Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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]

London and North Western Railway War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

After a hiatus of a few months while the day job was insane, I'd like to bring this one back here to get it its star and make it my 30th FA. The day job is still manic so responses might sometimes take a few days but I should be in a position to see this one through. I believe I've addressed everything that needed addressing from the previous FAC but I'm open to all feedback. The article covers a monument that has stood in the same spot for 100 years next month while everything around it has been demolished and rebuilt. I think my favourite thing about this article is the variety and quality of the images available to illustrate it. Thank you for your time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

I supported this article at A-class and at its previous FAC in April, and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2002 World Snooker Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the last World Snooker Championship final of the most successful player at the event Stephen Hendry. Hendry, who won the event seven times in the 1990s met Peter Ebdon and went to a deciding frame! Ebdon won the event to win his only world championship. Hendry made 16 century breaks during the event, a record amount for a single player at a single event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

UEFA Euro 2012 Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[]

So it's another major international tournament final for you guys to enjoy, this one from UEFA Euro 2012. The result was a thumping 4–0 victory for Spain over their opponents Italy, in what was Spain's third successive major trophy after they also won UEFA Euro 2008 and the 2010 FIFA World Cup, playing with their famous "tiki-taka" style. This is a co-nomination with The Rambling Man, and as ever we look forward to hearing your detailed feedback on this article.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dracophyllum fiordense[edit]

Nominator(s): Dracophyllum

This article is about an obscure tree from New Zealand's South Island. It was first described in 1928 by the New Zealand botanist Walter Oliver. Genetic analysis more recently has revealed, though quite obviously morphologically speaking, that is is related to Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum menziesii. Good work by botanists recently, a monograph from earlier this year for example, has made sourcing these Dracophyllum articles quite easy. The most important articles are paywalled however, so I can email them to you if you would like. I have chosen to nominate this article before my other GAs because it has no major issues or missing information – the only potential issue being the difficulty in avoiding too close paraphrasing in the description section... Thanks in advance for your comments. Dracophyllum 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Looking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It has tiny pink flowers.... - a size is more informative than "tiny"...ditto the fruit in the next sentence
Is mentioning they are 2 by 2 mm worth it for the lede? Dracophyllum > FAC 04:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
2 mm diameter round(ish) fruit"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It is rarely branched but when it is, they grow upright and have greyish-brown bark on older sections, whilst newer growth is a yellow-brown. = this sentence switches subject between first and second clauses..aand then changes topic for third. Needs splitting otherwise (weirdly sounds line the colours only occur on branched specimens. How about something like, "It has a single or (uncommonly) two upright trunks. Then colours in separate sentence.
Agreed, @Casliber: how does this sound:

"Though the trunk is usually unbranched, upright-growing branches may sometimes form – particularly on plants in Westland. The bark on older sections is a greyish-brown colour, while newer growth is a yellow-brown."

Dracophyllum > FAC 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sounds good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Why do you have Approximate distribution AND range in taxobox, why not just "Approximate distribution/range"?
I've opted for just "range" Dracophyllum > FAC 03:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
link Fiordland, subgenus, endemic
Done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
some of the imperial range conversions stay the same number, which looks weird.
Which ones in particular? Also, should I be using fractions? Dracophyllum > FAC 05:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks good from comprehensiveness and prose POV otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

New York Stock Exchange Building[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the home of the New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange. It was built in the 1900s as a replacement for an older building, and then it was expanded several times in the 20th century. Its main facade, a colonnade supporting a giant pediment, is actually the NYSE icon, and the exchange building has become a famous tourist destination. Funnily the NYSE initially opposed official NYC landmark protection for the building for close to two decades. Even more funnily, the building did not have a standalone page until this year, despite being pictured in a myriad of literature about Wall Street, which isn't even where the main address of this building is located.

This page was promoted as a Good Article earlier this year and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. (Gog the Mild has given me permission to nominate this page while another nomination is ongoing.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Nitpicking time from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article, and I would try my best to pick up any mistakes! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There are some numbers that you shouldn't wikilink, such as in ...the city's first subway line (now the 4 and 5 trains), under Broadway. My bad, those are subway line num

Yep. We don't name our subway routes, we give them letters and numbers...which can sometimes be confusing to tourists, speaking from personal experience. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

These words should not be formatted as SMALLCAPS, such as containing the words stock exchange above the doors.

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The sources and see also section should be incoperated in reference section. What I mean here is to put the links on these section directly to the article.

The reason for this is because of WP:CITEVAR. But actually, I realized the references need to be standardized, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The image's description should be more detailed, as well as right-justified to avoid sandwiching.

Done, for the most part (I'm still thinking about what to do with the colonnade image). Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Some sentences should be merged with the paragraph, or expanded. One example is New York Stock Exchange Building#Interior.

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There are many sentences that use passive voice, and the article would sound more fluid if switched to active. One example would be What became the NYSE was founded in 1792, when brokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement, forming an organization for securities trading. Previously, securities exchange had been intermediated by auctioneers.

I reduced the passive voice where I could, but in some cases it is very hard to remove without making the sentence flow awkwardly. Thanks for the feedback CactiStaccingCrane. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Positive comments[edit]

The article's grammar is very solid!

References are solid in first glance.

Image review

  • Instead of "see caption", use "refer to caption" in alt
    • Hi, I'm not the nominator but was just stopping by and reading through FAC.. this is minor so I've fixed this eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • When and where was File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • It appears to be from 1908 in the US, see LOC listing. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • LOC uses "created/published" for their dates, so it's not always clear whether that means it was created then or published then - that's why we often need to track down an actual publication. (They state their image is from a film copy negative). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
        @Nikkimaria If you're asking this to confirm US copyright expiration, the rule is that it must have been published or registered with the United States Copyright Office before 1926, and this was registered in 1908 (bottom right). The reference number in the description matches the one in the registration. I have updated the description on Commons to note this. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Cyclone Dumazile[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC) & ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}[]

This article is about Cyclone Dumazile, the third in a series of five storms that brought heavy, damaging rainfall to Réunion in 2018. NoahTalk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

  • that brought flooding to the east coast of Madagascar and Réunion - that implies east coast of "Réunion". I think it works fine if it's just "flooding to Madagascar and Réunion."
  • Done. NoahTalk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In Réunion, Dumazile came less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta dropped torrential rainfall over the island in mid-January. This meant ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts after Berguitta were interrupted or set back, especially on the highway between Îlet Furçy and Cilaos. - I think this could be stronger, and I have issues with "came less than two months" and the flow, and not sure about how . Something like - "Cyclone Dumazile followed less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta affected Réunion, disrupting ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts." Then you can mention the heavy rainfall from Dumazile (ideally with the rainfall total), and then you can get into the damaged road network, where you can mention the highway.
  • Believe I did what you want here. NoahTalk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • So you mention the roads in two parts, once related to floods/landslides, and the other due to trees. Any way of combining all three into a single mention of the roads?
  • Done. NoahTalk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " In Madagascar, rainfall warnings were issued for most of the east coast and some flooding occurred in Toamasina, as a result of malfunctioning drainage systems after Cyclone Ava in January. " - split into two sentences. One for the warnings, the other for flooding.
  • Split. NoahTalk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is it worth linking the other places in Madagascar other than Toamasina?
  • Looks like Diana Region has an article... the others do not. NoahTalk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Could you mention somewhere in the lead and the MH that the storm formed in the South-west Indian Ocean? Kinda important.
  • "A pocket of dry air to Dumazile's west caused the cyclone's low-level circulation center to briefly become exposed, before it was quickly obscured by new bursts of thunderstorms.[" - is "obscured" the right term here? Usually, people think of "obscured" as a negative thing. Could you explain what it means for the circulation to be exposed (dislocated from the convection), and another verb describing the new burst of thunderstorms.
  • Reworded and simplified somewhat. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Could you add in the MH how close the storm got to the east coast of Madagascar? Ditto for how close it got to Reunion? (or at least a mention of the island, considering how much the article describes the effects there)
  • "Floodwaters cut off access to Saint-Denis from all but one road. The coastal and mountain highways were closed;[24] a section of the latter road was covered in debris after a landslide occurred. Strong waves submerged four lanes of the coastal highway with seawater, and 150 mm (5.9 in) of rain fell on a cliff overlooking the road." - I'm confused, was the "latter road" the "all but one road"? Or is there only one mountain highway? Maybe talk about these roads separately, since incidents happened on both?
  • Adjusted and clarified what I meant about the cliff part. NoahTalk 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Has the RN5 highway been rebuilt yet?
  • As far as the source says, it is no longer closed. Looks like more projects were proposed to take place. NoahTalk 22:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What is "The MNS station"?
  • Added in that it is a beach surveillance station. NoahTalk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The Reunion section is a bit weirdly formatted. It would be nicer if there was a paragraph on preparations/preceding storms, one on the general impacts (and the bit of aftermath), one on the more specific impacts? There doesn't seem to be a logical flow right now.
  • @Hurricanehink: Is the organization better now or is more restructuring required? NoahTalk 22:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

It's a decent article right now, but needs some more love. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Clayoquot[edit]

(Just starting this. More comments to come.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Ref #37 is to a Tweet. Shouldn't we be referencing the news story instead of a Tweet about the news story?
  • Replaced. NoahTalk 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "with its Dual Frequency Precipitation Radar" - why is this level of detail on instrumentation important?
  • Simply using radar isn't sufficient enough. There are many types of radar and a reader could think it was a doppler radar or another type commonly used, which it isn't. NoahTalk 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

R-1 tank[edit]

Nominator(s): Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, fellow editors! I have just published the R-1 tank article and I am attempting to promote it to the FA class. It's the first time I am doing this. I've read through the criteria and used multiple FAs as models, namely Panzer I and Verdeja (both of which are old nominations), as well as a more recent one—Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope my article is good enough to join the FA club. :)

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Note: The Flickr photos that have been nominated for deletion have had their license changed by the uploader since then, which has led to the nominator withdraw their request. All of the article's other photos have been reviewed as well, their license having been considered adequate. Lupishor (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review—not passed I see some serious issues with the image licensing in the article. A lot of the images are derived from photocopies with unknown authors. But reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't generate a new copyright, what we care about is the original photograph and whether it is in the public domain both in the source country and the United States, or the photographer / their heirs have agreed to release the photograph. (Some WWII photographs are public domain, but by no means all.) I can help with determining copyright status, but in general you have to know more information than you have provided, especially the author of the photograph and the first publication date. Also, for future reference, the WP:Volunteer Response Team should be contacted by third parties who own the copyright to media and want to release it under a free license.
  • On the other hand, the flickr photograph licensing looks acceptable since these are original works that have been released by the copyright holder.
  • Less important issue: what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Ideally it is stated in the image description for verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for the answer, @Buidhe:. I wasn't aware that the original image matters more than the photocopy. Considering that the three licenses that were used here can also be applied to the photos of the article in question, changing the license should solve the problem.
What exactly do you mean by what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Do you mean the program I used? If yes, I will just write it down in the image's description.
Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm confused by what it says in PD-RO-photo. It says "since issuance", is that since creation or since publication? If the latter you need a publication date that's sufficiently early. Also, several of the captions indicate that the photographs were taken in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak requirements are different, to be in the public domain a photograph with no known author must have been published before 1946.
Ideally you would specify the source you consulted to determine the colors and other information in the image (such as the shape) but the means of creation is not necessary to specify. For example, this map cites a source. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buidhe: The photos used in the article are from Czechoslovakia and Romania, with one being from the Soviet Union. For the Czechoslovak ones, this license should do it, since they were all taken on territory of what is now Czechia. I see that the photos used on LT vz. 34, which is a Good Article, also use a similar license. The Romanian license I've linked above should also work—there are photos on Commons using it that have been uploaded 10 years ago, such as this one. From what I understand, what matters about that license is that "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright", with the "issuance" part you referred to only counting for photos meant to be "artistic" (works of art?). For Soviet photos, the license used here should work.
Thanks for the explanation on the source thing. I will make the changes tomorrow. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The PD-RO-photo explains what happened to the copyright where it expired, but I don't see where it says that non-artistic photographs remained in the public domain after the 1996 law. The Czech template cannot be used unless you find a publication at least 70 years ago as stated on the template. For it to be PD-US all the conditions listed on the template need to be satisfied, including previous publication (before March 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buidhe: Hello. So I've read through the full Romanian license. "Since issuance" is given as de la apariție, meaning "since it appeared/since creation". It doesn't specify they are referring to publication, so I think the license is safe to use. As I said, there are many photos using it on Commons that have been around for 10 years. I don't think it would have been the case had the license not been adequate. This license can also be used.
For Czechoslovak photos, the EU license should also work. The photos were first published in the 1930s, since they had to be shown to the Romanian side who was interested in acquiring that vehicle. What confirms this is that I've found at least one of them in Romanian works, which are based on Romanian archive material, indicating they had been made public to the Romanians back then, despite having been taken in Czechoslovakia.
I am going to modify the licenses right now. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, you cannot assume that the photographs were published in the 1930s. Publication requires that these particular photographs have been distributed to the public, so anyone could obtain them, while military technology is often not fully disclosed to the public. There's a ton of copyvio on Commons and the deletion process is broken, so you cannot assume that if the photograph is not deleted it must be OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Buidhe: All I can hope for then is that the Romanian photos are still ok, given what I said above about the license, so the image review can at least get an "only partially passed". About some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia, it is possible they were taken by Romanian military commissions. However, I'm not sure if this makes the Romanian license applicable to them. Lupishor (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sustainable energy[edit]

Nominator(s): Clayoquot and Femkemilene Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic. In the past six months, this article has been given Good Article status, copyediting, and a round of in-depth Peer Review, and we've incorporated very valuable feedback from these processes. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this; we look forward to your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Prison education[edit]

Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image review File:Educator Ange Leech at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison March 2019 credit Tom Joyner.jpg is the only fishy photo. The uploader has many photos deleted. This one is small and lacks OTRS or EXIF data, leading me to doubt that he is the creator of it. Also, I am concerned about the heavy use of quoteboxes in the article. Inevitably they end up emphasizing some viewpoints above others by giving them extra space and setting them off. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @Buidhe: He isn't the creator of it. As per both the title and the summary at the file, the photo was taken by journalist Tom Joyner. User:The Little Platoon, who uploaded the file, told me he received written permission from Tom Joyner to upload the photos under a creative commons licence. What do we need to do to have the image accepted?
Also three of the four quoteboxes are given for things that I could not find opposing views for. The first quotebox in the Asian history is the opinion of the Chinese government that crime is often caused by a lack of education; I did not find any material that opposed this view in Asia. The second quote box is from a prisoner emphasizing why it is difficult to study in prison; I did not find a single prisoner stating it is too easy to study in prison. The third quote box is the opinion of the United Nations; I think that is notable and no organisation that large has spoken out against prison education. The only quotebox for which opposing views really exists is the final one, as there are indeed also politicians opposed to prison education. In this case the quote's purpose is to explain in greater detail the referenced quote in the prose regarding media induced fears. Considering due weight with respect to the amount of literature supporting the argument for prison education rather than opposing it, I think this single quote is appropriate. I do note the article does close with a quote from a politician opposing prison education for balance though. I don't understand what you mean by 'setting them off'. Can you explain more about why each of the four quotes is a problem? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Usually if you are uploading images not in the public domain that someone else has created, one of two things are required: 1) OTRS permission or 2) an external website where the images are marked as being available under a free license. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team.
I believe that quoteboxes often give rise to an undue weight problem, and frankly I don't see how these quotes add much to the encyclopedia value of the article to begin with. Either they should be covered in the article text (preferably paraphrased to avoid overlong quotations) or they just aren't relevant. I am far from the only editor who believes that the quotebox template should be generally avoided in article space—it says so in the template documentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm in the process of trying to get OTRS permission. I'm happy for the image to remain removed until it is obtained.
Regarding the quotes I guess we just have a difference of opinion regarding style and what adds value to an article. I can appreciate four quotes might be a bit much though. Having read back over these quotes I think the United Nations one adds the least value to the article. I'm removing it now. Thanks for the image review btw. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • For this part, Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in the field., could you attribute in the prose who considers Sweden to be a pioneer?
    I think I originally derived that sentence from my summary of the book Nordic Prison Education: A Lifelong Learning Perspective, which is referenced at the end of the following sentence, though doesn't explicitly use that term. I've since found and added an inline citation to an academic article that explicitly calls them a "pioneer" in the field though. Neither the journal nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, so I don't really see much point in naming them in the prose essentially it will just be a name nobody has heard of. Let me know if you think it needs to be better clarified to the reader somehow though.
    That does make sense to me. Since this sentence has a citation, readers could look at that for further information. I see your point that putting this information into the prose could lead to some awkwardness so I think you are correct here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • At the risk of sounding incredibly foolish, could you link chaplain in this part, In the United States, prisoners were given religious instruction by chaplains, as I am honestly unfamiliar with this concept? Also, do you think a link for religious instruction would be beneficial?
    Done.
  • I am slightly confused by this part, farming skills at the countries agricultural prisons. Shouldn't it be the country's agricultural prisons instead?
    Fixed.
  • This may be silly or unnecessary, but for this part, Other types of vocational training, such as certain forms of woodwork, would it be worthwhile to add a link for woodworking for readers who may want to learn more about this practice?
    Woodworking is actually mentioned earlier in the history section, so I've now linked it at its first mention there.
    Thank you for linking this on the first instance. Apologies for missing the first instance. It does remind me of how American schools used to have shop classes, but when I got to high school, it was not a thing anymore due to safety issues (and I am assuming other reasons as well). I think this is why I found the woodworking mentions to be interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For this part, introduced a bill entitled the Kids Before Cons Act, should the bill be in italics? I cannot remember the last time I saw a bill title so I am uncertain about how it should be represented.
    Looking at other articles that mention bills, they don't seem to be italicised.
    I would remove the italics. From my understanding, the bill title is just presented as Kids Before Cons Act without any other stylizations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Meant to do this earlier. It's done now though. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have a question about this sentence: A prison educational program created by Bard College has a recidivism rate of 4% for people who only attended the course and 2.5% for those who completed it. Would it be possible to include a link to the Bard Prison Initiative article?
    Sure, that's a much better link. Thanks for suggesting it.
  • For this part, A prison education program in Ukraine, I do not think Ukraine should be linked as it is a pretty major country that I would imagine most readers would be familiar with, and I do not think countries are generally linked in the article.
    Agreed. Removed.

Here are my comments so far. I hope they are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've made replies to everything. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again later in the week. I have my birthday tomorrow so I will be off Wikipedia then, but I will return to this before the end of the week. I do not think I will find anything else (prose-wise as that is the focus of my review), but I want to make sure to thoroughly look through the article to help with your FAC as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

D. H. Turner[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A curator and scholar, D. H. Turner spent the better part of his life at the British Museum and British Library, where he focused on liturgical studies and illuminated manuscripts; fittingly, the few years of his career spent elsewhere included time at an abbey. His work included several major exhibitions and loans, including sending the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander to Bulgaria, the Moutier-Grandval Bible to Switzerland, and a copy of Magna Carta to the United States.

This article builds on the available sources about Turner's life and publications, and manages to be exhaustive while not overly long. It was given a good-article review by J Milburn in 2018; more recently, I have dug deep for reviews of Turner's publications and works discussing his impact, and added what is there. It is now ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "and in succeeding years helped loan several medieval manuscripts for the first time in half a millennium" Instead of "helped loan", perhaps "helped arrange the loan of"? After all, he did not do the loaning himself.
  • Done.
  • "Through his work the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander returned to Bulgaria for the first time since the 1300s, and the Moutier-Grandval Bible returned to Switzerland, its home throughout the Middle Ages." Given the discussion re returning certain museum or library items to their countries of origin, I'd clarify that these were loans.
  • Clarified.
  • "From assistant keeper he rose to deputy keeper." Can more be stated about what this means? If this is a considerable advancement, the accomplishment may be lost on the reader.
  • I've looked around, but haven't found anything that really lays it out. I understand that assistant keeper is an entry-level position, and keeper is the head of the department, but I'm not sure how high up the ladder "deputy keeper" is.
  • "universities of Cambridge and East Anglia." you are not consistent on capitalisation of this phrase the two times you use it.
  • Capitalized.
  • "He followed up the former work " haven't you just listed three? It's hard to understand what "former" means in that regard.
  • Changed "the former work" to "the first book".
  • "leading to the loan of Magna Carta to Washington, D.C. for the 1976 United States Bicentennial celebrations" was the document loaned to the City of Washington or to some institution such as the Smithsonian? Similar on Sophia.
  • It was at the United States Capitol; added a couple sources and some more information. On the other hand, I haven't been yet able to find where the Gospels of Tsar Ivan Alexander were displayed. I'll keep looking, though, since sources undoubtedly exist. Per Backhouse and Jones 1987, the loan was accompanied by "a blaze of nationalistic publicity."
  • "and introduced her to the exhibition and loans of manuscripts." Should loans be loan?
  • I'm really not sure. "introduced her to the exhibition" sounds correct, in that "the exhibition" is used as "the practice of exhibiting." But I don't think "the loan" can really mean "the practicing of loaning." Maybe it should be "the exhibition and loaning of manuscripts"?
  • " the British Museum and later Library" "came at the museum and library" Are these consistent?
  • I think so; my intention, at least, was for the former to be proper nouns and the latter to be common (improper?) nouns. But I could be persuaded otherwise.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Operation Sandwedge[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Taking another run with this one, which was last at FAC back in January 2016. At that time it was only half the length it is now, reflecting the paucity of sources available when I was writing it, but some tremendous help from the late Brianboulton identified several texts which contributed to a much more comprehensive overview of a project which never happened. Sandwedge is a minor footnote in the grand scheme of the Watergate affair, but an interesting one, as it inevitably gives rises to the question of "what if". I hope whether any of you take the time to review this or not you at least find it an interesting entry in political history, a quaint reminder of a time when crime in public office was wrong. A lot of the sourcing used is offline but if anyone needs to conduct a source review on these I should be able to access all the print sources again to accommodate this. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support Comments by Iazyges[edit]

  • Going to have to review this as Nixon is my favorite president, will start as soon as I finish my current GA review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Lede

Suggest expanding the lede slightly, perhaps with more information regarding H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Jack Caulfield's positions, as well as G. Gordon Liddy.

Background
  • defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote. suggest defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote.
  • by a margin of less than 118,000 votes, it may be worth mentioning somewhere that the actual overall vote count doesn't (technically) matter because of the electoral college, but that several states, such as Illinois, were narrowly lost, which ultimately lost him the election.
  • It may also be worth mentioning there was some considerable belief of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, in the 1960 election, with several of Nixon's 1972 aides having argued it at the time.
  • Nixon's initial election bid had already involved the planting of rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy suggest Nixon's initial election bid had already involved planting rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy for simplicity.
Planned activities
  • officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General. may be worth noting that he was a leading candidate for 1968 election before his assassination, perhaps, officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General, who had been the leading Democratic candidate in the 1968 primaries before his assasination.
  • investigators and officials of Inland Revenue, really? The British one? Is there any known reason for crossing the pond, and not getting people from the IRS?
  • Mitchell had served as Attorney General under Nixon's first term suggest changing under to during
Aftermath
  • Article definitely needs to mention that Nixon had to resign because of Watergate.
  • That is all of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for having a look at this. I've implemented the majority of the changes mentioned; the only thing not yet addressed is the information concerned the voting margins and accusations of fraud in the 1960 election—I know that White's Breach of Faith details this and I want to be able to accurately quote the figures he presents, but I'm currently moving home and the book is elsewhere today, so this will be added when I have the source in front of me. Otherwise this should demonstrate the changes made. (Also of note, today is when I first learnt, as a European, that "IRS" does not stand for "Inland Revenue Service". Every day's a school day). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Edits made look good; I will say that probably most Americans couldn't actually tell you what IRS stands for with certainty. Unfortunately, the pain of my tax accounting course will never leave me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Okay, I've now added the information about 1960 more specifically, including the particularly fine margins in two states, along with an attributed mention of electoral fraud. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

Very interesting article. This is my first FA review, so fell free to ignore any suggestion which you don't find helpful.

  • Do we really need a specific image size in the info-box (270)?
    Apparently not, I've removed it.
  • "The operation was planned to help Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign." – suggesting to red-link "1972 re-election campaign" to Richard Nixon 1972 presidential campaign, rather than linking it to the election page.
    I would prefer at present to retain the current link just because the target is so well-written; I have no issues with a relevant red link but not over a viable in-depth article. It's an easy switch if the article is ever created to the same standard though.
  • "but rivals within Nixon's own party." – The lead doesn't tell which party Nixon is in.
    Added
  • "which detailed a plan to break into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex. Liddy's plan eventually led to the downfall of Nixon's presidency, " – both "break into Democratic Party offices" and "downfall of Nixon's presidency" ultimately redirect to the same page.
    Good catch; the duplicate link tool wasn't picking this up.
  • "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the United States Republican Party nominee" – Is "United States" really needed? It should be phrased something like "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party's nominee"
    Trimmed it; this is what happens when you let a euro write about US politics
  • "this position granted" → "a position which granted"
    Got it
  • "during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidency under Dwight D. Eisenhower" – I won't say that Nixon was under Eisenhower. They both campaigned as a ticket for re-election in 1956.
    I've rephrased it; I would have thought a vice-president always served under a president but now it's just "as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-president" to avoid that.
  • "Nixon's initial election bid" → "re-election bid"
    Got it
  • "$511,000" – suggesting to use Template:inflation
    I've added this template with the "equivalent to" output to all the major dollar amounts in the article now
  • Attorney General is linked twice in the prose.
    Another one the tool hadn't flagged due to a redirect, pared the second one out
  • Link Republican National Convention
    Added to first mention,
  • "congressman for California" → "congressman from California"
    Although McCloskey was from California, this is to show he was the representative for California (honestly not sure how often a representative tends to stand for a state other than their home but it doesn't feel like they're one and same)
    Well, "congressman from California" would also imply that he represents California. (is mentioning the state important)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Gemstone was an umbrella term ...... rival political campaigns – too long sentence
    I've removed the em dash and split this into two sentences.
  • Its notable to mention that Nixon was the first and only president to resign.
    Added a mention of it, cited to Nixon's biography on the US Senate website; if this needs something further I could dig out one of the more recent books but obviously the older the cite is the more date it looks for a fact intended to remain present to today.
  • Committee for the Re-Election of the President already linked in the prose. No need for it to be in the "See also" section.
    Gone.
  • Any book/work for further reading?
    None that haven't been used already; there's no shortage of output on Watergate as a whole but a paucity on the story that didn't happen.
    Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Rest, most seems fine to me. It would be much appreciated if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks for having a look at this; I've addressed your points above and all changes related to them can be seen here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Grapple X – I have made a minor edit. Rest all seems fine to me, and I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sound and Vision[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about...the David Bowie song "Sound and Vision", a very oddly structured song that is also one of his finest. It came off the divisive Low, and surprised RCA Records by being a surprise hit in the UK (peaking at number three). Since its GA promotion back in May, I've continued expanding it, using other FAs such as New Romantics (song) as a basis. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. :-) – zmbro (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

Images are either hosted on commons with appropriate licensing or have appropriate fair use rationale. Looks good here. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • I am uncertain about using a quote in the lead as done in this part, Regarded as the closest to a "conventional pop song" on Low, as I am uncertain if a clearer attribution would be needed to clarify who regarded the song this way.
  • It's regarded this way by his biographers. Would it be better to attribute this? The genre for this one is a little weird as I haven't been able to find someone classifying it under a definitive genre. People have classified Low as a whole as art rock, but that doesn't really suffice here. In my opinion, the song is 100% art pop, but again, I can't put that for obvious reasons. There are a few attributions for disco in the article currently but as it stands I just have "pop" in the infobox. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would attribute it as it is unclear who is regarding the song in this way and I had to go down in the article itself to see where this quote was coming from. Genre is always a sticky point for a song articles, but your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Done. Earlier I was also able to find a source describing it as a "traditional rock song" with Krautrock and electronic elements so I added that; Also allows rock to be added to the infobox. Still very general but it helps. – zmbro (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That looks good to me. I want to read through the article one more time tomorrow to make sure I have not over-looked anything, but I will likely support this FAC at that point. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For this part, Like its parent album, David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision", I would include the album name in the prose (i.e. Low) for clarity, and I do not think the album is linked in the body of the article (although I may have missed it).
  • Yeah you're right, done.
  • Yeah, the same thing occurred for me – I aligned it with the text where she's introduced. I moved it up slightly; how's it look? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • It looks good to me. Thank you for fixing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Link RCA Records in this part, When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Record, as I believe this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article and the record company is currently not linked in the article.
  • Done.
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: At the time of release, one reviewer felt that none of the tracks were "single material", while another felt "Sound and Vision" was the "obvious" choice. Do we know who either of these reviewers are, and if so, would it be beneficial to include that information in the prose?
  • You bet, done.
  • In this part, and the instrumental "A New Career in a New Town" as the B-side, I would link B-side just in case some readers are unfamiliar with this concept.
  • Done. I've had a habit of overlinking in the past so I guess I underlinked here, haha.
  • I have been there before so I completely understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I do not think the quote in this part, as the "pinnacle" of the album, is necessary, and I think it can be paraphrased without losing any meaning.
  • Yeah you're right. Changed.
  • This is a very nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. There are two different link, 1978 Isolar II tour and 1978 Isolar II Tour, for the same tour, and I would be consistent with one approach or the other.
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • I have a clarification question about this sentence: This performance was included on Rarestonebowie (1995) and was given its first authorised release on Welcome to the Blackout (Live London '78) (2018). I am guessing from the context of the sentence that the Rarestonebowie release was unauthorised. Is that assumption correct? Would it be possible to clarify this a little more for unfamiliar readers like myself?
  • Yes that was a compilation that was issued by Bowie's former music publisher MainMan without Bowie's consultation. I'll look into clarifying this tonight (I'm sure Pegg has answers). – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Well I couldn't find the answer I was looking for so I reworded the sentence to fit the info I do have. Hope that helps. – zmbro (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for looking for this. I know how frustrating it can be not to find the answer you were looking for. If you ever do run across this, you can of course feel free to add this information into the article. The rewording makes sense to me and actually makes it pretty clear that Rarestonebowie was more of a publisher thing than a Bowie thing. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I have a comment about this sentence: Meanwhile, Hopkin's backing vocal was echoed in the American rock band Doves' 2002 single "There Goes the Fear". I am uncertain about the "Meanwhile" transition, and I think a better word choice can be used.
  • How's 'additionally'? – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think that would be a better word choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Fixed. – zmbro (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For the citations, I would move the NME link up to Citation 44 as that is the first NME citation.
  • Done
  • Done

Great work with the article. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and should hopefully not take too much time to address. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I hope you are having an enjoyable weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Aoba47 Thanks very much for the comments! Queries are above. – zmbro (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for your response. I have left responses for everything above. I still think the quote in the lead should have some sort of attribution to make it clear that this quote is coming from David Bowie biographers, ideally in a way that is not too clunky. I just find that having a quote without any attribution or context can cause unnecessary confusion for readers who may just be looking at the lead before going into the actual article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Aoba47 Replies are above. Thanks again! – zmbro (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Daisy (advertisement)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Although aired just once, "Daisy" ad is referred to as one of the most controversial, yet most popular political advertisement. The ad was broadcast on September 7, 1964, with the intention of highlighting Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions. However, the ad in-turn was interpreted as an attack ad on Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent in the election) and his positions on nuclear weapon. Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off, but it was frequently replayed and analyzed by network news. Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide victory, defeating Goldwater by a margin of almost 15 million votes. The Daisy ad is considered a significant reason was his victory, and is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. The article is almost re-written by me, it passed its DYK nomination, GA nomination and received its peer review comments from various editors. Thanks to all reviewers in advance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • But the further reading section not so much. For featured article it is expected that if the source has something significant to add to the article, it should be cited, otherwise if there's nothing to add it probably isn't relevant enough or adding enough information to be worth putting in further reading. In particular the book that's specifically about the ad and not cited seems like a major oversight and something that makes me doubt this short article is fully comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Buidhe – In my opinion, the "Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds" book fits better in the Further reading section. Despite its title, the book is focused on Atomic theme and the 1964 election—i.e. the information already included in the Background sections of this article using various other sources. Despite the article's length (13,207 characters), I feel that all main aspects of the ad are covered. I have removed few books from the Further reading section which I feel aren't adding enough information related to the ad. Hope that addressed your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @Buidhe – Just a note that the book is now added as a source. Do let me know if you have any further concerns. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

It's good to see this important article at FAC, but I don't think that the FA criteria are met at present due to the sourcing issue noted above, as well as some other gaps:

  • "It remains one of the most popular political advertisements" - popular seems an odd choice of word, and the reference here to a 1964 NYT story obviously doesn't support such a claim (is the ref really needed in the lead?)
  • The lead should note how Goldwater was perceived before the ad - like all really powerful political ads, this played on how he was seen
  • "The principal work of Johnson's campaign" - this is a bit clunky
  • "Despite his relatively high polling numbers, Johnson felt safe to use rhetorical techniques to ensure his victory" - to be blunt, this doesn't make sense - what's the contradiction?
    • Tried to rephrase. Johnson had high polling numbers, and could have won the election even without this ad. Still, he felt safe to broadcast a controversial ad, when it could have easily backfired his campaign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The article should discuss the anxieties Americans (quite rightly) were feeling about the risks of nuclear war at this time - it was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis
  • It's also odd to not see Johnson's ruthless political tactics not discussed
    • Honestly, I didn't feel the need to include this. Johnson had very limited role to play in the creation or broadcast of this ad. Moreover, the ad wasn't intended to be an 'attack ad', but that is how it was interpreted. Wouldn't it go a bit off topic to discuss his political tactics, which isn't directly related with the ad? Please suggest... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "visualize their child in the role of Corzilius" - awkward
    • Tried to rephrase. Is it still awkward? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The scholarly book on this topic noted in the 'further reading' section needs to be consulted - I'm not at all confident that the FA sourcing requirements are met without this. The blurb for the book states that it covers this topic quite broadly, so it may be possible to considerably expand or deepen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Doing...
      • I have addressed this point by using the book as a source in the article, and adding various things which were not mentioned in the article or other books. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @Nick-D – Thanks a lot for your review. I have attempted to address all your concerns, and replied above. As for the sourcing, I have added Robert Mann's book. I hope that addressed your concern. Requesting you to take a second look at the article regarding your leaning oppose. Feel free to suggest anything else which you feel would make the article closer to meeting the FA criteria. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Nick-D – Is there something else I can do to improve the article, as I have already included Robert Mann's book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I'm thinking about this, but I'm sceptical about how little you sourced from the academic book on this topic. The article also seems to be dodging around both the nature of Johnson's political tactics (he's famous for how ruthless his politics were) and how extreme Goldwater was. The ad was part and parcel of Johnson's tactics, and worked because Goldwater was seen as being genuinely dangerous. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nick-D – I have addressed these comments by making necessary changes in the article. Goldwater's extremism is mentioned by various instances in the article and I have added some more facts about his reaction to the ad. I feel that focusing more on his 'extremism' would make the article less neutral. Rest, I feel that the article covers all major aspects of a 60 second ad which was aired just once. Do let me know if the changes were not satisfactory. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Kavyansh.Singh, I'm not sure if the "Doing..." template is able to be used as, per WP:FAC, [g]raphics [...] slow down load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Nick-D – Given that various changes have been made in order to resolve all your comments, and the article is again copy-edited, do you still lean towards opposing this nomination? Of-course, you can suggest more changes, which I'll surely consider. Please take a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Shifted to just 'comments' until I read this more closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

Some passing comments for now, hopefully will get a fuller review over the next day or so.

  • Initially struck that we have a still from the ad in the infobox and then the full ad embedded later; given that the video's thumbnail is the same image as the screenshot is there any reason we couldn't just use the video in the infobox?
    • I just shifted the video from "Synopsis" section to the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • He often used various rhetorical techniques including the famous "Johnson Treatment" to gather votes in the senate—I don't think we need to get bogged down in too much detail but a brief gloss as to what the "Johnson Treatment" actually is would be a good idea, alternatively Lyndon B. Johnson#Senate Democratic leader has a meaty quote which explains it and could be linked to here (as "the famous "Johnson Treatment" perhaps) to provide context.
  • notably mocking his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the counter-slogan "In Your Guts, You Know He is Nuts"—Why is one of these in sentence case and the other in title case? No strong preference for either but surely they should both be consistent
  • who proclaimed, "We will bury you! Your children will be Communists!"—I'm not a fan of introducing a quote with a comma when one wouldn't be present if the quote wasn't in quote marks; but in any case as a multiple-sentence quote this should more properly be introduced with a colon per WP:MOS#QUOTE
  • that "[at] the next level, [they could] really run a savage assault: a billboard, e.g., [could] be devised reading 'Goldwater in 64—Hotwater in 65?' with a mushroom cloud in the background."—There's a bit of legwork being done here to keep this quote flowing; is it better to quote less of it (just the proposed slogan perhaps) and paraphrase the rest?
    • Removed some less important part of the quote, and rephrased the rest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Vote for President Johnson on November 3[rd]" —The date formatting throughout the article doesn't use ordinals like "3rd", it's strange to interpolate one here if it's not necessary.
    • The ordinals are added here just because they were used in the advertisement too. Nothing much to do with date consistency in the article, as they are inside the quotes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • The video just displays "November 3", which would be consistent with the rest of the date usage internally too. I think we could drop the "[rd]".
        • Yeah, the video just displays November 3, but the voice-over reads it as "November third". However, this is a minor point, and I can drop the "[rd]" if necessary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Might be a good idea to attribute the Auden comparisons to who's making them; were they being drawn at the time or is this a retrospective analysis?
  • Make no mistake, there's no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear weapon' .... To do so now is a political decision of the highest order. It would lead us down an uncertain path of blows and counter-blows whose outcome none may know.—Seems to be a four-dot ellipsis in there
  • Eisenhower replied – "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot."—fronting a quote with a dash like this is inconsistent with the rest of the article
  • they were trying to use what the voters already knew"—Missing a full stop here, whether you want it in or out of the quote marks.
  • A minor point but the quote box in the last heading runs alongside a block quote which looks a little jarring; might be worth looking at moving the quote box template up a paragraph to remove that overlap. It should lose no context as it's clear what its connection is within the heading.
  • I feel like we're good as far as information and historical context goes and there does seem to be a good breadth of sourcing; I can't comment to Nick-D's reservations on this but as a lay reader I was not struck by any obvious gaps in context. That said I think the prose strength is where we need most focus; I'm not a confident copy-editor at FA standards but I still found a few inconsistencies and errors, which should be easily addressed but likely aren't exhaustive. As this is still a fresh nomination and will likely have more breathing time here, it may be worth asking at WP:GOCE/R if anyone is able to give it a once-over. I'll take another look at it during the week to see if I can't come up with anything else. That said it's an interesting subject and I do enjoy these deep-dives on narrower fields. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Changes look good so far. I'll be able to return to this in more depth tomorrow hopefully. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Grapple X – Thanks for your comments. I had request User:Twofingered Typist to take a look at the article, and he was kind enough to help further copy edit the article. Do let me know of you have any further comments or suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Taking a second sweep through now.

  • Lead mentions that the ad is also sometimes known as "Peace, Little Girl" but this isn't mentioned elsewhere--some of the sources use the name in their titles so it shouldn't be difficult to work this in.
    • Added in the prose that the ad wad initially known as "Peace, Little Girl" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A few duplicate links; Corzillus' name and the Democratic National Convention both appearing more than once
    • Fixed. The tool now tells "No duplicated links were detected" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Looking at the mention of the 84 Mondale advert--I don't know that the information presented is enough to really justify a link; can we get a direct comparison drawn to this?
    • While researching, I got a perfect citation for this; added a line which further justifies why the ad was similar to "Daisy". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • We still don't mention an explicit comparison between the two; it's not enough to just describe superficial similarity without a source already making an explicit link between them (this is the same issue with the Auden material below). Looking at the Spokane Chronicle source, it does make direct reference to the Daisy advert, stating Mondale [...] seeks, without the subtlety of Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 ad etc. So the source does draw direct parallels here but we don't mention that. You don't need to directly quote the comparison but do use that source to state plainly that comparisons were drawn to the earlier advert when the Mondale one aired.
        • Now mentioned that the ad was compared with Daisy, for having similar nuclear themes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Still would like to see attribution when we're comparing the advert to that Auden poem, I'm not keen on doing that in wikipedia's voice.
    • Did I address this? If not, could you please further clarify this point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • What I mean is that Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads: "We must love one another or die." is stated as a matter of fact, and while yes we can see looking at the lines that they're extremely similar, we really should be attributing the comparison to someone who has made it in a reliable source. The source you've added, Taylor 1992, does this just discuss Auden's poem or does it explicitly describe the similarity between the two?
        • Ah, I see. The comparison of similarity between the ad and Auden's poem is discussed in this source, which says "Decades earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson drew on another line from the poem [September 1, 1939] in his famous 1964 "Daisy" campaign commercial ...". I have cited that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Speaking of Auden, in the excerpt quoted, it seems the italic emphasis on the last line is not in the original; since we already highlight it in prose I don't think we need the italics here
  • the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [the advertisement]"—I think rather than the aside here, we could go with the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement
  • When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that a miscount might be more appealing to the voters.—I know it's what's used in the source but given that we're talking about voting, I don't know if "miscount" is the best word here; perhaps When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that her mistakes might be more appealing to the voters.
  • All for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 13:05, 23 September 2021 (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
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) 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Battle of Oroscopa[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

A short article on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago. Despite the article's brevity I believe that I have extracted all the information from the sources that there is. An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Enjoy. But in a constructively critical way. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • How are you ordering Sources?
Le Bohec moved.
  • Harris: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title paramter
Gah! I've done it again! Fixed.
  • Where is Warminster?
Apparently in Wiltshire. Is that a trick question, or did Iazyges get there before me?
The latter, although now I'm not sure that Cambridgeshire is strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am sure that it’s not, and have already removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • One UNESCO (publisher) is sufficient, don't need two.
Can't have too much of UNESCO, but if you insist ...

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks once again Nikkimaria, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

  • Was the GA reviewer recently, have no further suggestions. I have added state locations to some refs without them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

  • Hasdrubal the Boetharch is being linked here; that article states He may have been the same Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of Oroscopa in 151 BC (emphasis mine)—granted that article is much less extensively sourced than this but is this uncertainty something we should be marking here perhaps?
Well now. In the sources Goldsworthy states they are different people; Bagnall, Miles and Harris unequivocally state that they are the same person. To my mind this gives a consensus to the "one person" school, and as Miles and Harris are specialists and Goldsworthy a generalist, and the former two academically considerably outrank the latter, I don't consider that we need to mention the single outlier as a minority opinion.
Fair. If not accepting them as one and same is the outlier then the Hasdrubal article is likely giving undue weight to it.
  • The images both are freely licensed with clear histories as to their derivation. That said, the caption for File:Map of kingdom of numidia ancient algeria (cropped).png states this is "Numidia at its greatest extent"—is there a time frame for this? Given that the battle in question resulted from territorial gains it seems it may be concurrent with these events but if it is or isn't this would be useful to clarify
Good point. Caption changed.
Time frame is helpful but I would have retained the "greatest extent" part; even adding "in 150 BC" to the prior one would have been perfect.
  • Strange to see no links to Numidian cavalry and, to a lesser extent, Carthago delenda est when these subjects come up, the former could easily be included while the latter might warrant a pipe (probably behind "systematically destroyed the city") for context. Just a nitpick, really.
Numidian cavalry. There is reference to the cavalry of the Numidians, and even a description of how they fought. The article on "Numidian cavalry" really relates to those who fought in the Second Punic War, and perhaps earlier. In the intervening 50 years the sources talk of increasing urbanisation, a more organised military structure and the army generally becoming more disciplined. So maybe there were "Numidian cavalry" in the 2PW and Wikipedia article sense and maybe there weren't. As the sources don't commit themselves, it would seem OR for me to.
Fair; the passage describing cavalry charging and counter-charging while hurling javelins at each other does seem to indicate a similar battlefield role though, I don't know that it would be OR so much as just an editorial choice not to, which is still fine.
Carthago delenda est. Don't get me started. I went through this repeatedly in the FAC of Third Punic War. Why should we mention an 18th century invention in order to make it clear that there is no record of any contemporary ever saying it in relationship to a war which is not the subject of this article? </rant>
Make sure you open and close any <rant> tags properly.
  • Interesting to see another Carthaginian engagement decided by starvation—do any of the historians draw parallels to the Battle of the Saw?
Sadly not. Perhaps because it was so common.
  • Other than this I'm satisfied with this article—brief, as you mention, but it does not feel incomplete, and the use of historical context makes it a perfectly self-contained read. Would take little to move to supporting this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi Grapple X and thanks for looking this over. I have responded above to all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Happy to see that anything I've raised has been addressed/responded to. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

SpaceX Starship[edit]

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about SpaceX Starship, a fully reusable rocket in development by SpaceX. It describes each system components, its potential effect on spaceflight and a brief history. This article is a GA and have been grammar-corrected and follow the manual of style, as well as putting due weight on both side of the argument. I welcome all feedback for the article, and I don't mind if it get quickfailed because of a good reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • There are issues with image sandwiching (see MOS:IMAGELOC) and more citations to Elon Musk tweets than you expect to see in a featured article. High quality reliable source? I wouldn't have said so. (t · c) buidhe 01:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fixed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Just been looking through the ref list, nothing else so far. It seems some issues seem to stem from using the visual editor auto-citer without verifying accuracy (numbers as of Special:Permalink/1044783103):
    • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
    • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
    • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
    • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
    • 15, 43, 93: Add author
    • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
    • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
    • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
    • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
    • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)
    • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
    • 37, 80: Add author and date
    • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
    • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
    • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
    • 66: Format like 59/60
    • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
    • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
    • 82, 109: Add date
    • 99: Add author and publication
    • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
    • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

That's all I've looked at so far; no comment on the content of the article yet. eviolite (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your critical comments! I will fix it now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Progress by CactiStaccingCrane (talk):
    • Tweet and YT ref formatting is inconsistent, if you keep any make them the same.
    • 7, 11, 74: Fix the title, add info on publication
    • 12: Might be wrong, why does it link to the SpaceX homepage?
    • 13: Link changed, it looks like. In any case, remove "(BBC News)", and add author
    • 15, 43, 93: Add author
    • 17, 29, 34: Author formatting should be Last, First
    • 18: Formatting completely broken, please use CS1 for consistency with the rest of the article
    • 22, 25, 28, 39, 69-72: Use CS1
    • 25: Why is SpaceFlight Insider reliable?
    • 29, 34, 40-41, 52, 57-58, 61-62, 77, 82, 84-88, 91, 95-96: Why is Teslarati reliable? (and make the naming of the publication consistent)
It is mostly used for getting the part's name, usually with picture proof. It is generally considered reliable in spaceflight community, but I would try to find more reliable sources. Very little (reliable, secondary) sources write about Starship's components. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
    • 36, 42, 63, 94: Author has incorporated the date somehow, needs fixing
    • 37, 80: Add author and date
    • 40: Is that large quote necessary?
    • 52, 57, 62, 98: Add info on publication
    • 59-60: Clarify that "Space Exploration Technologies Corp" is the same as SpaceX
    • 66: Format like 59/60
    • 67: Not a permanent dead link, not sure why it's marked as such
    • 75: Date, fix title and publication (Spaceflight Now is the publication, not part of the title). Why is Spaceflight Now reliable?
    • 82, 109: Add date
    • 99: Add author and publication
    • 103: When does this video talk about Starship specifically?
    • 104: How does this support the sentence it's after?

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will take a look later. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lead:

  • The Starship launch system is a two-stage, fully reusable, super heavy-lift launch vehicle under development by SpaceX, consisting of an upper stage and spacecraft called Starship, a first-stage booster called Super Heavy, and various ground-based support infrastructure - This seems quite lengthy for an opening sentence. A long opening sentence should probably avoided since it is also the first thing modern search engines grab when someone searches for this. I think this should be split into two sentences.
Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • producing more than twice the thrust of the Saturn V. - Which is what?
What do you mean? Added thurst spec CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • SpaceX plans for both the Starship spacecraft and the Super Heavy booster - You can say "SpaceX is planning", or "SpaceX has planned", but "SpaceX plans" sounds awkward in this context.
Done, to is planning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • help the system meet its goal of significantly reduce - This should be "significantly reducing".
Done, CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • during launch, and can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload - The comma before "and" is not necessary. As a fellow editor once told me, "what helps is if you separate the sentences by removing ", and" in your head. Is 'can transport over 100,000 kg (220,000 lb) of payload to low Earth orbit in a fully reusable configuration' a complete sentence? No, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two sentences." I'd recommend checking for this throughout the article too.
Thanks for the advice! I'm sift through them now. Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I'd also check for instances of duplicate links in the article per MOS:DUPLINK. Generally, try to use them no more than once each in the lead and body (non-prose items like infoboxes, tables, captions, etc. don't count). For example, "payload" and "Mars" are linked twice just in the lead. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js can help you identify and remove these.
Thanks, I'm installing the plugin and fix the issues asap. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • orbital propellant transfer — refueling - This is a spaced m-dash but, per MOS:DASH, this should either be an unspaced m-dash or a spaced n-dash.
Done, I used an em-dash. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The lead is missing key information, e.g. development history and finances. Per MOS:LEAD the lead should adequately summarize everything.
Currently rewriting the lead Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • At present, most manufacturing, assembly, and test flights of Starship prototypes - As of when? Related to the previous point but the lead does not have any dates at all.
Fixed, change to As of September 2021 CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I also notice that the lead has some citations, but under WP:CITELEAD you could remove these if the info is adequately cited in the body (unless that info is particularly controversial).
Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Skipping to the body, I also see In January 2016, the United States Air Force signed a $33.7 million contract with SpaceX to develop a prototype Raptor engine for a methalox upper stage for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, with up to $61.4 million more available for any additional requirements. is an entirely unsourced paragraph.

Done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

I'll add more comments later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you by a ton! Unfortunately I am on mobile rn, so I cannot address these issues immediately. Any feedback is highly appriciated! I'm doing it right now CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Gonna write down some of my comments for the body now, with more comments later.
Development history:
  • SpaceX's next-generation launch vehicle has been renamed multiple times during the first several years of development.[8] - When did the idea for the next-generation launch vehicle start?
2005. Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " "BFR" for a conceptual heavy‑lift launch vehicle" - Not an issue in itself, but I laughed at this because my father is a SpaceX buff and calls it the "Big Fucking Rocket", which I suppose this is what it's actually nicknamed. The reason I bring this up is a smaller rocket called the "Big Falcon Rocket" (BFR) is mentioned later on in the section. So am I correct that BFR was given that backronym later?
BFR was the given codename in the past, and its full name is only known decade later. And yes, it was nicked Big Fucking Rocket :D. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • the second stage "Interplanetary Spaceship" featured nine Raptors - There should typically be commas before and after the quoted part (i.e. the second stage, "Interplanetary Spaceship", featured nine Raptors), since it's not an adjective phrase where the commas would be unnecessary.
Added. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In September 2017, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress, Elon Musk - This sounds too similar to the beginning of this paragraph, which is just this but with "2016...67th". I'd change the phrasing it up a bit, like "Musk, at the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, ...."
Done, to At the 68th International Astronautical Congress the following September, Musk announced ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • second stage design - This should be "second-stage design", since the word "second" does not modify "stage design" (like in theatre), only "stage".
Done, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "and the collective launch system ambiguously named "Starship system" or simply "Starship" " - Not really an issue either, but I can see why it can be confusing since the upper stage and the whole thing are referred to by the same thing.
Yup, it can be confusing sometimes. I have tried to seperate them with "Starship spacecraft" and "Starship launch system". CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • atmospheric entry, however, - The comma after "entry" should be a semicolon.
Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • altered the fins design by moving from three to two rear fins - This should be "fins' design" or "fin design". But I wonder whether you can just simplify this as "reduced the fins' design from three to two rear fins".
Added the ladder suggestion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • SpaceX South Texas launch site - Should it be "The SpaceX South Texas launch site"?
Yup, sorry for my terrible grammar. Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Firstly - This could just be "First". Also, five miles downwind could be converted using {{convert}}.
Added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • and the construction ramped up in late 2018 - What did they start doing in late 2018?
They start building Starhopper and infrastructures. Added 'em. and the construction ramped up in late 2018 in preparation of a test vehicle named Starhopper. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown [...] the Mk2 was never finished - I wonder if the Mk2 even counts as being unsuccessfully flown, since it was never flown in the first place. Removing "Neither of these prototypes were successfully flown" could get the point across more concisely.
Removed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • On 8 March 2020 ... On 3 April 2020 ... On 4 August 2020 ... - There seem to be many sentences that start with dates toward the end of this section. I would switch the wording up a bit.
Hmm, I would fix 'em later. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Epicgenius (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dracophyllum wades in[edit]

Hia, comments to follow.

  • "In November 2018, the current names of the launch vehicle is first used: "Starship" for the upper stage and spacecraft, "Super Heavy" for the first‑stage booster and the collective launch system named "Starship system" or simply "Starship"." On this line you use the Template:R, which you never use again. Is it just because you only use websites otherwise? I see you have a couple more in the last sec so this may be why...

What do you mean? CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Don't worry.
  • "Starship Mk1, unveiled in September 2019," why do you use underlining here and throughout this paragraph?
Someone use a {{Abbr}} template, which underline the text. Removed, made clear in the pargraph. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "SN9 flew to a lower altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) on 2 February 2021, but it was also destroyed upon landing. On 3 March 2020, SN10 flew to an altitude of 10 km (6.2 mi) and landed successfully, but exploded 8 minutes later." Why is it ordered in this way and also what happened to SN7?
Ah, someone deleted SN7's sentence. I merged SN9 and SN10 together. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "In 19 September 2021, FAA released a new environmental impact statement, with decision pending." On 19 Sep.. and unreffed...
Added. Forgot to ref lol CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The Super Heavy primary function is to provide Starship" > Super Heavy's
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • enough velocity to launch itselves to orbit, is "itselves" a word? if you mean both the booster and the spacecraft than say "themselves," or if just spacecraft then just say "it" or "itself."
Fixed, I just invented a non-existant word :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "whilst also contain enough fuel to perform a" I think containing would be better here maybe...
"containing" sounds a bit off. I use "carry" instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "hover manuvers toward the landing pad or the catching arm." take out second the
Done, added the 's' in "arm" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and depending on the mission objectives, it would perform different tasks. For some mission that require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence," > Starship would boost itself to orbital speed, and, depending on the mission objective, would perform different tasks. For missions which require going to higher orbit, leaving Earth's or even the Sun's sphere of influence,"
Done, it makes the sentences a lot more coherent. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • I know that Starship and Super Heavy are supposed to be proper nouns but it feels rly weird to me...
Replaced with some other nouns, such as "spacecraft" and "booster" where's needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opens to release payloads once in orbit, and closes again during return to Earth, and able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth" > would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the return to Earth. It would also be able to capture and return satellites and space debris back down to Earth.
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Starship uses two pairs of actuated "body flaps"—install perpendicularly" > installed
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "A pair of larger "aft flaps", is at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" is placed near the nose cone" > , sit at the bottom of Starship, while a smaller pair of "forward flaps" are placed near the nose cone."
Tried to find a synonym for a while now, and you just did it! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " the Starship vehicle" is never referred to as this again, > Starship
Done, to "the spacecraft" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "on entry to Mars because Mars's much thinner atmosphere." because of Mars's much thinner atmosphere
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "SpaceX envisioned several variants of Starship designed to be specialized at various tasks." > envisions, since they aren't made yet (?) also "for various tasks" is better || actually idk about envisioned....
Yup, they aren't made yet. Changed to "plans to build" though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "The original spacecraft design would only transport cargo in space missions initally, but it would spin off to a cargo variant" > , before spinning off to // becoming a cargo variant || also initally > initially
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " large cargo bay door that can open in" > could open in (conditional tense)
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Come into service later is Starship tanker variant would only carry propellant," > To come into service later is Starship tanker variant, which would only carry propellant, and could.
How did I write the sentence like that lol, fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "and refuel the spacecraft in" > and refuel spacecraft
Fixed CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • " the Moon and Mars.In the 2017 design" space
Spaced CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "In the 2017 design unveiling, the Starship specialized for crewed Mars missions might have a pressurized volume of approximately 825 m3 (29,100 cu ft), with forty cabins, large common area, central storage and a galley" unclear what you mean here.
Made clearer, break the sentence apart. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Critics pointed out that the this interior design was not adequate enough to protect" > Critics pointed out that the interior design would not be adequate to protect. .. (Conditional if if wasn't built at the time)
Done, it doesn't exist (yet!) CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "Musk defended by pointing out to the transit time to Mars, stating it will be too insignificant for a crewed Mars mission" what does this sentence mean?
Changed to "Musk defended by stating the dosage would be too insignificant for a Mars mission, pointing at transit time to Mars." CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "allevate" either elevate (get bigger) or alleviate (get less)
Never knew that "allevate" is not a thing, fixed to "elevate" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • may be cost‑competitive with business class airline > airlines
Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • housing up to thirty‑three > the note here has no ref
Added reference to Starship user guide by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • "An orbital launch of Starship could place up to 400 Starlink satellites into orbit, while whereas" deleted while
Finished! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

That's all I got, quite a lot of prose issues, however, so I hope I got them all. Could use another read over. Thanks, Dracophyllum 09:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for all of these comments!!! Been waiting for those for a while lol Fixed all of the issues you just raised, thanks for taking your time reviewing! @Dracophyllum: CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Lean oppose from Urve[edit]

I believe this is the version I reviewed.

Leaning oppose on some sourcing issues that will take a great deal of care to sort out. There are some prose quality concerns but those are best addressed by someone else. Taking a meandering view of the article, I have several concerns about the sources that are used here, and how they are depicted in Wikipedia's own voice. For instance (non-exhaustive):

  • Much of the "comparable" section of the infobox is not sourced or replicated in the body. "Energia", "Long March 9", "N1", "Space Launch System" are only in the infobox (unsourced), and the remainder are mostly not compared to Starship in the prose.
My thoughts that it is called "comparable" because it has the lifting capabilities of these rockets, but the fact that Starship is so much more capable, plus your comment, make the section irrelevant. Deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • far larger than the Falcon family of vehicles - this is not a quote from SpaceX so it should be explained who is saying this
Deleted. The original source is quite dodgy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Reference 9 is malformed; it is by Braddock Gaskill according to the link. I am not sure what makes this a "high quality" reliable source - it has some kind of editorial board and seems to serve a niche audience, but what was the state of affairs in 2005?
In 2005, not much is known about the vehicle besides these information. I will look into it later. Deleted, not verifiable. Reference 8 is reliable though, so I keep it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The vehicle is powered - source says "will", not present tense
Fixed, grammar issue CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • providing the first concrete details on what would become the Starship launch system - this is not in the source that immediately follows
Deleted the superlative and weasel words. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The first stage, known as the "ITS booster", was powered by 42 Raptor engines - the tense is wrong here. "ITS booster" does not appear in the following reference. where is this 'known as' from?
Should be "Interplanetary Transport System booster", the "ITS" is acronymized. Replaced "known as the" with "named" Added a source that back it up. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • This entire section (initial concepts) relies fairly heavily on primary sources, so I have to ask: Is this information in due weight in accordance with other sources that exist on the subject? And my impression is no - because if it is only sourced to a Musk talk, or a SpaceX white paper, and not discussed in secondary sources, then it's not important to others, so it can't be important to us.
Looking up to it. There are many reliable secondary sources for the early days of Starship. These primary sources will be eliminated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • the collective launch system ambiguously named - this is editorializing
Removed "ambiguously".
  • what makes teslarati a high quality reliable secondary source? its about us page makes no mention of an editorial board
Replacing teslarati with other sources. They aren't fake news, but certainly not the most reliable. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Musk noted that the strength‑to‑mass ratio of the new design should equal or better than the earlier design, from the low temperatures of cryogenic propellants to the extremely high temperatures of atmospheric re‑entry - these examples are not in the source, and "noted" is a word to watch out for, because it advances a point of view (MOS:SAID)
Finding the source, and will fix the tone later Found 2 sources, fixed to "noted" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • At the time, SpaceX considered using transpiration cooling—flowing cryogenic propellant through pores in the spacecraft skin—to protect the spacecraft during atmospheric entry; however, this feature was dropped from later designs - this is to a non-independent source (an interview). what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
There is many sources that cover it if I remembered correctly, I need to find them. Found 'em.CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In October 2019, the spacecraft's engine configuration was changed to its present form - probably true, but not in the source that follows
Finding sources. Done CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • is there a distinction between self-funding and private funding? (I don't know.) it is said in the article that SpaceX mainly privately funds its own stuff, but the source says it is self-funded.
Replaced. Basically meant the same thing in this context. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • First, the ambient‑temperature-pressure test is performed by filling inert nitrogen into propellant tanks, which checks tank strength, plumbing, and potential leakages - the source immediately after just says that it was used in this case, not as a general rule. same with Finally, the prototypes are static fired by loading propellant and firing the Raptor engines briefly
All the tests are a "must-have" before flight, but I will find good sources for that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • How do the last three sentences of this paragraph connect to the rest of it, or to this section? (The ones beginning with Many residents and environmental activists have accused SpaceX...)
Seperated. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Adopting a new "serial number" nomenclature, an improved Mk3 prototype was renamed to SN1 (Serial Number 1), and development on Mk4 was halted shortly thereafter - how is this supported by the following reference?
Replaced with this: http://www.digitaltrends.com/news/spacex-starship-sn4-pass-pressure-test/ CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Most Starship variants can perform atmospheric entry and land vertically with no extensive refurbishment in-between flights - is the source for this the Musk video? if so, is it DUE?
Will check later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • In the future, SpaceX plans to replace 304L with a proprietary stainless steel alloy known as "30X" - it has been more than six months since this tweet. any updates? is this still the plan?
Probably not. Not that notable, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • informally called the "skirt" - not in the immediately following reference
Will find the sources. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Similar to the Space Shuttle, the door would be closed during launch, opened to release payloads once in orbit, and closed again during the re-entry to Earth - this comparison should really be made by a reliable secondary source if it is going to be used for comparisons in the infobox
It is synthesized, deleted the Space Shuttle part. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • This variant is specialized - tense
Fixed to "This variant will specialize at" CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The Starship tanker variant will come into service later, used only to carry propellant, which could automatically rendezvous with and refuel spacecraft in Earth orbit. This feature would increase the spacecraft's delta-v budget significantly, and enable Starship to travel to higher orbits or further destinations in the Solar System. For initial operations, the standard Starship can be modified to a smaller capacity tanker - unless I'm missing something, nothing here is supported by the following reference
Finding sources. Deleted statements with no sources, added a few sources to the remainder. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Critics pointed out - this is vague; what kind of critics? healthcare advocates, safety experts, random journalists? would be helpful
Many experts, currently compiling. Some space researchers commented that the ... CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • The radiation dose can increase lifetime cancer risk by 5% - the reference following only says this in connection with a specific setup (a specific flighttime and stay time on Mars); can we say in wikivoice that this is the lifetime risk, if we don't know how long any mission would be?
Will do, but I need more sources. Deleted, too vague to get any useful info about the flight exposure time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
Probably yes with the cancer dosage part. Finding sources. Deleted that cancer bit, not needed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • more uses of the word "noted"; see above for why I think this is problematic
Will replace with more direct and less POV pushing vocab. Replaced all of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • SpaceX also envisioned a lunar cargo lander variant that delivers heavy payloads directly to the lunar surface under the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program - what does this (information from 2019) have to do with the rest of the paragraph (April 2020)
Not exactly, Artemis and Commercial Lunar Payload Services is different. Not sure how to seperate them though. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • There are, IMO, only two reliable secondary sources for the "Super Heavy booster" section, the rest of which are Teslarati or are primary
I agree, will finding sources CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Because of its design, the launch tower is informally dubbed "Mechazilla" - reference 101 and 103 say it is Musk's ; 102 makes no mention of it; 101 is Teslarati
Finding sources Replaced with http://www.independent.co.uk/space/giant-claw-spacex-starbase-photo-b1918905.htmlCactiStaccingCrane (talk)
No, deleted. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
  • Around August 2021, SpaceX has also used an alternate "S" and "B" numbering scheme instead of "SN" and "BN". - source?
Found 1, http://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/06/elon-musk-spacex-starship-fully-stacked-is-dream-come-true.html
Finding them... There are so many sources that need to be found... Might takes weeks days of work

In short, my issues are: (1) there is extensive referencing of primary source material that is not covered in secondary sources, and so is likely not important enough to be included here, (2) there are many places where verification has been failed [and I did not attempt to verify every, or even most, sources used], (3) there are many unreliable sources used extensively, like (probably) Teslarati.

I agree with all of them. All will be addressed tomorrow. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)
I kept my promises, and everything is done! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

My concerns can be addressed, I think, but it will require a good effort. Urve (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

User:Urve Hi, and thanks for giving such a comprehensive review! Thank you a lot for your very detailed criticisms, and I would fix them as soon as I can. Thanks again for coming to SpaceX Starship FAC! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I realy meant it, you just spotted so many mistakes that I thought there's nothing left. Thanks again for coming here and help pointing me cracks on the wall! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment by Spicy

I have some general concerns about WP:FACR #1e, stability. The article was nominated at FAC by a relatively new editor almost immediately after its promotion to GA. That's not a reason to oppose, of course, but it's a reason to be hesitant, considering that even carefully prepared articles by experienced editors often encounter difficulty at FAC. The article has undergone an almost complete rewrite [1][2] since it was nominated. It currently contains ten 'citation needed' tags. Granted, these were added by the nominator as part of the process of improving the article, but if such extensive revisions to the sourcing are needed during a FAC, IMO it is not prepared for FAC and would be better served by a process such as WP:Peer review. The comments from reviewers above point out serious fundamental issues, not minor nitpicks and polishes. I appreciate the nominator's hard work on this article but I don't think it can be considered stable at this time. Spicy (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I do understand that, and I know that there is a high chance to fail the article. However, my main aim in this FAC is to get as much feedback in a short period of time as possible, and a peer review is often not comprehensive enough for me. The citation needed tags are used by me, where I flag errors that Urve highlighted, and make editing easier, not because someone else flag the article. Thanks for coming here however, you have reflect the situation very accurately. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
But FAC isn't meant to be "peer review but better" - it's expected that articles will be reasonably close to meeting the FA criteria by the time that they're nominated here. And if an article undergoes very extensive changes to prose and sourcing during the FAC nomination, this more or less renders the previous reviews invalid - it would have to be checked again to make sure everything is still in order. Spicy (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Suzanne Lenglen[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

  • Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
    • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)
    • Fixed these, and another similar instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

Quite a star worthy of quite a long article. Little to remark, mostly minor points:

  • Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen[6] -- Keep the lead free from references. If you add birthname = to the infobox you can add the ref there
    • I think it's typical to put this type of citation here. I've been told before not to put full names in the infobox when the only difference is that the person has middle name(s). Alternatively, I could write her full name at the start of the "Early life" section and cite it there? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Both methods would do the job. You can choose or do both at the same time. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 8 Grand Slam singles titles, 21 in total, and 10 other World Championship titles.[c] -- this is confusing me. This feels like too much detail for the lead. Can't we just say 21 titles in total, of which 8 Grand Slam singles? And just leave all the detail and footnote for the body of the article.
    • Re-worded to: "winning 8 Grand Slam titles in singles and 21 in total. She also had 4 other World Championship titles in singles and 10 in total." The singles count is more important than the total. The World Championship titles are separate ("sort of", it's confusing). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan -- they were defeated the first time they played, so don't think we can say it like this
    • Handicap events don't count and are more like exhibition matches. (Also, "doubles" is a different discipline than "handicap doubles".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • OK, but then I would recommend you add a note further down where you describe the handicap doubles event in Monte Carlo, explaining that handicap matches don't count. As it stands to the uninformed reader it looks contradictionary. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • triple crown -- I would explain what that means rather than depend on the link
  • What is missing in the first paragraph is her number of titles in the doubles and mixed doubles, and the number of Grand Slams of each.
    • The 21 in total means 21 between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. Changed the wording of that sentence to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Lenglen's father attended tournaments on the Riviera circuit, where the world's best players competed in the first half of the year. -- the word tennis should go in here somewhere
  • was to Suzanne Amblard -- was to Amblard
  • Her volleying ability was instrumental -- according to whom?
  • after her partner suffered an ankle injury -- who was that?
    • It wasn't anyone important. In the interest of space, I left out all of her doubles and mixed doubles partners who were only mentioned once, and weren't particularly significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The final was the shortest in Wimbledon history -- is it still?
  • signed a $50,000 contract -- what's this in today's $?
    • The book doesn't convert to a present-day value. I think it would be WP:OR (and subjective) to do it myself. The comparison to Babe Ruth's salary is meant to put it into context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I have seen a few FACs converting old money into current. There is a standard way of doing it, although I have never used it myself. I will have a look later to try and find it, but perhaps some of the other reviewers or coordinators could enlighten us. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • an offer of 200,000 francs -- give conversion to today's $ so we can compare with later offer
  • a one set match -- a one-set match?
  • 4000 .. 13,000 -- is it a conscious decision to use , in the latter but not in the former? Would be nicer to have a , in all big numbers throughout the article I think
  • in 1927 and kept that ranking through the end of 1933 and nine of the next twelve years -- next is a bit ambiguous: is it from 1933 onwards?
    • Rephrased to "kept that ranking for the next six years and nine of the next twelve overall until 1938" (It's from 1927 though 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Lenglen completed three Wimbledon triple crowns – winning the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles events at a tournament in the same year -- while I agree the term should be explained, this is way too late. Should be at the first use of the term in the lead and then again the first use in the body
    • Repeated the definition at the first instance in the body. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • including the 1919 Wimbledon final against Dorothea Lambert Chambers -- use last name only if person already introduced
  • nd her first match against Molla Mallory, -- same
  • at a cost of up to 500 francs -- give conversion to today's $
  • equivalent to about $44 in the United States -- not sure if this is today's $
  • one in 1947 another from 1950 to 1951 -- add a comma?
  • Gibson played in a series of warmup matches for the Harlem Globetrotters, an exhibition basketball team in the United States. -- while interesting, I think we're straying off topic here.
    • I think if I only clarify what Betz did, the reader would wonder what Gibson did. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • short-sleeved and calf-length pleated blouse -- I'm the opposite of a fashion expert but I thought blouse is for the top, quite far removed from the calf
  • Performance timelines -- I'm not sure what a W means that is not in green. The legend does not explain the colour coding
    • Added an explanation below the key. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Books: a few publishers are missing location of publisher
  • The one bigger issue I have is about the overall use of references: It is far easier for anyone doing a source review if you put more specific references throughout the paragraph, instead of just at the end of a dozen sentences. For example, [24][25]: these page ranges are quite wide. Better to make them more specific. But check other paragraphs as well.

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped)_3.jpg needs a US tag
  • File:Match_of_the_Century_-_False_Ending.jpeg: there's some discussion of the significance of this photo in the image description, but the article itself, not so much. Suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag.
  • File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Switched to just the PD-anon-1923 tag. (The authors Herbert Fox and/or Frederic Glover have unknown death dates.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Dexter's Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): — Paper Luigi TC 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a Cartoon Network original animated television series that aired in the USA from April 27, 1996 (pilot shown in 1995), to November 20, 2003. This article has been previously nominated as a Good Article on August 20, 2008 (by yours truly, albeit a much younger and naive version), and January 16, 2013 (again, by me, but a more refined version of myself), for which the nomination was accepted. During the time between the first GA review and its initial promotion, a peer review was conducted on or around July 27, 2012, that found the article in 'reviewed' status. The article was officially promoted to GA status on or around January 16, 2013, which is shortly before the animated "banned episode" "Dexter's Rude Removal" aired for the first time on public broadcast. In the 8+ years since, I have worked tirelessly to maintain the article and include any reliable sources that verify the claims that were previously unattributed. It is in my sole discretion that the current Dexter's Laboratory article should meet the FA standards and would merit its own nomination into the FA category. In the event that one or more users should protest my nomination on the grounds that the article does not measure up to quality standards as set arbitrarily by the WP community, I will hereby offer my services as an editor to relinquish those claims and restore the article I am nominating to the status of a FA. — Paper Luigi TC 03:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Placeholder for 100cellsman

I'll review this article soon. 웃OO 06:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment. It appears that there are a number of scholarly works discussing this series that are not used in this article - for example Stockwell 2004 and Cornelio 2015. Could you speak to your approach to searching for sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm Goin' Down[edit]

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

My first foray into FAC in 2.5 years, I brought this article about the Bruce Springsteen song to GA in 2016 and have expanded it in the last nine months, largely from Newspapers.com as well as some online books, etc. The article was recently peer reviewed. Special thanks to DMT Biscuit, Aoba47, Ojorojo, and Ceoil, who all provided comments there or elsewhere and/or copy-edits. Looking forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

All images are appropriately licensed (or have appropriate fair use rationales) and are used in accordance with image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you, Wehwalt! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is a rather nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. The two subsections the Personnel section presents the information slightly differently. The Musicians subsection puts the names first followed by what they played, while the Technical team subsection puts the role first and then their names. I would think it should be consistent one way or the other.

I only have one minor comment. Great work with the article. I had participated in the peer review, where my comments have already been addressed. Let me know when this point has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you Aoba47. I've made the request you suggested. Is this what you had in mind? Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you for the response. That does answer my request. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from DMT[edit]

  • My relevant, now resolved, comments can be found on the peer review. I'm satisfied that this article passes the necessary criteria. Good work. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you, DMT! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I really like this album, but this song isn't one of its high points. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The last sentence of the lead's first para reads awkwardly
  • "lyrical themes of sexual frustration and loneliness; these topics contrast with a humorous slant that some critics have observed." - awkward, not least as it's not clear why these topics contrast (lots of accounts of sexual frustration are humorous)
  • I'm very happy to change the above two but am still thinking of the best way to handle them. If any suggestions happen to jump out at you, I'd be glad to hear them, but otherwise, no worries, I'll figure something out, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • OK, I've tentatively trimmed the detail about "Pink Cadillac" from the lead. Does that help reduce that sentence's awkwardness? Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've also now reworked the sentence in the lead mentioning sexual frustration and humor. Moisejp (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " such that "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May were temporarily shelved" - also awkward
  • Changed. Better?
  • Do we know why Springsteen picked this song over Pink Cadillac?
  • No, we don't. The impression we get from Marsh's account of the recording sessions and the selection process of the track-listing is Springsteen was undecided until the last minute about which song he liked better, and at one point he had tentatively decided on "PC" and then at the very last minute he changed hi mind and went with "IGD". Except for "No Surrender", which was added at the very minute for a different reason, I guess these were the two songs he was the least sure he wanted to include—but that's not stated explicitly anywhere, that's just the impression one gets. Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "and by other critics, a rockabilly feel" - awkward wording
  • Changed, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There's quite a bit of over-use of semi colons. I've fixed three sentences so far that were over long, and best split into separate sentences. The second sentence of the 'Legacy and cover versions' is a particularly bad offender, but I'd suggest splitting every sentence where you've used this construction as the material will work better as shortish sentences.
  • I believe I have removed all semi-colons now. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What's the story behind this being picked as a single? It seems unusual to release six singles from twelve song album. Presumably the label was looking to get as many sales out of what was a huge hit as possible.
  • Well, Born in the U.S.A., Thriller and Hysteria had seven singles each, and Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 had eight. As you say, I think it's normal when an album is selling really well for the record company to just try to keeping the momentum going as long as is sustainable. If I scour my sources, I might be able to find some commentary about that somewhere in relation to Born in the U.S.A.. Let me know if you think this would be worthwhile to pursue. Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I really like the 'Live performances' section, and wish that this approach was more common (it's much better than the usual tedious list of live TV shows the song has been performed at that turn up in articles).
  • Thanks very much, I'm glad you like the section! Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Each sentence in the 'Legacy and cover versions' discussion of assessments should cover a single assessment. Lumping multiple assessments together separated by commas or semi colons doesn't work, and makes this heavy going to read.
  • I have broken them all up, except tentatively have left the Rolling Stone and June Skinner top-100 rankings together, as these feel strongly related and good to join together for occasional variety of sentence structure. But if you would like to see this broken up as well, just let me know. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The 'Reduced radio airplay following September 2001 attacks' section could be covered in a sentence somewhere - it uses a lot of words to not say much, to be honest.
  • Sure. I have no particular attachment to this content and agree it's the most peripheral section. But if I'm going to chop it down, I'd be inclined to remove it altogether instead. I'm worried it would be hard to include enough context to make this part of the story self-sufficient in one sentence. And if the content is not in its own section, I honestly don't know where I'd put it without it being a little out of place. Let me know if you agree removing the entire section is the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A sentence could probably be worked into the preceding section, but other than that removing this material wouldn't be much of a loss. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Has Springsteen discussed this song in any depth? It seems that he's not keen on it from how infrequently it's played at concerts (despite his famously long set lists).
  • I haven't been able to find any in-depth discussions by him about "I'm Goin' Down". "Not keen on it" may be strong, but the author of this article notes briefly that Springsteen seems "somewhat ambivalent" about it [[3]]. Interestingly in his introduction to Born in the U.S.A. in the lyrics book Songs [[4]], Springsteen talks (in most cases admittedly briefly) about all the songs on the album except two, one of which is "I'm Goin' Down". Marsh [[5]] describes how midway through the two years of recording sessions for the album, it was one song that Springsteen had seemed to forgotten about or at least lost interest in, but manager Jon Landau's insistence that it (and "I'm on Fire" and "Cover Me") were great songs helped to bring these back into the pool of tracks eventually considered for release. These are hints of his ambivalence. If you think such kinds of hints would be useful details to include, I could do so (not the detail about him not talking about it in Songs, but the other two details above, and anything else I might be able to find along this vein). Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The article's sourcing seems almost entirely limited to news stories and websites. Is there really no coverage of this topic in journal articles and books? Such sources might be useful in fleshing out the material on the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Although the song has its fans, the song itself was not a cultural phenomenon, but the album it came from was. So I think it's normal that the commentary available for the song is widespread (lots of mentions) but mostly short descriptions in each, and these are especially common in newspaper reviews that came out at the time of the album's release, and on websites. Among book authors, Marsh, Himes, Heylin, Guesdon, and Sawyer do give a limited amount commentary about the song, but it's not in-depth discussions. OK, yesterday I looked in JSTOR and found two journal articles that mention the song. "Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics" has three or four sentences about the song as part of a larger discussion about "the disillusionment wrought from failed relationships contributes to [men's] dashed dreams. 'I'm Goin' Down' illustrates the deterioration of a desirable sexual relationship. The man feels he is being 'set up' by the woman just so she will be able to reject him. In a sexual sense, the man failed; in a class sense, the woman acted as an obstacle in his quest for the liberation of the tedium of a working class existence." I can try to fit in something about that in the Lyrics and themes part, but I'm not sure how well it will add to (or disrupt from) the current flow of ideas. Then there is only one sentence mentioning the song in the journal article, "Rebuilding the "Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music": "'I'm Goin' Down' is four-chord double-entendre with an infectiously catchy chorus, on which Springsteen utilizes the clearer 'pop voice' used to such hit-making effect on 'Hungry Heart.'" I will try to fit something about this as well. Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • About "the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it", Springsteen says in the book Songs that "Born in the U.S.A." is one of the best songs in his career and that "there was something about the grab-bag nature of the rest of the album that probably made it one my purest pop records". Also "many of these songs found themselves in concerts with my audience. My heroes, from Hank Williams to Frank Sinatra to Bob Dylan, were popular musicians. They had hits. It was a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be." Marsh also gets into lots of details about that, about how Nebraska was a very personal album for Springsteen, and (the "IGD" article vaguely hints at this) Springsteen felt close to that album circa 1983 and was considering going in that direction again for his next album. But it was Plotkin and especially Landau that convinced Springsteen that seeking a wider audience and affecting culture had value, even if the songs were not as directly personal or meaningful to him as the Nebraska songs were. So that's the role of "IGD" (but most of the other songs too) as parts of "the grab-bag" of pop songs, and as potential hits that directly reached and appealed to his audience. But of course it's not just "IGD" that that's true for, and this article is about "IGD". But if you think it's helpful to provide more of this background hinting at the song's role, along with the other songs, I can. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That looks fine. This obviously isn't one of Springsteen's iconic songs, so the amount of commentary is likely to be accordingly modest. Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Nick-D, thanks so much for looking at the article, and for your comments and copy-edits. :-) I'm going to work through responding in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Hi Nick-D, I believe I've replied to all of your comments above. Let me know you know if you have any additional thoughts in response to my replies. You asked whether there was no analysis in journal articles. As I say in my reply above, I've found one journal article ("Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics") that only has three sentences strictly about "I'm Goin' Down" itself, within the context of a larger analysis of themes in Springsteen's work as a whole. I've tentatively added a short paragraph to the end of Lyrics and themes about this. I'm not sure it's not undue weight for one person's views, but I've put it in for now in case you think it benefits the article. I'm also happy to take it back out if it's not beneficial. (The mention of "IGD" in the other journal article I mentioned above—"Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music"—is so short that I haven't added it. The only detail that might be worthwhile there could be the mention of Springsteen's using a "pop voice" for the song.) Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

One more comment:

  • "Other critics have described a rockabilly feel." - this is a bit clunky Nick-D (talk) 04:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi Nick-D, thanks for your replies and additional comment.

  • I've reworked the "rockabilly" bit. If it happens you don't like this version, I have two more alternate versions at User:Moisejp/sandbox11#Rock,_country,_rockabilly. Or happy to rework it some more if need be.
  • I vastly shortened the Clear Communications part and put it in the Legacy section. It's two sentences, not one, but it's still much shorter than before, and I feel the details that are there are all useful for explaining context. If you feel it's still too long I think I really will just remove the section altogether—partly because any shorter would make the context less clear, but also because I'm a bit against one-sentence paragraphs, and I don't think it fits at all in any of the existing paragraphs.
  • I think when you wrote "That looks fine" above you meant the amount of commentary I currently have is fine, and no additions needed. But let me know if you meant it sounded like a good idea about my suggestion that I could theoretically add something about the role of "IGD" (and other songs) as being "a grab-bag of pop songs" and potential hits that directed reached out and appealed to his audience—as "a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be". Moisejp (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Operation Transom[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in mid-May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article to GA standard in August 2020, and it passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review last month. It has since been further expanded and improved, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map not using fixed px size
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Carrier_strike_on_Surabaya,_Java_in_May_1944.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Illustrious_(87)_steams_past_USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_in_the_Indian_Ocean_on_18_May_1944_(NNAM.1977.031.085.012).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I've updated the link for the first image, and replaced the second as the source database is dead. @Nikkimaria: thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Moisejp[edit]

I've read through twice and made several minor edits. The prose is excellent and (although I don't know much about the subject) it seems very comprehensive. I support the article's promotion. Moisejp (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Power Mac G4 Cube[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

In the late 90s, Apple Computer was on the brink of bankruptcy, until they brought back old cofounder Steve Jobs. Jobs relentlessly pruned Apple's product line and brought the company back to prosperity. But in between the saga of hits like the iMac and the iPod... there was the Power Mac G4 Cube, a commercial failure so sudden that the product was discontinued barely a year later, and remained arguably one of Jobs' greatest missteps in his time back at Apple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I have edited Apple-related topics for nearly three years, with my familiarity, can I consult for the position co-nominator to help since I have yet not contribute significantly to this particular article. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On the contrary, co-nominators are expected to have made significant contributions and to have been invited by the primary nominator. Graham Beards (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2021 (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
  • small form factor Macintosh personal computer - can we reword avoid three links together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • at customers in between - I don't think this means anything, clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power - could probably say how much it was marketed at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I feel like some of the stats, dimensions, release date and weight would be useful for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Prose
  • gives the impression the computer is floating[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The technical words (RAM, optical disk, hard drive) need linking Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • A higher-end model was available only through Apple's online store - and what was this model? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not sure what is normal about these articles, but would specifications not be more suitable under overview? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • . "I wanted the [flat-panel] Cinema Display but I don't need the features of the PowerMac," he told Newsweek. + can we have the source where he says this directly after the citation (the sentence)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • displays and peripherals "[they] create - there's something missing in this sentence, as it doesn't read right Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • product matrix - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • specced-up consumer iMac - is specced-up a word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 500 MHz model and added new memory, hard drive, and graphics options. - I'd like to know what these are earlier in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • having aesthetic flaws turned into a negative public relations story for Apple, as well as turning off potential buyers for whom the aesthetics - you use "aesthetics" a lot - could you maybe use a synonym? You use it twice in this sentence alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Macworld wrote that consumers treated the Cube as "an underpowered... Did we have an author for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Jobs' ability - as much as I hate it, should be Jobs's per MOS:POSSESSIVE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Considering the item didn't sell well due to the price, it's surprising we don't have the amount in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
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) 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Quick comments by Sdkb[edit]

Hi David! I don't think I'm going to get to more than the lead, but a few comments:

  • The way that the Power Mac G4 Cube is referred to in short varies in the first paragraph, with "the Cube", "the product", and "the machine" all making appearances. Being more intentional about terms used and not being afraid to just use "it" might help a bit with making the prose flow. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • On release, the Cube won awards and plaudits for its design. Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects. This might be better as a single sentence with "but" as a conjunction. Also, it confused me a little to hear that it was praised for its design but criticized for cosmetic defects, which I'd think would count as part of the design. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The product was an immediate commercial failure; made it a rare failure for the company; Despite its lack of success with consumers There's a lot of redundancy here that re-wording might be able to eliminate. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The New York Museum of Modern Art holds a G4 Cube Lots of old computers are held in museums. I'm not seeing why this one being in the Met is noteworthy enough to be due for the lead. Also, the along with its distinctive Harman Kardon transparent speakers feels wedged in there—if it's an important enough design element to warrant covering in the lead, it should be mentioned along with the other design stuff. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I hope that helps, and best of luck with the nomination! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

    • Hey Sdkb, thanks for the comments. I've made tweaks to all of the above. The only thing I'm iffy on is whether to cut the MoMa reference; it generated news coverage from papers like the NY Times when it happened, which I feel demonstrates that it wasn't a usual thing (certainly back then), and it also ties into the notions of how it was a beautiful product that just didn't have a practical demo for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      I read the article, and while I certainly see why it's in the body, I'm still not quite sold on it for the lead. Ultimately, though, I'm just here for quick comments following your Discord invite, not to !vote support or oppose, so no worries if you ignore any of my suggestions where you have a different view. If you're looking for reviews to do yourself, I have a pre-FAC peer review open here. Best wishes with this FAC! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Wingwatchers[edit]

@David Fuchs:

  • "sold by Apple Computer Inc" The company was now simply as Apple Inc, for "sold", suggest changing it to "developed and marketed" for more details
  • Overuses of "the Cube", consider changing some to "it"
  • "Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product", removed that, every company do that everytime for innovation, don't you agree?
  • Overuses of "Apple", suggest switching some to "the company"
  • Grammatical grasp needed further imporvemnets and maybe copyedit, for example: "born", recommended "drew inspiration"
  • No details was available for the release date, to announced a product was different than releasing it to public

Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I have taken the liberty and replied to these comments here [6]. If the nominator disagrees, please ignore me. Graham Beards (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks Graham. I would agree that the changes were not a net improvement. As to the above, I'm not sure the comments above demonstrate that WW has a strong enough grasp of the English language to improve the text beyond its current state. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Schichau-class torpedo boat[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a class of 22 dinky little Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats that were constructed in the late 19th century and were effectively obsolete by the time World War I broke out. They were used mainly as minesweepers and as part of local defence forces for Adriatic ports during the war, but some saw action. After the war, most were quickly broken up, but a few were handed over to the Yugoslavs (hence my interest), and one was a training vessel for the Yugoslav Naval Academy for more than fifteen years. Captured by the Italians and then the Germans, she wasn't much use for anything by that stage and was lost around the time of the German withdrawal from the Bay of Kotor. The article went through GAN in 2016, Milhist ACR a couple of years ago, and I have expanded it and more closely cited it using new sources in the last month. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be supported in the text - eg the preceded/succeeded by fields
deleted the first (not sure where I got that from), cited the second in the body. Everything else there seems to be cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations/publishers for periodicals
Added to the one that didn't have a location. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Can you provide any details on the reliability of Despot Infinitus as a publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I now have three books published by them, while they have some weak spots (English grammar copy-editing is not perfect and they lack indexes), they are well fact-checked and corroborated by other sources. Where there are variations it seems likely that Freivogel, being a specialist and able to read relevant languages, has actually accessed better sources than generalist English-only sources. Freivogel himself is reliably published in naval history journals like Warship International. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Lede
  • Apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats suggest Although one was discarded in 1911, the remaining boats...
  • during the World War II April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, suggest during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia as a part of World War II...
Background
  • One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École school of thought was the development of the seems somewhat awkward to put (French) school and school back to back; perhaps One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École doctrine was the development of the
Service history
  • On 23 August 1914, No. 26 was mined off Pola is it known if she hit one mine or multiple? If singular, suggest On 23 August 1914, No. 26 hit a mine off Pola ; if multiple, are there any guesses to the number of mines she hit from sources?
  • When the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia commenced in April 1941 suggest When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 as a part of World War II
  • That is all of my suggestions. A neat article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

German destroyer Z39[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about a German destroyer that served in WW2. This article has been to FAC twice so far, failing first due to sourcing issues, and secondly due to lack of reviews. I believe this article is at FAC standards after major improvements made after the first review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • File:Z39-Zerstoerer1936modA-USN-Photo.jpg: the source gives a courtesy credit for this image - who is that person? Ditto File:Captured_German_destroyer_Z39_underway_off_Boston_on_22_August_1945.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Attribution to Robert F. Sumrall, US Navy, has been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

HF[edit]

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "she laid numerous barrages of mines" - is there a possible link for barrage? I don't think this meaning is particularly well-known
    Strangely enough, no. The various Wikipedia articles only describe specific barrages, such as Naval mine linking to some. Wiktionary for Barrage doesn't directly refer to naval barrages, only indirectly by mentioning explosives/projectiles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Remove the period after "Transferred to the French Navy" in the infobox
    Done.
  • Per MOS:SECTIONHEAD; Destroyer Function should be Destroyer function
    Done.
  • " the average size Allied ships" - size of?
    Fixed.
  • To me, the structure of the background section feels awkward. It starts off by discussing specific WW2 tactics, then two sections of more general worldwide and German naval background. I'd recommend moving that first section about WW2 destroyer tactics to after the Plan Z section
    Done.
  • Link Plan Z somewhere
    Done.
  • "22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34)" - add some ship type links here. In particular, I doubt that most readers will know the difference between a light and heavy cruiser
    All but destroyers and submarines are linked in the first sentence of this paragraph; I've added links to those two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Why isn't ship class mentioned in the design section?
    Fixed.
  • Any of the sources say anything about why the Greek coat of arms of all things was on the ship?
    I can see if new sources have come out or if I've missed something; I think a source that didn't pass WP:V stated that it was because the Greek royal family was, indirectly, "German" by way of being related to the Danish royal family who was related to a Holstienian noble family; it seems possible given that the Germans had a simultaneously wide and narrow definition of German (per their roving band of Aryans accomplishing everything good in history). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "fourteen 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns" - single or twin?
    Fixed.
  • "Koop & Schmolke 2003, pp. 42–42." - This page range is malformed. And there's been a tag into the article about this page range being malformed since 2020. This should have been addressed before this was taken to FAC
    Fairly embarrassing. I do not personally own the book; unfortunately, my university library does not quite match the beast that is the Houston Public Library, so I've put in an interlibrary loan. Will resolve as soon as it arrives. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Nevermind, I was able to find a copy online; ref fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Infobox specifies that the boilers were water-tube boilers; this isn't specified in the body. As not all boilers are water-tube boilers, this should be directly clarified in the body
    Fixed; good catch. The link on boiler currently points to water-tubed boiler, have removed the pipe so the text itself speaks to water-tube boilers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I'm not a ship expert, so I may wrong, but the infobox gives the completion date as the commissioning date. But wouldn't "and Z39 was not fully operational until 7 January 1944" be the completion date?
    You are correct; fixed.
  • "After these changes, she began minelaying operations in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat until March when she was transferred to Reval off the Gulf of Finland" - can we have a more specific date for this? This could be read to suggest that this happened right after the Project Barbara work; but surely this wouldn't have happened until after the commissioning. The chronology isn't clear here
    Added.
  • Is there a map that can be added to the German service? It's really hard for me as a non-European to have the foggiest idea where these various bays and islands are located
    Haven't been able to find one; I've put a request in with the Wikimap cult Project. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Did the oil shortage affect Z39 in any way? It's mentioned, but no consequences of it are really mentioned, although it seems like running low on oil would mess up your naval fleet movements
    It definitely did, but I didn't find a source to actually say this, several sources mention other ships and units being kept in port due to lack of oil, but I can't really extend that to Z39 without it constituting OR, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke (p. 114) mentions Z33 and other Swinemünde based ships, I can't get a full view of the page with Google preview, however; must wait for it to arrive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Further reading items should generally be relevant to the specific subject - are O'Brien and Zaloga really relevant to this subject, or just general works on WWII
    Removed.
  • For consistency with how you format the other refs, drop the usage of Annapolis, Md. to just Annapolis
    Done.
  • Pae 218 here gives the more specific date of November 1947 for the transfer to France
    Added.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Hog Farm: implemented all the fixes, the only thing left is to attempt to find more information on oil shortage effects, and see if anyone is willing to create a map for her operations. Will hope and pray for information regarding the usage of the Greek coat of arms, but its unlikely. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Support - It would be preferable if material for the oil shortage could be found, but I understand if it just isn't possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ichthyovenator[edit]

Will take a look and review soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The article is excellent. Since I'm not very knowledgeable in this area I just have some minor points and questions:

  • The fourth and fifth sentences in the lead both start with "She". Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Fixed
  • The ship was part of the French navy for substantially longer than either the German or American ones, but I presume Z39 is still the most common name used (and not the later French designation)?
    Yes; additionally, it seems like an unwritten rule (or perhaps it is written somewhere) that whatever the most important role of the ship is, is the name most sources and articles will use. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Makes sense. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Following the end of World War One, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, which put strict limits both on the size and displacement of warships that she could possess. are countries typically referred to as "she"? Why not "... warships that the country could possess."? I see that you've continued to gender Germany later as well so maybe I'm just confused about this since I'm not a native English speaker.
    Most countries are actually referred to as she in English, however, Germany could theoretically use gender-neutral (in its own language it is, from what I've heard), or masculine, as it is a Fatherland, unlike most countries. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The more you know! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Erich Raeder, the Grand Admiral of the Kriegsmarine, was assured by Hitler that war would not start until at least 1945. Raeder had wanted the deadline for the completion of Plan Z to be extended to 1948, but Hitler insisted on 1945. World War Two began in 1939, meaning that very few of Germany's heavy ships were finished at that point. Was Raeder assured in 1939 that the war would not start until 1945? Surely Hitler must have been aware that the war would start much sooner at this point given that it started later that year? Would be nice with more insight on this but I understand if it might be out of the scope of this article.
    Yeah, he did actually make this promise in either late 1938 or early 1939. To my understanding, the Germans were fully ready to go to war over the annexation of the Sudetenland, but after the British and French folded on that, they pretty much thought they could do whatever they wanted as long as it wasn't a direct attack on France, Belgium, or England. Hitler did think it would be 1942 before war broke out between them and England/France, which I've now added to the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Interesting stuff. So still a d*ck move to tell Raeder that they weren't planning to go to war until 1945. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Absolutely, but this is also the man who intentionally put 2-3 people into effectively one position, so they'd fight, and he'd see who won and was therefore the greatest Warrior Aryan, or something to that effect. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ichthyovenator: Believe I have responded to all of your comments/suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. Everything looks good to me! Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Pendright[edit]

@Iazyges: Is the article written using British or American English? Pendright (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Pendright: It should, in theory, use American English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Iazyges: Thank you - back shortly. Pendright (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review[edit]

  • Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?
The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf
  • Further reading:
  • Three works have no publisher location.
  • I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)
  • One has no ISBN/OCLC.
  • I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.
Are you suggesting several entries, such as:
I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Having done this much, I may as well recuse and complete the source review.

  • The two Roy works need publisher locations.
  • The Cumulative Effect of Cuts ..., on what basis are you listing it under S?
  • Palmer et al: the title should be in title case.
  • "This website includes photographs of the weathered memorial and faded central red star". Suggest → 'This website includes photographs of the [specify which] memorial.'
  • "Lionel Ellis, who wrote the volume focused on the BEF in France for the History of the Second World War, wrote the division" Is it possible to avoid using "wrote" twice in the sentence?
  • I have spotted at least one p./pp. error. Could you recheck.
    I have gone back over them, and I dont see it. Clearly I am overlooking it, but could you be so kind to point it out?
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support[edit]

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you for your comment and supportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

  • I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.
    Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.
    I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.
    I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.
    I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.
    False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?
    I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.
    Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.
    The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".
    I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"
    A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.
    After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?
    I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).
    I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).
    I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.
    Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".
    Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.
    I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.
    Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.
    It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".
    Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.
    I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.
    Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?
    Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.
    Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?
    Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?
    Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.
    Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

My apologies! I neglected to put this review on my watch-list and promptly forgot about it. I am impressed with the thorough responses to my long list of quibbles, and am now happy to withdraw my reservations about the prose of the article. I know too little about the substance to comment on that, and leave it to more expert reviewers to make their judgements, but as far as the prose and presentation go, I am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

UEFA Euro 2004 Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Some of you may have seen the FAC for UEFA Euro 2008 Final, which is currently active but hopefully close to a successful completion. Well this article is about the tournament prior to that one, the 2004 edition of the European Championship, and it brought one of the greatest shocks in the history of football. Outsiders Greece, who had never won a game at a major tournament before, stormed through the tournament, beating hosts Portugal in the opening game and then seeing off the tournament-holders France in the quarter-final and the Czech Republic in the semi-final. In the final, they met Portugal again and, through a combination of resolute defending and nicking a goal from a corner, they managed to overcome Portugal in their own back yard for a second time to claim the trophy. As ever, all comments and feedback welcome and I look forward to hearing from you.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from TRM[edit]

  • "hosts Portugal and Greece" perhaps a comma after Portugal or something to delineate who the hosts were (i.e. not both countries).
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Greece's manager" could link manager in the lead.
    Deon.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "odds" could be linked to fixed-odds betting?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "organised by UEFA for" link UEFA here.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " European Championship final prior" do you mean final tournament here?
    No, it means the final itself. Both had appeared in at least one finals in the past. Does it need a reword?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "winners. [20]" lose the space.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "They suffered an early setback" who?
    Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Some mix of "half-time" and "half time" when being used simply as nouns.
    Changed to "half time". Unless it should be "half-time"? I can't remember.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Karagounis suspended" was.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "temperatures of 28 °C (82 °F)" contradicts the infobox (where the ref is dead in any case...)
    Infobox updated (and the humidity too) to match the extant UEFA source.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "10 minutes.[42] On 13 minutes" repetitive.
    I've reworded a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "was hit over" struck?
    Ok sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "crossbar.[45][42] Maniche" ref order.
    Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As I'm always asked, what is referencing the exact positions and the formation diagram?
  • "pre-tournament odds" could link odds again.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Minister Costas Karamanlis" our article calls him Kostas.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @The Rambling Man: I've looked at all these point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @The Rambling Man: oh wait, no I haven't, there's still the positions sourcing. Will get back to you shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @The Rambling Man: actually, that looks like an easy one - the match report source used in the Details section, [7], has the formation laid out in what looks like the same fashion as our image. I suppose it doesn't explicitly give the positions as GK / RB / CM etc, but maybe that's inferrable from the formation diagram per WP:SKYISBLUE?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm okay with that. And thanks for addressing the other issues. I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "playing in only their second European Championship" - which team was?
    I've added "the latter".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • First mention of Deco in the lead isn't linked
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "They had further chances" - which team did?
    Changed to Portugal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Cristiano Ronaldo, a substitute for Portugal fouled" - comma needed after Portugal
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The tie-breakers at Euro 2004 made use" - I would just say "Euro 2004 made use". The silver goal wasn't really a "tie-breaker" (which implies something used to decide a match which finished level)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Then Portugal had an opportunity with a free kick" - I would lose the redundant first word
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "continued to prevent goal-scoring many opportunities" - wording seems mangled here
    Swapped many with goal-scoring.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "as Barry Glendenning of The Guardian described the game thus far as "dull"" - this implies he said it literally at half time. Presumably he didn't?
    @ChrisTheDude: He actually did say it at half time. The source is a minute-by-minute live blog of the game, in which each piece of information was written by Glendenning and published at the time it happened. Do I need to amend it to make it clearer?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    No, that's fine if that's the case (I have to confess I didn't look at the source) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Five minutes into the second half, Glendenning said" - again, did he literally say it five minutes into the half?
    See above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • " the first foreigner to coach a team" - suggest a different word(ing) - everyone is a foreigner to someone
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    @ChrisTheDude: I think I've looked at all your points now.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:POR-GRE_2004-07-04.svg should have a source added to the image description
  • File:Greeks_celebrating_Euro_2004_victory_dsc06432.jpg is quite blurry - are there no better-quality images available? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

2015 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the 2015 edition of the oldest football competition in the world. This one, quite an open affair with the Gooners knocking four past the Villains. I look forward to working on all constructive and actionable reviews, and thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Lead
  • "it was the 134th final of the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup)" - this doesn't appear in the body, and is not cited
  • "the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition" - ditto, and feels slightly POV too. "Showpiece" and "primary" according to whom?
  • For the lead to be complete, there should be some sort of nod towards the "Route to the final" section, for example by mentioning the beaten semi-finalists or whatever.
  • "Following a change in UEFA rules, Arsenal had already qualified for the Champions League by finishing third in the Premier League" - needs a bit of logical reordering here; the change in rules didn't affect Arsenal's qualification, as implied here, it only affected whether Villa would qualify or not.
I've done a bit of reorganising, in line with other similar FA Cup Final FAs, and hopefully I've captured all your concerns in the expanded lead and new Background section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Route to the final
  • "FA Cup holders Arsenal" - a bit of context is needed here, since this is the opening spiel of the article, after the lead. What is the FA Cup? And link to FA Cup somewhere, along with the 2014–15 FA Cup article.
Added a Background section, hopefully addressing this? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "third round" then "Fourth Round" then "fifth round" - consistency needed (almost certainly lowercase).
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Theo Walcott opened the scoring after less than two minutes from a Calum Chambers cross before Mesut Özil made it 2–0 midway through the first half" - the uninitiated won't be sure which team this refers to
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "75th minute goal" - 75th-minute?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "space of three first-half minutes, and after a goalless second half, Arsenal" - I think the comma should maybe be after "and" rather than after "minutes", since "after a goalless second half" looks like a subordinate clause or whatever those things are called.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Arsenal progressed to the fifth round. There, Arsenal were drawn" - repetition of Arsenal. The term appears seven times in this paragraph, which is understandable since it's about them, but still something to keep an eye on; sometimes "they" will do instead.
Done. It's hard, and if you can improve it further, please go for it....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "in a match scheduled to be televised on BBC One on a Monday evening" - this sort of implies that it didn't actually go ahead on the Monday; could rephrase to simply say that it did take place on that day
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "they claimed there would be no trains back" - MOS:CLAIM
Suggested? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "made the trip to" - a bit journalese
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a Ángel Di María cross" - should be "an Ángel..."
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Former United player Danny Welbeck" - "Manchester United"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "round David de Gea" - this use of "round" as a verb may be obscure for people not familiar with football; consider rewording slightly
Done, I think? It wasn't a verb, FWIW, that would have been "rounded"... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "six minutes before half-time before Reading's Garath McCleary equalised with a volley nine minutes after the interval" - before, before, after
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final" - Arsenal reached the final, not the match
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "scored Aston Villa's second in the 89th minute after it was fumbled" - after what was fumbled?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "second yellow card, Sinclair doubled Aston Villa's lead" - I think "and" might work better than a comma here

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "the Liveprool goalkeeper" - typo

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "Delph then gave Aston Villa the lead 11 minutes into the second half to give his side" - repetition of "gave" and "give"

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "since 2000". Could include "since" in the link, to avoid EGG issues.
Hmm. I've done it but I don't like it... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Background
  • "a record 19th FA Cup final" - link to List of FA Cup Finals, unless you plan to mention the fact that it's the 134th final first (that fact appears in the lead but not in the body)
Linked in "new" b/g section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "a joint record with United" - Manchester United
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "11th final, of which they had won seven" - MOS:NUM (and we also said that Arsenal had won "11" earlier)
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "based on the one which" - slightly colloquial sounding language
Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
First half
  • "In the eighth minute" ... "13th minute" - MOS:NUM
Interesting. This is the "comparable" figures one. The MOS doesn't give guidance (as far as I recall) on the scope of that limit, i.e. is it in a single sentence? A single paragraph? A single section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "13th minute cross" - hyphenate
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "first player to be booked" - some sort of link would be useful
Linked to gloss. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "6 yards (5.5 m)" - overprecise
Made under-precise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "In the 38th minute, Delph was then booked" - probably don't need "then"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Second half
  • "Alexis Sánchez then headed the ball into the Aston Villa goal but it was disallowed by the referee for offside. Cazorla's 57th minute low shot was then saved" - repetition of "then" in quite close succession
Got rid of the second one which is time-tagged anyway. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The Aston Villa player was then booked for his protests. Bellerin then tackled..." - ditto
Used a different word. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "to make it 4–0 to Arsenal, the final score, to win their 12th FA Cup" - awkward wording. Could split the part about the 12th FA Cup into a separate sentence
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Post-match
  • "Wenger himself said" - not sure if we need "himself" here
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "BT Sport" - link
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Amakuru thanks, as ever. I'll get to these today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Amakuru I think I've done them pretty much all bar the MOSNUM "comparable" issue which I've remarked upon above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nice one, looks good to me. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

Quick comments – In addition to seeing some of the items mentioned by Amakuru, I found these couple of extra points:

  • Route to the final: "The second period of extra time was goalless and the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final for the second consecutive year." To avoid awkwardness, this should say that Arsenal reached the FA Cup Final, instead of whatever this currently implies.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Second half: "flicked the ball into the Aston Villa" sorely needs "net" afterwards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Added "goal". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Giants2008 thanks for your comments. I'll get to them later on today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Giants2008 I think I've addressed your concerns. Thanks once again for your comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review—pass[edit]

Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

ChrisTheDude thanks, let me know if I missed anything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by Kosack[edit]

Sorry about the lateness, been a bit under the weather this week. Here's what I've got, nothing major. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Kosack no apologies needed at all. Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all I think, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review by Grapple X - pass[edit]

  • Passed on sources. 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's an sfn citation (ref 3) pointing to a source that isn't present (O'Leary 2017). Can we get that added?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not a fault per se but it seems like almost all of the web sources are archived; are the missing ones an oversight or just unlikely to change? Ref 1 for example—retrieved the day it was published—isn't archived but cited a few times.
    I just go for whatever IABot can add in, I've just run it again and it added nothing new. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Consistent mis-spelling of The Grauniad
    Done The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC) []
  • Refs 26 and 35 are the same page; presumably retrieved at two different times as the story was reported but now just pick one and use it twice
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • That's all I'm seeing for now; I presume we can dispense with the spot-check here but I'll carry one out if requested. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Grapple X all done I think. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That looks fine. I assume the bot just finds already-archived versions of web links? It's possible to create new archived versions if you want but certainly not obligatory. The missing reference and the redundant cite being culled look good though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, if you wouldn't mind explicitly marking the review as passed, that would make life easier for me and for the co-ords. Cheers again for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Edmund I[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This is the latest of my FAC submissions about later Anglo-Saxon kings. Edmund I (939 to 946) was the first king to inherit the throne of all England, but he had to fight hard to keep his inheritance against Viking kings from Dublin who crossed the Irish Sea to become kings of York. He was successful in recovering northern England, but he died young trying to rescue a servant from an attack by a violent thief. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support[edit]

I was able to find a few minor issues to comment on at the peer review, and Dudley has addressed those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support[edit]

Like Mike, I peer reviewed the article and my (very minor) quibbles were completely dealt with then. I am inexpert in Anglo-Saxon history, but to my layman's eye the article is convincingly comprehensive, balanced and well and widely sourced. It is beautifully written and splendidly illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I'm happy to do a source review if no more expert volunteer comes forward. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Don't repeat captions in alt text
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg
  • File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_obverse.jpg needs a US tag for the coin, and what's the copyright on the photograph? Coins are not 2D. Conversely, File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_reverse.jpg has a tag for the photo and not the coin (and seems to have a broken template). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg: tag indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Same message on File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg and on File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, which doesn't seem to have been edited? And then same message on both coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think they are fixed now as all files show a US public domain tag. Thanks Nikki. It is so long since I nominated an FAC that I have forgotten how to deal with images, but hopefully I now know. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[