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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations 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.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

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.

Nominations[edit]

Double florin[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... a very short lived British coin. Not only was it the curse of barmaids, but the two men who designed it died less than a year after it was abolished, and the conflict over the designs may have contributed to their deaths. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review
  • File:2_florin_Victoria_-_Obverse.png, File:2 florin Victoria - Reverse.png, File:1887 UK proof set.jpg, File:Golden Jubilee Medal of Queen Victoria MET DP100543.jpg, File:Great Britain, crown, 1891, Victoria.jpg, shouldn't these have a license tag for the coin as well as the photograph? I assume it's covered by {{PD-UKGov}} or something like that.
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would split up the "production" section with subheadings, it is quite long for reading especially on mobile devices (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I always enjoy Wehwalt's articles about coins, and in this one in particular the interest is as much human as numismatic. My only quibbles on the prose are:

  • in a BrE article (impeccably done by our American colleague) "program" would normally be "programme" if not talking about computers,
Curses. I missed that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I'd capitalise "Government"
Nor would I, they only do mischief with the money. Oh. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In a BrE article the false title in "Numismatist G.P. Dyer" isn't quite the thing.
See first comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no high opinion of Simon Heffer, but shall refrain from contending that he is not a WP:RS. Very happy to support the promotion of this article to FA: it seems to me to meet all the criteria, and I much enjoyed reviewing it. Tim riley talk 21:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and the support. Always grateful for your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Röhm scandal[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead... I'd like to thank Usernameunique for the GA review. (t · c) buidhe 05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Placeholder; will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments; most of them are just suggestions, feel free to ignore those which you don't feel helpful:

Lead
  • Are there other historians than Marhoefer who believe that Röhm was world's "first openly gay politician"?
    • None that I can find, but I also cannot find sources claiming someone else earlier as the first.
      • Interesting case! So, in all these 90 years or so after the scandal, we have just 1 scholar claiming the he was world's "first openly gay politician", and no other noting that detail explicitly. Strange! The way you have mentioned that in the article, writing it as Marhoefer's opinion, is just fine and acceptable. But, I'm reluctant to believe that. If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources. No mention of anyone else as the first openly gay politician does not make Röhm the first ... How about removing Marhoefer and the quote, and writing something like "Röhm has been mentioned as one of the first major openly gay politician"? Just a thought. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
        • If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources I wouldn't necessarily expect this because it's not the kind of information that tends to get picked up on in scholarly sources. According to my research, all the others claimed as first openly gay/lesbian politicians are all from decades later. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I'd like to see what other reviewers think, though, I trust your judgement on that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "He was also homosexual, although he tried to separate his personal and political life" — what does 'He' mean here? specify.
  • "and was appointed leader of the Sturmabteilung" — shouldn't "Sturmabteilung" be in italics?
(talk page stalker) From the MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "by his Social Democratic opponents" v. "Although the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)" — (1) Social Democratic Party is linked twice in the lead when it should be just on the first instance, (2) why mention the complete name of the party on both the instances?
  • "Communist Party of Germany (KPD)" — 'KPD' is never again used in the lead. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
  • Homophobia could be linked
  • "Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler" — (1) Hitler is linked twice in the lead (2) the lead already mentions that Hitler is the "Nazi Party leader", I see no need for repetition.
    • Done all
Rest of the article
  • "are placed in men from the cradle … If the struggle" — Add a non-breaking space between 'cradle' and the ellipsis.
  • "For example, in 1927" — I am not sure if writing "For example" in an encyclopedic article is fine or not. Is there a better way of presenting that?
  • "probably, also because of his inclinations... [which] offered a useful point of attack at any time" — Add a non-breaking space between 'inclinations' and the ellipsis. Also check for other instances in the article.
  • "The leader of the Berlin SA, Walther Stennes," — Walther Stennes is here linked to Stennes revolt than his bio article
  • "and his Pupenjungen" (male prostitutes)" — shouldn't the definition and parenthesis be inside quotation?
  • "Röhm-Röhrbein-Ernst Triple Alliance" — do the sources here discuss what the 'Triple Alliance' means in this case? If not, should be we linking it to Triple Alliance (1882)?
    • The source is in German and the German word used (de:Dreibund) seems to be unambiguous in referring to the 1882 alliance.
  • "large circles of Berlin party comrades are informed about the gay clubs" — I'd prefer a citation immediately after the quote.
  • "these Pupenjungen, these damned" — Pupenjungen is linked twice in the prose
  • "possibly Otto Strasser" — probably attribute inline as to who thinks that it was probably Strasser
    • Multiple reliable sources say it was probably Strasser, so I do not think attribution is correct here.
  • "For example, in September 1931" — same as previous comment on "For example" (also for various other instances in the article)
  • "and the former Nazi Eduard Meyer." — Mostly, you use {{ill}}. Here, it isn't used and "Eduard Meyer" is directly linked to the German Wikipedia? Suggesting to be consistent.
    • It's not recommended to use ill when the topic would not be notable by enwiki standards. Meyer appears to be only known for his fairly minor role in this scandal, so WP:BIO1E would apply.
      • Well, I learned something new today! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "for the forgery" — is the definite article necessary here?
  • "and killed himself in prison" — will using the word "suicide" be appropriate/better in this context?
    • I think "killed himself" is unobjectionable but I know many of our medical editors object to "committed suicide".
  • "After this affair," — At the start of a every new paragraph, you'll need to specify what "this" means.
  • "in Heimsoth's lawyer's safe" — I didn't understand this
    • Removed as insufficiently important
  • "The existence of the letters was most likely leaked by a Nazi, possibly Strasser" — who thinks that the main is possibly Strasser?
    • Removed as sources actually disagree on this
  • "It was especially difficult to obtain evidence for a crime committed in private." — does this statement has anything specific to do with the Röhm scandal, or is a general statement?
    • It is true generally but also for Röhm's specific case according to the cited source: "After Röhm’s return to Germany, prosecutors tried at least five times to convict him under Paragraph 175. None of the charges stuck, partially because the evidence for such a private crime was difficult to obtain."
  • "during the 1932 German presidential election in which Hitler was running against Paul Hindenburg" — probably worth mentioning that Hindenburg was the incumbent president.
  • "the SPD printed and mailed 300,000 copies of the pamphlet" — exactly 300,000 or approximately 300,000? (Thanks to Gog!)
    • The sources are not clear on this, just saying (Marhoefer) "printed 300,000 copies"
      • There are high chances that it is an approximate value. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I agree, but it would be original research to clarify one way or another when it's not supported by the sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
          • It would be, but ... can we IAR here? Not a major issue for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "On 6 April, shortly before the second round of the presidential election" — can we write it anyway different. It wan't exactly 'shortly', it was 4 days before the second round.
  • "I’ll beat him to death" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
  • "DVNP" is used just once in the prose. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
    • It is nearly universally used in English language sources and likely more recognizable to English speakers than the spelled out translation
  • " “above all the Reichstag building is not the right place to take revenge or vengeance with a series of ear-boxings" " — fix the quote mark (“ to ")
  • "One of these was Kurt Tucholsky," — avoid starting a sentence by a number.
    • I believe that only applies to Arabic numerals and not spelled out numbers.
  • I am assuming that "§175" means "article 175"
    • It does.
      • But we can't change it, because it is in direct quotation, right? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Alternately, if you think it's confusing, I could replace with a slightly different translation from Woods: "We oppose the disgraceful Paragraph 175 wherever we can; therefore we may not join voices with the chorus that would condemn a man because he is a homosexual." (t · c) buidhe 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and replaced the quote. (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In contrast to the left-wing press, homosexual activists emphasized the hypocrisy of the Nazi Party in condemning homosexuality while harboring homosexuals in its own ranks." (emphasis mine) — the sentence is quite repetitive; I have boldfaced everything that is repeated.
  • "carrying their hangman’s rope" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
  • "in the Hitler cabinet" — "in Hitler's cabinet" would flow better, I think
  • "The worldwide bestseller The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror (1933) — Our article on The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror never tells that it was a "worldwide bestseller". And even if it was, do we need to specify it in this article?
    • Yes, because it shows the prominence of the allegations being made.
  • "killed during what he termed the "Night of Long Knives"" — didn't he termed it "Night of the Long Knives" (emphasis mine)
  • The following source and no corresponding footnote. "There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFReichardtzur_Nieden2004"
    • Reichardt, Sven; zur Nieden, Susanne (2004). "Skandale als Instrument des Machtkampfes in der NS-Führung: Zur Funktionalisierung der Homosexualität von Ernst Röhm" [Scandals as an instrument of the power struggle in the Nazi leadership: on the instrumentalization of Ernst Röhm's homosexuality]. Skandal und Diktatur: Formen öffentlicher Empörung im NS-Staat und in der DDR [Scandal and dictatorship: forms of public outrage in the Nazi state and in the GDR] (in German). Wallstein. pp. 33–58. ISBN 978-3-89244-791-7
      • Removed. It was cited in a previous version of this article, but I seem to have replaced all the references to it. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it for now. An Excellent piece of work. Nice to see this article at FAC withing 2 weeks of its creation! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your review, Kavyansh.Singh! I fixed everything except that which is specifically noted above. (t · c) buidhe 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe – a few replies above. Looking much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
      • One last thing: I think that Rohm scandal (currently redlinked) should redirect to this page. Apart that and minor issues above, I support the nomination! Great work, Buidhe! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Ernst_Röhm_(1887-1934)_München,_Germany_(Weimar_Republic)_1924_Hauptmann_Bund_Freikorps_Epp_uniform_Iron_cross_etc_242-HF-0377_001_Unrestricted_No_known_copyright_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from? I'm not seeing it at the source link
  • File:Reichstag_building_in_the_Album-von-Berlin_0041.jpg: is it correct to say no author is credited anywhere in the source? If so suggest specifying that in the author field. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
  • Per MOS:STRAIGHT - "Knoll, Albert (2017). "»Es muß alles versucht werden, um dieses widernatürliche Laster auszurotten«: Homosexuelle Häftlinge in den frühen Konzentrationslagern"" - the guillemets should be converted to straight quotation marks.
    • Done
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Otherwise everything looks good. I may or may not be back to review in full. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the review! (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Struck the dealt with item, leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • I was just reading about this issue the other day, interesting to see it has a dedicated article. Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure if he goes without saying, but link Hitler in the image caption?
    • Done (t · c) buidhe 17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

A Canterlot Wedding[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode. Though it may not be thought to discuss Stalinism or Marxism (cough, "The Cutie Map", cough), critics still think it's awesome and scholars think it discusses feminism. This article was brought to GA-status back in 2012 and I have since expanded its reception and production sections. I nominated it for FA status back in October of last year, but that was archived after over two weeks of absolutely no comments. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article relies on primary sources such as blog posts from the creator, press releases, and the website of the DVD distributor instead of secondary sources. The NY Daily News is a questionable source. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Pamzeis any response to this comment? (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      I've tried to reduce the reliance on primary sources. Right now, we're at four PR cites; one blog post cite; and one DVD distributor site cite. I'm still unsure if it is sufficient, though. Per RSP, NY Daily News is a reliable source, and it is used for opinion. Pamzeis (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As I run towards the end of articles on the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years' War I hope to get to FA, I am hoping to go out with a bang. Described as "the most important campaign of the Hundred Years' War", a modest Anglo-Gascon force set out on a major raid through south-west France. Six weeks later the French believed they had them cornered and, refusing to negotiate, attacked. The battle of Poitiers is for another article, but the campaign concluded with the French king being escorted back to Bordeaux as a prisoner. This went through GAN a little while ago and I believe it ready for the rigors of FAC, so tilt your lances at it and let us see who is last editor standing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Another fine article on the Hundred Years' War from Gog. A handful of very minor carps and cavils on the prose:

  • Lead
  • "Do we need the words "carried out" in the first sentence?
Expurged.
  • "a long drawn out battle" – I don't dispute Gowers's maxim "if you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad", but I think you want two of them here, though I may be wrong (or mad).
These are not mutually-exclusive propositions. Hyphenated.
  • "captured the French King" – capitalised "King" here, but uncapitalised in the first para.
I have uncapitalised in both instances when when his name is immediately given, and capitalised in both cases when "French King" is used to mean "John II". That's my understanding of MOS:JOBTITLES. I may be wrong; I am certainly mad.
  • Background
  • "The only significant French possession" – and what did it signify? I think you mean important, substantial or some such.
Signifying nothing, used in the sense of "important, notable" which my Oxford dictionary claims has been a usage since 1761.
This is Fowler on significant:
The dictionaries give important as one of the definitions of significant, but to use it merely as a synonym for that word is to waste it. The primary sense of significant is conveying a meaning or suggesting an inference. A division in the House of Commons may be important without being significant; the failure of some members to vote in it may be significant without being important. There is no important change in the patient's condition means that he is neither markedly better nor markedly worse. There is no significant change in the patient's condition means that there is no change which either confirms or throws doubt on the previous prognosis.
And this is Gowers:
This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large when one is dealing with numbers or quantities or other mathematical concepts. For one thing it has a special and precise meaning for mathematicians and statisticians which they are entitled to keep inviolate. For another, it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'
How depressing that a venerable usage should be swept aside by a modern fad, but who am I to stand in the way of progress. Both changed.
  • Chevauchée
  • "All of the fighting men were mounted" – no need for the "of", surely?
Removed.
  • "to prevent the Prince's forces from disbursing widely" – I think perhaps you mean "dispersing" here.
I keep doing that! Thank you.
  • "the destruction being wracked in south-west France" – according to the latest (2015) edition of Fowler this should be either "wreaked" (preferably) or at a pinch "wrought". (Personally I prefer the latter, but I rarely presume to argue with Fowler.)
Having consulted two dictionaries, one with "Oxford" in the title, it seems an inoffensive use of "wrack". Nor am I sure why we should switch to the past tense. But changed.
  • Clashes along the Loire
  • "ordered them to also move towards Tours. He was also willing to fight" – you could lose one or both the "also"s here.
I use that too much. Both gone, plus two others.
  • "He still hoped to cross the Loire River" – we don't need to be told again that the Loire is a river.
I thought it a useful reminder for the inattentive reader, but gone.
I find it unimaginable that any reader could be inattentive when reading this page-turner of an article. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Creep!
  • "search for passages of the Loire, but the River Loire, but as before were unable to find passable fords" – some extra and unwanted words have sneaked their way in here.
Oops. Desneaked.
  • "The camp fires of the French army" – the OED hyphenates "camp-fire"
Done.
  • Other English offensives
  • "attempts … were still underway" – should be "under way" – two unhyphenated words – according to the OED.
I suspect the OED to be a little behind the times there, see eg its Cambridge competitor, but changed.
From Alan Bennett's Forty Years On:
FRANKLIN: Have you ever thought, Headmaster, that your standards might perhaps be a little out of date?
HEADMASTER: Of course they're out of date. Standards always are out of date. That is what makes them standards.
And Chambers' Dictionary is with the OED: it goes straight from underwater to underwear. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strategy
  • "there were no significant French forces" – what would these forces have signified?
In the sense of being "important, notable", see above. Significant, like many English words has several meanings.
  • Battle of Poitiers
  • "aiming to defeat them in detail" – I have not run across this phrase before and would be glad of an explanation of its meaning.
Defeat in detail, now linked.
Thank you. I've learned something today (in addition to all the interesting facts in your article, I mean). Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "However, they were dependant on the agreement" – when used as an adjective the spelling is "dependent"
Well, well. One of those that is smack your head obvious - once it has been pointed out. Corrected.
  • "senior advisors" – strange, and not especially welcome, to see AmE "advisor" instead of the customary English "adviser" here.
  • Post-battle
  • "over laden" – "overladen" according to the OED.
D'oh!
  • Aftermath
  • "Clifford J. Rogers" – we've been introduced to him earlier, when he was plain "Clifford Rogers" (and we don't need a second blue-link).
I completely agree and have removed it, but note the, erm, forceful opposition of Sandstein here
I think you have done the right thing, both as regards common sense and, which is not necessarily the same thing, the Manual of Style. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "but neither was inclined to change their attitude" – singular verb with plural pronoun
Changed.
  • Notes
  • "one of John's closest advisors" – another AmE "advisor"
I blame my misspent youth. Corrected.

Those are my few quibbles. I'll look in again in confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you once again Tim. I breathe my usual sigh of relief at your having knocked the nonsense out of my prose. See what you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hardly knocking the nonsense out! My cavils were so small as to be barely visible with the naked eye. I'm very happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Clear, concise, well and widely sourced, highly readable, and, as far as I am any judge, comprehensive. And beautifully illustrated as usual. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A pleasure to review; I shall be sad when there are no more new FACs for Hundred Years' War articles. Tim riley talk 14:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, you do cheer me up, Mr riley. One of the things working on the Hundred Years' War has been preventing me getting to grips with is a dozen or more articles from the Second Punic War - Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, elephants etc. Hopefully you will enjoy them as much. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Laundromat (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Laundromat" is a R&B/pop song with lyrics that use the laundromat as a metaphor for the washing away of an old relationship. While I love these gimmicky songs, I am far less happy that R. Kelly was involved in pretty much every aspect of this one (to the point that even his absence from the music video was discussed). "Laundromat" is a single from Nivea's 2002 self-titled debut album, but I first heard about it when Solange Knowles covered it at an actual laundromat in 2013. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • The Knowles image is causing some layout issues, displacing the heading and causing whitespace before the table
  • That is interesting. I am not having that issue in my browser, but I have removed the image. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The song version from which the sample was taken should be identified in the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the image review. The sample uses the album version of the song. How would you recommend representing that in the sample? Also, thank you for moving the "External links" section to the right position. I am not sure how I missed that. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would suggest putting a full citation in the source field, specifying the album details. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Apologies for that as I had a brain fart. I believe that I have addressed this, but let me know if this information can be better represented. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Comments
  • "in which Nivea breaks up her boyfriend" => "in which Nivea breaks up with her boyfriend"
  • "to show 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse" => "to show that 2003 allegations Kelly carried out sexual abuse"
  • "number 89 on the Scottish Single Chart" => "number 89 on the Scottish Singles Chart"
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs Ya Ya Ya"" - opening quote mark missing
  • "but noted Nivea did not follow" => "but noted that Nivea did not follow"
  • "Taylor wrote after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers"" => "Taylor wrote that, after the opening, "Laundromat" moves into "dreamy vocal layers""
  • There's so sentences at the end of the music and lyrics section which link back to reviews which were mentioned earlier. Would it not make sense to put these sentences with the earlier ones? I stopped for a minute and thought "who's Taylor?" before realising that his review had already been mentioned much earlier in the section.
  • That is a very good point. I have rearranged this section to address this point, and I have split the first paragraph to avoid it from being overly long, but please let me know if further work would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "according Billboard's Carla Hay" => "according to Billboard's Carla Hay"
  • "Nivea did not perform the single with Kelly and told audiences" - audiences at concerts?
  • I decide to ultimately cut this part as I do not think the quote adds that much. The sentence already says Kelly was not present at her performances of this song, and her quote for the performances does not really add anything further about the matter. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There's a semi-colon after Hot Wax but then you start a new sentence
  • "AllMusic's Any Kellman" - his name is Andy
  • "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote Nivea" => "In 2007, Vibe's Sean Fennessey wrote that Nivea"
  • "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said "Laundromat"" => "Chistie Leo of the New Straits Times said that "Laundromat""
  • "Music journalists pointed to the single's success to discuss how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career" => "Music journalists pointed to the single's success when discussing how allegations Kelly had carried out sexual abuse were not damaging his career"
  • "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported the song" => "In a USA Today, Steve Jones reported that the song"
  • "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said 14 months" => "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Sonia Murray said tahat, 14 months"
  • "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its single chart" => "In Scotland, "Laundromat" peaked at number 89 on its singles chart"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review! I made a great deal of rather silly mistakes while writing this article. Please let me know if there is anything that could improve the article further and I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review and support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "In 2013, Solange Knowles covered "Laundromat" in a laundromat; her performance was praised by critics, who enjoyed the song choice and the laundromat venue." Perhaps try to vary this sentence a bit to avoid the use of "laundromat" three times.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "During this time, she worked with R. Kelly on the songs "Ya Ya Ya", "The One for Me", and "Laundromat" for the album; these were the last songs to be added to Nivea prior to its release." Songs ... songs
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "While writing for Vibe, Laura Checkoway referred to "Laundromat" as "an R&B jam-meets-detergent jingle"." You can lose the "While".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "While reviewing the former, AllMusic's Andy Kellman praised "Laundromat" as one of the album's highlights." Same as above.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "While discussing Kelly's absence, author Mark Anthony Neal wrote; "A man accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with minors obviously cannot show up in a music video cooing in the ear of a teenager"." Same case here. Nothing wrong with its use in any of the cases but if they convey the same meaning, then we should opt for less words. Also why the semi-colon instead of a comma before the quote? One more thing, if the sentence within the quote also ends in the quote, the full stop should be placed inside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ.
  • I agree with you that it is important to be concise. I have responded to the point on the semi-colon and MOS:LQ points in the comment below. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason for the use of semi-colon before the quotes? The common punctuations I know that precede are either a comma or a colon. I don't know if it's wrong to use a semicolon like that but I haven't seen this usage before.
  • I am actually not sure how this got there. I usually use a colon before full quotations so I am not sure how the semi-colons got there (or why I would have used them). I have revised all the instances to make the colons instead, and I have hopefully fixed the MOS:LQ issues, but let me know if I somehow overlooked anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In a USA Today" - either a noun needs to follow USA Today ("article", "review"...) or lose the "a".
  • That's a very silly mistake on my part. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The contributor for Fuse said they may have enjoyed it "mostly for the fact it was performed in an actual laundromat".[42]" I think this quote can easily be paraphrased.
  • Revised. Let me know if further revision would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This should conclude my review. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review and apologies for some of the rather silly mistakes in the article. I appreciate that you took the time to do this. If there is anything else that could be improved in the article, I would be more than happy to address it. Have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am satisfied with your changes and replies. Happy to support this. FrB.TG (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and review. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Realmaxxver[edit]

  • I am not going to do a full review; but I just want to ask something. So, with the caption for the R. Kelly image; what exactly did critics praise him for? Realmaxxver (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I appreciate any feedback. Critics praised R. Kelly for various things. Some reviewers said that his songs were highlights from the album, another specifically pointed to the production in regards to how Nivea sounded on the song, and yet another talked about his vocals on the track. I do understand your point and I have expanded the caption to hopefully further clarify this point. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Marmaduke–Walker duel[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Two Confederate generals begin to dislike each other after the botched attacks at Helena, Arkansas. Things boil over during the Union advance on Little Rock, and the two eventually decide to hold an illegal duel. Both show up despite being ordered to stay in camp, and Walker is mortally wounded. Marmaduke is briefly arrested, but is released and suffers no long-term consequences, becoming Governor of Missouri after the war. Hog Farm Talk 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass[edit]

Further to my source review at ACR, the sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. I looked at this at ACR, but let's see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • "until he resigned to join the Confederate States Army after the Battle of Boonville". Is it known when this was?
    • Not finding a good resignation date for Marmaduke, so I've specified when the battle was fought
  • "for seniority purposes". I suspect that many readers are not going to know what that means without assistance. I realise that there is a footnote later in the article.
    • I've moved the footnote up to here. Does that help? I'm not really sure how to explain this
  • Is the Battle of Farmington really referred to as "the Battle of Farmington, Mississippi"?
    • I was attempting to distinguish this from the Battle of Farmington, Tennessee, but the source (Warner) just refers to it as the Battle of Farmington here, so I've piped the link to remove the Mississippi
  • "During the attacks". Whose? Union or Confederate.
    • Done
  • Optional: "the reported statements had not been said". I am probably being picky, but this seems a bit clumsy. Feel free to ignore if you disagree.
    • I've tried to simplify this
  • "In the notes, Marmaduke stated". What notes? This is the first time they have been mentioned.
    • Some stuff got out of order when I worked in the material from Trimpi, this should be resolved now.
  • "Model 1861 Colt's Navy Revolvers". Why the "'s"?
    • Removed

That's all I have. Looks good. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    • @Gog the Mild: - I've made an attempt at addressing all of these. Are the changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 06:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, haven't reviewed an article like this before. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • At first glance, I have a hard time figuring out what the map and its caption conveys. Perhaps clarify that it shows multiple locations related to the incident, if that's the case? Because by just looking at the caption, I'd think it was supposed to show the location of the duel, but it has three dots?
    • I've added a caption to clarify things. Hog Farm Talk 18:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Black-and-yellow broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Another broadbill article, this one requiring less effort since it shares a lot of sources from my last one. Have at it. AryKun (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

This is a high-quality article that is a pleasure to read. It is short but appears to be comprehensive. I only have a few minor comments.

  • "in the Asian broadbill family Eurylamidae" - the family is not restricted to Asia - Grauer's broadbill is endemic to Africa
I was using Asian broadbill as a common name, based on how it's used on eBird/BOW (Asian and Grauer's broadbill), although I could replace it with typical broadbills per IOC if you want.
BOW uses "Asian and Grauer's Broadbills". Truncating the name to "Asian Broadbills" is misleading. I suggest you follow the IOC and use "typical broadbills". I notice that BLI also uses "Typical Broadbills", see: here. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Changed to typical broadbills throughout.
  • Cladogram. Perhaps mention that the Visayan broadbill (Sarcophanops samarensis) was not included in the study. (It was previous considered to be conspecific with wattled broadbill - see wiki page and here)
Added footnote.
"The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was then considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Most authorities had split the Visayan broadbill from the wattled broadbill well before 2017, the date of the Selvatti study. See the Avibase entry here The IOC listed separate species in Version 1.0 (2011) (but H&M4 published in 2014 still has the Visayan broadbill as a subsp). Selvatti et al would have been well aware of the split - perhaps they didn't have a sample. How about "The study did not include the Visayan broadbill, which was formerly considered conspecific with the wattled broadbill." Link conspecific and the note itself needs references. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Done.

Feeding

  • "holding on the tree trunks" perhaps "holding onto the tree trunks" But what is special about how woodpeckers hold onto trees?
Not really sure. Mentioned in source, so I guess might be important, and different types of birds probably have unique ways of holding on to trees?

Breeding

  • "The measurements of one nest were 17 cm × 13 cm × 10 cm" - is 17cm the height?
Yeah.
  • Perhaps mention that the incubation and fledgling periods are not known.
Added.

References

  • For consistency I suggest you use "sentence case" for the titles of all journal articles.
Done, I think for all.
  • Ref 3. Raffles 1822. Why not link to the actual page (297) here - rather than to the title page of the volume.
Done.
  • Ref 6. IOC - need to include authors: Gill, F.; Donsker, D.; Rasmussen, P., eds.
Added, not exactly sure what eds means and where that should be added.
  • Ref 10. ITIS - better to cite the IOC here
Done.
  • Ref 13. Bruce et al 2020. The Cornell Birds of the World is behind a paywall. Normally on English wikipedia a simple link from the title is only provided when a page is open access. In this case the doi alone would suffice as it links to the login page. Otherwise one can use url-access=subscription
Done

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Ref. 9 Lim et al 2018. The link is broken. I can access a scan of the article here.
Replaced link.

- Aa77zz (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Aa77zz, I think I've addressed all your concerns. AryKun (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Support - great work - Aa77zz (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:EurylaimusOchromalusGould.jpg needs a US tag and author date of death
Not sure how to do that, could I just replace with this?
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Replaced with second image.
  • File:EurylaimusOchromalusDist.png needs a source for the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Replaced with better image by Cephas which has sources.

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soon. This bird looks hilarious from the front! FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The other version of the painting looks better[1], you can add it again if you just add the PD US tag.

Lake Estancia[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley of New Mexico, a state in the USA. Like many valleys in the western USA, changes in precipitation and evaporation patterns caused the Estancia Valley to fill with water during the last Ice Age: Lake Estancia. It is now gone but its deposits have been used to reconstruct past climates for the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 14:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Funk[edit]

  • Interesting subject, at first glance, there is a lot of duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any photos of the area on Commons or Flickr?
    Did the duplinks, none of the photos on Commons or Flickr are indicative of anything (unlike, say File:Kayak on Lake Manly.jpg for Lake Manly) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Does a picture like this[3] give an impression of the general are?
  • "and Willard.[17]The lake" Needs space.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "during "Lake Willard"." What is that? Should be presented at first mention.
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do maps exist that show the extent and shape of the lake as it would have looked? If so, I think it would be pretty essential to have a free version made for this article (perhaps at the graphics lab[4]), so the reader can better imagine what is being talked about. Here seems to be one:[5]
    Filed a request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a bit difficult, but since the scope of the article appears to be the ancient lake, rather than the modern day remnants, it would make sense that the section order begins with the prehistorical stuff, and then goes into the modern day geography afterwards? If the article was about the valley, I could better understand the current chronology, but now it seems it make sit a bit hard to follow that you start describing the current features of the area, when one expects to read about the former lake.
    My thinking was that one would describe the present-day geography to introduce the area and what there is now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • How much of the valley was filled by the lake? And how much do the two subjects overlap in scope? Would it have made sense to cover both the valley and the former lake entirely in the same article? Now it's a bit hard to figure out where the info on the lake stops and info on the valley starts and vice versa.
    The scope of the valley is considerably larger than just the ancient lake, if memory serves. Here I only discuss the lake; making this a valley article would require a massive expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "initially it was thought" When is "initially"?
    The source is not terribly specific: The geologic history of the Estancia valley has been synthesized over a period of almost 80 years following Keyes' (1903) observation that the valley contained ". . . evidences of the existence of old lakes." Keyes and other researchers in the valley believed that the pluvial system, while of considerable areal extent and water depth, did not overflow into adjacent basins. Consequently, it was assumed that the lake system never evolved into a fresh-water body.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "depth of the lake prevented the lake waters from" Say "its waters" instead of repeating "lake"?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "may have formed on the shoreline and was transported" Is the "was" needed? That word also makes it seem more like a certain fact than it apparently is.
    I dunno, without the "was" it reads ungrammatical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "during the LGM" Spell this out at first mention in the article body.
    That's already done in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • LGM is linked at least three times in succession.
    Yeah, that's too much; remedied this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This appeard to be US spelling (as it should be for a US subject), yet you say "metres". Something that can be changed in the conversion templates.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "or to an extinct middle Pleistocene trout from the San Luis Valley in Colorado." Does it have a name?
    Going by the source it doesn't have a name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "formed a favourable" UK spelling, check for other inconsistencies throughout.
    Did it for that word, I have to admit though that I don't know of all the spelling differences that would need to be checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "no present-day reports of fish in the Estancia basin are known" Does that mean there are permanent water bodies still other than lakes, which you say don't exist any more? Otherwise, it would go without saying?
    There are creeks and springs, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "LGM and later" Think it would be clearer if you did not use abbreviations in section titles.

A and B Loop[edit]

Nominator(s): truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a service of the Portland Streetcar system in Portland, Oregon, U.S. It is a vital transit option in the Central City district, with connections to many of Portland's most iconic landmarks and institutions. The route itself is notable for operating the first U.S.-built streetcar in 60 years at the time of its opening. Should this article achieve FA status, it would accompany three Portland transit-related articles that are currently FA. truflip99 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Serial[edit]

Might look in later; in the meantime, a map would be good. It's a rail line, and if we do a thing well, it's rail diagrams. SN54129 00:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: thanks for commenting! There's a route map right below the GA icon and a route diagram at the bottom of the infobox. Do those not suffice? --truflip99 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • This was a great read, my only query is about the naming of roads. You have "via 10th and 11th avenues" (lower case a) but "the B Loop turns right onto 5th Avenue" (upper case A), and "tracks traverse Broadway and Weidler streets" (lower case S) but "a turning loop on Southeast Stephens Street" (upper case S). Maybe this correctly reflects US usage (my usage would be different but then I am British) but I thought it was worth clarifying. Other than that I couldn't find fault..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your input! Per AP style (and maybe others), it is correct to lower case the plural form of street names.1 2 3 --truflip99 (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Support it is then -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I had intended to bring this article to a quality level back in 2015 or so when it was in really a bad shape. I could achieve this four years later. I thought to give it a go at FAC as well where it received five full supports and no oppose. However, I withdrew the nomination as it was taking too long to conclude (and because a review towards the end showed some MoS and prose issues). After almost two years of inactivity, I have recently returned to editing and thought to give it another try. Whether or not this fantastic actor's article gets the shiny star, I hope you learn some things about him and watch some of his films in the process. FrB.TG (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

Been a while since I've reviewed an article here at FAC. Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead
  • "As of 2019, his films have grossed over $7.2 billion worldwide" Any update on this?
Unfortunately, Box Office Mojo now requires IMDb Pro membership, which I don't have but given the fact that the only major release DiCaprio has had since 2019 was Don't Look Up in 2021, a Netflix film, I doubt the figure has changed drastically.
  • "He achieved international stardom with the romance Titanic (1997), the highest-grossing film to that point," Instead of "to that point", I would suggest "at the time"
Done.
Early life and acting background
  • "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]" Although some FAs like Jennifer Lawrence work with this sentencing format excellently, for this example; I feel like this is more claustrophobic that what is used on FAs like Philip Seymour Hoffman; and would support seperating the sentence like what is used on Philip Seymour Hoffman (like "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California,[1] the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken) and George DiCaprio. DiCaprio's mother is a legal secretary, and his father is an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2]"). Also, not only does source 2 not even mention DiCaprio's mother; you should use url-status=dead for that source.
Good catch on the source being dead; the status is now updated. I have divided the sentence in two parts now. As for the WP:OR point, source 10 does mention DiCaprio's mother's name but I get that it should've also been placed where she is named. Anyway, I have added a source for that now. FrB.TG (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]" I feel like it is weird to mention where his parents met after explaining DiCaprio's family's entire ancestral background; when this could be explained earlier on (such as "Leonardo Wilhelm DiCaprio was born on November 11, 1974, in Los Angeles, California.[1] He is the only child of Irmelin (née Indenbirken), a legal secretary, and George DiCaprio, an underground comix writer, publisher, and distributor of comic books.[2][3] His parents met while attending college and moved to Los Angeles after graduating.[8]"
Good point, now rearranged. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously; the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]" (This sentence does not need a semicolon) → "When he was two, he went on stage at a performance festival and danced spontaneously, and the cheerful response from the crowd started his interest in performing.[20]"
I actually prefer the semi-colon as I like to avoid the repetitive usage of “and” wherever possible, especially when they’re placed in such a close proximity. FrB.TG (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Acting career

1991–1996: Early work and breakthrough

  • "In 1992, DiCaprio played a supporting role in the first installment of the Poison Ivy film series,[41] and was handpicked by Robert De Niro out of 400 young actors to star in This Boy's Life, a coming-of-age drama about the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro).[22][42]" I feel like this sentence is a little bit long; and should be seperated into two sentences.
Split into two. FrB.TG (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead. Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]" → "DiCaprio's first effort of 1995 was in Sam Raimi's western film The Quick and the Dead, but Sony Pictures was dubious over DiCaprio's casting, and as a result, costar Sharon Stone paid his salary herself.[48]"

1997–2001: Titanic and worldwide recognition

  • "With a production budget of more than $200 million, the film was the most expensive ever made" This record has been beaten by films such as Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011), so adding "at the time" to this would be better.
  • "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the same-titled 1939 film." → "in Randall Wallace's The Man in the Iron Mask, based on the 1939 film of the same name."
All revised.
  • "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but left the project soon after when he failed to agree with Oliver Stone on the film's direction and took the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]" → "In 1998, DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) for a reported salary of $20 million, but when he disagreed with Oliver Stone on the film's direction, DiCaprio left the project soon after; taking the lead role in The Beach instead.[74]"

2002–2009: Venture into film production

Removed from the 'See also' section.

Support by Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. Please ping me if I do not post anything in a week. To be fully transparent, I did participate in the first FAC and support that nomination. Since the article is on the longer side (which is understandable given DiCaprio's career), I want to make sure I have the time to read everything thoroughly. Since DiCaprio is still very active, I'd encourage you to be mindful of the length in the future (though I believe this is a standard note for any FACs/FAs about living individuals with active careers). Apologies for not being able to post a review today. Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to it. As for the article's size, I don't think we need to worry much considering how selective DiCaprio is in his choices of roles but I see your point. FrB.TG (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
That is a good point. I do not think it is anything to worry about right now. It was just something that came to my mind while briefly looking through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have a suggestion about this sentence: Disillusioned at this, he initially decided to quit acting, but his father encouraged him to further explore his creative side, introducing him to underground art and art in general. Since the following sentence uses two citations, I'd put a citation for this one to be very clear about what is used to support this information. I am guessing it is citation 28, but I think further clarity would be beneficial.
  • I have some clarification questions about Growing Pains. To be clear, I have not seen this show. Could DiCaprio just quit a show like this as I would have thought there would have been some sort of contractual obligations? Also, the Wikipedia article about the show says DiCaprio was a part of the final season, so is this more the case that the show got canceled and DiCaprio was able to leave because of that?
Well, he quit toward the ending of the show, citing "bad writing" as the reason to quit. Had he stayed, he would've appeared in three more episodes. I have tried clarifying it in the article now.
  • I see your point now. I would have thought there would have been some sort of contract requiring him to appear in a certain amount of episodes, but your explanation makes sense. I did a slight copy-edit to the sentence if that is alright with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
It definitely looks better after the copy-edit. Thank you.
  • For this sentence, The film was a commercial success, grossing $294 million worldwide, I would include the budget so the reader could have a better understanding of how it was a commercial success.
  • I believe this part, DiCaprio liked the experience of working with Pitt, could be shortened to just DiCaprio liked working with Pitt.
  • I have a question about The Crowded Room. Is DiCaprio producing the series starring Tom Holland? I could not find any mention of him or his production company in the source, but I could have overlooked it by accident.
Good point. I did some research and nowhere does it mention in any source that he or his production company has any kind of involvement in the film-turned-show.
  • Thank you for further looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would revise this part, In 2017, Paramount announced that, to Paramount announced in 2017, that. The previous sentence uses "In X year" so I would do something similar to my suggested edit to avoid repetition.
  • Was there any criticism towards DiCaprio's environmental activism, such as him being potential hypocritical with his activism and actual actions and lifestyle? There is one citation used in the article that mentions this in the title.
The third paragraph does actually mention that. "However, his use of private jets and large yachts has prompted criticism due to their large carbon footprints."
  • Apologies for missing that. That was the information that I had in mind. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part, but he has been the subject of several articles detailing his involvement with women aged 25 or younger. The note only mentions the jokes made about his dating habits, but have there been more serious criticism of DiCaprio dating younger women?
Added further sources that criticize him as a misogynist and commitment-phobic person.
  • Thank you for including this information in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. I will look through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Aoba47, they have been most helpful. Where I haven't stated otherwise, I have done as per your suggestions. Do let me know if there is any more to be done and if I can return the favor by reviewing one of your works here. Cheers. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading this article again and you have a very good job with writing a solid article about a very famous individual with a long career. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC, but I understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, I’m glad you enjoyed reading his article again. I’ll definitely review your FAC in a day or two. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course, and thank you. Take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Just chiming in as this FAC review features a few things I was involved in some way or another. Anyway, around the time he was dating a Danish woman named Nina Agdal, which I initially added, we kind of implicitly decided to stop updating his personal life section because it was becoming so-called gossip-y down there. I removed many of his significant relationships and only kept 3. This was before anyone really cared per se that the women he publicly dates are "25" or younger. Personally, I truly think it should only be briefly mentioned and further detail can be made into a "Personal relationships of Leonardo DiCaprio" article. Calling him a misogynist by the media for consensual relationships or even having a type teters on the wrong side of BLP to me. Especially when those sources aren't so reliable or high quality. Trillfendi (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the message and ping. I can understand and agree that the misogynist criticism is rather extreme, but I do think it is odd for a man in his 40s to be consistently dating women in their early 20s (particularly given the power dynamic and parasocial aspects) but that is just my personal opinion. I only asked about it in my review as it was something that I thought about while reading the article. I agree that the sources for these claims are not the best, and I would be okay with losing them if other editors disagree with their inclusion. I would highly doubt that DiCaprio's personal life is notable enough for a separate article, when compared to others like Lindsay Lohan.
  • I have not worked on a lot of BLPs so I am not knowledgeable or experienced enough to really say what relationships are notable enough for inclusion. I would just hope that there is a clear cut reason and rationale for why certain relationships are covered over others (i.e. the significance in his life, the coverage in reliable and third-party sources, etc.). Apologies for the long response. My main point is I will defer to more experienced editors/reviewers and this should not change my support of this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14[edit]

Placeholder. Going to review soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • In 1979, DiCaprio was removed, at age five, from the set of – Perhaps it would be better if "In 1979, at age five, DiCaprdio was removed from the set of"
  • The teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the teenage female audiences – one would assume as this is 1991 that DiCaprio was a teenager, we can probably drop the first mention of teenage to avoid repetition.
  • The film is a coming-of-age drama on the relationship between the rebellious teenager Tobias "Toby" Wolff (DiCaprio) and his mother (Ellen Barkin) and abusive stepfather (De Niro). -- I think “and” before “his mother” should be removed and replaced with comma
I think the 'and' is well justified there since the film explores DiCaprio's relationship with his parents, and not the relationship between the three.
  • Its director Michael Caton-Jones has said DiCaprio -- has said that DiCaprio..
  • played a self-mocking role in a small appearance in Woody Allen's -- I think “brief appearance” is much suited
  • DiCaprio was cast in American Psycho (2000) in 1998 -- Perhaps you can restructure, the release year in brackets close to 1998 may be confusing for some. Maybe begin with "Also in 1998, DiCaprio was cast"
  • comedy drama Gardener of Eden, which, according to The Hollywood Reporter's – I think there should be no comma after which
  • Brad Pitt/Paramount Pictures -- maybe split with "and"

First pass, have reviewed down to the end of upcoming projects. Hope these comments are helpful. Will review the remainder. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I took care of these except where I have stated otherwise. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Satisfied with the replies. Relatively minor point in the "Philanthropy" section is how three consecutive sentences start with month/year, beginning with "In 2010, In April 2013, and In 2016", could use some minor tweaks so it doesn't come across as listing dates/events. Otherwise, I'm happy to support this article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your support. I have tried to vary the sentences. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The May Pamphlet[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

One spring day in New York City, the irascible Paul Goodman marched into his World War II draft interview with these anarchist essays under his arm as a prop or perhaps totem that would show his country just how unfit for service he was. While the military immediately understood, it would take another 15 years for his country to hear. While largely forgotten today, Goodman was namechecked in Annie Hall as a prevailing public intellectual of the American mid-century: Dutch uncle to the 1960s counterculture, philosopher of the New Left, and the country's most prominent living anarchist. Goodman's career consisted of revealing mystic truths about the need to live out one's own animal instinct and the larger society's unfulfilled duty in fostering those impulses. The May 1945 essays that became known as the May Pamphlet outline Goodman's application of Reichian psychological theory to anarchist politics in the interregnum between the social revolutionary class warfare of turn-of-the-century classical anarchism and the rise of personal politics-focused, late-20th century contemporary anarchism. You can see Goodman bridge the twain in these very essays as he confronts the impossibility of large-scale social change by calling not for a massive social revolution but for an inward reformation: to instead realize one's own innate, individual powers and form a new society by living intentionally within the shell of the old.

Hopefully that's enough exposition to convince you to read this little article I've been incubating for the past several years, with debts to reviews from @Eddie891, Z1720, and Grapple X. It is part of a larger project to better cover Goodman's works and other major written landmarks of anarchism on Wikipedia. Let me know what you think? czar 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick comments:

This looks very good and I look forward to reading it properly (along with the book itself) in the coming weeks.

  • that footnote about what libertarian meant in the 1940s has nothing to do with the subject of this article. If the term is confusing, just say anarchist instead, or clarify as libertarian socialist. Writing the bulky "libertarian (anarchist)[a]" four or five times is the worst of all worlds.
  • you should add some pictures to the article.
  • An entire paragraph in Themes and analysis is unreferenced.
  • Listing out the individual essays at the start of Synopsis is unnecessary IMO. What is the reader to do with just a bunch of essay names? Much more useful to name them only when discussing their content (which you do in the rest of the section anyway).
  • There needs to be some indication as to how long the whole thing is; I had to open the archive.org link to see that it's only a 50-page work. Maybe adding an infobox to the lead will help get these dry details (also: publication date etc) out of the way quickly.—indopug (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Indopug, thanks! :) The "definition of libertarian" footnote was recommended in the peer review. Given that Goodman himself and nearly all sources on the subject use the word "libertarian" repeatedly, referring to the anarchist tradition, the footnote felt like a reasonable compromise to provide the reader with context. It's mainly for post-1980 readers in the U.S., who would otherwise not understand why the article doesn't talk about free markets.
    • I'm not familiar with any other essay collection FAs but I would think that a table of contents is better off listed than put in prose, and that it's an altogether better reference and reading experience (as signposting).
    • re: images, open to suggestions. There are no free use images of the author. It occurs to me that some of the initial essays might be out of copyright but... let's see how far I get on that expedition.
    • Addressed the other two czar 03:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I went copyright spelunking and added some new, free use images; will ping for image re-review after this thread wraps up czar 05:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Be consistent in when/if publication locations are included and how these are formatted
  • Goodway: the link and publisher don't match up with the publication date. Suggest checking others as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria, thanks and updated! Goodway 1999 is the same as the linked Google Books reprint. (Earthscan is a Routledge company.) I only linked Google Books for ease of verification but can either remove the link or instead swap the reference for Goodway 2006, which repeats the same claim verbatim, if preferable. Let me know if you would like scans of any of the sources. czar 16:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Would suggest clarifying in the citation that it's a reprint. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The citation is not a reprint though—it's correct as written. Only the link is a reprint, and it has the exact same page numbering. Most citation links are a courtesy. I wouldn't remove the page numbers if I linked a web version without page numbers, etc. czar 02:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet[edit]

This is a fascinating article! Saving my spot.

The first comment I'll have to give, unfortunately, is that I completely agree with Indopug about the "libertarian (anarchist)[a]" repetition -- it consistently dragged me out of the article as I read. The use in the lead is good, because it contextualizes why a term confusing to a modern audience was applied to this part of concept-space. The following uses would all be net improvements if substituted with "anarchist" (or "libertarian socialist", depending which is contextually preferred for each mention). Vaticidalprophet 05:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, thank you! And that's fair. I've reworded where context permits and kept the translation/repetition to the few parts where it's necessary to historicize Goodman's words. Tricky stuff, this. czar 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a tricky balance. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tweaked again a few times in the course of FAC; there are a few ways one could defensibly put it, and not many good models at FA level of articles with similar terminology issues (though I know some at GA level). I'll come back to start leaving comments in...the next couple days at most, hopefully; I'm reviewing a couple articles at GAN too so I'm between a few places, but feel free to drop a note on my talk I don't currently have pings on and I'm not sure if or when I'll put them back if I'm not here by the end of the week. Vaticidalprophet 21:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
General[edit]
  • Image query: You mentioned to Indopug earlier that there are no free images of Goodman, but are we actually sure of that? His life overlaped suitably with the periods where image copyright was much harder to secure than it is now, and I imagine anarchists weren't dotting the Is and crossing the Ts of every copyright notice -- you've already been able to find some other PD images under the same principle. Calling this a query, not any sort of request, because it's more of an idea of something that if it pans out could be used to improve the article's illustration than an actual point of contention -- but it'd certainly be nice if it panned out.
    • There are no dust jacket or inside author portraits in the HathiTrust (public domain) scans and the Library of Congress didn't have anything easy on file when I checked. I've been to all of his major archives and no images jumped out as being potentially public domain. These early libertarian/anarchist journals are a little different in that they were tiny so had a high chance of not having their copyright renewed but they also didn't print illustrations (because they were small). I'd like to reach out to his estate eventually and ask but just wanted a little more to show for it first. czar 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Very thorough -- certainly this article and the main Goodman one are high enough quality that you'll have quite a bit to show them :) No worries. Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The footnote dips momentarily into parenthetical referencing, which is no longer good practice.
    • Its a footnote in a footnote so I can just drop the parentheses and leave it with no brackets, if that's better. czar 22:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Sensu stricto the deprecated style is putting the reference in the flow of text at all, but as you say, footnote in a footnote -- I'm not the sort to press on that kind of detail. Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
  • Again, a query: would some reference to the genesis in Goodman's draft interview be due here?
    Eh, I'd consider it trivia for the lede. Perhaps a good hook for FAC, though :) czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You have some heavy repetition of "anarchist" here (which is an improvement on heavy repetition of "libertarian (anarchist)[a]", but nonetheless worth keeping an eye on). The reader can be assumed, from the fact the article opens with "is a collection of six anarchist essays", to know the subject matter. I'm specifically looking at the line The anarchist essays were not well known, which is better rendered as simply The essays were not well known.
    Yes, that's leftover from yesterday's changes. I've dialed it down. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Do small, New York and small, anarchist need those commas? (Also look for later uses of similar sentence structure -- I've spotted it in some of the other sections, but not yet combed through them.) This might be a matter of individual dialect, so I'm not certain, but at least from my dialect's eye it looks off.
    It's stylistic. I used to not include commas between adjectives but was once taken to task for that at a FAC many moons ago, so now I do because why not—it adds a little clarity. Nothing in the MoS that I know of, though. czar 23:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Later sections to come. Vaticidalprophet 21:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Publication[edit]
  • The listing of the two bluelinked journals beside each other in the list of three creates somewhat of a MOS:SEAOFBLUE -- at first glance I read Politics, Why? as the name of one journal (certainly sounded a plausible one...). I note Retort (journal) exists as a redirect, and while not in-depth, there's enough in the way of basic names-and-dates to get value from the link. Alternatively, you could move the names around to prevent the sea.
    Politics, Why? is an acceptable summary of this article. Rephrased. czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Is one-man publisher re. Vinco supposed to be read as meaning it was essentially Goodman's personal imprint he published his own books under, or that it was a (very) small press run by someone else publishing multiple authors, or some intermediate point?
    As small as a press can be, as in barely a press. Do you think it needs further clarification? czar 05:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    I wasn't so much confused as to how many people were involved with it (the "one-man" part was clear) as to whether the one man was Goodman himself, self-publishing with an imprint, or if it was a different sole proprieter running a small press. The linked source is useful clarification, so it might be nice to add some of that in the article, as it also serves the purpose of explaining why Vimco went out of business/why other people were publishing its unsold books. Vaticidalprophet 06:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

(Finding I don't have too many comments :) ) Vaticidalprophet 05:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

1992–93 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

After seven successful nominations, here's another article about a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C. for your consideration. After working on a number of articles about seasons in which the club experienced success, I decided to torture myself by writing about arguably the club's worst season in my lifetime, when they came within a hair's breadth of finishing bottom of the entire Football League. Happy days.....

As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and most promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment by Oldelpaso The unanswered question that arises from reading the article is "Why were they so bad that year?" The club had finished mid-table in the preceding season but lost their top scorer, what were the expectations beforehand? Its not an easy one to source (not least because Brian Moore's Head.. won't count as a reliable source), but I'm wondering if things from local press would be available, or if one of the nationals ran a preview of the division. While wary that too much narrative building could veer into original research, I wonder if something from the time of the sacking might ascribe some reasons for the decline.
  • The image of Plainmoor could do with rotating to make the pitch level. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@Oldelpaso: - I've changed the image of Plainmoor for one which probably more accurately reflects what it looked like at the time and has a more level pitch. I've added in details of a season preview which I found in The Times and which somewhat surprisingly said the team were in with a shout of promotion. I've also added a quote from Richardson at the time of his sacking saying why in his opinion the team failed so catastrophically at achieving this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Interstate 182[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a short freeway in southeastern Washington that took 17 years to build and was the compromise for a bitterly fought over routing debate. Unlike many urban freeways, this one was coveted by its eventual host cities, who did everything in their power to get part of the Interstate Highway System to their doorstep. This freeway is a companion to Interstate 82 (an existing FA) and would complete half of a featured topic on related routes. SounderBruce 07:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review no licensing issues found, but the first image should be moved to avoid sandwiching the infobox (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Moved the image to the right. SounderBruce 08:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

truflip99[edit]

Will provide comments later. Hoping you can provide comments for my nom as well! truflip99 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead

  • The new freeway would also include construction of a Richland–Pasco bridge, proposed since the 1940s at the site of an earlier cable ferry that ran until 1931. -- this sentence is awkwardly placed. Perhaps place at end of the paragraph?
    • Fixed.
  • The final sections of the freeway, between I-82 and Richland, were opened to traffic in March 1986. -- omit "were" for better continuity
    • Fixed.

Route

  • The constant use of "I-182/US 12" seems superfluous given that the lead states they're concurrent for the entire route. Maybe establish this fact and just refer to the article topic afterwards?
    • Fixed.
  • They then cross over the Yakima River and intersect SR 240 -- should be singular if referring to the "concurrency"
    • Fixed.
  • I-182/US 12 passes a golf course and cross the Columbia River -- inconsistent due to aforementioned issue, won't point out moving forward
    • Fixed.
  • It is also part of the state government's Highway of Statewide Significance program -- "It" should be lowercase
    • Fixed.
  • who conduct an annual survey -- "which conducts" is better, IMO
    • Fixed.
  • and also has two park-and-ride facilities -- perhaps omit "also"
    • Fixed.

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

History

  • The Tri-Cities section signed as part of US 410 -- not familiar with highway terminology, but is it not "was signed"?
  • with an alternate route over the Yakima River bridge through Kennewick -- "but an alternate route... also existed." would clarify what is trying to be conveyed here
  • replacing an earlier bailey bridge and helping relieve Hanford traffic -- is this the aforementioned bridge? if so, needs to be combined somehow
  • Link waterfowl
  • the 7.6-mile (12.2 km) western half from I-82 to Road 100 in western Pasco with four interchanges; -- switch these to commas

Couldn't find many issues. Great read overall. --truflip99 (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Will P. Brady[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Will Brady was not, perhaps, the first person you would want to get a drink with. To start with, he was a prohibitionist—at least when running for reelection as a judge. And then there was the so called "legal lynching" of a 16-year-old Mexican boy, whom Brady extracted a confession from while a mob waited outside the jail; tried; and then guaranteed a date with the gallows, meeting with the governor to foreclose any chance of clemency. (18 years later, when Brady's brother, also a Texas judge, drunkenly killed his mistress and himself was tried for capital murder, Brady promptly joined the defense team.)

This article was originally an afterthought written as I tried to learn more about the family of Brady's niece, the philologist Caroline Brady (an interesting story—see the part about Van Egmond). A year and a half later I returned to it and dug in; the result is a detailed snapshot of some of the legal, political, and social dynamics at play in West Texas in the early 20th century, where Brady, the El Paso Herald wrote, was "one of the best known public men". Reviewed by Iazyges last year and refined since, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • File:1929.11.15 - The Austin American - Will P. Brady.png Not convinced by the licensing here, the photograph would be covered by any copyright notice attached to the publication.
  • I've taken a look through the paper (both when I added the image to the article, and again now), and there appears to be no copyright notice. From looking at the twelve pages and running text searches (e.g., for "copyright" and "1929"), the only notice I can find is the page-eleven copyright notice for an R. J. Reynolds ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Other image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 06:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Seychelles parakeet[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about an obscure, extinct parakeet, which I happened to have a lot of sources about, so finally thought it should get the treatment. There is also a little bit of nice art history in the mix. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing a big gap to the left of the image captioned "Two male Alexandrine parakeets..." and above the table. IIRC there was a similar issue at a prior FAC and it was fixed by editing the syntax so the descent table could split if there was not space for both schemas. (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I usually don't see those on my screen. Pinging Jts1882, who might be able to fix it. I think it has something to do with the space between the two cladograms, which should somehow be narrower. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I decreased the space, but can't say if it solved the problem on your screen yet. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks fine now. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I assume the space is due to a narrow screen. I can still get it if I reduce the screen window so that the image is wider than 40% (the div containing the cladograms is now width:60%). One option is to change the container for the two cladograms so that they appear vertically on narrow screens. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I think it was fixed (I reduced it from 75% to 60%), but I might ping you again if others have problems. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

AryKun[edit]

Placeholder, will review soon. AryKun (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Some very minor stuff that was easier to do myself. Overall nice work here, mostly very minor comments.
Thanks for edits! FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In the first sentence, should it be Seychelles islands parakeet? Also, maybe capitalized "islands"?
The source I've seen using that name (Greenway) just says "Seychelles Island Parrot". Since the entire name was capitalised, I can't say if that was the intention for "island" too, since Wikipedia doesn't capitalise bird names, but did it anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • rare by 1867, → comma unnecessary
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 1937 checklist of birds → 1937 Check-list of Birds of the World
I wasn't intending to specifically spell out the name of the book (I leave that for the reflist), check lists are a pretty common category of animal literature. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Does Indian Ocean really need a link?
Well, since it's pretty important to the story, I don't think it can hurt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Is the link to stepping stones relevant?
Linked to Oceanic dispersal instead. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • species to group within → species to form a group within
Same meaning just more wordy, but took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could the gloss for paraphyletic be improved (perhaps something like "grouping that excludes some of its subgroups")
Said "an unnatural grouping excluding some of its subgroups". FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The "[male]" should be after "one of them" instead of where it currently is.
Since this is a direct quote from the source, I can't really change it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • doomed to extinction, by being → comma unnecessary
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Nice, no other issues I could see, so will support. AryKun (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

More dead parrots! I'll have a look. Ping me if I don't get started over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep, in fact a relative of the last one you reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "41 cm (16.1 in)". Spurious accuracy. Maybe "|sigfig=2"?
Added, but seems like it didn't do anything. Don't know much about these number thingies... FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed.
  • "of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps 'of which he believed/claimed/whatever only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level', as it ain't the case.
I'm not sure I follow, it's not considered controversial. I've added links to Granitic Seychelles and Seychelles Microcontinent for further details. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
OK. It reads as if the whole of Gondwanaland has sunk: "the ancient landmass Gondwanaland, of which only the granitic mountain tops remain above sea level". Perhaps a tweak.
The source isn't much more specific, but tried with "of which only their granitic mountain tops remain above sea level", to make it clearer we're referring to the islands, not the ancient landmass. This is how the source puts it: "The granitic Seychelles are an ancient part of the Gondwanaland continental landmass of which only the mountain tops now remain above sea level (Plummer & Belle 1995)." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
What the source says and the article doesn't is "are an ancient part of"
Moved "ancient" back before "part of the landmass", should have basically the same meaning either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
OK.
  • "because they did not continue further west." Should "west" be 'east'?
They came from Asia towards the Seychelles and Mascarenes, so west is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "colonised Asia and Africa via these islands rather than vice versa". I don't follow. What is the vice versa?
The alternative is that they came to the islands from Asia and Africa. So the study suggests the ancestors of these birds evolved on the islands and then spread from there to the continents. It's an odd idea that doesn't seem to have been supported by later (or earlier) articles, though. I tweaked it a bit, not sure if it's enough. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Whew. OK. That sounds kinda wacky. Possible I suppose, but still. I think it needs explaining a bit more clearly - maybe something like 'This indicated to them that Indian Ocean islands have been key stepping stones for evolutionary radiation of these species. This suggests that the ancestors of the Seychelles parakeet and other species may have evolved on the islands and colonised Asia and Africa rather than vice versa.'?
The article doesn't say it explicitly, it says "With a number of island-endemic Psittacula taxa inferred as early divergences within their clades, the islands of the Indian Ocean appear to have been key stepping stones in the adaptive radiation of this genus. The extinct P. wardi, which was endemic to the Seychelles, is the first divergence in the P. eupatria species group (all of which occur in continental Asia), and P. echo, endemic to the island of Mauritius, is deep within the P. krameri clade (species of which occur in Africa and Continental Asia), suggesting that Psittacula parrots may have colonised Asia and Africa via the islands of the Indian Ocean rather than vice versa. Analyses of other vertebrate groups in the region have also indicated that Indian Ocean islands have been critical in ‘seeding’ continents (Warren et al., 2010)." So I'm a bit wary of being more specific than the source, though it certainly seems to be what it implies. Since these authors also mention a related group of parrots from Australasia are closely related, it appears they don't rule out they could have come from there, though they don't state so explicitly at all. It's all a bit ambiguous, so I added "They suggested" to make it clearer it's a claim... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Ho hum. I take your point. Ok, it needs mentioning and what you have is probably least bad. In passing, some of that paraphrasing looks a little close.
Shook it up by replacing "key" with "important" and replacing "vice versa" with "the other way around". FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That should do it.
  • "which had previously only been mentioned in writing". But you include a 1907 illustration yourself! If you mean the specific image, then maybe tweak the image. Someone must have seen it, if only to mention it in writing. OK, you repeat this later in the paragraph; I suggest deleting the first mention.
This refers specifically to North's painting, which I think the full sentence makes clear: "and published an 1883 painting of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing". It's the painting, not the bird, that is referred to. I've added "by North" after "painting" to make it clearer. The 1907 image is unrelated to that point, and is actually just based on the image in the taxobox that was drawn after dead birds. The article body also says "Newton and his brother, British ornithologist Alfred Newton, published an illustration depicting both sexes in 1876 by the Dutch artist John Gerrard Keulemans, based on subsequently received specimens." The caption to the North painting already says it's the only depiction from life, so should be a given the others are not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
How would you feel about something along the lines of "which had previously only been mentioned in writing" → '; the image had only previously been known from North's written account.'?
The painting had also been mentioned by others than North, though, reproductions of it were just never published. I tried with "which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others", if that's any good. I've also added this sentence for clarity: "Keulemans' illustration of the species for the British zoologist Walter Rothschild's 1907 book Extinct Birds was based on his earlier illustration." FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I like that. Re North, how would you feel about 'he located and published for the first time an 1883 painting by North of the Seychelles parakeet for the first time, which had previously only been mentioned in writing by North and others.'?
Took your suggestion. FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "make daily flights" → 'making daily flights'.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Lead: "The last confirmed individual was shot in 1893, and no birds could be found by 1906." Article: "In 1907, the British zoologist Walter Rothschild said the bird was confined to the islet of Silhouette, where it would probably become extinct."
Hume's 2017 statement that they probably did not survive past 1906 is more well-founded than Rothschild's 1907 claim (he is notorious for hearsay, but was influential). The IUCN (the ultimate authority on these matters) says "The last known individuals were shot in 1893, and none were found on a survey in 1906", in accordance with Hume FunkMonk (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I can work that out. But if Rothchild's claim is unreliable A. Why is it in the article at all? B. Why isn't it clearly labelled as unreliable?
Well, there's a few aspects to this, first, most historical ideas like this tend to be considered inaccurate later on, but they should be kept for historical context, as long as newer sources that give the current views are included. Rothschild was highly influential at the time, and he can't really be ignored, and we wouldn't for example exclude the historical claim that the Earth was flat from the Earth article just because the idea is outdated. Also, as the article explains, he wasn't the only early 20th century writer who speculated the birds may have survived later, but these claims are trumped by the newer sources (Greenway, Hume) cited at the end of the article, and the fact that no birds were observed by 1906. While some sources have questioned Rothschild's reliability when it came to other of his ideas, none comment on this particular statement. Also, hindsight is always easier, Rothschild lived when the bird still existed, so it wouldn't be too far fetched for him to think it survived; his book is from 1907, it was only the year before that no birds were reported, and his book had possibly been in the works for a considerable time by then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
OK, then maybe end the sentence with something like ', although this is no longer believed to be the case'?
Hmmm, I think the section already does this by ending on "Hume considered the species highly unlikely to have survived past 1906"? Since the section is written with the claims coming chronologically, it seems a bit like retroactive editorialising to add it earlier. We also have "Peters speculated in 1937 that they still survived on Silhouette" even later on, so it would be odd to single out Rothschild. In any case, no one knows exactly when it went extinct, but I've added the following, which is a bit of a middle ground view that I overlooked: "Forshaw stated in 2017 that the species probably disappeared some time after the last specimen was collected in 1893 and Nicoll's 1906 visit when no birds were reported." FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
That's it! Good.

That is all I could find. Excellently written. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Researchgate is just a site for researchers to upload their published papers to make them available. The article itself is from the scientific journal Phelsuma.[6] FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

HF[edit]

Looks interesting- will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Apollo 17[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Tyrol5 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... the final, at least until now, crewed mission to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pleased to join Wehwalt in the nomination. Look forward to your review and comment. Tyrol5 [talk] 21:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Oh wow. We're up to Apollo 17. Guess that coverts all the Apollo missions. Comments:

  • "James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9" Suggest "commanded Apollo 9"
    Revised. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "the Apollo 11 crew had had one" Suggest "had only one"
    Revised. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest mentioning that Overmyer, Fullerton and Parker were from NASA Astronaut Group 7? (I would source from Compton, Where NO Man Has Gone Before, p. 377 instead)
    Have updated the source; thanks for that. However, Parker was in Group 6. I took your suggestion to imply the Group 7 commonality as something worth mentioning, so I've left that be for now. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest stating that the 1969 US election was in November 1972.
    Done. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I would source this from Logsdon, After Apollo?: Richard Nixon and the American Space Program. Haven't got the book here, but I will get the page number when I return; it would benefit the reader looking it up because there is a good discussion of this there, and how the Apollo 13 failure spooked Nixon.
    I actually don't have a copy of this one on my shelf (though it looks to be an interesting read), so will defer to Wehwalt/you on completing the discussion and referencing it properly. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I was able to download a copy. What are you suggesting should be sourced to it, Hawkeye7?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    I guess it's the Nixon thing. I've added more on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    That's right - I just thought it would be a more useful source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The Preparation subsection uses abbreviations that have not yet been defined. Suggest moving this subsection down to the bottom of the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection where they are.
    Would like to give a bit of thought as to how to rearrange; it's a good suggestion, but some of the other non-equipment related discussion (e.g. timing re: the '72 election) should probably go elsewhere if the subsection moves down. Putting a pin in this one for now. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, I have moved the bit on the spacecraft and launch vehicle prep and assembly down to the "Spacecraft and launch vehicle" subsection as you suggest. Have also moved the bit about scheduling above to the renamed "Scheduling and landing site selection" and have added just a bit of context there to help with flow. I trust this addresses the comment, but certainly happy to consider any follow-up. Tyrol5 [talk] 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since there is a subheading for orbital science, suggest creating one for lunar surface science too, with the ALSEP and "other lunar science" subsections under it.
    Done. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Any reason why footnote 72 needs to repeat the id number? Or why the book is not in the bibliography?
    Have cleaned up the citation and moved to the bibliography. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Footnote 116 is bung
    Fixed. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The NASA navbox doesn't list Apollo 17, so suggest dropping it.
    Flipping through the various other Apollo articles, I found that it was included in all that I had clicked on (five or six others), so I am inclined to leave simply for consistency within the series, but I certainly don't feel strongly about it either way. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll work on this tomorrow unless Tyrol5 gets there first. FYI, Apollo 6 is awaiting a FAC slot and Apollo 1 and 10, I haven't had time for yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks from me as well. Had some downtime in between commitments this evening, so have addressed many of the points above. Would like to mull over point 6 on organization. Tyrol5 [talk] 00:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Could you add what "cronopaque" is? I had to look it up. [7] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sure. Done. Tyrol5 [talk] 21:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You could note that the prime and backup crew assignments were officially announced on 13 August 1971. [8] (The replacement of the backup crew was announced on 23 May 1972 [9]) I think this would give the reader a better idea of the timeframe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Slayton ultimately chose Cernan and Evans. This passes quietly over the fact that Schmitt was not the only controversial crew member; the selection of Cernan raised eyebrows because he had flown a helicopter into the Indian River. (see the 18 October entry in the above link) There is an account of this in Kraft, Flight: My Life in Mission Control, pp. 346-348 Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Good spots. Both of your suggestions above have been incorporated. Thanks again for your input, as well as for your support. Very much appreciate both. Tyrol5 [talk] 03:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School[edit]

Nominator(s): SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a documentary that focuses on LGBTQ topics being taught in schools. The article has passed GA. An editor left a few suggestions on the article talk page that I tried to complete. Another editor did mention that some FA reviewers are only interested in articles that are very long. I do feel that if the article is not long enough, it is close to reaching that as an article about a documentary. It was suggested to me by another editor to look at similar FA film articles so I did and the closest thing that I could find is Trembling Before G-d that passed FA in 2010. I was hoping to find something more recent. I doubt that Trembling Before G-d would pass a FA review in 2022. SL93 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass one correctly licensed fair use image (t · c) buidhe 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    The image is correctly licensed, but the caption isn't super descriptive? The image also has no alt. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 10:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    Theleekycauldron The caption is no different than other featured film articles. What do you mean by alt? SL93 (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    Bald, old white man with oxygen tubes extending from his nose around his head
    Bob Murray
    alt text is a broad descriptor of an image that is meant to provide information for screen readers. For example, this image of Bob Murray contains the alt text "Bald, old white man with oxygen tubes extending from his nose around his head". theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    Theleekycauldron I think I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

support from theleekycauldron[edit]

Source review[edit]

Version review :D

  • Newspapers.com should be linked (Newspapers.com), as well as all publishers and newspapers and the like that can be linked.
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Make sure you're consistent about whether or not you're using ISSNs
    • Done. I removed it. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Books should be cited with page numbers
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 2: Are you sure the paper set the school in NY state and not NYC? Given that the other three are cities, I think it's talking about NYC.
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The article states "that the film would be broadcast on around 60 PBS stations." Ref 9, which is cited, appears to say "at least 60".
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 5 and ref 8 appear to cite the same book—possibly create a "works cited" subsection of books and use {{sfn}} to cite page numbers?
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 7 describes the short version as 37 minutes long, not 38 (pedantry at it's finest)—maybe say "just under 40 minutes" if there's no consensus on that? If there is a consensus for 38, probably cite the short version length to something else.
    • theleekycauldron I changed it to "just under 40 minutes" and removed the minutes for the cut version from the infobox. Is that fine? SL93 (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    yep! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 doesn't seem to support "The special features are deleted scenes, an interview with the director"
    • Done. Source added. SL93 (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 12 is a deadlink; Consider running IABot
    it redirects me to the baltimore sun's homepage—i meant run IABot to add archive links? (you'll have to go through and make sure it formats the dates correctly) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:29, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Neither ref 16 nor ref 17 claim that Bob Smith was especially angry, although it does give significant reason why he would be.
    • theleekycauldron I didn't add that to the article and I have no idea how to fix the issue. Maybe I could just remove it. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    smith doesn't seem irrelevant, I wouldn't cut it entirely; I just wouldn't say he was "especially provoked". theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Refs 16 and 17 should be marked as "subscription required"
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The sentence that begins with "The Frameline Film Festival said that the" should be cited to ref 19, not 18
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 20: Are you talking about this slideshow? If so, that should be put in a clear citation format (and probably linked). However, if there isn't a secondary source to corroborate that, I'd recommend against including it; since secondary sources are what we use to figure out what's important, and since Olsen isn't an academic or subject-matter expert on her own, I don't see a clear reason to include the associated fact.
    • Done. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A couple of sources spell the second director's name as "Helene"[a]—I think there's still a consensus that's not actually her name, but possibly mention that?
  • The {{cite web}} template is used 12 times; I'm not sure it's appropriate in all of those instances. Make sure you're not using cite web for newspapers, magazines, etc.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Oh, sorry, one more thing; make sure you're consistent about whether you're using title case or sentence case in sourcing (if you want to use sentence case for newspapers/websites, you may want to start separating sources by type) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 01:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I'm confused. I just copy and pasted the titles from the sources. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: in general, it's better to use a consistent article citation style rather than copy the capitalization used from the article. So, if you want to use title case, e.g. "Titanic Sinks Four Hours After Hitting Iceberg", use that consistently throughout the article; if you want so use sentence case, e.g. "Titanic sinks four hours after hitting iceberg", use that consistently instead. MOS:SMALLCAPS is kind of a guideline here? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 02:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron Done. SL93 (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, SL93! this has my support :D great work! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 02:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Other comments[edit]

General

  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

  • The list of cities comes out a little weird; why separate with semicolons?
    • Possibly rephrase to "The schools are in San Francisco and New York City, as well as Madison, Wisconsin and Cambridge, Massachusetts."
  • Done. I was actually told to use semicolons by the Good Article reviewer. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Synopsis

  • "encourages her students to brainstorm on the words "gay" and "lesbian," and to talk about the roots of their associations, assumptions, and attitudes": quotes within quotes should be single-quoted (i just said quote a lot)
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "about gay and lesbians" should be fixed either way
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The educators of the toured elementary and middle schools were teaching about homosexuality to their students in multiple ways." I'd recommend "The teachers that were surveyed had varying methods of educating about homosexuality". Some of it's stylistic, some of it's "technically correct", I just think it flows better.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "a man and a woman who are homosexual" per the same guideline up above, "homosexual" usually isn't fantastic to use—probably "a gay man and a lesbian woman"?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The film includes similar situations in other classrooms" I read that to mean similar to the last example—clarify?
  • Done. I decided to list all of the situations in the article from that source. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You also probably want to make it clear in the list of examples that they're meant to show the various teaching methods
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Release

  • Does the AFA need to be abbreviated if it's a single-mention org.?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • B. J. Bullert's line seems a little pedestrian—clarify how it relates to scheduling and release?
  • Done. I removed it. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception

  • Should probably be "Reception and impact"
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • According to this source, the film won "Best documentary" at four film festivals (the article mentions two) as well as many, many other awards—this may take a dedicated paragraph?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "that are out of context and makes it seem that children are being 'taught to be homosexual in the classroom'": "makes" should probably be "make", and "being taught to be" is a little redundant—"children are "taught to be" works fine
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "A 1999 journal article from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom states, 'With inspiring footage shot in schools across the country, the film takes viewers inside first through eighth grade classrooms to find out what young students have to say about a topic that often leaves adults tongue-tied'" — While the beginning is editorial ("inspiring"), and the end is as well ("adults tongue-tied"), i think the middle is just kind of summarizing synopsis. Is there a way to slim this down?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The AFA's film has comments from It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School"—It's Elementary is probably sufficient here
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Philanthropist James Hormel contributed $12,000 to the funding of the film."—Possibly use {{Currency}}, and clarify which film Hormel donated to?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "ambassadorship to be blocked by the senate"—senate should be U.S. Senate
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As much as I love the word "skewers", I'm not convinced it's formal enough for an encyclopedic article
  • Done. A lot of that section was added by someone else. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

  • "said that the flm [sic]"—i'm assuming "flm" is a typo
  • "being able to be included"—should probably just be "being included"
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "just like the first two films" should probably be "Similar to the first two films"
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend that the second-to-last sentence use the word "follow-up", since it's an easy keyword for people to remember.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That's about all I've got—fantastic work so far, SL93! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 08:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: I've finished adding responses to your responses :) and I added one more thing in the source review section (sorry i didn't see it beforehand) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 00:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ Ref 5, this unused source, and https://books.google.com/books?id=1uWRAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23 that url that for some reason doesn't like to exist
  2. ^ I realize that some of the sources don't adhere to that either, but some of these sources are also over 25 years old.


I just fixed a harv error, but looking through the citations there are a bunch of sources using First Last instead of Last, First. Last, First is standard for CS2 templates --Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Guerillero I took care of it, but I'm not sure it was "a bunch of sources". SL93 (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Part I[edit]

As promised, I am here to help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, a link to gay and lesbian would be helpful in the lead.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "It received positive reception, but it also received backlash from conservatives" — "backlash from conservatives" sounds a bit too POV. How about "criticism from few conservatives"?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "It's Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School was released" — why is the name repeated How about "The film was released"?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The film did not receive much support from PBS" — a casual reader might ask: why is receiving support from PBS important?
  • Done. I added that its the film's first television broadcast. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "from the American Family Association (AFA)." — AFA is not used in the lead again. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • " "calls, letters and e-mails urging them not to broadcast It's Elementary" " — although the lead section usually does not has citations, direct quotations need to be cited anywhere/everywhere. Also, the text doesn't make clear who said/wrote this quotation
  • Done. I reworded it without a direct quotation. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "at the San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and the Chicago International Gay and Lesbian Film Festival" — our articles calls it "Frameline Film Festival" and "Reeling: The Chicago LGBTQ+ International Film Festival". Why are the names changed?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "among others, the CINE Golden Eagle for Teacher Education and Best Educational Film at the Northern Lights International Film Festival, and other awards." — "among others" and "and other awards" is repetitive
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The film had the two sequels That's A Family!" — would a colon mark after "sequels" be helpful?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Chasnoff wanted to" — we were never introduced to who "Chasnoff" is. First instance in the prose (separate from lead) warrants a full name.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "involving people who are gay" — 'gay' here is used as gay men or the broader term for homosexuals?
  • "Chasnoff and producer Cohen" — first instance of "Cohen" warrants a full name
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "It was hard for them to gain entry into the schools and multiple staff and parents did not want to be recorded" — either replace "schools and multiple" with "schools as multiple", or add a semi colon in place of "and"
  • Done SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The schools are in San Francisco and New York City, as well as Madison, Wisconsin and Cambridge, Massachusetts" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA, and why is SF and NYC separately mentioned?
  • "It was directed by Debra Chasnoff and Helen Cohen" — perhaps, the full names should be moved to previous instance and last names (without links) should be used here
  • Kavyansh.Singh I linked it in both places. Is that fine? It seems to me that the director should be linked in the lead. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The issue is that "Debra Chasnoff" is linked twice in the prose (without considering the lead link). Also, on her second instance in the lead, she should be mentioned just as "Chasnoff" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • " "encourages her students to brainstorm on the words 'gay' and 'lesbian', and to talk about the roots of their associations, assumptions, and attitudes" " — citation needed immediately after the quotation
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "named Love Makes a Family" — suggesting "named "Love Makes a Family" "
  • "educator resources and special features" — oxford comma after 'resources'
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "on at least 60 PBS stations" — PBS should be linked
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In 1999, PBS refused to" — PBS should be de-linked
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "due to backlash from the American Family Association" — add '(AFA)', as this abbreviation is later used in the prose.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • " "Schools cannot be neutral when we're dealing with issues of human dignity and human rights". " — shouldn't the full stop be inside the quotes?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "set up billboards that opposed the film" — suggesting "set up billboards opposing the film"
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The AFA's film has comments from It's Elementary that are out of context and make it seem that children are "taught to be homosexual in the classroom"" — opinion presented as a fact. We'll need attribution for the quote.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "contributed US$12,000" — unlink "US$", and do we need to specify that it is US dollar. Seems obvious in this context.
  • "the U.S. Senate" — suggesting to spell U.S., as we have used that format in this article
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Frameline Film Festival" v. "San Francisco International Lesbian and Gay Film Festival" — consistency needed
    Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "LQBTQ issues" — did you mean "LGBTQ issues"
  • " "divorced, adoptive, guardian, parents with drugs, multi-racial, multi-religious, or disabled" " — citation needed immediately after the quote.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I found few additional sources (book and film reviews). Will they help?
    • Asher, Nina (2002). "It's Elementary; Talking About Gay Issues in School; Two Teenagers Tn 20: Writings by Gay and Lesbian Youth". Theory & Research in Social Education. 30 (2): 313–319. doi:10.1080/00933104.2002.10473199. ISSN 0093-3104.
    • Miletta, Alexandra (2008). "It's STILL Elementary: The Movie and the Movement". Encounter. Vol. 38, no. 1. pp. 49–50. ISSN 1094-3838.
      • I would rather not add information from new sources for an article review if I don't have to. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @SL93: I'm less experienced in this area than Kavyansh.Singh is, but my reading of the comprehensiveness requirement would say that if there's a major and verifiable fact in the sources that's not in the article, it would need to be included to pass that requirement. I've already indicated my support, and this is Kavyansh's section, of course, so I'll defer to them on this. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/she) 02:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Theleekycauldron My issue would then be that the fact or facts need to be pointed out to me first. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    I also don't have access to those sources. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Never mind. I have access through the Wikipedia Library. It doesn't seem that Kavyansh was asking for me to add major facts though - I also wouldn't know what is major to the reviewer. I will wait for a response from them. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @SL93: I did not directly asked you to include that source. As a reviewer, I tried to find additional sources that may help the article. I have not checked all the sources used in the article, and I do not know if the information available in the works I suggest is unique or already available elsewhere. As nominator and a major contributor to the article, I'd expect that you can better judge whether the sources I suggest are useful or not, if they include a "major fact" or not.

    As to @Theleekycauldron's question, I am not very experienced either, and take my word with a grain of salt, but here is my 2-cent: For FAs, it is expected that if a source is WP:HQRS and it has a unique perspective to add to the topic, it should be cited. Wider topics like Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign (one of my FA), which usually have many sources and citations (it has an entire 200 page book written on it), comprehensiveness is usually not a issue. However, for relatively short articles like this one, "Daisy", or your FAC, we really need to find sources. There is no clear-cut definition for what a comprehensive article is. We have also have a FA less than 4,000 characters long, but that is as comprehensive as it can be.

    For this particular case, I trust SL93's judgement whether the two sources are important/reliable enough to be added, but I'll expect a better rationale for not using them. Will take another look soon. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

    Kavyansh.Singh My issue for the first reference is that it is an article for a non-notable teacher's lesson plan that also involves two other things and not just the film. For the second reference, it is about the sequel and this article is not about the sequel. I'm not so sure about adding more information for something that isn't the topic of the article. I don't even have the title of the sequel redirecting to this article just in case it can have its own article. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Rest, I did not find ant other major source for the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it for now. Nice article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Part II[edit]

Looking much better, just a few more optional suggestions:

  • " who did want PBS program directors to broadcast It's Elementary". " (both in the lead and prose) — erroneous quote mark
  • "It was directed by Chasnoff and Helen Cohen" — just the last name of Cohen would be sufficient. Full name has already been used once.
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "and special features. The special features are deleted scenes," — suggesting "and special features like deleted scenes,"
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "at Ohio State University" — "at the Ohio State University"?
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "by the Director of the Franklin County Education Council Brad Mitchell" — my reading of MOS:JOBTITLE suggests that 'Director' should be lowercased
  • Done. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's correct. The year is just the year when the film won the award. I will go ahead and add that year to the text. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What is your approach to citing sources as short-footnotes (Sfn)? I see that a book which is used twice has been Sfn-ed. But multiple sources which are used more than once are not.
  • Kavyansh.Singh I only cited that one book per a suggestion by theleekycauldron. I don't know how to cite sfn with sources that are not books and the information page about it makes my head hurt. I will see if I'm able to figure it out. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Kavyansh.Singh I used sfn for those sources except for New Day Films due to a year being required for the template. SL93 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh Is this a support? Thanks for the great review. SL93 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I support this nomination for its promotion as a featured article. Sorry for the delay, was bit busy ... And I don't feel there was anything great with my review. Its a pleasure reading, reviewing, and gaining knowledge, all at the same time!Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

As regards the nominator's worry about the length of the article, my view is that the only measure is that an article should be as long as it needs to be, and no longer. This one seems to me to meet that criterion. A few minor points, none of which affect my support, but may, I hope, be helpful:

  • Lead
  • "The film was the first to provide educators with information on how to prevent discrimination against people who are gay" – the first in America or the first in the world? The former, I imagine, but it would be as well to clarify this.
  • "It received positive reception, but it also received backlash …The film did not receive much support" – wouldn't hurt to trim the repetitions of "received" – along the lines of, e.g., "was generally well received, although there was some backlash from conservatives" or some such.
  • Synopsis
  • There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of present -v- past tenses: "An eighth-grade teacher dismantled stereotypes … A principal of an elementary school held a photography event … A girl with lesbian parents read a Mother's Day essay … A fifth-grade teacher notices that her students have no issues … A Puerto Rican teacher states that her heritage was part of her not being open to LGBTQ matters".
  • Reception and impact
  • Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire thought that the film discredits a speech that Smith gave in the Senate – I'd be cautious about "thought", here. He may have said so, but it is speculative to say what he thought.

That's all from me. Happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. – Tim riley talk 14:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tim riley Thanks for the support. I fixed the issues. As for being the first, there was an editor who was wondering if it really was the first such film even though the reliable source said it was "the first of its kind". I changed the sentences in the lead and body to say that the book mentioned it as "the first of its kind". Do you think that is a fair compromise? SL93 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
A shrewd move, I'd say. Tim riley talk 19:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Walter Donaldson (snooker player)[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the second-ever world snooker champion, who later converted his snooker room into a cowshed and used the slate from his billiard table for paving. I had fun digging out sources for the article; it's had a copyedit since getting GA status last year. Thanks in advance for any impovement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Davis won the following two championships, with Donaldson taking the next, and then being runner-up to Davis for the next four years" => "Davis won the following two championships, with Donaldson taking the next and then being runner-up to Davis for the next four years"
  • "Donaldson then retired from World Championship competition, although continued to play in the News of the World Snooker Tournament until 1959." => "Donaldson then retired from World Championship competition, although he continued to play in the News of the World Snooker Tournament until 1959."
  • "Having returned to Rotherham after winning the Scottish titles," - is this necessary? There's no suggestion that he actually moved house to Glasgow to compete in the tournaments, so it's only logical that he went back home after they ended.
  • "Fred Davis reflected he had probably been" => "Fred Davis reflected that he had probably been"
  • "In the 1948 World Snooker Championship held only six months after the 1947 tournament," => "In the 1948 World Snooker Championship, held only six months after the 1947 tournament,"
  • "Davis wrote he had consciously" => "Davis wrote that he had consciously"
  • "The Billiard Player magazine identified Donaldson's success to" - "identify....to" isn't really a valid usage, so I would change "identified" to "attributed"
  • "The 1953 World Professional Match-play Championship final in March saw the players even at 6–6 after the first day" - which players?
  • "After the 1954 World Match-play final, Donaldson announced he would not be playing" => "After the 1954 World Match-play final, Donaldson announced that he would not be playing"
  • "Donaldson was married to Ida, who he met" => "Donaldson was married to Ida, whom he met"
  • "whilst noting his aversion to applying side" => "whilst noting that his aversion to applying side"
  • The WSC finals table shows Donaldson's score first for every final except 1951
  • Refs against second billiards final are not in numerical order
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
Perhaps the article should say he contested the final between those dates and then mention that he won two of the events? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Could probably merge the first and third paras together. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
British Junior English Billiards Championship (Under-16 section) - could we prose-ify this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
several times, can we be more specific? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Worth linking World War 2? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Regine Velasquez[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Filipino singer Regine Velasquez who has achieved commercial success in some Asian territories. This is the third nomination at FAC, following a failed attempt in 2020. It underwent a GA review in July 2021, and I have been nursing it up to address the points raised during the second nomination, including a copy editing recommendation. Two rounds of copy edits have since been done among other improvements done, and I have consulted with the reviewer before renom. I feel ready to bring this back for another go. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Damien Linnane[edit]

  • "She is known for ... the unorthodox voice training she received during her childhood, where she was immersed neck-deep at sea." I understand she went through this unorthodox training, however, it is accurate to say this training is one of the three main things she is known for? Is her training common knowledge and a common discussion point when she is talked about?
That's correct. It's a widely known fact/detail and a common discussion point that has been written and mentioned in almost every coverage of Velasquez in Filipino pop culture. Here are a few examples [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
  • "She explored Manila sound and kundiman ..." I'd consider clarifying to the reader that these are genres. I.e "She explored the genres of ...". I'd similarly consider clarifying that Ang Bagong Kampeon is a contest.
Done
  • "was subsequently certified twelve-times platinum" - Should you clarify this was achieved in the Philippines? Honest question as I'm not sure if it should be assumed you're talking about the Philippines by default when mentioning a Filipino national.
Done, I've clarified this as being certified in the Philippines only.
  • "Velasquez is the best-selling music artist of all time in the Philippines." - Do you mean she is the best-selling Filipino music artist of all time? If so please clarify; correct me if I'm wrong but I assume many Western singers have sold a lot more than 7 million albums in the Philippines.
You're right, I've reworded to clarify.
  • "the nth variation of Roman Holiday" - Why not wikilink Roman Holiday?
Linked
  • "She left the show for health reasons" - This is a bit vague, but I'm assuming you couldn't find anything more specific on the health issues?
At the time of publication, her pregnancy wasn't confirmed yet, but the article only mentions due to "severe migraine attacks". This was brought up in the prior FAC as well and that 'health reasons' would seem appropriate in this context. Let me know otherwise what you think?
  • The personal life section is a bit thin, though I remember you explaining you had trouble finding sources for that at the last FAC.
That's right. Per the last FAC, it was very short-lived, some time in 1994. Finding WP:RS was a challenge since no article or publication has really detailed it and nothing archived as well.

That's all I found in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: Thanks for your review. I have the addressed the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy with changes, and to support on prose. Well done on the improvements with the article since the last FAC. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
@Damien Linnane: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

For context, I have participated in the first FAC and the second FAC. I am happy to see the article back in the FAC space. My comments are below:

  • For this part, which became the new label's maiden release, I think the "maiden release" word choice is rather awkward. I think saying "the new label's first release" would be clearer and simpler.
Reworded
  • I have a comment about the "2017–present" sub-section. The sentence structure is somewhat repetitive, and the last three sentence start with dates, as shown here—On April 25, 2020, she, Later in June, Velasquez, and On February 28, 2021, she was— and I would avoid that so the prose does not come across as listing dates and events.
Reworded sentence structure
  • I am not sure about the "the film's critical failure" wording in this part, Despite the film's critical failure. Maybe something like "Despite the film's negative reviews" instead?
Done
  • For this part, she briefly appeared in the iWant comedy series, I do not think iWant should be in italics.
Changed
  • I would link R&B in this part, style and R&B influence, since it is linked in the lead.
Linked
  • Why isn't Love Was Born On Christmas Day mentioned in the prose? From what I can see, it is only mentioned in the list in the "Discography" section.
Apart from the lack of publication/articles about it, the holiday album did not receive much attention, I've removed it from the discography section as well since it's already in the discography article.
  • There are several "harv warning" issues in the citations. Look at Citation 254 for examples of these.
Not quite sure what "harv warning" issues you are referring, I may be unaware I used the incorrect citation format. What I did use for references like citation 254 is WP:CITEBUNDLE in order to avoid visual clutter of multiple clickable footnotes, esp for awards count. A format I referred to from an FA [17] Let me know if I misunderstood the point you raised.
  • Apologies for that. I used the Harvard citation style in my articles so I have install something that flags citations as having errors if it does not fit that. However, since you are not using that, it is not an issue. Just ignore the above suggestion. Apologies again for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense now, I do recall your citation formats now that you mentioned it. Thanks for clarifying,
  • For the citation in another language (like Citation 133), I believe an English translation of the title is necessary.
Trans-title added

I hope these comments are helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will look through the article again to make sure I did not miss anything. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for your review! I have addressed the above comments and also have some clarification on one item re citation use. Happy to address it once you clarify. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I support the article based on the prose. Unfortunately, I do not feel too comfortable going further into the citations as I am an American and I am not familiar enough with these publications to say anything meaningful about them. Best of luck with the FAC! It would be great to see more Filipino articles in the FA space. I do have one quick question. What was your reasoning for the image used in the infobox? I do not have any issues with it and it does not affect my support in any way, but I was just curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aoba47: much appreciate your time in reviewing! On the infobox image, I thought it'd be much better to use something much more recent that I could find (2010) and replace the old image taken in 2005, and thought it looked better (in my opinion). Pseud 14 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way to be honest, and I trust your judgement as you know more about this person than I do. Again, best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "which sold more than seven hundred thousand copies" - write this in digits.
Done
  • "a further million and a half" - 1.5 million would be much simpler.
Done
  • "partly because of her lack of experience in musical theater, and because she wished to remain with her family" - repetitive prose. because.. because
Reworded
  • "She worked with songwriters including Glenn Medeiros, Trina Belamide, and John Laudon." Be consistent with the placement of a comma before "including". Either do it everywhere or don't do it at all.
Fixed
  • "The album had sold more than 700,000 copies regionally, including 100,000 in the Philippines" - I am confused here. Wouldn't 700k sold copies regionally mean that all 700k were sold in the Philippines, considering she is from the country? Did you probably mean 700k copies were sold worldwide or continentally?
I've removed the the mention of 100k to avoid confusion. The article says 700k sales overall and 100k of those were sales in the Philippines. Nevertheless, just mentioning the total would be consistent with what's in the lead as well.
My issue was with the word "regionally". If the source says it sold 700k copies overall then I take it to mean worldwide and not regionally. So my suggestion would be "The album had sold more than 700,000 copies worldwide, including 100,000 in the Philippines." FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Changed to your suggestion Pseud 14 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "For her seventh studio album Retro (1996), Velasquez recorded cover versions of popular music of the 1970s and 1980s from artists including Donna Summer, Foreigner, and the Carpenters." Same as point number four. Do check for other instances.
Fixed this too and reviewed the rest of the article for consistency.
  • "Commercially, R2K sold more than 40,000 copies in its second week of release, earning a platinum certification,[47][a] and was certified four times platinum a year after its release." Repetition of "release" in close proximity.
Reworded
  • "The following year, Velasquez worked with Filipino songwriters for material on her eleventh studio album Reigne.[61] The album and its lead single "To Reach You" were released in December 2001." The mention of the December 2001 release makes "the following year" redundant.
Reworded
  • "Gonzales called the album "an adventurous set" and praised the quality of the songwriting.[61] Two other singles, Tats Faustino's "Dadalhin" and Janno Gibbs' "Sa Aking Pag-iisa", were released from the album.[64]" You should probably place the review at the end of the paragraph. As it is, it reads a bit awkward, talking about the album and its lead single, then the review and then you jump back to the mention of the other singles from the album.
Good point, I've revised the sentence structure.
  • "That year in November, she had a concert residency named Songbird Sings Streisand, a tribute to American singer and actor Barbra Streisand, at Makati's Onstage Theatre"
Done
  • "Its songs were originally recorded by Filipino male artists and was her most expensive cover album to produce due in part to the cost of securing licensing rights for songs by local songwriters,[80][81] including, Ariel Rivera's "Minsan Lang Kita Iibigan".." Unneeded comma after "including".
Fixed
  • "In 2007, she became co-host of the reality television show Celebrity Duets, an interactive music competition based on the original US show." Perhaps add an "eponymous" before "original" to clarify that the original show has the same title.
  • "The Philippine Daily Inquirer praised the album's maturity and wrote; "[Velasquez] no longer.." Why the semi-colon? A comma works just fine.
Fixed
  • "After receiving the Magna Award at the Myx Music Awards 2011,[102] Velasquez took a hiatus from public engagements following the confirmation of her pregnancy." The first part of sentence says the break was followed by the awards, then you say it was followed by her pregnancy. Maybe "After receiving the Magna Award... and the confirmation of her pregnancy, Velasquez took a hiatus from public engagements" would be better.
Agreed, made the change.
  • "For the third consecutive year" - "for a"
Done
  • "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera, Angeline Quinto, and Erik Santos." Maybe mention what was it that they did before that they were reunited here. Her prior collaboration with Nievera is clear but Angeline Quinto and Erik Santos are mentioned for the first time in the article.
Revised the sentence structure to clarify. Thanks for pointing out.
Now it reads "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera, with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts, and also features Angeline Quinto, and Erik Santos." My issue was not with how she got reunited with Nievera, as he is mentioned several times throughout the article. It's not him whose previous collaborations need to be mentioned here but rather Quinto and Santos. However, now I see you have completely omitted the reunion part with these two. Another issue: "with whom she had collaborated with on previous concerts" (double use of with, I suggest removing one, preferably the second one) although I suggest removing this altogether because, like I said, her previous work with Nievera does not need to be clarified. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying this, I must've misunderstood. I've reworded and made it simple to "The two-night show, Royals, reunited her with Nievera and also features Angeline Quinto and Erik Santos", let me know if this works Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Down to the end of the music career section. More later. FrB.TG (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: thanks for your initial review. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if I missed anything Pseud 14 (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I am satisfied with the replies except where I have stated otherwise.

My final batch:

  • "On several occasions, Velasquez has cited Barbra Streisand as her main influence and musical inspiration, saying; "I look up to [Streisand] not just because of her enormous talent, but because of her fearlessness and dedication to excellence, her willingness to take risks and to be different". Per MOS:LQ, the full stop should be placed inside the quotation mark if the end of the quote coincides with the end of the sentence containing it. So it would be in this case "I look up to [Streisand] ... and to be different." Also why the semi-colon? A comma works just fine.
Done.
  • "She described how she developed her musical style, saying; "I was.." Same as above; use a comma instead.
Done
  • "Elvin Luciano from CNN Philippines wrote: 'During her [initial] phase, she proved that Filipino love songs don't have to come pre-packaged in the kundiman-rooted love ballad'.[197]" MOS:LQ
Done
  • "During the mid-1990s to early 2000s" - "From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s" or "During the mid-1990s and the early 2000s"
  • "Velasquez said; 'I don't mean to..." Comma please.
Done
  • "Many critics complimented her work, often singling out Velasquez's influence; Luciano, writing for CNN Philippines, described her "legitimacy" as "enough to secure a space in pop culture" and said her musical career "continues to influence generations of OPM patrons and songbird wannabes up to this day",[197] while according to The Philippine Star, "If one were to go by records and distinctions made, Regine Velasquez would win, hands down".[27]" This is an incredibly long sentence. I suggest putting a full stop where you used a semi-colon instead.
Done
  • "Manila Bulletin said; 'Most of our.." I think you know what I am asking of you here. I am not sure if the use of a semi-colon is wrong in such cases but it's rather unusual and the use of a comma suffices in all of these instances. Besides, you yourself mostly use a comma in these cases anyway.
Done. I'm trying to recall if the change was made by me or a result of the copy edits. Appreciate you pointing out these!
  • "According to Boy Abunda, 'Most of the young female singers currently making waves in the industry are cut from the same biritera [belter] cloth as Regine Velasquez'.[211]" MOS:LQ - place the full-stop within the quotes.
Done
  • "American singer Brian McKnight who co-headlined a concert with Velasquez, has complimented her singing, stating; 'I got to sing..." Same as above.
Done
  • "She has signed advertising deals with several other brands, including," - wrong use of a comma after "including".
Done
  • "Velasquez has sold more than seven million records in the Philippines and a further million and a half in Asia" - 1.5 million
Done

This should conclude my review. To make sure you don't miss them, I have left replies under some of yours and need further clarification. Once these concerns are resolved, I'll have no reason not to endorse this article's promotion. Happy to see you bring it to FAC again after all these years. Hopefully, third time really is the charm. FrB.TG (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I have addressed the outstanding items in your initial review and have made the changes on the additional points you raised as well. I really appreciate your time in reviewing, these have been extremely helpful. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@FrB.TG: many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis[edit]

  • Hi @Pamzeis: was wondering if you're planning on providing commentaries soon? Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay... I'll get to it by the end of the month... Pamzeis (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2014 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 edition of the oldest football cup competition in the world. Should have been a stroll really for the Gooners but the Tigers gave it a good go, and were 2–0 up inside just eight minutes. The London club fought back to level the score before snatching an extra time winner. It was decent. As ever, will happily (real life permitting) spend as much time as I can addressing constructive comments, and appreciate any time and energy expended by everyone throughout this process. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks fine but File:Arsenal vs Hull City 2014-05-17.svg needs a source for the information displayed (t · c) buidhe 20:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • The formations are available here. I can add this source to the image description page and/or the article itself. Which do you suggest? – PeeJay 22:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "It is the world's oldest football cup competition" - pedantically, it's the oldest competition of any kind, not just the oldest cup competition
    • Removed "cup". – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The fixture at the Emirates Stadium in London" - could maybe clarify that this is Arsenal's home ground. I know it says "in London", but not everyone will know that Arsenal play in London.
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Arsenal won both of the league matches between the sides" - seems strange to refer to "the two sides" when Hull haven't been mentioned in the body of the article yet. This could be rectified by moving the bit about these two league meetings to the end of the paragraph.
    • Moved the bit about the league meetings to the end of the paragraph and corrected the link to Arsenal F.C.PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "when he struck Serge Gnabry's pass first time past Hugo Lloris, the Tottenham goalkeeper" - wikilink keeper?
    • Done. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "With fewer than 10 minutes remaining, Theo Walcott was taken off the pitch" - need to say which team he was playing for
    • Done. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Curtis Davies gave Hull the lead after 14 minutes with a header past Jake Forster-Caskey" - normally this wording would be used when the second player mentioned is a keeper, but Forster-Caskey is not, so how was it a header past him? Did he just happen to be between the ball and the goal?
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the semi-final, Hull's first since 1930, they faced Sheffield United at the KC Stadium." - the game was not played at the KC Stadium
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Hull strike partnership Shane Long and Nikica Jelavić were cup-tied" => "Hull strike partners Shane Long and Nikica Jelavić were cup-tied" (avoids a hint of singular/plural disagreement)
    • Changed to "strikers". They weren't always the partnership Steve Bruce went with that season (although they were the most), so we shouldn't imply they were joined at the hip. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aluko, Paul McShane, James Chester and Robbie Brady faced fitness tests for Hull" - did they pass the tests?
    • Added that info based on the line-ups. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Neither side made any substitutions during the interval" - wikilink substitution?
    • Done. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the 56th minute, the spectators applauded in memory of the 56 victims of the Bradford City stadium fire." - clarify when this happened, as a casual reader may think it was a recent occurrence rather than having happened decades earlier
    • Added "in 1985". – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Podolski was substituted for Sanogo" - ah, here's the wikilink. Move it to the first mention rather than the second
    • Done. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "they altered their formation to play with two strikers" - wikilink striker?
  • "Aaron Ramsey (pictured in 2015) scored the winning goals minutes after coming on as a substitute." - pretty sure he only scored one :-)
    • He also started the match, so I've fixed that entirely. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are two paragraphs in the post-match section which are only one sentence long each. Can these be appended to other paragraphs? The one about the bus parade could certainly easily fit onto the end of the paragraph about the trophy
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "As Arsenal qualified for the following season's Champions League" - wikilink Champions League in the same way as you do right after with the UEL
    • Done. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Cheers Chris, let us know what you think of the changes. – PeeJay 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, although a stray word from the old version of the Ramsey caption appears to have remained, meaning that it doesn't make grammatical sense. Also (this probably should have occurred to me to mention before) in addition to clarifying when the Bradford fire happened, can you add something to clarify exactly why the fans applauded in memory of it at this game? Bradford weren't involved in this game, it didn't take place on the actual anniversary, and it hadn't happened a "major" (for want of a better word) number of years earlier (25/50/etc). Without a few words of additional explanation it comes across as really random that the fans chose to honour an event which had no direct connection to either club and which had occurred 29 years and 6 days earlier. Does that make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Paige Bueckers[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Paige Bueckers, one of the most promising women's basketball players and currently a top player at the college level for UConn. She was considered the best high school basketball player in the United States at Hopkins High School in Minnesota, and had a historic first season at UConn, becoming the first freshman to win a national college player of the year award. Bueckers has several gold medals representing the United States in youth tournaments.

This article briefly went through a peer review and I believe it meets the criteria of a featured article. It is comprehensive and well-sourced, illustrated with many good images, and its content does not change significantly on a daily basis. Although it is early in the subject's career, I have been a regular contributor to this article for nearly 2 years and expect to make sure it remains up to date. Sportzeditz (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: I restored some of the more notable awards in the infobox (mostly national honors), and added sources to the awards section you created. Let me know if you have further input on this. Sportzeditz (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • 14 awards in the infobox still seems like far too many. (The infobox is supposed to provide basic information at a quick glance; excessive length undermines its purpose). A better approach might be "see the body" and link the body section where the awards are listed. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Please be advised that I have watched precisely one basketball game in my life, so am approaching this from a decidedly non-expert position :-)
  • "winning all four she was eligible for" => "winning all four for which she was eligible"
  • "She led her team in three-point shooting" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "three-point shooting"?
  • "In seventh grade, Bueckers played for the tenth grade and junior varsity basketball teams at Hopkins High School" - I am not 100% clued up on how grades work in US schools, but the article on the school suggests that it only starts from the tenth grade. Does this mean she played for a school which she did not attend? Is this normal? Did any sort of special dispensation have to be given?
  • "earning All-Metro first team honors" - what does "All-Metro" mean?
  • "She was additionally one of three finalists for the Gatorade National Player of the Year award" - no need to link the award again as you only just linked it in the last paragraph
  • "Bueckers moved to the Minnesota Metro Stars AAU program" - I had to stop for a minute here and think what AAU could be, so maybe put it in brackets where you used its full name before
  • "During her senior season, Star Tribune columnist" - no need to link the paper again
  • "a 63–59 overtime win over No. 1 South Carolina." - in what were they number one?
  • "Bueckers's father, Bob Bueckers, played high school basketball as a point guard." - no need to link point guard again
  • If she's at university, is it worth mentioning what subject her degree course is in (assuming this is public knowledge)? Or does it not work like that in the US?
  • I have not been able to find this information, although it is sometimes publicly available for college athletes. Sportzeditz (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That's all I got on a first pass. An engaging read even with essentially no knowledge of the subject matter :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Sportsfan77777[edit]

Noting that I reviewed this article for GA, and again at peer review, hence the quick support. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some minor comments:

  • In the first sentence, "Big East Conference (add "in NCAA Division I")"
  • She has experience in 3x3 basketball ===>>> She was a Youth Olympic gold medalist in 3x3 basketball
  • She has a slim build, which encourages opposing teams to force her to play through contact,[109] but displays quickness and agility. <<<=== Maybe restructure or move the last part of this sentence to a new sentence. Also, I think "quickness and agility" is what you might expect from a slim player, so I'm not sure you need the "but".
  • Typically, an awards and honors section goes after all of the prose (see e.g. LeBron James).
  • I think "Footnotes" is usually just written as "Notes", not sure if there is a reason for that.

Also, you need to add alt text for the images. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Sources are an appropriate mix of sports news websites/newspapers, local news websites/newspapers, and official team websites. I don't see anything questionable.
  • Since you link most of the sources, you could link CT Post to Connecticut Post.
  • There are a few instances of BIG EAST being in all caps when it doesn't need to be.
  • ESPN is a publisher. It is correct in most sources, but there are a few where it is referred to as a website.
  • Use the User:InternetArchiveBot to archive all of the sources if you can. Otherwise, just archive the ones below using Internet Archive (or replace if not available).

Links not working:

Spotchecks:

  • In [95], "She matched the program record for points in a season opener set by Kerry Bascom in 1989", I see the source says the most points since Bascom, but not that it was a program record.
  • The following sources support the associated statements: [25] (first sophomore to win award), [47] (career stats), [51] (finalists), [68] (Maya Moore), [101] (tournament stats), [114] (signature shot)

Sources appear to be in good shape. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Nicoll Highway MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is about a Singapore MRT station that has a rather dark period during its construction history. Following what I learned from my previous two FAC nominations, I hope this will fit the criteria.ZKang123 (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image review: licensing looks good, but the external image box is sandwiching with the infobox (I would suggest removing, as the collapse has its own article and the external image could be linked there) and the NCH collapse map.png should be removed or scaled up to be readable (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Has scaled up the image of the map. Still essential to visualise the realignment of stationa and tunnels. ZKang123 (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

==== Cmments by CactiStaccingCrane (talk) ====

  • "S$270 million (US$150.7 million)" - inflation?
  • 100-by-130-by-30-metre is extremely awkward
  • Please specify "Circle line", "Republic Avenue", "Golden Mile Tower", and more. For example, "Circle line" to "Circle MRT line" with linking.
  • "intended" sounds like reading someone's intent. Removing them would be better for prose crispness, such as "The platform's dark, polished seats were intended to complement the rest of the station..." -> "The platform's dark, polished seats complement the rest of the station..."
  • List is not exhaustive

Overall: I found the article to be a good read, but I have a feeling that the prose can be better. I support the nomination for almost all criteria except 1a, 1c (haven't checked), and 1f (haven't checked). CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will review this later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The Yankee[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

For only lasting two years, two centuries ago, under two different names, and for being published in what is today considered a small city and edited by what is today considered a largely unknown historic figure, The Yankee is a magazine that still comes up in histories of American art, literature, drama, and feminism. It's how Whittier, Poe, and Hawthorne got their start and how editor John Neal announced his prophetic cultural predictions. I figured the topic could use an article, so I wrote one and then took it through a peer review and GAN. I'm thinking that after resolving a few comments in this forum, it'll be even better, and deserving of featured status. If you can take the time to read through the article and leave your comments here, I would very much appreciate the help. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why use an image in |title= in the infobox? Especially when the image directly below is topped with the same title?
Good question. Maybe the image doesn't add anything that plain text does not. I just switched it out for the latter. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If it is kept, File:The_Yankee_Title_January_1_1828.jpg is likely not sufficiently original to have warranted copyright protection
Gone. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale,_c._1823,_oil_on_canvas_-_Portland_Museum_of_Art_-_Portland,_Maine_-_DSC04059.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I haven't found any information on when or where this painting was first put on public display or reproduced. Does that affect the image's status regarding the image policy for a photograph of a painting on public display that was originally produced 199 years ago by someone who has been dead 137 years? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
It would impact what tagging is most appropriate. What's the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah. This page on the Portland Museum of Art website says that the portrait was a gift from a private collection and that the accession number is 2013.13. As I understand it, this means that the painting was gifted in 2013, which is likely the time it was put on display at this museum. So if we can't confirm the portrait being on public display any earlier, I guess 2013 is when we can consider it to have been published. Thanks for your help with this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so likely {{PD-US-unpublished}} would apply? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. Never seen that tag before. I just swapped it out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I just added this image of Sarah Josepha Hale to the article per Aoba47's suggestion. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Two of the three source links here are dead, and same question as above re: publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Image removed. I added it per discussion below, but now I'm not sure it's appropriate.

Sorry to continue complicating this image review, but I just replaced File:Market Square Portland Maine 1874.png with File:Portland, Maine City Hall 1830s.jpg because it focuses more on the building in question and depicts a time period closer to the events in question. I hope I picked the right tag. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the book from which that was taken has an "all rights reserved" notice from the City of Portland. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for figuring that out. I just replaced it with the city hall image that was there before. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Any other image issues? Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for looking into these images, including the ones I brought in after nominating the article. Did the article pass your image review, or are there still issues to address? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

No, all good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh[edit]

Will take a look soon. Note: I reviewed it for GA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • "When John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," — I'd mention who Neal was, as: "When American author John Neal returned to his native Portland, Maine," or any other way you find better.
Makes sense. I'd like to say "writer, critic, lawyer, and activist John Neal", but I think I should stick to one vocation, so I added simply "writer". His nationality is indicated later in the sentence. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Residents also engaged with Neal in verbally and physically violent exchanges in the streets" — we have both 'engaged' and 'exchanges', which mostly means the same. Is there a way to avoid this repetition?
Good point. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Neal established The Yankee at the start of 1828" — Do we know in which month? If not, I feel that "early 1928" would be less wordy.
The first issue is dated January 1, 1828, so it really was "at the start". I've expanded this sentence into two, adding that date. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Due to its high proportion of Neal's own work, Neal's unique" — repetition of "Neal's"
Good catch! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" — if we mention this, shouldn't we also mention that James Brooks later served as a representative from New York?
Sure! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "(later associate justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court)" v. "(later Chief Justice of Maine)" — why is 'Chief Justice' capitalised?
Good find! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Edgar Allan Poe, John Greenleaf Whittier, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow all received" — two things: (1) Poe and Whittier are already mentioned before. Is it necessary to write their full name again? (2) I might be wrong, but shouldn't there be a comma after 'Henry Wadsworth Longfellow'?
I just removed first names for Poe and Whittier, but the comma seems unnecessary to me and I couldn't find anything in the MOS saying one way or another, so I'm going to leave it without adding a comma. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Is 'Feminism' separate from 'Political, social, and civic issues'?
I gave "Feminism" its own section separate from "Political, social, and civic issues" because there seemed to be enough content to do so. And even though feminism is a social issue, it doesn't feel right to make it the only level-3 subsection beneath "Political, social, and civic issues". Let me know if you have more thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • " "Rights of Women" (March 5, 1829) includes " — try to avoid starting a sentence by a quote.
Ok. Changed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note [b] needs a citation.
Good point. Added a dictionary citation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "pp. 69–70, 69–70, 76–77, 84–85, 92–93, 100–101, 109, 117–118" — '69–70' is repeated twice.
Good catch! Fixed. It turns out I am responsible for that exact same typo in two other FLC/FAC-reviewed articles, but you're the first person to spot it. I just fixed it in those two other articles as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it. Great work, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for spending even more time on this article. I think everything you brought up is now addressed. Let me know if anything above deserves more discussion. Otherwise, let me know if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I definitely support this article for promotion as a featured article. And of-course, thanks for your work on this article, perhaps every other John Neal related article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this as a placeholder. Unfortunately, I will not have time to post a review until the weekend so apologies for that. I am looking forward to reading the article as I find the topic to be interesting. I do have one small comment. I am not sure if the John Neal image fits in the "Feminism" sub-section. It would seem appropriate for the "Background" section where Neal is first discussed. I would put this image of Sarah Josepha Hale as it would make more sense to have an image of a woman in this sub-section and Hale is discussed here as one of the female editors promoted by The Yankee. Please ping me if I have not posted a review by this time next week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the review! I agree that Neal's portrait is probably better suited for the "Background" section, so I moved it. I went ahead and added Hale's to the "Feminism" section, because why not, but it's worth noting that this section is all about Neal's writing on feminist topics. As editor, he critiqued and published works by women (covered in the "Literary criticism" section), but I haven't seen anything explicitly feminist in The Yankee written by a woman. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. If the Hale portrait does not fit with the section, feel free to remove it. I was primarily suggesting it as I did not want to talk about removing an image from a sub-section without offering a potential substitute. I would trust your judgement on this as you know the subject best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for talking it through. I did end up removing Hale's portrait, in part because of the image review above, but I'm keeping Neal's portrait where it is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • American art is linked in the lead, but I do not think it is linked in the article. I'd link it in the article to be consistent with the lead. I have the same comment for American literature.
Good point. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why not! Added in the lead and body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part, and is approximately equal to $11,783 in present terms. Wouldn't the phrase "in present terms" be discouraged as this will change in the future? I think it would be better to specify the year or find a way to avoid the above phrasing.
Thanks for bringing this up. I thought that by using Template:Inflation, the phrase "in present terms" was acceptable. I've edited this footnote to match the usage recommendations on that template's page. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. The article is in great shape, and I really do not have that much for my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support the FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to read through the article and find these items. Let me know if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • " Unique at the time for independent journalism, Neal used creative control of the magazine ..." Can I suggest that this may flow a little easier as 'The Yankee was unique at the time for its independent journalism. Neal used creative control of the magazine ...'?
Like like it! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Many new, predominantly female writers and editors". Should there be a comma after "female"?
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "who are still familiar to modern readers." Delete "still".
Yes! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Background": Perhaps a sentence or two covering what Neal did prior to 1827. (I assume he is not related to Athena.)
Seems reasonable. Added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "his unique editorial choices". In a literal sense, surely any editorial selection is unique. Is there not a better word.
Agreed. Reworded. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The Yankee's greatest impact was uplifting new authors". How does one uplift an author? Is that a thing?
Swapped for "encouraging". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "influenced the younger writer's style". Younger than whom? Do you mean 'young'?
Good catch. Changed to "young". Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "for saying the same thing". Actually the same thing?
Good point. Reworded. I'll work on your other comments in a bit. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • MOS:QUOTE states "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". You have a lot of quotes in this, including three big block quotes. I can just about - maybe, I'll reread - grit my teeth over the in text quotes - which you do use well, and this is on a cultural publication - and most of the first block quote. But is there an overwhelming reason why the MoS should not be adhered to re the block quotes in "Political, social, and civic issues" and "Feminism" and they be rewritten in Wikipedia editors' own words? Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate.
Having gone through a few peer reviews, GANs, and FACs over the last year and a half, I think it's safe to say that this comment touches on what may be my most persistent weakness as a Wiki editor. Looking at the three block quotes with MOS:QUOTE in mind, I'm now thinking that the first, while really fun, is totally extraneous, so I cut it. The second I replaced with a prose summary. As you mentioned, this is an article about a cultural publication, which I think should give it a little more leeway on the MOS:QUOTE standard, so I'm hoping that removing two-thirds of the block quotes is sufficient. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "which he offered in "Woman" (March 26, 1828), is female solidarity". "is" → 'was'.
Sure. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it is still quote-heavy. (I say this as someone keen on quotations myself. Only this week I had a run in with a FAC coordinator over this, but they were quibbling over my using quotations totalling five words!) But it is a cultural publication and you have certainly cut them a lot, so ok.
  • I notice that we are not told what the title of the publication/article aludes to.
Fair point. I added something to the "New England" section. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ""Her magnitude, her resources etc". Is "her" Maine or New England?
I see how that's not clear. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "In contrast to most American regionalist works later in the century that sentimentally posed rural traditions in conflict with America's urbanization, The Yankee presented the country's regions as "future-oriented spaces whose identities would—and should—remain elusive"." I feel that this sentence is working too hard. It is very difficult to read.
Ha! I agree. It's still a little heady, but now in two sentences and minus one quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "The first volume of The Yankee". Could it be clearly stated what constitutes a "volume".
Ah. I changed "(1828)" to "(January 1 – December 24, 1828)" to make that clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Neat.

Actually, that's all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fantastic finds! So many opportunities for greater clarity I didn't notice. Thank you. Let me know if you think any of these issues need more attention or if you support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Lovely stuff. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from SchreiberBike[edit]

I'm new to the featured articles process, so rather than suggest changes here, I copy edited the article myself. The nominator corrected my misunderstanding of MOS:RANGE and made a few other changes. I now feel that the article meets the criteria to be a featured article. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth - pass[edit]

  • What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
    • Barnes, Albert F. (1984). Greater Portland Celebration 350?
I guess I can do better. I used this reference in two places for essentially the same claim. I just replaced with the 1979 article by William Barry (the most highly regarded scholar of Portland, Maine history, from what I can tell). Changing out the citation necessitated changing the wording a little bit to match Barry's claim. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "and continued with Neal's claim in The Yankee that Garrison was fired from his editorial position for attacking Neal in the paper" is sourced to an arguably primary source - Garrison, Wendell Phillips; Garrison, Francis Jackson (1885). William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879: The Story of His Life Told by His Children. What makes the stories told to Garrison's children a high quality reliable source? This feels more like we need a secondary source here.
Fair enough. Citation replaced with the 1933 Richards dissertation, which details the same story. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we're not historians, so when possible, we're always better off using secondary sources, rather than primary ones. Historians get the joys of dealing with primary sources.... not us. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Likewise - Neal, John (1869). Wandering Recollections of a Somewhat Busy Life likewise is a primary source - we should be relying on secondary sources for this information - historians who can weigh the weight to give to Neal's memoirs and how much they can be believed.
Fair. I removed all references to this source, including the article's only remaining footnote, which I guess was superfluous anyway. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Richards, Irving T. (1933). The Life and Works of John Neal (PhD). Cambridge, Massachusetts - I'm unclear what the "(PhD)" is meant to impart here?
One of the parameters of Template:Cite thesis is "type" and the top example given uses "PhD" in this way, so I copied that. But it looks like there's a "degree" parameter that renders as "PhD thesis" instead, so I swapped that out to be more clear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I checked Sears, Donald A. (1978). John Neal on WorldCat and it's held by over 400 library, including many university and college libraries so even though I'm not familiar with the publisher, I'm willing to assume it's high quality due to it being held by universities.
I'd say so. David A. Sears was a Harvard-educated historian and literature scholar with plenty of other books and articles in scholarly journals. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
Rad. Never heard of Earwig's tool. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Otherwise everything looks good. Note that I will be claiming points from this review for the wikicup. Ealdgyth (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Thank you so much for your review! Do you feel that all your comments are addressed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It all looks good now. Unwatching, and good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Cyclone Taylor[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The third nomination, following failed attempts back in December 2019 and February 2020. The first real ice hockey star, Cyclone Taylor was once the highest-paid athlete in the world, on a per game basis, and his legacy is quite important to the development of the sport. He also had a fairly notable off-ice career as well working as a Canadian immigration officer. The article went through a Peer Review many months ago, and after much delay I have addressed those comments, as well as those in previous nominations, and believe it should be good to go now. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good! Nice to see you back at FAC (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I already reviewed this article as part of a peer review early last year. At this point, I think it's really high quality and should be easy to review for anyone who happens to stumble across this nomination. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Just minor notes:

  • from 1906 to 1922 (add "for") several teams
  • and retired in 1950. <<<=== doesn't have parallelism with the rest of the sentence. Either start a new sentence or maybe "retiring in 1950"?
  • but as he was not sanctioned to play for them, and rather than play anywhere else ===>>> but as he was not sanctioned to play for them and rather than play anywhere else,
  • , the passengers were refused entry into Canada ===>>> the passengers having been refused entry into Canada OR ; the passengers were refused entry into Canada
Thanks for taking another look and for the support. I've fixed the above. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Montana[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the American teen sitcom Hannah Montana, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Miley Cyrus. This was a massively successful TV series and franchise which launched the career of Cyrus. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in December 2020. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging previous collaborators @JAYFAX: @Heartfox: @TheSandDoctor: @LM150: @Some Dude From North Carolina: @SandyGeorgia: @ImaginesTigers: @Casliber: @TheJoebro64: @Allied45: @Panini!: I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you! SatDis (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

  • Not a requirement, but in the Infobox I'd consider using the "alt_name" parameter for the fourth season title.
  • "streaming service Disney+" is a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
  • Again in "fictional girl group The Cheetah Girls".
  • And "Disney Channels Worldwide Rich Ross".
  • "The series finale was initially scheduled to air in spring 2011." violates MOS:SEASON.
  • Another BLUESEA with "1990s teen pop".
  • The Awards and nominations list seems to violate MOS:HIDE.
  • "psychoactive plant Salvia divinorum" is a BLUESEA.
  • This one isn't technically a requirement per MOS:CURRENCY, but every mention of money in the article has "US" preceding the amount with the exception of "$70.6 million" and " $169.2 million", both in the films section. Just for consistency I'd either add it in those two places or remove it in all places, bar the first use (again per MOS:CURRENCY).
  • I've never seen the show so I'm not super notable on the subject itself (if it wasn't obvious already since all my above comments are MOS fixes). I have however, seen all of Suite Life of Zach & Cody, Wizards of Waverly Place, and Suite Life on Deck, and am somewhat surprised there was no mention of the crossover episodes (That's so Suite Life of Hannah Montana and Wizards on Deck with Hannah Montana). In most of my experience with television articles crossovers with other series are generally mentioned, anywhere from a passing mention to an entire section. This one also isn't a requirement, more of an observation, but a sentence or two could be useful (it would fit either in the development, casting, filming, or series overview section depending on the aspects covered or how it's written).
  • Reference 4 should have the episode writer(s), and optionally a link to the episode, either in the form of [[Hannah Montana (season 3)#ep76|For (Give) a Little Bit]], or as a redirect. Disney Channel can also be linked.
References[edit]
  • Same with reference 6, 30, 31.
  • CNET can be linked in reference 11.
  • Reference 22 was published from Topix (website) (no website is listed).
  • Hollywood Reporter can be linked in 32, 49, 63, 113, 114.
  • Reference 40 has an author.
  • Reference 47 date is off by a day (22nd instead of 23rd).
  • TVTonight can be linked in 52, 60.
  • Access Hollywood can be linked in 53
  • Billboard can be linked in 55.
  • CTV News can be linked in 105.
  • New York Post can be linked in 109.
  • 115 needs |url-access=limited
  • AllMusic can be linked in 117, 125.
  • MTV News can be linked in 118, 123.
  • TVGuide can be linked in 121.
  • Variety (magazine) can be linked in 122.
  • Hollywood Life can be linked in 130

(MOS:REFLINK supports duplicate links in citations). TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @TheDoctorWho:, thanks for the comments. I have addressed all of the suggestions, particularly the changes to the references you have listed. I also added details on the two crossover specials you mentioned above in the "Filming" section. I was only able to include a short sentence on each, as there are a lack of FA-quality reliable sources on these. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Fantastic! The added information about the crossover looks great to me. The article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Support by Aoba47[edit]

I am leaving this up as a placeholder and I will ideally post a review within a week. To be fully transparent, I reviewed the article on the GAN level. As the article is rather long (and that is understandable given the show's popularity), it will take me some time to read through it again thoroughly enough to do a FAC review.

I do have one clarification question. From my understanding, Disney had operated under an unspoken rule that its shows could not air more than 65 episodes (which would be either two or three seasons). Was there any discussion on how Hannah Montana was an exception to that rule? I believe this rule was already thrown by the time Hannah Montana aired, but I was just curious if this was ever brought up in the coverage on the show since it went beyond what was previously limited. Apologies if I have already asked you this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much @Aoba47:. The 65 episode rule was never brought up for Hannah. I can think of some earlier examples, such as That's So Raven being one of the first to break the rule. And for Kim Possible, fans specifically campaigned for a fourth season after it had already ended. A fourth season was becoming the new normal by the time Hannah was ending. Thanks! SatDis (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. That makes sense. It is understandable that sources would discuss this rule in the context of shows that were either affected by it or those that were the first to break that rule. As you have already said, Hannah was neither of these two things so it makes sense for sources to focus on other things related to the series. By the way, I have done some small copy-edits to the article while I am reading it. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with or ask about it here. I do not want to take up too much space in this review space on smaller matters. Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This part, created the series to continue the commercial musical success of its television network after the premiere of its, reads rather awkwardly to me and I believe it could be phrased better. I think something like, created the series to continue the commercial musical success it experienced with, would be more concise and would read better.
  • Since alter ego is linked in the lead, it should be linked in the article too for consistency.
  • For this part, casting advertisements for the filming of a pilot, I do not think the casting link is necessary as I believe a majority of readers would already be familiar with this concept on some level.
  • For this part, as a new, half-hour live-action comedy in August 2005, why not just use sitcom? It would be more direct and match the linked article.
  • I would trim the quote in this part, Cyrus said she wanted to move on from the series, stating, "I can't base my career off of the six-year-olds ... I have to move on". The "have to move on" part is unnecessary and repetitive of what was already said earlier in the same sentence.
  • For this part, and another commentator described the Miley character as "obnoxious", clearly identify who this commentator is to avoid any confusion.
  • The first paragraph of the "Criticism of Cyrus's public image" sub-section has a few instances of "In X year". I would vary this further to avoid making the prose come across as a list as that may make the information less engaging to readers.
  • There was an interview Cyrus did with Kevin Hart about becoming Hannah Montana. You can watch it here. I have not seen it so take this with a mountain of salt, but there may be some useful information there.
  • Any further news on the prequel or spin-off rumors?

I hope these comments are helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions or if anything requires further clarification. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again and very likely support it for promotion at that point. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Thanks for the comments, all of your copy-edits were fine with me. All of the above has been addressed.
  • For the "another commentator", I struggled to identify who the author of the source was.
  • I would say something along the lines of "a reviewer for DVDizzy.com" so the publication is named in the prose and readers are made fully aware of where this information is coming from. I looked at the quote in the citation by the way, and I think it would be notable to mention that the reviewer finds that Stewart becomes more obnoxious as the series progresses. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you!
  • No further news on the spin-off, it appears to have just been a rumour.
  • That is what I thought. Any further news on this would likely get a lot of media attention. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reminder of the Kevin Hart source. I have added a few points, but I would appreciate you reading over the changes as I wasn't sure exactly how to include it. SatDis (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for adding the information. I made a small correction to the citation as Peacock is the publisher and YouTube is the platform that they published the video on.
  • Thanks, I fixed a similar Vanity Fair interview video.
  • I have not watched the interview yet, but was there further explanation for this sentence: "Cyrus explained in 2021 that she found it difficult to separate herself from the persona of Hannah Montana."? Was it because the media and fans perceived her this way or was it more on a personal level? I'd keep this part brief, but I was curious if there was more information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: You are spot on for both of those reasons. I was actually thinking of including "personally and from media attention"? Not sure how to word that without confusing readers. Should I remove the line altogether? SatDis (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses. I would leave the sentence in the article for now as I do think it is helpful and adds further context, but I would also be interested to see what other reviewers have to say about it. I support the article based on the prose. This is separate, but I would recommend converting File:Hannah Montana Logo.PNG into the SVG format as the tag suggests. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you again for your time @Aoba47:, and I will look into the image conversion. SatDis (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Be warned though that it is about a much more explicit musical subject (a song called "No Panties"), but since Miley has performed "My Neck, My Back (Lick It)", maybe she would approve of this song too lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Panini![edit]

I'm a very simple-minded creature. All this time I could've sworn that Hannah Montana starred Taylor Swift; I was confused when I saw the name Miley Cyrus everywhere. In hopes to make myself seem less crazy I searched to see if Taylor Swift had any connection to Hannah Montana, and was relieved to see she cameod in the movie. I'll have comments in a little while. Panini!🥪 14:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox and Lead
  • Should the Disney+ release be in the infobox somewhere?
  • The first paragraph uses "Miley Stewart (Miley Cyrus)" and then "Billy Ray Cyrus, plays Miley Stewart's father and manager Robby Ray". To keep things uniform, I think this second sentence can be rewritten as "best friends Lilly Truscott and Oliver Oken, who become aware of her secret, and Miley Stewart's father and manager Robby Ray (Billy Ray Cyrus)."
  • "Television critics praised the show for its humor and music. The program is credited with launching Cyrus's musical career and establishing her as a teen idol." - Pretty short sentences, maybe they can be combined? "Television critics praised the show for its humor and music, and helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol."
Story and characters and Themes
  • The introduction of a horse came as a surprise to me in the second paragraph. Is there any other introduction details about Blue Jeans that could help ease in the detail better?
  • The first three sentences ("The central conflict...important to her") references source 2 three times; only the last one is necessary and the others can be removed (stray refs).
  • This also applies to the latter half of the first paragraph ("While Miley discloses...of her childhood") and the third paragraph ("Tyler Bickford of...element of childhood").
Production
  • The lead credits High School Musical as the reason for Hannah Montana, but this first paragraph mentions a bunch of other shows. Should they also be included in the lead?
  • The original lead role title, Chloe Stewart, could use a bit more context ("...who auditioned for the lead role, originally named Chloe Stewart...")
  • Wouldn't the second paragraph of Development fit better under Casting?
Reception
  • This starts with "Critics said", but only references source 2.
  • Additionally, this has the same stray ref issues listed above.
  • Also also, "He called the series 'genre-defining'" is a pretty short sentence and could probably be merged.
  • Giving the critical reception section a look-over, it seems that the negatives outweigh the positives and don't really show how the show is one that's "raised by television critics" as stated in the lead.
US television rankings
  • Some of the content in these tables, especially the viewership counts, goes unsourced. It looks like this stuff is sourced in the prose above it, and should be sourced to the best of its ability in the table as well.
Public image and Lawsuits
  • After reading the controversy section, I'm glad this didn't star Taylor Swift.
  • "further alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney" - Is there a reason why he feels this way in the source?
  • Overall, I like what you did here. Good Job!
Other Media
  • "Billy Ray Cyrus stated the movie would be about the Stewart family's return to Tennessee and that Disney was eager to film on location there." - This sentence sounds like a plot summary and doesn't really add much, so I'd propose a removal.

Overall, solid article! Once these are satisfied I'll be happy to support. Please do reach out if you have any more FACs cooking in the future. Besides, it gets me free points in the WikiCup, which I highly reccomend checking out. Panini!🥪 18:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • @Panini!: Thank you for the comments, how funny that you thought this starred Taylor Swift. I hope the article filled in your missing information!
  • Disney+ was not its premiere broadcast, therefore I have removed the line altogether.
  • Actually, in the series, Blue Jeans being introduced also comes as a surprise (the horse is only mentioned on earlier occasions).
  • I have changed to "High School Musical (2006) and earlier franchises involving music." to encompass some of the other shows mentioned.
  • Thanks for the suggestion to move the Casting paragraph - I like how it sits now.
  • Upon reflecting on Reception, I have changed the lead to read: "However, television critics found fault with its writing and depiction of gender roles and stereotypes. The show helped launch Cyrus's musical career and established her as a teen idol; Cyrus, however, began to develop an increasingly provocative public image, which led to the series receiving criticism for having a negative influence on its audience." I believe this highlights a large chunk of the negative reception.
  • The television ratings table relies on averages which are referenced in the article for the episodes list. I believe this table should be removed and would like your opinion.
  • For the lawsuit, I have added "alleged he was unfairly terminated by Disney in response to giving testimony within the arbitration". Thanks for picking that up. Thanks for the praise of that section - it is amazing to hear the legal battle was recent.
  • I believe I have addressed everything, please let me know if I missed something. SatDis (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Everything looks good here, so I'll leave a Support. About the table, however; it seems like every other Disney Channel TV show uses this table (except Shake it Up). However, the TV show MOS suggests combining the average viewership details with the series overview table (with citation for the numbers). I think you won't lose too much if the rest of those details are removed. Panini!🥪 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis[edit]

  • Hi @Pamzeis: just wondering if you plan on leaving comments soon. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 09:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)