began the interior of the Alter Hauptbau, which he would never finish. " - not sure that meanwhile adds much here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "Nette made two trips to Prague and his native Brandenburg to expand his pool of talent, in 1708 hiring fresco painter Johann Jakob Stevens von Steinfels (de), stucco workers Tomasso Soldati and Donato Giuseppe Frisoni, then Andreas Quitainner in 1709, then Luca Antonio Colomba, Riccardo Retti and Diego Francesco Carlone." - seems like a run-on
  • Whittled down a bit. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 to 1733" - be consistent; stick to dash ranges or writing out X "to" Y
  • Done. If more than one year, I use "[year] to [year]". –Vami
  • "Charles Eugene began the construction of a new ducal residence in Stuttgart in 1746, but continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" - I'd cut the comma before "but continued"
  • Done. –Vami
  • "La Guêpière completed the Schlosstheater from 1758 to 1759,[32] adding a stage, machinery, and the auditorium.[33] A wooden opera house, adorned with mirrors, was constructed in 1764–65, located east of the Alter Hauptbau.[4]" - same note as above with date ranges
  • Done. –Vami
  • "In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart and made no more modifications to Ludwigsburg from 1770 onward." - I think this is an uncommon use of "onward", which usually refers to physical direction IMO. I'd replace with "after 1770" or something more prosaic
  • Did both. –Vami
  • "Charlotte continued to reside at Ludwigsburg and received many notable visitors from across Europe, among them some of her siblings.[39]" - seems a bit vague to not name any of these visitors
  • Sources don't list any so I shrank the sentence instead. –Vami
  • "In the early 1930s, Wilhelm Krämer (de) began hosting the Ludwigsburger Schloßkonzerte (Ludwigsburg Palace Concerts), which comprised six to ten concerts annually from 1933 to 1939, performed in the Order Hall, the Ordenskapelle, or the courtyard.[44]" - might split off the last bit following "performed..." into a separate sentence
  • Banished to the Shadow Realm instead. –Vami
  • "who were educated in and experienced with Czech Baroque architecture and hired staff also experienced in that style.[16]" - I'd cut out the "also"; seems unnecessary for comprehension
  • Done. –Vami
  • "His friend and partner Antonio Isopi" - business partner, or romantic/sexual?
  • Fixed, "working partner". –Vami
  • "more grounded Classical form that would then be carried out by Johannes Klinckerfuß" - who is this? there's no article, so you should give a brief identifier for the lay reader (aka me)
  • Done. –Vami
  • " In 1810, the rooms on the beletage were remodeled in Neoclassical," - missing the word "style", perhaps?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "built from 1715 to 1719 to house courtiers" - is "to" the right word here?
  • Done, changed to "for housing courtiers". –Vami
  • "The Schlosskapelle avoided major remodeling in the 19th century and is today the most original area of the palace.[69][18]" - bit vague what you mean by original here. I think you mean not restored, but it's not crystal clear IMO
  • Axed. –Vami
  • "The final and southernmost part of the east wing is the 490 feet (150 m) long Ahnengalerie," - Should be foot, not feet. Add "|adj=on" to the conversion template and that should fix it.
  • Missed that, added. –Vami
  • "The Ordenskapelle was given its current appearance from 1746 to 1748 by Johann Christoph David Leger" - "given its current appearance"? What does this mean?
  • Also axed. –Vami
Grounds and gardens
  • "which attract 520–550,000 visitors annually." - previously, when listing date ranges, you've shortened the latter number rather than the first. keep it consistent throughout
  • Done. –Vami
  • "and attracted over 500,000 visitors by the end of May" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "but was restored true to form from 1972 to 1982.[109]" - "true to form" meaning?
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "around 400 paintings" - about, not around
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "over 4,500 exhibits of examples of porcelain, ceramics, faience, and pottery" - more than, not over
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "children over four years of age about life" - same as above
  • Changed to "four years of age or older". –Vami
  • Restating this, but be consistent with either dash ranges for dates/years or writing out X "to" Y
  • Since fixed, I think. If work took place within two years, I use a dash. If not, the latter. –Vami
  • Refs should be in ascending order for consistency's sake - ie., for "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[4][2]", it should be "Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4]". Let me know if that needs clarifying.
  • Done. –Vami
  • Might need some WP:NBSPs - an example would be the break seen here "Michael Hörrmann, the director of the State Agency for Palaces and Gardens, valued the portrait at a minimum of €1 million.[50]"; or here "the Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Palaces and Gardens plans to have spent €4 million to sort out and restore some 500 paintings, 400 pieces of furniture, and 500 lamps, clocks, and sculptures,"
  • Lots of duplicated links throughout the article body - suggest installing this tool to help!
  • I have written a very long article and don't want readers scrolling up to get at pertinent links. I have, at least, restricted myself to a single link per section. –Vami
See MOS:DUPLINK; there should generally only be one link in the entire body section. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Used the tool you gave to vaporize a lot of duplinks, reducing links to one per body section (Architecture, History, etc.). –Vami

Besides a few concerns about vague wording, I think this is engaging and in good shape. Comments above. ceranthor 18:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides the duplinks, I'm satisfied. I need to run through and read again to see if I missed any prose issues. ceranthor 14:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing so far! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Final thoughts
  • "The palace attracted more than 350,000 visitors in 2017." - I'd move this to the end of the third paragraph of the lead; I don't think it flows well in its current location
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing construction for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." - repetition of construction is distracting
  • Fixed, removed second "construction". –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12]" - such passive voice here, and too much separation between the subject and verb for such a short sentence
  • Unpacified. –Vami
  • "Opposition to the palace itself was found at the ducal court because of Ludwigsburg's cost.[12] The populace also chafed at the palace's cost, one pastor in nearby Oßweil (de) saying at his pulpit, "May God spare our land the chastising that the Ludwigsburg brood of sinners conjure."[4]" - perhaps combine the two sentences and make them more concise?
  • Done. Still two sentences, but now the second is supporting the first rather than being its own thing. –Vami
  • "The Bildergalerie was decorated in 1731–32, while the Ahnengalerie was likewise decorated from 1731 1733." - missing an endash / two inconsistent date range styles
  • Simplified sentence, greater detail in "Architecture". –Vami
  • "As the master builder of what was now decried as the "sin palace", Frisoni and Paolo Retti " - should this be "master builders"?
  • Changed to "central figures in the construction of [...]" –Vami
  • "With his death, the nine-year-old Charles Eugene became Duke, beginning a regency that lasted until 1744.[29]" - I might substitute "after" for "With" here
  • Done. –Vami
  • "The palace's first restoration took place at the Alter Hauptbau in 1865.[42]" - any records of what happened between 1865 and the public opening?
  • No. My source jumps to 1939 from there. –Vami

Got about halfway through. Can post more once these are finished. Still noticing inconsistencies for date ranges and other stylistic things like that. ceranthor 14:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Final thoughts (continued)
  • "Today's gardens were created in 1954 and arranged in a Baroque style for Ludwigburg's 250th birthday.[93] " - "today's" reads oddly to me... maybe better as "the current" or "the contemporary" gardens?
  • Axed as redundant sentence. –Vami
  • "The gardens comprise smaller themed gardens and the Fairy-Tale Garden (Märchengarten)," - "garden" is repeated three times in such close proximity here
  • Removed. –Vami
  • "which contains a folly and depictions of some fairy tales.[94] " - any details on which fairy tales? brief mention couldn't hurt
  • Added three examples. –Done
  • "From 1797, Duke Frederick II revived the South Garden in a Neoclassical style by dividing it into four equally sized lawns with a Mediterranean theme." - From 1797 until when?
  • Changed to "Around 1797", the source only gives 1797 for a date. –Vami
  • "The canal was filled in, maintenance reduced, and an orchard planted on the southern lawns that was later used to grow potatoes.[101]" - something about this sentence doesn't sit right with me
  • Revised. –Vami
  • "ensuring the future of the Blooming Baroque gardens.[102]" - might add "continuity" or something like that after "future"?
  • Added. –Vami
  • "and since 1995 one of the original stage pieces has been used for the Children's Stage (Junge Bühne).[33][127]" - one of the lights? bit vague here
  • A-ha, my source has some more information. The "original stage pieces" referred to a winter background. Added now. –Vami

ceranthor 20:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • " Charles Eugene was the next duke to reside at Ludwigsburg from 1747," - same issue as above with "from" with no end date
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • "and brought the Rococo style with him." - what does this mean?...
  • Axed and moved into next sentence. –Vami
  • "Within the palace itself are two museums operated by the Landesmuseum Württemberg and dedicated to fashion and porcelain." - I'd add respectively assuming these two museums focus on fashion and porcelain, respectively
  • Added. –Vami
  • Still going thru and checking date range consistencies. ceranthor 15:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing some of those! –Vami
  • The bit about WWII in the lead doesn't appear to be backed up in the text itself. ceranthor 14:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Removed. –Vami

Support on 1a. Sorry for the delay and my onslaught of comments. Great work! ceranthor 13:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Just a quick passing comment, the lede looks very short for an FA quality article, I don't see any summary of the architecture for instance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I gave the lead a can of spinach and it seems to have bulked up pretty good. Now contains an abbreviated architectural history of the palace. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
It was more some of the architectural details I was looking for, an FA quality article ideally needs to have a summary of each major section written into the lead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added some detail about each wing to the lead's first paragraph. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "later used as a residency" What does residency mean here - residence?
  • Fixed. –Vami
  • Construction began in 1704 with Philipp Joseph Jenisch directing for Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg." This is clumsy. Maybe "Eberhard Louis, Duke of Württemberg, appointed Philipp Joseph Jenisch to direct the work and construction began in 1704."
  • Added. –Vami
  • "Ludwigsburg Palace was opened to the public in 1918. The next year, and 100 years prior, it was where the constitutions of the Free People's State and Kingdom of Württemberg (respectively) were ratified." This is confusing. Maybe "Two constitutions were ratified in the palace, that of the Kingdom of Württemberg in 1819 and the Free People's State in 1919. The palace was opened to the public in 1918.
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Following the Battle of Blenheim,[2] Eberhard Louis spent the remainder of 1705 and early 1706 in Nymphenburg Palace.[3] Inspired by Munich and Versailles,[2][4] and having a pretext for a new palace in the Erlachhof,[5] Eberhard Louis renamed the estate Ludwigsburg (Louis's Castle) in 1705 and began studying the architectural trends of his day.[6] Eberhard Louis sent the theologian Philipp Joseph Jenisch [de] to study architecture abroad in 1703 and made him director of construction on his return the next year." This is confusing. You say "the remainder of 1705" but remainder after what? Presumably the battle of Blenheim, but you have not stated the date of the battle and why is it relevant where he stayed? It seems odd to say that the destruction of a hunting lodge was a pretext for building a palace. You then imply that Eberhard Louis was planning the palace in 1705-6 but go back to say in 1703.
  • "established it as the capital of the Duchy of Württemberg" I think "designated" would be better than "established".
  • Done. –Vami
  • "Jenisch returned to Württemberg and began construction from Weiss's plans in 1704" What happened to Weiss? Was Jenisch only instructed to complete Weiss's modest manor house? Why would he have been sent abroad to learn if that was all he was doing? These points need clarifying.
  • "A pastor in nearby Oßweil [de] said of the palace at his pulpit" When?
  • "Nette based his plans on those of Jenisch" But as I pointed out above you say that Jenisch was building Weiss's modest manor house.
  • It would be easier to follow the construction section if the plan was higher up and larger.
  • "the building authority was aligned with him" What does this mean.
  • "so Frisoni brought on Giacomo Antonio Corbellini" I would say "brought in".
  • "decorated from 1731 1733" Presumably between 1731 and 1733.
  • "continued to use Ludwigsburg as a secret residence until 1775" Why secret?
  • Removed "secret". –Vami
  • "In 1764, Charles Eugene moved the ducal residence back to Stuttgart" You have not said that it had been earlier moved from Stuttgart.
  • "Ludwigsburg Palace had already been the residence of Frederick II since 1795,[4] who made it his summer residence.[32] On 18 May 1797, the duke married Charlotte, daughter of King George III, at St James's Palace in Westminster.[34] They used Ludwigsburg as their summer residence" Repetition of "residence" three times and "summer" twice.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the Nashville Sounds[edit]

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Nashville Sounds Minor League Baseball team that has played in Nashville, Tennessee, since 1978. It is currently listed as a Good Article, and I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured Article. I have put a lot of work into this article and am prepared to quickly address any issues. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • A quick look shows that the prose is good. I was expecting to trash it. Tony (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC) PS I'd insert a comma after "logo" in the upppermost caption. Tony (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – I reviewed this article and copy-edited it during the first FAC, and I'm glad to see that the prose has received some praise. Having checked the additions to the article since the first FAC, everything added appears to be at the same level as the content present when I last saw the article; I only made one minor change in the new material. Overall, I think that all aspects of this article are now up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to lead the Southern League in attendance in each of their seven years as members of the league. - repetitive. Can we phrase part of this a different way? "draw the largest crowds"? or something similar?
  • ...began to be outshined by newer state-of-the-art ballparks being built in the late 1980s - I suspect "state-of-the-art" is redundant here..?

These are very minor issues - looking good Support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Casliber:I changed the first bit to "The Sounds led all of Minor League Baseball in attendance in their inaugural season and continued to draw the Southern League's largest crowds in each of their seven years as members of the league." ... "state-of-the-art" has been removed from the second. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


Support great article; comprehensive, in-depth and thoroughly referenced. The only thing that jumps out at me is that, in your images, you use pixels to determine their size, whereas, for the purpose of universality, uprights are prefered. If you haven't come across them, that's —and on that note, since your lede image effectively replaces an infobox (nothing wrong with that of course), I'd suggest enlarging it. Maybe by ~50%, as I did here (but then self-reverted). ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not very familiar with the use of uprights, but after a look at the related MOS, I assigned upright values to all images (1.3 to the lede per your suggestion, 0.8 to portrait images, and 1.2 to most landscape images). I welcome any editor to adjust the values as they deem fit. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Starting source review:

  • Ref 141 is a dead link
  • I replaced this with an existing reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Some references to give Nashville Sounds as the website and Minor League Baseball as the publisher, while others that seem similar give Minor League Baseball as the website. Is there a reason for this variation?
  • Where the page is located on the team's page, it's listed as website=Nashville Sounds & publisher=Minor League Baseball. Where it is not within the team's portion of the larger, its just MiLB as the website. I also went back and made this usage consistent through the article. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can you explain why would be considered a high-quality reliable source?
  • I replaced this reference with others. (FWIW, through my knowledge of the team, I know the information presented there to be factual.) NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The references usually have the publisher as Sports Reference, but in some cases the publisher is missing. This should be consistent (you shouldn't need the 'LLC' for references).
  • Refs 162-164 are to The Clink Room, which is the blog of a pair of designers who work on team branding. Even if this can be treated as a reliable source (which I doubt), the posts linked are to pictures of draft logos. If the textual narrative about what the design team was asked to do is based on these images, then that would seem to be original research.
  • I replaced this with a team-published source supporting the possible renaming. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

More to come, but those were the first concerns I noticed. --RL0919 (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC) Added two more to the list. --RL0919 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies above; these changes look good. Spot checks for verification and paraphrasing have checked out OK. I only have a few additional notes:

  • There are several references to Sounds souvenir programs. This type of material is relatively difficult to obtain for verification, but given that other sourcing has checked out so far, I assume these are all good.
  • One of the references to these programs, ref 124, is formatted with the title in quotes. The others are in italics. These should be consistent.
  • A few of the titles for sources are in sentence case instead of title case. For example (but not limited to), refs 41, 160, 171. Suggest you do a sweep to use title case consistently.

Pending the format cleanup items, this looks good for sourcing. --RL0919 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @RL0919: The above formatting inconsistencies have been remedied. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Packers sweep[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Green Bay Packers of the 1960s were one of the most dominant teams in the history of professional football. Under coach Vince Lombardi the Packers won five NFL Championships in seven years–including the first two Super Bowls. Thirteen Packers who played for Lombardi were later elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, with Lombardi entering shortly after his death in 1970. Much of this success can be traced to the philosophy of Vince Lombardi: teamwork, hard work, and the pursuit of excellence. Nothing better exemplifies these traits than the Packers sweep: a power running play that Lombardi's Packers perfected.

As this is my first WP:FAC, I was cautious to make sure this article was properly reviewed before the nomination. The article was first reviewed during its DYK nomination and time on the Main Page. It was then reviewed by The Guild of Copyeditors before its subsequent GA review. Finally, it was reviewed by a WP:FAC mentor to make sure nothing else had been missed. Thank you to Sportsfan77777, Casliber, Twofingered Typist, The Rambling Man, and others for their assistance.

Thank you for taking the time to review the article at WP:FAC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


  • "The basic tenets of the Packers sweep are derived from the power sweep, a play developed before its use by the Packers" Tenet means a belief or principle. I also think it needs to be reworded." How about "The Packers sweep is based on the sweep, a football play that involves a back taking a handoff and running parallel to the line of scrimmage before turning upfield behind lead blockers."
  • Thanks Clikity, I made the suggested change here. Note I changed the "Packers sweep" that starts the next sentence to "The play" to avoid repeating "the Packers sweep" three times in a row. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Support Tony seems to have fixed the little issues with the prose. The citations and sources look good, so I think you're good to go when the image review ends. A good read. Clikity (talk) 19:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg: looks like the source link is dead - when and where was this image first published? Same with File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg: can you say more about the source for this image and what makes it reliable? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I have uploaded a new version of File:Vince_lombardi_bart_starr.jpg using this version as the source. Note I archived it here and included that link on the Commons description page so that this issue does not happen again. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns.
  • I replaced File:Jim_Taylor_1967.JPG with File:Taylor 1961 Topps.jpg. Let me know if this is satisfactory to you.
  • File:Packers_sweep_diagram.svg was created by me using Method Draw. Although I based the graphic on an image I found online, I have change the source on the description page to one that is more reliable and is included in the article that still is consistent with the diagram I created. I also believe that the article and numerous sources support the reliability of the diagram. Let me know if this satisfies your concerns. Thanks for the review Nikkimaria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:00, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Fine with the latter two - for the first, would still like to know publication date, don't see that at given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, I will continue to search for said publication date, but as of now I have been unable to locate it. It appears to be from the same series of photos from other Packers (see File:Bart starr bw.jpg, for example). Not an expert on photos by any means, so any advice would be appreciated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looks like it has been published elsewhere (eg) - these may have more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria, the book you linked was published in 2017 and uses that picture as the e-book cover. My guess is that the author pulled that photo from the web, and most likely does not own a copyright on the photo. Have you found it anywhere else? All of my searching has come up empty. My best guess is that is was taken by Vernon Biever or a similar Packers photographer, but that is just a guess. Lombardi coached the Packers from 1959 to 1967, and he passed away in 1970. So we can reliably conclude that the range listed on the description page is correct. If we are unable to get the exact date or year, will the range suffice? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue is not when the image was created, but when it was published, as that's what is typically used to determine copyright in the US. If you haven't yet, you could try a reverse image search? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I did try a reverse image search, among other things. Still no luck. Let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In that case you may need to remove the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


1a Support: well-written indeed.

  • "He played football at Fordham University, on a football scholarship,[5] and was part of the "Seven Blocks of Granite", a nickname for the team's offensive line." Bumpy commas. Do we need the one after "University"?
  • "where he continued to develop a better understanding of the sweep, especially pulling offensive linemen and having the ball carriers cut-back towards openings in the line". Just a suggestion: "especially the techniques of"?
  • I'd dump the comma after "seasons", but wouldn't complain if you wanted to retain it. But the one after "West Point"? "Blaik's emphasis on players executing their job and the military discipline of West Point, greatly influenced Lombardi's future coaching style." Looks like an error that crept in when the -ing grammar was changed.
  • Rather long sentence: "He positioned his lineman with greater space between each other,[9] had offensive tackles pull from the line and implemented an early variant of zone blocking (blockers are expected to block a "zone" instead of an individual defender), which required the ball carrier to run the football wherever there was space.[8]" Again, only a suggestion: "... defender); this required".
  • "Under his offensive leadership, assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956." Consider this: "Under his offensive leadership and assisted by his defensive counterpart Tom Landry, Lombardi helped guide the Giants to an NFL Championship in 1956."
  • "Even though the Packers had not been successful for years, Lombardi inherited a team with five future Pro Football Hall of Famers." Query: this only unfolded later, right? It was not easy to predict at the time. If so, you might imply that in the wording: "inherited a team in which five players would go on to be", or something like that.
  • Here, you use a serial comma, which I very much like: "He immediately instituted a rigorous training routine, implemented a strict code of conduct, and demanded the team continually strive for perfection in everything they did." Why not in the sentence I quote in the fourth point, above?
  • I'd hyphenate just here to avoid the meaning of "primary ball". Non-experts will wonder. "primary ball-carrier"
  • Why the hyphen? "The center had to cut-off the defensive tackle".
  • Slipped in. A "cut-off block" is usually hyphenated, but in this use it definitely shouldn't be. Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You do need a comma here: "This was due to the right guard (when the play was run to the right side of the field) who would vacate this space while pulling to lead the ball carrier."
  • "whether to push the play to the outside or to the inside of the tight end"
  • Removed. I also reordered because "inside or outside" sounds better than "outside or inside". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Perfect use of marked theme (unusual initial positioning): "For nine seasons Lombardi ran the Packers sweep with great success." Unmarked would have "for nine seasons" at the end. Nice.
  • Same issue as two up: "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses, or would run variations of the sweep" -> "Lombardi would either attack other weaknesses or run variations of the sweep"
  • Why the first comma, when the rest is a nest of seething commas? "At times, he would change the play to go to the left side, have various blockers not pull, switch the ball carrier or direction of the run, or have option pass plays, each of which could be run out the sweep formation." You don't use interrupting dashes—why not??? "plays—each of which" would be an improvement. The formulaic comma after short initial time/adverbial/prepositional phrase ... please question each use: "Throughout his tenure Lombardi ...". And you do need a comma before "who" (several of these I've commented on).
  • Removed the first comma. Not good comma usage. Added a dash per your recommendation (I have to admit, I am a dash noob). I checked all the remaining instances of "who" and I believe they all are fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bumpy and awkward: "Starr, who as the quarterback orchestrated the play, and Taylor, were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays." -> "Both Starr (who as the quarterback orchestrated the play) and Taylor were essential to variations of the sweep that called for different runners or option pass plays."
  • Just for comparison, the first comma here is good. Why? "In addition to the Hall of Famers, Lombardi's teams included"
  • In response Lombardi would ...
  • Serial comma missing in one place, not in the other: "The team won three straight championships in 1965, 1966 and 1967—only the second team to accomplish this feat (the other being the 1929, 1930, and 1931 Packers)." See the dash I've used instead of your comma? It marks an afterthought here.
  • Never love the noun-plus-ing: "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep being called one of the most famous football plays in history." -> "This dominance and continued success has led to the Packers sweep's reputation as one of the most famous football plays in history."?

Good. Minor adjustments to writing style, and please write more articles! Love the technical depth. And memo to FAC more generally: my comments concern the whole article text, not just the lead and a bit more. Tony (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and review Tony1! I believe I have addressed all of your comments above (diff). Sorry, for, all, of, my, comma-related, issues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope to write my first writing tutorial page since the year dot, entitled Comma workshop. It's the biggest issue I'm finding at FAC more broadly—more than in the academic text I edit. I don't know why. Best. Tony (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and (tentatively) comprehensiveness (I am no expert on American football so will leave that to the experts. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments – While the article is on the short side for an FAC candidate, it does appear to comprehensively cover the subject. I didn't review the sourcing in detail, but it appears high-quality at a glance. I just have a handful of comments, with only a couple that I would call significant.

  • I don't see much support for the final sentence of the lead in the body of the article. There's nothing that I can see about Lombardi, or coaches/commentators, identifying this as an element of success. The content in the relevant section is actually more direct than the lead in making this point. Since the sentence isn't supported at the moment, either relevant content should be added to that section backing the sentence or it should be rewritten to better reflect the body.
  • The sweep: I was under the impression that we usually used one word for "half back", not two. That's how our article presents it, at least.
  • Lombardi era: Minor point, but the links for guard and center could be moved up to the previous section, since the terms both appear there.
  • The second link to Pro Football Hall of Fame in this section is a duplicate and therefore not necessary.
  • Legacy: "Lombardi and his sweep led the Packers to five NFL championships (including Super Bowls I and II)." This is somewhat misleading because the first several Super Bowls were held after the NFL Championship Game (indeed, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings won the next two NFL championships, but each lost in the Super Bowl). A rewording here and the lead is in order, because it sounds like the Super Bowls were the NFL championship games back then when that isn't the case.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Reworded using "as well as". Thanks for the review Giants2008. I believe I have responded to and addressed all of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – That does it for my comments. A nice little article which deserves the star, assuming the source review turns up no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review and spot check by Amakuru[edit]

  • Formatting looks good. Consistently uses sfn for refs where multiple page numbers are used and direct cites for others.
  • Date format is consistently "Month Day, Year"
  • David Maraniss (When Pride Still Mattered: A Life of Vince Lombardi) - is it really useful to have a link to a section on a page which just mentions the book's title only?
    • The only reason I included them is that they both are redirects with possibilities, so if someone (maybe me) someday writes an article on either book, they would already be linked. It doesn't bother me either way, so let me know how best to proceed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Run to Daylight - ditto.
  • Ref links:
    • All links, including archive links, are active
    • Ref 24 has a title "Pro Football Hall of Famers by Team" but the actual title on the page is "Hall of Famers by Franchise"
    • Ref 26 - title is "NFL Champions 1920-2015" (year range isn't included in the cite)
  • Bibliography: Two books have a location, two do not.
    • Fixed. Green Bay Packers: The Complete Illustrated History - Third Edition does not provide a publisher location via the Google Ebook I have access to. Don't have a hard copy. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Spot checks - two possible issues found in eleven refs spotchecked. Coords please let me know if that means I need to check anything else. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Ref 1 (Gruver p1)
      • Statement a back, typically the halfback or running back, takes a pitch or handoff from the quarterback and starts running parallel to the line of scrimmage - I'm not quite seeing the source backing this up. Perhaps it's my lack of understanding of American football terminology, but the source doesn't mention halfbacks or the term "parallel" anywhere.
        • The paragraph that supports this statement is as follows:
The pulling guards formed a convoy around end, with the lead guard taking out the cornerback and the offside guard picking up the middle linebacker or outside linebacker. The center executed a cutoff block on the defensive tackle, and the onside offensive tackle popped the defensive end and then sealed off the middle linebacker. The blocking back lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end, and the tight end drove the outside linebacker in the direction he wanted to go. If the linebacker made an inside move, the tight end rode him in that direction and the runner hit outside. If the linebacker went outside, the tight end moved with him and the runner cut inside.[23]
The statement "parallel to the line of scrimmage" is a clearer way of stating "formed a convoy around end" and "lead the ballcarrier into the hole with a down block on the defensive end." The idea is that instead of a typical running play where the runner runs straight forward, the sweep has the runner run parallel to the line of scrimmage (the line that the center, guards, and tackles line up on) until a hole is opened by one of the blockers. Halfback is not specifically stated in that paragraph, but it is noted in the last paragraph of that page that Paul Hornung, the primary runner of the Packers sweep, is a halfback. I see this statement as an uncontroversial clarifying statement that helps clarify the differences in positions from the 1960s to today (it was common to just use the term "back" in the 1960s, while today running back or halfback, to an extent, are more common). Let me know if you believe this requires further clarification or additional sourcing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Ref 3 (Gulbrandsen) supports the three statements it references.
    • Ref 4 (Bell) looks good.
    • Ref 5 (Gruver p2) looks good.
    • Ref 11 (Jack Sell) looks good.
    • Ref 14 (Bob Fox)
      • Even though the Packers had not been successful for a number of years, Lombardi inherited a team in which five players would go on to be Pro Football Hall of Famers - the article mentions only four players who went on to the Hall of Fame. Kramer did not (much to the author's chagrin).
    • Ref 16 (Cliff Christl) looks good.
    • Ref 20 (Bruce Weber) looks good.
    • Refs 27-29 (hall of famers) good.
    • Unable to check Dunnavant, Lombardi/Heinz or Maraniss book refs (covering 2,9,10,17-19,21-23) as I don't have the books.
  • No close paraphrasing or copyvio issues noticed from the cited sources I reviewed.

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru. I believe I have replied to or addressed all of your comments. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, great thanks Gonzo fan2007. Your answers and clarification above have satisfied my concerns. I've watched quite a few football games from across the pond in the past few years, so I know a bit about the game but not the complex tactics that go on between linesmen on the opposing sides! Anyway, happy to support on the sources front. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Review by Wugapodes[edit]

At first glance I don't think I can support the article in its current state. I'll give my current impressions and will add more specific comments soon.

  • The section "The sweep" covers sweep plays in general without any coverage of this sweep play in particular or the way it differs from the typical sweep play.
    • Note that the "sweep" is different than the "Packers sweep". As the intro notes, the sweep came first, so a very brief overview of the sweep is warranted to set the stage for the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I agree that there should be coverage of what a general sweep play is, but at least in my reading of it, it's not clear what the Packers sweep is or how it differs from a typical sweep play, which is the subject of the article and what I expected from the section entitled "The sweep". The Gulbrandsen source at page 80 seems to touch a bit on how this play differed from a typical sweep I think, and the Cliff Christl source goes into detail about how to identify and distinguish a Packers Sweep. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I clarified in "The Sweep" section, first sentence, that the sweep forms the basis of the Packers sweep. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
          • I like it, though I rephrased it slightly to (1) put the article subject as the focus of the sentence and (2) make it clear we're talking about a sweep play not the Packers sweep. Feel free to revert or modify if you want to improve it futher.
  • The first two paragraphs of the "Lombardi era" feel like coats as they provide almost no information about the play or even its development, instead focusing on the career of Vince Lombardi.
    • I disagree. The sources that focus solely on the "Packers sweep" all trace the plays development to Vince Lombardi's early coaching career. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You're right to disagree, after a few more readings I think this comment originally mischaracterized the section, I've tried to make a more accurate point below. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What's "basic power running"? That should be clear as it's used in the first sentence of a section.
    • I reworded it, although I believe the words "basic power running" are as simple as can be easily stated and that any reader with any knowledge of ball sports would understand the meaning of the words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I like the rewording. While the original may be clear to people with knowledge of ball sports, our articles should be accessible and informative to those who aren't, and the new wording accomplishes that. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the "Legacy" section duplicates a lot of the information in the previous section.
    • In my experience, it is common in sports-related articles to include a section that summarizes the legacy of the person, place, or event. This sometimes requires reiterating—minimally—some facts already stated in the article to provide proper understanding of its true legacy. That said, if you have specific comments I am obviously open to revisions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • My issue is that the reiterated information isn't about the legacy of the play, it's about the contemporaneous impact of the play. Perhaps I misunderstand what is meant by "Legacy" but my interpretation is that it covers things that happened after the "Lombardi era" which the first paragraph doesn't do. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph of the "Legacy" section has too many coats. Thirteen packers were elected to the hall of fame, but not all were from the offense and so the only ones who would have run this play.
    • Again, this reinforces the most important aspect of the Packers sweep, that it epitomized the success of the NFL's first dynasty and the coaching career of one of its greatest coaches. The success of the Packers in the 1960s relied on the whole team functioning as a team, meaning that the success of the offenses feeds off the defense, and vice versa. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't disagree that the whole team was good, but the article is about the specific play, not the 1960s Packers. The success of the team was related to the defense, but the success of this particular play depended on the offense and not the defense (and a number of sources seem to support that such as the Gulbrandsen source which says "The Packers' offensive success in the Lobardi era largely revolved around ... the sweep."). It's not clear from the article or the sources I've read that non-offensive line players were implicated in the sweep beyond being on the same team that ran it. That said, I've edited my original comment because I realize I had misread the sentence, the 3 offensive players were MVPs, not related to the number of players elected to the Hall of Fame. Though looking at the list of inductees, there are some exclusively defensive players so I would still like the connection between this play and those defensive players clarified. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I want to go through the sources more thoroughly, but the last paragraph of the "Legacy" strikes me as attributing more to this play than is perhaps warranted. Presumably they won championships for reasons beyond a single play, the article even mentions other teams saw the success of the Packers being their players and training, so attribution of this success to this play singularly or substantially should be clear from the sourcing.
    • I would encourage you to go through the sources. They all make it clear that the Packers sweep was the defining play of the Packers in the 1960s, as well as the storied coaching career of Vince Lombardi. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • After reading some of the sources, I'm convinced and have struck, though see my other comments about the "Legacy" section. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I feel like there's a number of aspects missing from this article, namely how this play was countered, the effectiveness of those counters, whether it was picked up by other teams for use contemporaneously or after the fact. There's no specific examples of its use in a game or statistics on how successful it was in terms of offensive production.
    • Honestly, I can't write what isn't provided in reliable sources. Coverage of the NFL in the 1960s was vastly different than today, with unreliable statistics and almost no play-by-play analysis. The sources don't provide intricate details on how defenses countered the sweep; they mostly just note that defenses tried to defend the sweep particularly but usually failed because of the Packers execution or by Lombardi making slight changes to how the play was run. A few sources mention a specific instance where the play was run, but that doesn't really provide anything useful to the reader. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I think you'll find pages 3 and 4 of the Gruver source helpful in this regard. It discusses how Landry of the Cowboys developed the "Flex" defense as a direct counter, and gives a specific example of the alterations to the sweep which countered the flex defense. The first two pages of the Gulbrandsen source at page 80 also gives information on how a particular play-action pass would be used if a safety or linebacker was preparing for a sweep to the right. The Bob Fox source gives a primary source estimate of 8.3 yards a carry during the first 3 years of its use. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

At the end of the article, I don't feel like I understand what the play is beyond something Vince Lombardi made the Packers do. It seems to give excessive weight to things that are not the main subject of the article at the expense of content about the play itself. In general, I would like the information about the play proper to be more obvious and emphasized so that it's clear the article is about the play and not the 1959–67 Packers. Until then I'll need to oppose this nomination. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 19:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Wugapodes, I'll await your more specific comments. That said, I do disagree with most of your points above and would recommend you go through the sources more closely. This is especially true for the Ed Gruver source and Vince Lombardi's biography (if you have access to it), as they both go in depth on the impact of the play on the entire team. All of the other sources make it clear that the Packers sweep had a massive impact on the success of the team, both during the actual games and in developing their own mystique or identity. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gonzo fan2007: I've struck a number of my comments above and responded inline where I could, though I'll summarize and clarify some of my points here. To be specific, my concerns regard FA criteria 1b, 1d, and 4.
The article is very well researched and the sources are of high quality and show a good breadth and depth of coverage, however the article is not comprehensive in its coverage as major facts are excluded or not placed in context: it's not clear from the article how this play differs from other plays despite this being covered in the sources; major details such as specific counters and modifications to the play as described in sources are not adequately discussed; a clear description of the play is relegated to an image caption while a longer prose description comes in the 5th paragraph of the article and third in a section entitled "Lombardi era" and confusingly not in "The sweep". Above I provided places in some sources that I think could help remedy this.
The issue of 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length) are in this case closely intertwined and related to the proportion of coverage given to Lombardi and the Packers. While major details about the play are hard to find or not covered, a great deal is dedicated to the career of Lombardi to the point where it reads more like a biography of him than an article about the play proper. For example, there is a section named "Lombardi era" though there's no indication this was part of any other era, and is confusing given that the section is about the development of the sweep not exclusively Lombardi's time on the Packers. The first paragraph of that section includes a number of details about Vince Lombardi that don't contribute to the understanding of the play or its development such as him having a football scholarship to Fordham, the nickname of his college offensive line, the win record of a high school football team, and sentences about him further developing his coaching skills which add length but not information. This leads to a disproportion of coverage, with the article focusing heavily on the success of Lombardi and the Packers but with proportionally less coverage on the nominal subject of the article, the particular play. Removing some of the extraneous information about Lombardi not related to the development of this play would likely remedy this. A renaming of the section heading so that it is more informative (the play is not discussed in any other era, so "Lombardi era" doesn't give us much information as to what will be in the section) would also help.
With regards to 4, I'm also concerned about the use of summary style and the organization of information. The section "Lombardi era" starts in 1933, 20 years before he had an NFL coaching job. If a reader wanted to know how Lombardi used this play with the Packers, they'd need to skim through two paragraphs of biographical information before getting to what is typically known as the "Lombardi era". A restructure of the section so that the most important and general information comes first and specific details later in the section would help remedy this. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've added an additional section titled "Early development" to cover the earlier years prior to Lombardi coaching in the NFL and renamed the Lombardi era section. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I've looked at the changes since I first commented on the article and in general I'm satisfied that the issues I've raised are mostly resolved. I no longer oppose the nomination and so have struck those mentions. Where resolved, I've struck the original comment. I also made a couple edits to the page that I think would improve it further. These should be viewed as suggestions and you're free to revert if you don't like them. I moved the first paragraph, about Lombardi's time with the Giants, into the "early development" section because it seems to fit more with the development of the packers sweep than the implementation of the packers sweep. I also slightly tweaked the "The sweep" section so it's a little more clear. I still think some of my comments above could be dealt with more, but I see nothing worth holding up the nomination over. I enjoyed reviewing this article and learned a lot, thanks for putting your work out there. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 00:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

This is a very impressive FAC debut so far, testament to the value of good preparation...

  • As it is your first, Gonzo, we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go.
  • Also we'll need a regular source review for reliability and formatting, unless Clikity did it based on their comment at the top?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Phillip Davey[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is the third on a South Australian Victoria Cross recipient I've brought to FAC, part of an ongoing slow-burn project to get them all to FA. Davey was first awarded the Military Medal for bravery after rescuing a wounded man, and a few months later he killed an eight-man German machine-gun crew, saving his platoon from annihilation, for which he was awarded the VC. This article went through GAN in 2017, and was expanded considerably prior to and during its Milhist A-Class review in March this year. While relatively brief, it contains all that I have been able to find on him in reliable sources, and I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


You've missed the 100-year anniversary. The prose is ... ok. But needs a proper copy-edit. I've looked through a third to half of this rather short article (which uses "involved" three times ... one could be "participated in"?):

  • "Davey enlisted in the Australian Imperial Force in December 1914, and joined his unit, the 10th Battalion, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, on 25 April 1915." It's very bumpy with five commas. Why not ", and joined the 10th Battalion on 25 April 1915, before it landed at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli."?
  • Because he didn't join the battalion on 25 April, that was the date of the landing. I'm open to re-working the prose. Perhaps ending the sentence at December 1914 and starting a new sentence?
  • "Because"? I don't see that reasoning. My suggestion changes nothing in that respect, so there must have already been a problem with your rendering. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've added detail about what date he joined his battalion and where, hopefully that clears it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "and re-joined to his battalion"—what happened there?
  • "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in the field, which involved rescuing a wounded man under fire."—wouldn't it be simpler to write: "In January 1918 he was awarded the Military Medal for bravery in rescuing a wounded man under fire."?
  • Done.
  • "Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill, one of at least five sons of the couple. His father was a carpenter. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse-driver." "he" is his father? Looks like it.

    Phillip Davey was born on 10 October 1896 at Unley, South Australia, to William George Davey, a carpenter, and his wife Elizabeth née O'Neill; he one of at least five sons of the couple. He attended the Flinders Street Model School and the Goodwood Public School. After his schooling ended, Davey was involved in well boring and opal mining in Central Australia, and at the outbreak of war he was a horse driver."

  • Done.
  • "On 22 December 1914, aged 18 years, Davey enlisted as a private in the Australian Imperial Force (AIF), and was posted to the 2nd reinforcements to the 10th Battalion."—Do you need the comma after (AIF)? It's not a long sentence and there are no other ands. Check you do need to ... to. I guess you do. Also check "embarked in" (rather than "from"). I don't know the standard wording.
  • removed "years" and the comma. I think the to ... to is needed. Changed to "embarked at".
  • Unless "the 10th Battalion's 2nd reinforcement" is possible in standard wording for this topic. Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "... was the first brigade ashore about 4:30 am.[5] Davey was involved in the heavy fighting at the landing and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead until, after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." "at" 4:30am. Tendency to write over-long and complex sentences. Why not: "and subsequent trench warfare defending the beachhead; after several bouts of illness, he was evacuated to Egypt with enteric fever in early November." Tony (talk) 12:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Split sentence. Thanks for your comments so far Tony1, it is always good to have someone run a critical eye over my prose. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, the rest of it needs running over. Can you find someone? Tony (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes Dank takes a look at the prose of articles at FAC, but I generally find GOCE c/e's at FAC to be less than useful, and sometimes counter-productive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on a new project, PM, that's why I haven't had time for FAC lately ... I don't see that changing in the near future. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: I'll take a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 07:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The review has been canceled due to time restraints, Peacemaker67. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clikity (talkcontribs) 00:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I reviewed and supported at MilHist ACR and was planning to recuse and review here, just wanted to give others a chance to comment first. Will see how I go this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Phillip_Davey_VC_MM.jpg: given the info provided by AWM, why do we believe this is AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The specific description page for the image identifies that it is in the public domain, but doesn't identify why - I'm not certain we can assume it's AustraliaGov (rather than PD for another reason). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK Nikkimaria, if I use PD-Australia I need a date of publication for PD-1996, which I don't have. Do I need to move it to Wikipedia and use it under a NFUR? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Is any more specific information about its provenance available? Do the contextual details support a tag of AustraliaGov or UKGov? Would AWM have any more info about the image? We know it's PD, let's see if we can figure out why before jumping to fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting that information from AWM could take a while and they may not have much to add, but I have emailed them anyway. From what I know, after VC investitures at Buckingham Palace, photos were often taken back in the garden at AIF Headquarters, London, following the ceremony. In this case, it was eight days after the ceremony, which may explain why he is only wearing the ribbon of the VC (and MM), not the actual medal. I assume that was taken by an AIF photographer. Will report back once I receive an answer, but if it looks like being promoted, I may have to go to fair use. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Nikkimaria, they are telling me there is nothing more to say about the photograph's provenance. I think I'll have to rely on AustraliaGov on the basis that it was most likely taken by a AIF photographer, or move it to Wikipedia from Commons and use a NFUR. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hi Peacemaker67, only a few minor comments

  • fatigue duties - wlink?
  • was employed by the South Australian Railways - is 'the' correct?
  • Bullecourt - wlink?
  • to the Battle of Menin Road - pipe?
  • but returned to his unit of his own accord - does that mean he proactively requested to go back, or was he presented with the choice to stay/go?
  • I'm assuming that he didn't think much of training recruits and wanted to get back to fighting, but the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • during a "peaceful penetration" - pipe?
  • Les Carlyon - authorlink
  • All online refs are working
  • NAA ref - Bot just created red error

Thanks PM, JennyOz (talk) 05:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

G'day JennyOz. All done, except I'm not sure what you mean regarding the two "pipe" comments? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi PM, I meant pipes to avoid the redirects (I'm not always 100% sure when/when not to.) Also, the last edit accidentally pasted brackets into British War Medal. Thanks for telling this fellow's story which I am happy to support. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 06:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think we're allowed to have redirects, just not dab pages. Fixed the brackets. Thanks for the review, Jenny! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • Not an issue for FAC, but I was curious to know if the other NCO also got an MM? In other words, did Davey lead the other NCO, or was the medal awarded to both as they both did it?
  • This is quite possible, even likely, but because the other NCO is not named in the recommendation for Davey, and the way the records are organised by the AWM, this is very difficult to establish. I have checked the war diaries of both the 10th Battalion and 3rd Brigade, but an MM recommendation probably isn't a big enough deal to be mentioned. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Just checking: the paragraph starting "Davey was promoted to corporal" has no cite till we get to the medal citation citation, if you know what I mean. Footnote 13. Since that appears to be an archive that contains the medal citation, can you confirm that it also supports the rest of the paragraph?
  • Very remiss of me, Mike Christie. I have closely cited this para using the war record and Lock.

That's all I can find to comment on; the article is cleanly written and concise. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this one, Mike! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

Great work as always. I have the following comments:

  • Do we know whether Davey served in any of the various pre-war military organisations?
  • His docs say no. But given the enlistment form didn't specifically ask about cadets, it is possible he did the compulsory junior and senior cadet training. It is likely that given he was in Central Australia for some time after he finished school, he was exempt from compulsory service for some of the time before the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and was then embarked to return to Australia the following month" - do we know whether this was due to his wounds, or was this part of the Anzac Leave scheme in which large numbers of the surviving soldiers of 1914 were sent home in about October 1918? (or both?)
  • I suspect it was due to his wounds, which were extensive and severe. His records state "Retd. to Aust per D24 (GSW Back) for furlough", so it is possible he was sent home with the rest of the 10th Battalion originals (regardless of his wounds), but it really seems to be a two-bob each-way situation, and the primary records and secondary sources aren't clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The World War I section seems to be focused on Davey's service record. Can anything be said about his personal experiences and reflections? (for instance, works which draw from letters, family oral history, etc?)
  • I haven't been able to find any. No personal records are held by the AWM or State Library of SA, so that might explain it. If he kept a diary or letters, they may remain in the hands of family members. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "as a labourer and linesman over three periods between 1926 and 1946" - does this mean that he was unable to find secure employment? Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Specifically, he served with SAR from 1926 to 1938, 1939 to 1942, and 1943 to 1946. So really he was mostly employed by them between 1926 and 1946, with short breaks. It is possible that his health had something to do with the breaks, but I don't have any evidence for that. Do you think I should state the actual dates he was employed by SAR, as they are given by Burness? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Rwandan Civil War[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I've had this parked for a while, since its GA nomination last year, but I personally believe it's FA ready so I'm putting it up here to see what you guys think of it. Lemurbaby and Aircorn both had a good look at this during the GAN, and the principle objections were over (a) accessibility for a layman, particularly regarding the information in the lede and acronyms, and (b) possible neutrality concerns. Regarding (a), I have rewritten the lede in the past couple of weeks, making it shorter and more concise, as well as replacing acronyms such as "FAR" with "Rwandan army" throughout the article to make it clear. On (b), neutrality, I made a comment on this at the bottom of the GA page, which never really got answered so I don't know if it's a valid defence or not. Fundamentally, although the article may appear to give Habyarimana and the Hutu a "harder time" than the other side, that's only because all the sources I used had a similar tone. Ultimately, this war was the precursor to one of the worst mass genocides of the 20th century and I don't think it's necessarily an NPOV violation to use the language from sources that describes that. However, I am very open to suggestions for improvement in that area or any other, so over to you guys and looking forward to any feedback positive or negative. And @Aircorn: if you have any further thoughts since your comments last year I'd really like to hear them too.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Glad to see this event of critical importance in Africa make it to FAC. Initial comments:

  • The economic crisis forced Habyarimana to heavily reduce the national budget; to quell civil unrest, he declared a commitment to multi-party politics, but did not take any action to bring this about. Is the semi colon suggesting that budget cuts incited the unrest?
    I've checked the source, and not really. There was a political crisis (which I've mentioned), but the multiparty move itself was on the advice of François Mitterrand.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The organisation which was to become the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was founded in 1979. In Uganda?
    Yes. Added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana was aware of the increasing number of Tutsi exiles in the Ugandan army As Habyarimana has already been introduced, and introducing him as "President" deals with any ambiguity, there's no need to restate his first name.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Belgian presence was short-lived, its troops withdrawing within two weeks because of laws preventing the army from intervening in a civil war. This begs the question why they were ever sent in the first place. Were they serving some other purpose (like training the Rwandan Army), or was there a debate in the Belgian government about the legality of their deployment that led to their withdrawal?
    Strange one that... the Prunier source gives quite a lot of detail on the Belgian issue, but doesn't directly mention the legality or otherwise. I think I must have got it from another source that it was illegal in Belgian law. I have therefore reworded to explain a bit more - the troops were sent to defend citizens, but that threat didn't materialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Where are the statistics for 5,000 killed on each side coming from?
    I don't know. It looks like they were added by an IP in 2013. Since they're uncited, and I'm not aware of any sources giving death tolls for the civil war itself (as opposed to the genocide), I've removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The strength of each belligerent force should be integrated into the body of the article.
    I have included this in the Arusha Accords section, as that's when the figures were relevant. Also included detail from the same source regarding the proposed reduction in numbers to 19,000.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • A number of UNAMIR personnel such as Mbaye Diagne were killed during the fighting. Any official statistics on this should be included.
    Given that we now don't have any overall death figures for the war, do you think it's still worth including this, and if so where? The actual UNAMIR death toll up to July 1994, based on figures in Dallaire's book, is 15.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
    That figure works. This UN source discusses UNAMIR and Operation Turquoise at length, and talks about how UNAMIR was effected by the fighting (mostly during the genocide stages), including its HQ getting hit by stray fire. Perhaps a small paragraph on the latter and then the death toll could be included in the "Military operations during the 1994 genocide" subsection. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK. Done that. Thanks for your comments here by the way, Indy beetle, very useful and insightful.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) Additional comments:

  • colonization and English dialect needs to be adhered to throughout the entire article.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Rwandan king welcomed the Germans, using their military strength to widen his rule. "Widen his rule" is an unusual phrase.
    Changed to "reinforce his rule and expand the kingdom"  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The king and Tutsi politicians attempted a fightback. Fightback seems to be a more colloquial term, perhaps "counterattack" instead?
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the possibility of a coup is discussed, and the fact that Colonel Bagosora took over the Rwandan government following Habyarimana's death, it should also probably be mentioned that Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana was shot by Rwandan soldiers.
    I have added more detail on this point.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Operation Turqoise is worth a little more discussion, particularly its aims (both declared and undeclared), its effects, and when it ended.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • UNAMIR's termination in 1996 should also be mentioned.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

All of my comments have been addressed. This is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to featured status. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: One additional fact I've found that should be incorporated into the article: David E. Cunningham claims "an estimated 7,500 combatants were killed in direct fighting in the Rwandan civil war" (Cunningham, David E. (2011). Barriers to Peace in Civil War. Cambridge University Press. p. 137. ISBN 9781139499408.). -Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: apologies, I ready this when you posted it and then it slipped my mind. I have added the figure to the infobox. Do you think it needs to go somewhere in the prose too? Not sure where would fit because it doesn't particularly attach to any single part of the timeline. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I think a quick note in the first paragraph under "Aftermath" will do. To be clear, Cunningham emphasizes that the figure is separate from the civilians killed in the genocide. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Fitzcarmalan[edit]

That was a very interesting read. A few observations though:


  • "possibly of Cushitic origin" - This links to Cushitic languages, which doesn't seem right to me. Is there an alternative article covering the ethnicity/peoples?
    It seems like there is no such article, and none of the entries at Cushite seem to quite fit. I've modified it to say "originating from the Horn of Africa", because that's something the source mentions to clarify what it means by Cushitic.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "administrative reforms which caused a rift to grow" - What was it about them that created this tension? Would it be possible to (briefly) integrate this sort of information into the text?
    I have added a sentence on uburetwa and ubuhake, the main reforms, with detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained" - Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? Suggest rewording to something like "..modernised the Rwandan economy. Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised", or anything to your liking.
    OK I have expanded this a little bit, to include mention of Catholic clerics, increased tax and forced labour. And also separated the two elements you mention. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "death of a Hutu sub-chief by Tutsi activists" - "Death by someone" doesn't seem right to me. Suggest rewording to "in an assault by Tutsi activists", per the source.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "alongside Obote to defeat Amin in 1979" - Suggest linking to Uganda–Tanzania War.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "needed a break following the years fighting" - Apostrophe missing? (I may be wrong, so you can simply disregard)
    I've reworded it to "Rwigyema persuaded Museveni that following years of army duty he needed a break"  — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Course of the war

  • "killing a customs guard" - Suggest mentioning the guard's nationality, if available in sources (obviously Rwandan, but still).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "perception of intervening in a civil war created a domestic political storm in Brussels" - Can't access the source. I assume it's related to the Congo Crisis and the role in Lumumba's assassination? If so, could either of those be briefly mentioned? If you somehow managed to incorporate a simple piped link to Congo Crisis, that would be sufficient IMO.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I actually can see an online version of the source at [24] (it's a bit weird - initially it says the page can't be viewed, but after scrolling up and down a few times, the text appears). So if you can manage to see that perhaps you'll be able to comment further? It doesn't directly mention the history around Lumumba, just that there were concerns over the humanitarian aspects of what the Rwandan government was doing.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know. And that's fine, we can leave it be if the source makes no mention of that. But I'd suggest describing the civil war as "controversial" or anything similar, which is what Prunier was implying. They didn't back away just because it was "a [regular] civil war". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
    OK, I've added "controversial".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Saleh ordered Bayingana and Bunyenyezi's arrest and eventual execution" - Were the sentences carried out eventually? Never mind, actually. I probably misread that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "He later described the experience of meeting and taking charge of this demoralised and wounded group as one of the worst experiences of his life." - This could use some extra detail, if available in your sources. What I'm particularly curious about, as a reader, is how Kagame managed to reorganize his troops during the Virunga phase, given the extreme conditions they were exposed to in the mountains.
    @Fitzcarmalan: I'm just wondering if there is anything in particular about this? The most detailed source I have is the Kinzer book, from which most of the "Conditions in the Virungas were very harsh for the RPF..." paragraph is taken. It starts by describing the hardship, people getting frostbite, guards dying on watch because of the cold and inadequate clothing etc. Then the main points about the reorganisation are the fundraising abroad, which enabled the RPF to buy more supplies, and the training that Kagame gave to the soldiers, and discipline, which made them battle ready. The paragraph summarises these points, but please let me know what other detail is required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What I had initially gathered upon reading this sentence, for some reason, was that Kagame might have have faced some kind of insubordination, given the sudden change of leadership and how low his troops' morale was. This often tends to happen in armed conflicts. Does Kinzer mention anything of the sort? If not, then you can simply disregard that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    No, I haven't seen anything like that. In fact, the text in Kinzer suggests that the demoralised troops welcomed Kagame's arrival. I've added a sentence to that effect.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "remained behind as a decoy" - Suggest linking to Decoy#Military_decoy.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "morning of the 23rd" - Suggest "23 January", per MOS:DATE.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "the prisoners were saved" - Suggest using "liberated" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF raided the city every night" - Until...?
    I've clarified it (per the source) to say "almost every night for several months"  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "until June 1991, when a deal was reached" - A deal involving whom?
    Hmm... seems it wasn't actually a deal, more of a government measure. I've reworded to clarify that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "a set of "rules", published in the Kangura" - Suggest linking to Kangura.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "as well as extremists within the president's own MRND party" - Suggest writing the party's full name and linking to National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development, since it is a first occurrence in the article. It would be preferable to do that early on in the 'Background' section, though.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "delay change to the status quo" - Suggest italicizing, per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
    Not done Smiley.png - "status quo" may have originated in another language, but it's perfectly valid English now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "although the RPF soldiers were guilty in some areas" - Suggest using an alternative to "guilty" (not sure which).
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Kagame told Stephen Kinzer that such a victory" - Suggest linking to Stephen Kinzer (while presenting him as a journalist) and de-linking from the 'Domestic situation' section.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "concluded that it was most likely a coup d'État" - Suggest italicizing coup d'état.
    I've shortened it to just "coup", which is an English word, as that's the usage throughout the rest of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "served as the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide" - Suggest de-linking, per MOS:DUPLINK. Or, better yet, de-link in the first occurrence at "were actively beginning plans for what would become the 1994 Rwandan genocide" and rewrite as "were actively preparing plans for a genocide" instead.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "seeking to link up quickly with the isolated troops in Kigali" - I assume they were successful? Suggest saying whether they were fully or partially successful, depending on the amount of detail in the sources.
    I've rewritten this a bit so you may want to look at it again. The actual three pronged attack didn't result in an immediate link up, per the source, but there was a unit sent across enemy territory.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "recruits included Tutsi survivors of the genocide and refugees from Burundi" - Suggest pipe linking to Burundian Civil War, if that is implied in the source of course.
    Actually this isn't really to do with events in Burundi, it means the Tutsi refugees from Rwanda who happened to have been based in Burundi, unlike Uganda where the original RPF people came from. I have clarified this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


  • "and as of 2017 remain the dominant political force" - Consider updating the year, unless I'm missing something.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "The long-term effects of war rape in Rwanda" - Suggest linking to Rape during the Rwandan Genocide.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "A period of reconciliation and justice began" - Would it be okay if we replaced "justice" with "judicial reforms" or anything similar? I'm not entirely comfortable with "a period of justice" as it stands.
    I've reworded this bit. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "By 1999,[230] a programme" - Suggest moving the ref to the end of that sentence.
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

That'll be all from me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: thanks, I think I may have answered all of them for now. Let me know if you have any more comments or I've missed anything.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Not really, everything looks great and you have a nicely written article here. Happy to support. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Lead, 1a: This is pretty good.

  • "An uneasy peace followed, as the terms of the accords were gradually implemented." Could be a "because" as: so it's because they were gradually implemented that peace was uneasy? I think you don't mean that.
    I've changed it to "while" instead of "as" to avoid this confusion.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "RPF troops were deployed to a compound in Kigali and the peace-keeping United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), was sent to the country." I don't understand it. Is the comma meant to be after "Kigali" rather than where it is now?
    Yes I think so. It seems I have a bad habit of putting commas after brackets, somebody complained about it at WP:ERRORS a couple of weeks ago. I've moved it to be after Kigali as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • So much better to start with "But": "The Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, however, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi." -> "But the Hutu Power movement was steadily gaining influence, and began planning a "final solution" to exterminate all Tutsi."
    Done. I think I was taught at school not to start a sentence with a conjunction, but apparently that's a junk rule that doesn't really exist...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
    'Tis junk. But not too many sentence-initial buts, or they'll stick out. Same league as "don't finish a sentence with a preposition", and "don't split infinitives", etc. Tony (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of approximately 100 days,"—English can be ugly. "some" or "about". I'd zap the comma after "killed" ... and after "mid-June".
    Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Further down:

  • "After 1945, a Hutu counter-elite developed,[27] calling for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu." Two things: you're using a comma after a sentence-initial time phrase as a formula. I would examine each case. It's not helping here. Second, "calling for" is ambiguous. Means "making necessary", or that the elite called publicly for ...?
    I've been through and removed a lot of commas of the type you mention so hopefully it's better now. Also changed "calling for" to "d