Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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 ors 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 ors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All ors 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 ing, 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 ors. 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[]

Battle of Cape Hermaeum[]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

When I nominated Battle of the Aegates I wrote "the third and final installment of my trio of naval battles from the First Punic War". I was wrong. Missing was this, the Carthaginian's worst naval defeat of the 23-year-long war; which was swiftly followed by the Roman's worst disaster of the war - a storm sank most of their fleet, killing over 100,000. Strangely, the sources are thin, but I believe that there is enough to make it FA-worthy. I have written it from scratch, so its no doubt many blemishes are all down to me. See what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[]

That's PAW Patrol, not me. Nope, I'm really not seeing any problem. But there must be other ways to phrase it. How would 'It is not known what the Roman losses were ...' suit you?
You are correct. ;-) I have tweaked it to "The modern expert on galleys John Coates"
It is indeed. You can tell, 'cus it is linked at first mention. :-)
Ah. Makes sense. Done. Cheers.
*OR alert* It (almost certainly) wasn't. Which is why the next sentence includes "the subsequent tragedy was regarded as due to natural causes rather than to bad seamanship". You could found an entire department on explaining Polybius' point. There is really no end to it - one reason why I haven't gone there. See, the sea itself turned on the victorious Roman fleet and destroyed it. To the Romans these things didn't just happen - someone or something had to have angered the gods. Or, if you were a rational Greek, there had to be a hubristic human failing. Entire fleets don't sink for no reason, surely. Except even the incorrigibly religious/superstitious Romans didn't seem to buy that at the time. And perhaps Polybius expected the more worldly of his audience to nod knowingly at his fudging of the religious/philosophical implications. Und so weiter.
Just to complicate things, years later (still in the 1PW) a Roman consul lost 120 warships and 800 transports at the Battle of Phintias. Driven ashore by bad weather due to disregarding expert advice says Polybius; outfought by the Carthaginians says another source.
I really didn't feel that I could skip Polybius' opinion, but I have come as close as I dare to pointing out that the view of the consensus of Rome's military experts of the day was "Just one of those things old boy, could have happened to anyone".

That's it on a first pass; somewhat distracted by kids and PAW Patrol at the moment; will need to give it another read through later. Harrias talk 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias for disturbing your domestic tranquility to delve into this. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[]

Per my review at the ACR (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[]

Will come later back after this is solved. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Good to see you again :-). "a battle of the First Punic War" and "The Romans were attempting to rescue the survivors of an invasion of the Carthaginian homeland (in what is now northeastern Tunisia) that had failed with their defeat in the Battle of Tunis, while the Carthaginians were attempting to intercept them." covers the "Background". I have added a sentence to cover the two-sentence "Aftermath". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hassium[]

Nominator(s): R8R, Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We return once again to bring you another superheavy element, after dubnium and nihonium back in 2018, and tennessine (then ununseptium) back in 2015. After the first FAC, we did some more work on the article (chronicled on the talk page), and I think we're ready to try again now. Hopefully this is a pleasant enough read for the subject matter while we sit back and wait for element 119 to reveal itself! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review
Comment
@Buidhe: This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Introduction_into_superheavy_elements. The main reason is that this info is relevant to basically all the heaviest elements on the table (102 and up), but it's also basically necessary to explain how these elements are really made in practice. Unfortunately, it seems that if we change the images to float right, they float under the infobox inside the next section, which isn't really better.
@R8R: What do you think? Double sharp (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Double sharp: I agree that floating right isn't better. in fact, doing it so would necessitate completely rearranging all the images in the article. Maybe we could move it lower (two paragraphs or so down) in the section so that it starts after the infobox ends?
@Buidhe: +1 to Double sharp. In an earlier review, I did suggest including this introduction to provide context for more sophisticated terms, and the transfusion came about as the simplest solution to for including the same pertinent background in 17 element articles (as it is equally relevant and helpful in all of them). ComplexRational (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
My take on that unfortunately, we're stuck with this sandwiching because any other alternative is either not feasible or worse encyclopedically (if that's a word). We do need the transcluded section because we need an introduction into what people find a complicated topic; our introduction is, I believe, a great way to start reading. We also need this introduction in 16 more articles and possibly even more in the future, hence it would be great to keep it in one place which would host all s made to it rather than let the bunch slowly get less and less synchronized. And there isn't really anywhere else to add the pictures, and they are important for illustrating the transcluded section. We do need the first picture in that section, it is of paramount encyclopedic importance there. Moving the picture down the text simply moves the problem down the text. At my screen resolution of 2560x1440 there is no cure to this sandwiching.
I'm sorry it comes out this way but the other options are worse.--R8R (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good point. I also realize now that the infobox is even longer in some articles, sandwiching the entire section. I'd agree it's not ideal, but the alternatives would cost a useful illustration or more serious formatting issues, so I'm inclined to leave it as is now. ComplexRational (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Would it help if we put the image to the right, forcing it to follow any infobox? This could even be made optionally per article (using a parameter). -DePiep (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It could exist as a parameter, but forcing these images below the infobox will (1) risk displaying the images outside their associated section (this would be even worse in articles such as rutherfordium with longer infoboxes) and (2) require rearranging all the images in the article to keep a left-right alteration. I'm not seeing a good way out. ComplexRational (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ComplexRational[]

I have made a few substantive s to the article myself, but as documented in the talk page chronicles, most of my work on this article has been as a reviewer; it has been a pleasure to read and review it. It has definitely come a long way since the first FAC; it is clear and complete, does not leave burning questions, and seems much more understandable to a layperson (compared to the time of the first FAC), as much of the jargon is explained. That said, I would like to highlight a few more things before offering my support.

ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricanehink[]

I came here from an FAC I'm co-nomming, hoping you might be able to review it if you have the time. Alright, elements! Here we go.

All in all, the article is pretty technical, but for an element that none of will ever touch or interact with, I'm glad that you were so thorough in your research, so I could read all about it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I hope your read wasn't overwhelming; the topic is indeed quite technical but I generally strive to write in a manner that is as accessible to everyone as possible. I'll try to review your article during the next week; if I haven't done so by the end of it, please feel free to point that out to me.--R8R (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Could you add those sources in then? If the sources are in the table, could you just re-add it to the prose? I always look out for any paragraph that doesn't end in a source. Also, one last thing I thought of. Is there any estimate for how much Hassium has ever been produced? You mention in the lead "minuscule quantities", but I don't see where in the article you specify that amount. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from profdc9[]

As atomic number increases, so does the electrostatic attraction between an electron and the nucleus. This causes the velocity of the electron to increase, which leads to an increase its mass. This in turn increases the gravitational attraction between the electron and the nucleus I do not believe the description of the change in the interaction due to the relativistic velocities of the inner shell electrons should be described as gravitational attraction. Gravity (in so far as is known) is a separate force from the electromagnetic interaction binding electrons to the nucleus. Gravity is many orders of magnitude smaller in strength than the electromagnetic force and so gravity plays essentially no significant role in determining the electronic structure of any atom. The effect being considered, the relativistic increase in mass-energy of the electron as it approaches light speed, is an effect known in special relativity and does not the require gravitational considerations of general relativity. That said, whether or not the relativistic trends of the lanthanide group persist or not in the actinide group, is outside of my expertise, with the increased screening of s and p orbitals resulting in higher electron affinities for actinides than lanthanides, as mentioned stabilizing the +8 oxidation further of hassium over osmium, though this summary seems to suggest such effects. [1]

Indeed. Thank you very much for taking your time to write this comment. As I was writing that, I was rather confused myself about why greater mass would play a role anyway. Your comment prompted me to look it up, and I got it now. Please see if it's good enough now.--R8R (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments from DePiep[]

About actual proposed section names: I understand you mention E102 and E103, nobelium and lawrencium, because they are not 'superheavy' (a definition not clarified nearby, that is: a reader might easily miss this detail—as I do. Doesn't this say the wording, trying to define it, is unfit for all 16 articles?).
I'd prefer a short, crisp sectiontitle, aimed at the TOC, not detailed; no need to put the excact definition of 'heavy' or 'superheavy' in this sectiontitle. I prefer like Introduction to [super]heavy elements. -DePiep (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Groundhog Day (film)[]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made, up along the likes of Some Like it Hot and Annie Hall, this article has had a major overhaul, a copy and has now passed GA. Please impart your wisdoms so it can be elevated to FA. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Dug through for what? There is an extensive Themes section if that is what you mean. I've removed the Epoch source. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not asking if there is an extensive themes section. I am asking if you have hunted down and read the scholarly analysis of and academic research about this film, and incorporated material from it where appropriate. If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have. If you have, perhaps you could quickly explain why there is no (very little?) scholarly work cited in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Do you have an example of what is not already covered in the article? I can't respond if I don't know what you are talking about. There is no rule that I have to cite a student essay to say what I have found on a website elsewhere. There's a deep analytical themes section. Please advise on what is absent. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I have asked what I take to be a straightforward question, but I can try to rephrase it if you do not understand. You are putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on whether the Themes section is or is not extensive. I have not made any claim about what is or is not covered in the article. I have not asked you to cite a student essay. I have asked you whether you have delved into at the scholarly literature on this film. If you have not, I have advised you to withdraw the nomination. If you have, I have asked why the scholarly literature is not (as far as I can see) cited in the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
If you get the time to read the article, the term "groundhog day" is heavily abused and misused. I have gone through Google Scholar because of what happened at the Ghostbusters II FAC and have found nothing that was either relevant to the film itself or not already covered. That is why there is not an exhaustive referencing of google scholar links. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
A quick sample of sources that could be cited: [2][3][4][5][6]. While there are sources that use the term for unrelated things, there are definitely relevant ones out there as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
And which of these say something that is not already said in the article? When did it become a default that Featured Articles must cite these spurious essays by nobodies? This is the third(?) time now that J Milburn has drove by to derail an FA nomination, such that I preemptively prepared a thorough analysis of the themes in the film this time and yet still this is not enough because I have not cited *cough*
Life on a loop: The enduring appeal of groundhog day

Abstract: Few films have entered the cultural imagination as pervasively as Groundhog Day (Harold Ramis, 1993). The title itself has become a kind of linguistic shorthand, referring to the sense of being trapped in some kind of undesirable recurring situation. Yet while the central narrative conceit may seem overwhelmingly familiar by now, the film itself remains a tangled web of contradictions: a high-concept romantic comedy with a surprising amount of pathos and a genuinely dark undercurrent. In hindsight, it represents a career highlight for its stars, Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell, as well as for its director. It is also a work of rich thematic depth, and provides a useful entry point for considerations of altruism, happiness, and deeper existential and metaphysical concerns.

All of which is already present in the article. Or Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture, the contents of which from searching through it, are funnily enough, already present in the article.
And the worst thing is that it's always paid material, like the months you give up to write the article are not sufficient toil. But DWB I hear you remark, you can ask on the Resource Exchange for these. I know, I reply. And you get the contents and for something like Memory and Movies the film is probably mentioned in passing once in the entire book like with the Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II "scholarly" articles suggested by yourself or others. OR you're waiting 3 months on for a Variety article for Scrooged. BUT, there's still Revisiting Groundhog Day (1993): Cinematic depiction of mutative process; Its contents from that abstract are already covered in the article. Which is to say, I have pre-empted this argument because I expected the attempt at derailment again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
You could have effectively pre-empted this argument by writing what WIAFA refers to as "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", which in this case includes scholarly literature. What leads you to believe that these materials are "spurious essays by nobodies" and the sources you have chosen to cite are not? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I raised these concerns on your first Ghostbusters II FAC (or "drove by to derail an FA nomination", as you put it) purely because the first person to raise these concerns "declin[ed] further involvement/help" because they could not "work in the environment created by the nominator here". Had that oppose stood (i.e., had the or in question, who is one of the FAC directors, not been forced out of the review), I would not have contributed. I don't think your badgering of opposers and your disdain for scholarly sources (and, I add, the "nobodies" who write them...) has any place at FAC. As I have said before: such apparent hostility towards the idea of incorporating academic analysis or seeking out scholarly sources is surprising for someone who chooses encyclopedia-writing as a hobby. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Analysis is included and I've just laid out that the sources Nikkimaria invoked are already covered in the article by documents other people can actually check. The analysis is incorporated, you're just unhappy that it isn't from student essays. That is not a complaint, it's a preference. The sources I was forced to include for Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, written by people who can't even get the names of the characters right, are not vital or enlightening articles, they are things I would have been asked to write for a 6th form media studies essay. And I wouldn't include my 6th form media studies essay here either. The analysis in this article is comprehensive and thorough, the entire article is thorough, it is MORE thorough than Ghostbusters II. If the pair of you cannot say what is missing from the article (because you have clearly not actually read it) then kindly stop involving yourselves in these nominations and/or attempting to bully me at every nomination into doing things that are not required. If you're unable to do a proper review, you shouldn't be here. When one of your first statement's is "If you have not, I advise you withdraw this nomination, and then renominate once you have." you are clearly not here for any purpose but to push your own agenda, an agenda that is not required to pass FA. It is It's not possible to say the article is not comprehensive and contains an academic analysis, because it does, it passes all FA metrics. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I've written quick stubs about two of the nobodies students senior professors who authored some of the work Nikki referred to above: Jude Davies and John Seamon. As Nikki has said, criterion 1c is a part of the featured article criteria. In my view (and as Nikki said above), the "relevant literature" referred to in 1c (in cases like this) includes the the journalistic and academic literature. I don't think that this is in any way an unusual or unreasonable view: I do not think this is a mere eccentric "preference", I do not think there's some secret "agenda", and I do not think raising questions about it constitutes "bullying". If you don't want to engage with academic literature, that's your prerogative. But don't be surprised if you meet resistance at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

( conflict) DWB, you're not doing yourself any favours here. You're free to disagree with reviewers' comments and ask them for specifics but pls do so in a collegial manner. I see no attempt at "derailment", no "agenda", and none of the condescension and arrogance in Josh or Nikki's points that I've seen in some of your responses. It's common for a coord to archive a nom when an experienced reviewer has recommended withdrawal but I haven't done so yet because I wanted to give you the chance to discuss it civilly -- I hope I won't have cause to regret that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? I have said at least 5 times that the information they want included is ALREADY in the article. They have said, in essence "ok, but why aren't you citing that same information to Josh's friends?". Neither of them have said that they have read the article. If you have not read the article, and have ignored my comments that the information you want including in the article is already in the article, what am I meant to do here Ian? If you want to understand why your quality FA noms are going down and no one bothers, this right here is why. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I had never heard of any of these people before you nominated the article here. With no disrespect meant, they are not my friends. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There, I've included even more content specifically from academic sources including John Seamon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you; I am pleased that you have done this. I'll leave reference formatting to the source reviewer, but two quick comments about the new additions: 1) The Pick is a student journal. It has roughly the shape of an academic journal, and its content is (apparently) peer-reviewed, but I do not think that it counts as a high-quality reliable source. 2) Mass Market Medieval is an ed collection. You should cite the particular chapter, not the book as a whole. See Template:Cite book#Examples for an example of how to use that template to do it. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I have added the chapter. I can't say I am familiar with The Pick, the orial process sounds pretty thorough but I am not familiar with the university to say if it can be relied on to uphold that standard. Would you recommend removing the reference and associated information then? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I would, but others may have a different view. It seems that this is the kind of "student paper" you were objecting to above; The Pick a journal for students to publish their coursework in, not an outlet for peer-reviewed research. (Proper peer-reviewed journals will sometimes publish students' coursework, of course, but only if it's gone through the usual review process.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[]

One of my favorite films, though I've always considered the ending a bit forced. I'll wait to do a full review until you've addressed the above comment, but preliminarily:

  • I think in the plot summary, some mention should be made of the homeless old man, whose recurring deaths teach Phil that he is not a god and that there are limits to what he can do, that man is going to die no matter what Phil does.
  • Many years ago, I leafed through one of the early scripts (I looked at it well after the movie came out) and it contained an explanation of why this happens to Phil, that he has been placed under a curse by a former girlfriend. You mention that having such a scene was considered. Does the source go further than merely considered?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a line in the plot mentioning his failed attempts at helping the old man already. Did you mean to add more?/
The only mention I can find on a website about the girlfriend being in the script is from someone who was not involved in the film but claims to have read the script. There is mention in the article that they would put something in if needed to satisfy the studio but that they were never going to include and/or film that scene because they did not want it in there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga[]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the British nuclear tests at Maralinga in the 1950s. I'm nominating this because there has been a spike in page views due to the TV series Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Based on my review at ACR. (t · c) buidhe 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[]

Will do this soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Mark83[]

Really solid article. A few comments on a first pass (Lead up to and including "Aboriginal affairs"). Items with questions mark are more probing questions/suggestions.

Cymmer Colliery explosion[]

Nominator(s):   ~ RLO1729💬 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In July 1856, an underground explosion of gas at the Cymmer Colliery, Rhondda Valley, Wales, resulted in a "sacrifice of human life to an extent unparalleled in the history of coal mining of this country". This article examines the underlying causes of the explosion, the inquest and trial of the mine's officials, the consequences for families of those killed, and the disaster's legacy in terms of local and national mining practices.

The article is built on high quality sources. I am particularly indebted to SchreiberBike and CaroleHenson for reviews leading to GA status, and to Twofingered Typist and Nikkimaria for pre-FAC copy and technical reviews. I believe the article meets the FA criteria; additional feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks,  ~ RLO1729💬 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
  • Wikitext comment in Licensing cites Penarth Dock: Martin John Ridley.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    First, I don't see where on that page it states that this particular image was published, and second, invisible comments on image description pages are useless, they should be visible. (t · c) buidhe 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Incidentally, the version on Wales Library is much higher resolution [7] If it is a free image, we should be using the highest resolution available. Sadly there doesn't seem to be a "download" button. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
    Apologies, this issue was discussed during the pre-FAC review and I mistakenly assumed prior-knowledge in my reply above. A cropped version of the image was published in Sixty-One Views of the Rhondda Valley. The website cited above discusses this publication. I will move and revise the image wikitext comment.  ~ RLO1729💬 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Gog the Mild[]

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

I will do some copy ing as I went. Please flag up here anything you disagree with or don't understand.

Gog the Mild, thanks for your comments. I will address some briefly now and come back to them in more detail tomorrow. I will withdraw the article if you still feel the article is not ready after I make the revisions indicated below.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think that there is any individual point which isn't addressable, but cumulatively they seemed a bit much. If you could get them satisfactorily sorted within, say, a week, then we can move on. It is a great topic and a good treatment of it, my "oppose" was by way of suggesting how it get to FA rather than expressing doubt that it will do.
  • Link added in lead, terminology links and text added to Background.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • "One hundred and fourteen" was written in full to avoid starting the sentence with numerals (this was copy-ed to words by another or); MOS:NUMERAL indicates use of words is optional for thirty-five and ninety-two. Advice on how to address 114 vs "One hundred and fourteen" would be welcomed.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough; my objection withdrawn.
The sentence has been revised so it does not start with the number, please advise if the current or previous version works better.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence order and paragraph structure revised.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • MOS:LEADCITE and MOS:LEADREL indicate quotations may be used. IMO, the quotations of HM Mines Inspectors used in the lead provide important, authoritative summaries of the topic.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
With the bracketed caveat below, I have no issues with quotations in the lead - and agree with your point. It is the citation I am referring to.
Correction. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The quote appears in the Inquest section.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
It does. Apologies. Cntl-f didn't pick it up. (It does now!)
  • Revised (also in lead).  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Nine points picked up in the lead rings some alarm bells. skimming the rest of the article.

  • Happy to take a consensus view on this please, other ors have expressed appreciation for the table in the article but I will move it to a list if necessary.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
If consensus is against me it is not a show stopper. (Hence my tentative "I am not sure about".) Certainly my personal preferences are irrelevant.
IMO, the table presents information from the cited newspaper that is directly relevant to the article, making it readily accessible to the reader. The table is compact in its initial collapsed form and the information can be explored further using the column sorting functionality. My concern re converting it to a separate list article is that the table's functionality would be lost and the list's more general notability might be called into question (based on a single source, unlikely that any of the names mentioned will be linked anywhere else in WP), leaving the list article open to deletion.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised to reduce reliance on quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised to reduce reliance on quotes.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Act was, in part, a response to the number of children killed in the disaster, mentioned in Inquest. The text now highlights this relationship.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Good catch, dup link removed.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The last citation in the caption links to an explanation for the destruction of the graveyard. As it is not directly related to the 1856 explosion, no further details are given in the article. The Cymmer Independent Chapel graveyard is mentioned in the second sentence of Survivors.  ~ RLO1729💬 15:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion, per Nikkimaria's recent , is to wiki-comment out the bracketed information on the graveyard's destruction.  ~ RLO1729💬 00:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

There is quite a bit more, and I have not yet read most of the article in detail. I am going to jump straight to an oppose on this, as I doubt that a first-time FAC nominator who has already had expert assistance is likely to get this into shape in the timescale expected of a FAC. I would, of course, be delighted to be proven wrong. I recommend that this be withdrawn for further work - I would be happy to assist with this - with a view to a prompt resubmission. There seems to be most of the "meat" necessary for a successful FAC, but it is let down by MoS compliance and, to a lesser extent, flow and context.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Hearst Castle[]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hearst Castle is quite an interesting building. Designed by Julia Morgan, "America's first truly independent female architect", for the media mogul William Randolph Hearst, in the 1920s and 30s it became a gathering place for many of the Hollywood stars. Trashed by Orson Welles in 1941 as the phantasmagorical Xanadu, home of Citizen Kane, in the 21st century it is one of California's major tourist attractions. It's also got quite a collection of antiques, along with a lot of poured concrete. A very helpful peer review ironed out many errors. All comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

There are several images which are breaking across sections for me (Roman Pool, Sculptures, Gothic suite, Refectory sections). Could be fixed by scaling down images and/or moving them to the right. buidhe 08:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - Thanks very much for taking a look at these. I've switched the two portraits (Hearst and Davies) for two that are from the Library of Congress, which I hope sorts these. I've also tried to iron out the section breaking. The problem is with the three interior shots and the Three Graces. Is the rationale provided by one of the uploading ors insufficient; "Photograph[y] was permitted without restriction in and around the castle. All artwork is old enough so that it is in the public domain"? The article would be seriously diminished if we had no interior shots of the castle. I'm really keen to keep these if possible and would greatly appreciate any suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
For Another_room_in_Hearst_Castle_1.jpg It would be sufficient to show that the two large paintings are free, other elements could probably be considered de minimis. For the sculpture, are there other sculptures on the property that would be free of copyright considerations? I am not sure about the other interiors, you might want to consult Nikkimaria who knows more than I do about copyright. Just being OK to photograph does NOT mean that all elements are necessarily copyright free and usable for all Wikipedia purposes. buidhe 18:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed. I shall check for other sculptures, I’m not set on The Three Graces. For the interiors, of which there aren’t many good shots, I’ll ask Nikkimaria for their take. I absolutely get that we don’t want to infringe copyright on an FAC, but an article on a building without interior shots, when the interiors are arguably more significant than the exteriors, would be a poor thing. KJP1 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
US FoP does actually cover public interiors; however, it doesn't extend to artworks inside that are not part of the building itself, whether 2D (eg File:Stag_hunt,_Franco-Flemish_Gothic,_mille-fleurs_tapestry,_woven_c._1500_AD_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06346.JPG) or 3D (File:Greek_rhyton_in_Library_-_Hearst_Castle_-_DSC06807.JPG). If these elements are PD due to age then they should include an explicit PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - Thanks very much indeed for taking a look. I’m pretty sure that the items showing in the interior shots will be of such age that PD will apply (although not sure of The Three Graces as that’s a later copy). I’ll check them out with my sources and then put the appropriate tags on. Thanks again - it would be a real shame to lose the interior images. KJP1 (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Partisan Congress riots[]

Nominator(s): buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about anti-Jewish rioting in postwar Slovakia, primarily caused by former Slovak partisans at an official congress of the Union of Slovak Partisans, an anti-Nazi veterans' association. I would like to thank @Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, and Vanamonde93: for their feedback and copying of the article. buidhe 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass[]

Nb, I intend to use these reviews to claim points in the WikiCup.

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[]

I copy ed this for GoCE and reviewed it at ACR. It looked pretty good both times. Let's see if I can find anything new to say.

Superb work. It reads even better than it did at ACR; you've been tweaking it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You have indeed. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann (American football)[]

Nominator(s): Gonzo_fan2007 and Cbl62 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann was an American football player in the late 1940s and early 1950s. He was a star end (wide receiver in today's terminology) for the University of Michigan, where he teamed up with future Hall of Famer Len Ford to form a dynamic pass-catching duo. He entered the NFL with the Detroit Lions, where he played for two seasons. After a salary dispute, he was released and signed with the New York Yanks (not to be confused with the baseball team), although he never played for the team in the regular season. After being released by the Yanks, he claimed NFL owners blackballed him by all agreeing to not sign him. After a few months, the Green Bay Packers signed Mann, where he would play parts of five seasons until a knee injury ended his career. Mann would go on to become a lawyer in the Detroit area until he died in 2006.

The quick overview above would make it seem like Mann was just another college football star who played in the NFL for a few seasons before professional football became what it is today. However, Mann's legacy goes far and above his statistics and physical abilities. Mann was a black player in football during a time of great racial prejudices. He broke the color barrier for both the Lions and Packers, he was cut by the Lions for not taking a pay cut (and possibly for supporting a boycott by the black community of a beer that he was a spokesperson for), even though he led the NFL in receiving yards the prior season. He was (arguably) blackballed by the NFL for his race and for not agreeing to take the pay cut from the Lions. Then he played for Green Bay, a town at the time that had only a handful of black residents. He has been called a pioneer for the dignified way he handled himself is such difficult situations.

This article has a fun history. Cbl62, as a fan of the University of Michigan, expanded this article in 2010! For the next 8 years, it received only a handful of minor s. Then Gonzo_fann2007 came across it in 2018 and as a Green Bay Packers fan, they decided to work on it. In 2019, we decided to collaborate on this article and bring it to GA-status, and then, hopefully, to FA-status. This is Gonzo_fan2007's second FAC (after Packers sweep) and Cbl62's 1st FAC. The article received a pre-FAC review and WP:NFL was given a chance to review it, with at least one or reviewing it. Thanks to Eagles247, Casliber, and MWright96 for your help in developing this article. Thank you all for your time in reviewing this nomination. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) and Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D[]

I know almost nothing about American football, so am coming at this with what could be optimistically termed fresh eyes. Here are my comments:

White newspapers of the day tended to give minimal coverage to military service by African Americans. Some of the old African-American press is available online, but I've been unable to find details there of his military service. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, I have resolved or responded to all your comments. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Those changes all look good, and I'm very pleased to support this nomination on prose, noting again that I can't comment on comprehensiveness, etc, due to my near total ignorance of American football (and all other kinds of football other than Australian rugby league for that matter!). Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate the review, Nick-D. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[]

All images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[]

WikiCup review

That's a first pass. As noted, I am certainly no expert, so I may have misunderstood some things. Having said that, if I have, maybe some of our other non-expert readers will too... Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Rambling Man, I believe I have either addressed or responded to all of your comments above. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Ismail I of Granada[]

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the fifth Nasrid Sultan of Granada, following the first four whose articles have been reviewed in FAC (Muhammad I, II, III and Nasr). He took the throne after deposing his uncle Nasr in a civil war, which continued after his ascension as Nasr tried to retake the throne with help from their Christian neighbor Castile. Not only he repulsed repeated invasions from the larger Castile, he managed to snatch some border territories in a counter attack. He seemed destined for a successful rule, but he was murdered at the age of 46 by a relative. I've tried to find all relevant information about him, mostly about the geopolitical conflicts, domestic administration, background and legacy, and I hope it's ready for FA review. HaEr48 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

Re the intro, shouldn't that be 'the first four'?

I have done a little copy ing as I went. Shout if I have messed anything up.

Personally, no. It's not as if it were a fundamental difference. I have tried to think of a way you could emphasise it, but I really think that it is better as it is.

HaEr48 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Likewise. Are you going to work your way through all of the Nasrids? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I don't know. There are about 20 sultans so it's not going to be that that easy :) I'll probably keep doing it as long as it's still enjoyable. HaEr48 (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
In which case can I suggest going with the explanation you have just given above? Eg 'Nasr's death meant that Ismail's rule was now uncontested and ...'.
Done. HaEr48 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have. An excellent piece of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: thank you very much for your feedback and support. HaEr48 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[]

All images are free and appropriately referenced. buidhe 23:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Aza24[]

Support: Based on my readthrough in GA and the final product there. - Aza24 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SnowFire[]

Nice work as usual.

The ensuing Battle of the Vega of Granada resulted in a complete Muslim victory. Both Peter and John died, apparently from natural causes, demoralising the Castilian troops whose remaining commanders began a disorderly retreat.

Is this O'Callaghan's eccentric opinion, or is there new scholarship on this? This appears to contradict other articles. Peter of Castile, Lord of Cameros says the Infantes "were killed in the ensuing rout" with a reference, and es:Pedro_de_Castilla (1290-1319)#Desastre de la Vega de Granada y muerte del infante Pedro (25 de junio de 1319) says:

Et el Infante Don Pedro metió mano á la espada por los acapdillar, et nunca pudo: et á golpes se tollió todo el cuerpo, et perdió la fabla, et cayó del caballo muerto en tierra.

Falling off a horse doesn't sound like "natural causes" to me.

Indeed, he fell off his horse, I was using "natural causes" more broadly, as in "not killed by the enemy". There seemed to be different versions of how John and Peter died, I was trying to avoid delving too much as this is Ismail's biography but I can see now the original passage can be misleading. Added more details now, please take a look. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
It was the first recorded military use of cannon on the Iberian Peninsula

This is an impressive claim. Did the sources elaborate on how exactly the Granadans got the cannons? Build them themselves? Buy them? From who? How reliable is this? According to Cannon#Islamic_world, it calls this usage "vague" and only denotes it as a "a possible appearance in the Emirate of Granada by the 1320s and 1330s, though evidence is inconclusive." I can understand the historical skepticism here - is it possible that the word for cannon was used here, but was actually describing some earlier proto-artillery piece, such as Harvey apparently thinking it was Greek Fire instead? This does seem a little early for cannons, honestly. I think including either some more skepticism of the claim, or else explaining why these historians think the skeptics cited in the Cannon article (also a FA!) are overly suspicious.

Indeed, I initially found it curious and might be suspicious too, which was why I found it worth checking in various sources, and I added them in the footnote. I now expanded the footnote into its own section, explaining what each historian said. Basically we have Vidal Castro, O'Callaghan, and Harvey saying cannon, and Arié saying Greek fire. I think it's fair to treat Arié's opinion as the minority, and additionally her work (1973) is the oldest. Among these four, Harvey is only one to bother discussing both points of view, and he too decides to argue for cannon. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Something not in the article currently: while Ismail's issue are mentioned, I don't see any mention of his wife and/or mistresses. I know that the time period was not exactly very interested in women, but is there truly no record left of them, not even a name? (I know I've asked this on an earlier FAC, but worth checking again, maybe the story will be different for Ismail.) SnowFire (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed we have better luck for Ismail. Added this information now, in the #Family section. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you SnowFire for the feedback, I have responded and adjusted the article accordingly. Please take a look and let me know what you think. HaEr48 (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

William Edward Sanders[]

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about William Edward Sanders, a New Zealander who was awarded the Victoria Cross (VC) for his actions as the commander of a Q-ship during the First World War. Q-ships were merchant ships that acted as bait for U-boats which would approach on the surface but then be targeted by hidden guns. It was hazardous work and in this manner, he and his crew engaged U-boats on a number of occasions. He and his crew was killed in action in 1917. The article was put through the GA process in 2014 and then a Milhist A-Class review in 2018. I just found a new source and freshened up the article in preparation for FA. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to provide feedback. Zawed (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass[]

  • Buidhe, unfortunately I don't know enough to correct the issues with those two images (both added by another or after the A-Class review) so have removed and replaced with one that I think is OK. Zawed (talk) 23:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The image you added is good so I'm passing this review. Nice article! buidhe 23:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe, thanks for the review, much appreciated! Zawed (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[]

Support: G'day, Zawed, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a few comments/suggestions below: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

All good here AustralianRupert, trust the same is true for you as well. Thanks for the comments, I have actioned these and my changes are here. I found another instance of close repetition of "engagement" so rephrased that one as well. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That may be a hangover from when I originally cited the print version of Fairfax. I have deleted Fairfax from the references section as I now cite the online version. Does it still show up as an error? Zawed (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
That seems to have done the trick. Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[]

An interesting looking character. I may do a little copy ing as I go; let me know if I mess anything up.

Nb, I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.


That's all. A first class piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Masters (snooker)[]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2020 ion of the Masters, an invitational event for the 16 best snooker players in the world. Seven-time winner Ronnie O'Sullivan decided not to play, and was replaced by Ali Carter, who reached the final where he played Stuart Bingham. Bingham won the event 10-8, winning his second Triple Crown event, having won the world championship in 2015. He was the oldest winner of the event. The event was one of the best Masters event in recent history, with world champion Judd Trump scoring a century break in every frame he won. The tournament was one of the final ones before the break due to COVID-19. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

1990 Tour de France[]

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 77th running of the Tour de France. I am hoping that this nomination will attract enough reviewers. Looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
@Buidhe: Added. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Alfred Worden[]

Al Worden was the command module pilot of Apollo 15. That was only a small part of a life that included being a test pilot, scientist, engineer, businessman, and public speaker, promoting the space program and STEM education. His 88 years left us the richer; hopefully we do not squander what he has left us. This article has passed a MilHist A-Class review.

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass
Source review—pass

Comments by PM[]

I looked at this closely at the recent Milhist ACR, and all of my comments were addressed there. Just a couple of nitpicks on another read through:"Worden was a Boy Scout and earned the *rank of First Class Scout"

That's all I could find this time around. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

George Gosse[]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nearing the end of my project to get all twelve South Australian Victoria and George Cross recipients to FA. Gosse is the only one from the Royal Australian Navy. He was a naval mine clearance specialist who served in the RAN in the interwar period and WWII. In April 1945 he was given command of a naval party responsible for mine clearance in the recently captured Bremen Harbour in Germany. He displayed courage in defusing three mines under very difficult conditions between 8 May and 19 May 1945, which resulted in him being awarded the George Cross, the highest award for heroism or courage, not in the face of the enemy, that could be awarded to a member of the Australian armed forces at the time. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

All images are free. buidhe 10:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • No, but competition was fierce in the regular RAN between the wars, and his lack of application probably cruelled it for him. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • added link to Military rank#Types

Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review as always, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Your articles, like this one, are usually easy to review, enjoyable to read and educational. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[]

Hmm, haven't I seen this man before? I think I did. What do you think?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. All done except the bit about what he did for the rest of 1945 and early 1946, presumably mine clearance and related duties, but sources (including his navy records) don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: That sounds a little bit sad to hear maybe in the near future we would know what he did at that moment. I don't have a reason to not support this and I'd say give yourself a pet on your back for your work. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[]

Support: G'day, PM, I only have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Unclear. His records indicate he was TOS HMAS Torrens (naval depot in Adelaide) in March 1946 just prior to demobilisation, so perhaps not long before that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Again, unclear, pre-war ADB says he "knocked around" and resisted serious employment, and I added "designer" for post-war, as his ADB entry uses that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, AR! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries, added my support above. Thanks for your efforts. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass[]

  • Caught me adding material after this source was brought to my attention by Dumelow. Fixed the ISBN to match the ecopy I now have and dropped the url. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither is really suitable or per MOS (I'll raise it with the template wonks), but I think it is more MOS-compliant with the comma and space for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The MOS does not require grouping, only consistency. My issue with it as it appears is that it look like two numbers. I had to go into the wiki code to see what it was meant to be telling me. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • On the subject of consistency, removing the comma would match "No. 37549" from the London Gazette, so I don't see how it would be a problem. Harrias talk 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • First one fixed, but the Google Books link goes to the Casemate one with that ISBN, so I'm not sure what you are getting at? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The Google summary does say Casemate, but from what I can see, the book itself only lists Pen & Sword, and I would trust the book over a Google summary. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Actually that's not bad, also published by Ebury and Random House, so have included it and some detail from it, nice find! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me. Harrias talk 08:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review, Harrias, a couple of queries/quibbles above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Replied back. Harrias talk 09:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed both, Harrias. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to pass the source review now. The article uses a consistent referencing format, is sourced to high-quality reliable sources, does not appear to omit any major research of coverage of the subject, and spotchecks reveal no significant copyvio or close para-phrasing other than the minor point noted and resolved. NB: I will claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 10:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this is travelling well, can I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Al-Hafiz[]

Nominator(s): Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Al-Hafiz was the eleventh Fatimid caliph, and the last to actually exercise any power. His accession was disputed, and his reign was tumultuous to say the least, with even his sons turning on him and one another in pursuit of power. This is my first Fatimid caliphal biography FAC, and hopefully not the last. I think it is as comprehensive as it can get, and have tried to present the complex circumstances of rise to the throne as well as I could, given that the modern sources are often themselves contradictory in their assertions. Any suggestions for further improvement are, as usual, welcome. Constantine 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Attar[]

Welcome back Constantine. My initial thoughts:--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Seconded. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
That works for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats it for me, cant see anything else that can be improved. The article's weak point is the complicated nature of Islamic concepts: imamate, Ismailism as a state doctrine (many readers wont know this- they would know that the Fatimids were Shia but not much more, or maybe I dont give the general reader much cr and need to work on that), the divisions of Ismailism...etc. In the articles about the Seleucids, I tended to have long background sections that summarized the history of that dynasty so I dont have to introduce it bit by bit in the body of the article. Maybe this article can benefit from that approach. For example, we read: "As a result, al-Hafiz's accession produced a major schism in the Musta'li branch of Isma'ilism".... If I was a reader without a background in this, I would be totally lost. Few sentences later, we read about what the Musta'li schism was about... I think this article would benefit from summarizing or moving these paragraphs to a background section where the events are told chronologically. This is just a suggestion ofcourse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

It was an open question. I am aware of some of the nuances around this. I am happy for you to decide on the most appropriate phrasing. I note that viceroys of India, for example, were "appointed" and their 'reigns' were "terms" or "periods in office".

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah. That explains a lot ;-) .

Overall I found this heavy going. Much of this is of course due to the hopelessly tangled events you are trying to unpick. However, I feel that a reader is not helped by:

  1. Too many overlong sentences. Very few of which need to be so long; they usually have obvious break points.
  2. Your fondness for semi colons and colons in the middle of long sentences. Personally, I suspect that if everyone were to be replaced by a full stop it would be a net gain.
  3. Some old fashioned language. Eg, brought forth the Caliph's son; defeated before the gate; water to the very gates. (These are from memory, not exact quotes.)
  4. Use of "he is reported to have" and similar. This causes a reader to doubt it. If it is in a RS, feel free to write it as a fact in Wikipedia's voice; if it's not. or you personally doubt it, miss it out - or name the reporter.

Finally, can I support Attar-Aram syria's request for a brief summary of "the immamate concept ... Isma'ilism as the state religion and difference from Twelver Shi'ism", ideally in line.


All of that said, I enjoyed my visit to the disintegrating dynasty and it is good to see you back. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, as usual, for your thoroughness, Gog the Mild. I've addressed most of the points you raised. The topic is indeed very complex, but there's no need to make it difficult to read as well, so any help and criticism with the prose is welcome. Please have another look and make more suggestions, or, if you feel like it, the text directly. As you know, comprehensibility is always a concern of mine for niche topics like this, so a critical eye here is also appreciated. Constantine 19:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I will do so. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have also done a little copy ing. As usual, feel entirely free to revert any you disagree with, or to query any you don't understand. I will try to finish up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

All done. Just awaiting your comments on the bits and bobs above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

University of Missouri School of Music[]

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

This article on the University of Missouri School of Music was nominated and failed about a year ago. Despite my improvements, it failed to garner a prose review. The School of Music is at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. I have attempted to diversify sources as best as possible. Article has been stable for a year now, although I recently updated the new facilities. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment
  • @Buidhe and @Therapyisgood. I have added page numbers to all 21 citations and have converted all Budds citations to short references. Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Hog Farm[]

(Will be claimed for the WikiCup)

There's 53 citations in the article. Including the Budds book, which was published by the Mizzou School of Music, I counted 33 citations being from the Mizzou School of Music (counting the 21 from Budds with no page number as 1). (I may have miscounted) Even more refs are affiliated with Mizzou and are of doubtful independence since they're from an organization that it the parent university of the article subject. Of the 53 refs, ref 5, 6, 7, 11, 21, 26, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, and 53 are the only ones not affiliated with Mizzou. That's 12 out of 53, and when you count the 21 as 21, not one, you get 61 of 73 refs, or over 83.5%, are affiliated with Mizzou. Mizzou's reliable, but it's not an independent source when it's talking about itself. Too much reliance on sources that lack independence for me to support this right now. (Ref numbers from this revision). Hog Farm (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That's what I see from a quick run-through. I'm willing to discuss any of these, and a longer look may turn up more. Hog Farm (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In regards to the independence of sources, if I can mange to pull it under 50% associated with the school, is that enough to garner support here? I totally understand the concern, it's quite difficult as all the most authoritative sources are published by the school itself. I'm sure I can dig up some news articles from the Columbia Daily Tribune to support some of the history independent of the Budds book. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally (not sure about other ors) wouldn't base it on a hard numerical line. I'd look more for balance, especially in the history section. For like the degrees offered and the specific bands the department supports, I think leaning heavy of Mizzou is acceptable, because Mizzou is probably going to be the most definitive and up-to-date source on the program's offerings. I think the history section could use having independent sources spliced in, for at least some of the facts. Maybe one of the newspapers in Columbia has done a write-up of the program's history.
@User:Hog Farm, I made a major effort to diversify sources further. I've doubled (+50 or so) the number of sources, most of which aren't affiliated with the University or School of Music. The Budds book makes up a much smaller chunk now. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

Ref 43 (BNIM) - Drop bnim.com, you don't need the website when it's identical to the organization's name.

Done

Hunt's Black and White Justice needs a publisher

Both of these Hunt books might be self published. I went to the library and looked at physical copies, No publisher listed. Both are very good local history books. Should I find alternative sources or can they be made usable somehow?
Unless Hunt has really good credentials, I don't think they can be used in a FA.
Maybe Google preview will let you see the information you need in this book. McFarland & Company looks like a reliable publisher. Hog Farm (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Unsure if it meets your credentials, but he is a Professor Emeritus of English at Mizzou, and looks to have won some national awards for writing including one for the the essay above. Take a look at his bio on Amazon and Mizzou. The book you found is awesome, but I hesitated to use it as much of the author's information came from Hunt. More importantly the author is the granddaughter of Hermann Almstedt, the dude I'm trying to find a source for, so might not be the most neutral source. This is anecdotal, but I do know Hunt is considered the authority on the historical event the book is about.
Just to be safe I've gone ahead and removed the two sources per your objection. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm doubting the reliability of Hunt's The Lynching of James Scot. It looks rather self-published.

See comment above

Check on Worldcat for OCLCs for Switzler, Lockmiller, Howard, and Underwood. Olsen may be new enough it has an ISBN, but if there isn't one, check for an OCLC on that one, too.

Done, you were right Olsen was ISBN

For ref formatting consistency, add a publisher to ref 45 (another one of the Mizzou sites)

Done

The reference balance is much improved. Hog Farm (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Grey Wanderer (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood[]

Can give this a look. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Adys[]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nine years into the First Punic War and the Romans carried the war to the Carthaginians by invading Africa. They established a foothold which the Roman commander Regulus was left to hold over the winter. He pushed inland and was confronted by the Carthaginians. He defeated their incompetently-generalled army at Adys. He then marched to within sight of the city of Carthage and the despairing Carthaginians sued for peace. "Wait!" you cry - the First Punic War lasted another fourteen years. Indeed, read the article to find out what happened.

This is the last of the four land conflicts from the war I will be submitting for FAC; I believe that it is there or thereabouts but would welcome all suggestions for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood[]

Hi Therapyisgood, does your labelling your comments "resolved" imply that you support the nomination? Or are there more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


Image review—pass[]

All images free + adequately sourced, only one comment: caption says "showing two Roman foot-soldiers from the second century BC", photo description says the relief is from the second century BC. buidhe 03:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks as always for this. Do you have anything currently on the go where I could QPQ? I am afraid that I am missing your point re "2nd C BC", could you elaborate? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The caption is ambiguous as to being created in the second century or depicting second century soldiers; the image description only supports the former. (I should have been more clear). I expect to be nominating another FAC soon and will let you know when that happens—many thanks for the offer. buidhe 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I was too close to the language to see it. Tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84[]

Tweaked.
Tweaked.
You are quite right. The first 256 BC should read 260; now changed.
Done.
I am not sure that I understand the comment. It is the second sentence of the section "Armies", does that not provide the context? In terms of numbers of legions, the Romans traditionally raised two, like it says. What am I missing?
What I was thinking is that a reader might enter the section noting the plural "Armies" title, start with the Roman paragraph (not yet seeing the Carthage paragraph below), and think that the Roman army might have had, like the US Army in WWII, for example, multiple armies within the larger army. The reader will eventually figure it out, but perhaps with some pauses. I wonder if adding "in their force" at the end of the sentence or something similar would prevent that and enable a smoother reading?
@Airborne84: Ah. I have changed it to "Traditionally, each year the Romans would raise two legions, each of ..." Does that address the issue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It does indeed!
It means Carthaginian citizens, who, like Roman citizens at the time, were (predominately) inhabitants of the eponymous cities. I have inserted "who were largely inhabitants of the city of Carthage" to clarify.
Sadly not. I know of no map in any source. Which hill it was no one has even guessed at. It would, I agree, be nice to include a battle map (eg, as with Battle of Ecnomus or Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)) but it would be pure OR.
Thanks for that Airborne84, much appreciated. Your points above all addressed. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[]

Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)
Ah ha! good spot. Done.
I must have done it once by accident and then cut and pasted. De-linked.
Done.
Done.
No. I prefer to go with the sources and describe him as just "Hanno". Not one refers to him as 'Hanno the Great' and "Hanno II the Great" sounds like a king.
  • I disagree, that'd be MOS:EGG. The redirect of the link goes to the Hanno II the Great's section but the reader wouldn't know that and believe it goes to the Hanno the Great (which is kinda true). When they click on it they would get the surprise section instead of the lead. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
And I disagree. A reader clicks on Hanno and ends in a section about Hanno II the Great. What is EGGy about that? (Why wouldn't they know that? All they have to do is look at their screen.) If you are arguing against links to sections, then I am not aware of a policy disallowing it, and it is quite common in FAs, as I am sure you are aware.
  • I'm not saying that. We're working for a Wikipedia page on the highest level an article could get here in Wikipedia. I've recently read this WP:EASTEREGG which told me "Keep piped links as transparent as possible. Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on. Wikipedia is not an Advent calendar. Also remember there are people who print the articles." and this "In a print version, there is no link to select, and the reference is lost. Instead, reference the article explicitly:" and it got my attention. There are people who print our articles into a printed version and if someone prints this article then they wouldn't know who Hanno was and they wouldn't know it was meant to be Hanno II the Great. You're telling me to click on the link well I wouldn't mind clicking on the normally-linked word in a printed book. I don't think it would work; let me know if you clicked on a word in one of your printed books and actually works. ;)
This link is not a WP:EGG. There is no requirement for a reader to open it in order to understand perfectly what is happening in the article. If they wish to obtain some further information on Hanno, not relevant to this article, then they have the option of clicking on the link, in which case they get exactly what they expect - no surprise - more information on Hanno; including the all but irrelevant detail that he was the second Carthaginian in their history called Hanno to be known as "the Great".
  • I have an idea, why don't we like (PM has asked) adding a footnote which describes that he was also known as "Hanno II the Great"?
CPA-5 Sounds reasonable. Would you be happy with "He was known as Hanno the Great, the second (of three) Carthaginians named Hanno to be awarded that sobriquet"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Let's say without my opinion and in my general perspectives; yes that looks okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
See above.
Once they became "citizens". Same as today, there was an age of majority for citizenship. This is so universal that I don't feel that it needs to be specified. Ie "citizen" is synonymous with 'adult'.
  • Yes but, their age of majority was totally different. I'm not an expert on this topic but an adult could be different than the adult these days. An adult at the time could be maybe bellowing 16 or even bellow 13 who knows? These days that'd be a child soldier. I think a reader could get confused with a modern 18-year-old adult, like the UN that specific standardised. In my eyes, there's a difference between an ancient era adult/citizen and a modern one. For the Romans this could be 14 (which is by the UN a child soldier). Of course, I am not sure when the Romans recruited children.
I could change "citizens" to 'adults', but I really don't want to. It would be OR. The sources just say "citizens". By our standard many of them would be "children", but so what? Once we start this, there is no end; eg should I explicitly state that slaves could not be, nor become, citizens? More OR, and I don't see that it will improve the article for a reader. Most readers will understand that one becomes a citizen on reaching the local age of majority and that this varies in space and time. Eg, right now the Saudi age of majority varies because it is based on physical signs of puberty (bulugh), with age 15 as the upper limit; in Indonesia or Myanmar it is 15; in Japan or Thailand it is 20; 21 in Gabon or Samoaconsider 15 year olds to be adults, while others 21ear olds to be children. Just because 18 is the age of majority in the EU does't mean that it is that it is universal, even today.
  • Was I talking about the EU's age of majority? I'm sorry if you thought I mean that. I meant the UN's age of majority which is based on the children's rights of the UN which is signed by every country except you guessed it, the US. It indeed sounds reasonable to expect that from a reader and yes that would be OR if we change it. But how about we look at this sentence "Despite this, several Roman legionaries were known to have enlisted aged 14 in the Imperial Roman army, such as Quintus Postunius Solus who completed 21 years of service in Legio XX Valeria Victrix, and Caecilius Donatus who served 26 years in the Legio XX and died shortly before his honorable discharge.[11]" in the "History of children in the military" article with as source the "Roman Legionary AD 69–161". It wouldn't surprise me that the Old Republic would also use child soldiers like in this example. Were they citizens? Yes, they were. Were they child soldiers? Yes, they were. Did they violate the UN's don't recruit under 15-year-olds children policy? Yes, they did. If "citizens" really is synonymous with "adults" then we now know when they were adults. I still would add a note that they used child soldiers because "Most male Roman citizens were eligible for military service" means boys were included. If there is, of course, a source. In my view if they really used boys in the army then it should be part of the section where it describes the Romans' armies and those boys probably participated in the war.
I suspect that we are getting well away from the main point. One could add further explanations to every sentence of the article, but personally I feel that as it stands, including on the question of the age of maturity of Roman citizens, "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Even if I weren't I am unaware of a source covering this, although there probably is one. It would need to relate to this period - your quote above is interesting, but the "Imperial" means that it relates to at least 200, and probably 300, years after this battle.
PS Have you noticed who created History of children in the military?
  • I haven't found any other source of child soldiers in the Roman army. Maybe in the future someone would publish one. And not me at least. ;)
Bleh! Done.
Described.
Like the three cited at the end of the sentence. I have used the phrase "modern historians" to describe a scholarly consensus twice before in this article (and in numerous other articles) without it being an issue.
Done.
Well I think there should be a gap, but someone keeps "correcting" it. I'll change it and we'll see what happens.
Done.
Done.
I have cut two of the three.
  • You mean two of the four?
Cnrl-f only finds one "apparently", in "Battle". Where are you seeing another?
  • Whoops was the mistake of my PC which strangely gave four.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, that was great. Thanks a lot. Your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Cheers CPA-5. My three responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: group of Carthaginians also faced a frontal counterattack by Roman reserves counterattack --> counter-attack.
Cheers. Done.

Hi CPA-5 Back to you. :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Nope that's anything I believe. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[]

Nice work as always, Gog. Some comments from me:

Lead
As I said to CPA-5 above "Cos this is his one and only appearance in history and I don't see that there will ever be enough information on him to warrant creating an article. (Hasdrubal pops up again and I have him on my "Create an article" list.)" I don't much care and am happy to be told that I have the wrong end of the stick.
I have added a footnote at first mention. That do?
Done.
Only if I can also have one after "later". Otherwise, by the grammar I use, it is wrong. I have inserted both, see what you think.
Body
Done.
I have added "using their army"> (Out of interest, why should "military" exclude naval forces?)
Done.
I thought I had. Apologies.
Done.
Done.
Seriously? Done.
Done.
Done.
I had "by fomenting rebellion among Carthage's subject territories", but I have rephrased both to make it a little clearer.
Thhe weakest of my numerous weak points. Done.
Done.
I was certain I had changed that! Now "Iberia".
Fair point. I have inserted "further" instead. That do?
Done.
Bizarre! I have precisely the reverse understanding. I have just had to check several texts to ensure that I am not going loopy. Possibly your usage is a very modern and formal in-military one? A historian referring to the "right wing" of an army means the rightmost third (give or take). Any hoo, I have switched to "column".
Both done.
Done.
Done.
True. But the article gives "4,000 cavalry and 12,000 infantry", so I have put that in the infobox.

That's my lot. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Peacemaker67 and thanks for sorting out my sloppiness yet again. You seem to be looking at a lot of my articles, and I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass[]

Removed.
Groan. True. It looks as if I added this to Goldsworthy for my first 1PW article and have been omitting to delete it ever since. Sloppy, sloppy. Now deleted. The sentence relies on Goldsworthy "By far the most important [ancient source] was the Greek historian Polybius"; "[Polybius] as a result provides our most complete and reliable account of the First Punic War".
Same again. Tipps deleted. The statement is a summary of Goldsworthy from bottom of p. 21 to the end of p. 23 where he discusses the other sources.
Very good question. It should read 'war', not "battle"; now changed. It goes to Tipps' statement "[Polybius] our best authority for the First Punic War as a whole."
You are correct. I have made a Horlicks of the references. Tipps p. 445 covers my "from Ostia, the port of Rome, in early 256 BC"; the commanders are named on p. 446. Cite amended accordingly.
Polybius: to the contrary, his whole argument is that Polybius' figures are as good as we have, and he spends pp. 436-445 demolishing the arguments of the early 20th C historians who had argued against Polybius. He merely quibbles that the total number of Carthaginians should be a little less than 150,000 (147,000 - see Lazenby p. 86) rather than a little more. Hence my "up to". See his p. 445 for "something over a quarter of a million men were involved". Goldsworthy gives the same figures as Tipps, with a milder caveat regarding the 140,000. Lazenby has "the battle involved nearly 290,000 men".
I am assuming that we are in agreement that Tipps gives a total of 680 warships? Lazenby and Goldsworthy both give 330+350=680.
Largest battle: true I was relying on Lazenby p. 87 - "probably the greatest sea-battle ever fought".
If only one author says so (and "greatest" has other meanings than "largest")—it is probably best to quote and attribute. This is quite a strong statement.
@Buidhe: In context it is clear that he means largest (by number of combatants). A quick browse also gives "may have involved the largest number of combatants of any naval battle in history" by Rankov in Hoyos's Companion to the Punic Wars. But I take your point. I have relegated it to a footnote and quoted and in line attributed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
True. This is all supported by Goldsworthy. Tipps was there for "poor Roman generalship", which got ed out and I didn't remove the cite. Which I have now done.
True. The 100,000 is in Miles. Tipps is relied on for the number of ships lost, and the logic as to how the figure was arrived at. Which has been subject to some historiographical dispute - see Tipps pp. 436-445.

(t · c) buidhe 04:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Let me know if you would like a copy of any of the pages of sources you can't access on line.
Thanks for this Buidhe, and for picking up several instances of my being sloppy. Your comments all addressed above, hopefully cogently. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I will have to AGF on other sources as I can't access them. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[]

Removed.
So, does that mean that you require me to reorder it or not? It's not an MoS nor FAC requirement.
As you say, no need to reorder it. Harrias talk 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Done.
Changed.
Done.
Done.
Attributed.
Done.
Done.
Tipps: "an exceptionally audacious uphill charge"; "Regulus' hard-charging audacity". Now better cited, sorry about that.

Not a massive amount from me; another nice, informative article on this war. I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and if care to return the favour, a review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2010 Twenty20 Cup Final/archive1 would be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 09:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias, all addressed. I am sure that I will be able to review that fine game of cricket. PS When are gongs for the GAN drive due to be dished out and/or do you need a hand with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[]

Hi Ian. In the light of the above, could I have permission to post another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators:  ? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought I'd answered this but I guess I messed the save or something -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian. I am cheered to hear that it is not just me who does that. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Willa[]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC), ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}, and ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it. I would like to invite @Hurricanehink: to join the nomination if he so wishes. Thank you to everyone who has helped with improving the coverage of this season. That being said, let the nomination commence. NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah, I co-nom this. It's an impressive bit of collaboration among three users (and everyone else who worked on the article). I'm very proud of Noah's work on the 2018 PHS, which will make for an impressive FT soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review—pass

All images are free. buidhe 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

comment
why 13 hurricane at "Landfalling Pacific major hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by wind speed"? Maybe cut off last three?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used to determine the Category of the storm based upon its wind speed. In this case, 14 storms at Category 3 intensity or higher have made landfall in the Pacific. Cutting off storms would made the entire the table inaccurate. NoahTalk 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah yeah you're right, don't know why I missed last one is Willa! Sorry.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Support: Only suggestion is add a note that "All damage values are in 2018...".--Jarodalien (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Jarodalien, I added that note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84[]

Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this, thanks. I'm still working through the article, and don't see any showstoppers. I'm listing some comments so you can start working them now if you'd like.

  • Please do point out these spots! It's a tricky balance between being thorough and relying too much on jargon. I rewrote that passage you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I split it up, so the first one is more of a summary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. NoahTalk 15:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, this version is much improved for the average reader. Thank you.
  • Clarified that it was a United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I removed the "quickly organized", because it didn't really at this point in time. That came latter in the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is the point at which NHC gave the name. For the rest of the article, we use "Willa" as a mononym (instead of writing out TS Willa or Hurricane Willa every time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I was just trying to find in the WP:MOS where it provided for italics for the first use of a name or term. Am I missing it?
  • Gave a brief explanation and a wikilink is there is they need more. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Much, thank you. You could probably do without "significantly", but I leave that up to you.
  • Was it the "outflow" or the wording? Is the current wording better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Operationally means something occurred while the storm was active rather than an adjustment in postseason storm reanalysis. NoahTalk 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Should be fixed. NoahTalk 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Airborne84: I can't fix your example since it is in a template outside this article... unless you think that I should add the table into the article and fix the issue. The other English ones should be fixed. The MOS says that foreign language ones (modern) should be left in their original state. NoahTalk 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Will follow with more later. Airborne84 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Airborne84: I just added in the table to fix all those issues with it. NoahTalk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to find this. I did a search and came up with nothing. News coverage in Mexico isn't particularly good so things like this are overlooked there. Also, this is the same issue for finding quotes from government officials. News sources dont cover that particularly well. NoahTalk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem.
  • This is referring to an irregularity from the previous government. They ONLY COUNTED 144 homes but 2000+ were actually damaged. NoahTalk 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
You mean that the govt. was only aware of the 144 homes because they only counted 144 existing previously? In that case, I'd suggest adjusting the wording because right now it reads a bit confusing between the first and second part of the sentence. Perhaps "In total, only 144 houses had been counted to exist" or similar wording. An alternative would be to keep the initial wording but to finish with "while more than 2,000 actually existed and were affected" (but omit the italics).
@Airborne84: The govt only counted 144 as damaged and ignored the rest. Let me know if the new wording helps to fix the lack of clarity. NoahTalk 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Good, thanks.
  • Put the two I saw in alphabetical order. Let me know if there are any others. NoahTalk 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I reordered one more list of municipalities in the Preparations section. Please revert if it was ordered that way on purpose (e.g., population or geographic size, etc.)
Yup. My bad. They're archived from the original. Missed that.
Last question was on the italics above.
@Airborne84: The MOS allows for italics to emphasize something... In this case, we are emphasizing that this is when the name was given by the NHC. NoahTalk 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, no problem.
I find that it meets the FA criteria. Also bounced it off of similar Hurricane FA articles and it compares well. I'm supporting. Nice work!

Orangutan[]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has several articles on Strepsirrhini primates that are at featured status, but this would be the first simian one. I brought this article to GA status back in 2012 and in the past couple months have done more ing and cleaning and got a copy. I think its ready. LittleJerry (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Chipmunkdavis[]

First run comments
  • In the lead is it reasonable to say that older males "have" long calls, rather than that they do not "make" (or similar) long calls?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Indonesian is a form of Malay, and quite a recent one, and so should not be mentioned separately to Malay. The source used states Malay.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Regarding Banjarese, I wonder if you can find any sources discussing the impact on that regarding orangutan sometimes being pronounced with an ou sound, rather than how it is pronounced in standard Malay. Interesting note on page 320, but there might be more out there.
I don't understand. LittleJerry (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
There are multiple ways to pronounce orangutan, and I suspect they may exist in part due to the differences between Banjarese and Standard Malay. I was wondering if there might be more information to be found on that point. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Can't find anything. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't fully understand from the current wording how a name recorded by a prisoner in Angola came to apply to a Southeast Asian animal. Having trouble reading the sideways source at the moment, so if it's there please just clarify slightly.
It states that all apes were called orangutans at the time and pongo was given to the all apes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The part that is unclear is how it transitioned to the current usage. What does it mean that Lacépède followed Friedrich von Wurmb? Did von Wurmb suggest it when sending the skeleton? CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The Etymology section could also use some information on the species and subspecies names.
That's important for their specific articles not this one. Even articles on species don't give etymologies for subspecies names. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • How can a single species of Khoratpithecus be the closest relative to Pongo? Was it paraphyletic?
I guess. Genera descend from other genera just like species from other species. LittleJerry (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's the wording throwing me off. Rather than "believed to have been" it should be "believed to be" or similar, unless the science has changed since the mid-2000s. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Could the list of Pongo also be put into a phylogenetic tree format to show the relationships between the species and subspecies?
I can't find a source for a tree. LittleJerry (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
At least regarding the species the P. tapanuliensis paper provides one. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I can't make cladograms. LittleJerry (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Taxonomy does not explain how Simia satyrus became replaced by P. pygmaeus.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The text clearly implies there was a P. wurmbii in 1808, which should be mentioned, as should whenever it was folded into P. pygmaeus.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Similarly, when did the other subspecies names get assigned?
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Removed information on subspecies classifiction, that's more relevant to the Borneo species article. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph on type locality probably could use some rewriting to make it more accessible.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The P. tapanuliensis source notes that P. abelii became a species in 2001, not 1996.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • P. weidenreichi is not mentioned in the infobox, or anywhere else. Perhaps more information on it could be included here?
P. weidenreichi is mentioned in body. Added to infobox. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • More explanation on why there are multi-million year differences in species divergence estimates would be useful. Also, was the 2011 sequence not nuclear DNA?
Doesn't say why. DNA tests can be way off sometimes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, it seems odd to specify that the 2017 study was nuclear DNA, as it implies the 2011 study did not cover nuclear DNA. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It feels like the third paragraph of the genomics section was put on without adjusting previous sections. It should all be written in the appropriate tenses to reflect current consensus.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No current comments for the Characteristics section. Will look further at a later time. As a general comment, image placement seems all over the place. (Eg. The video on faux-speech is above the tool picture, the opposite order to the text sections.) CMD (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Faux speech is next to the paragraph on orangutans imitating sounds. It's not about language. LittleJerry (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
On my screen the faux speech video is right next to the paragraphs on tool use. CMD (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There's something wrong with your screen. I don't know what to do about that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
It's a standard computer screen. If it appears like that on my screen, it will be a very common problem. What needs doing is sorting out the images. At the moment all the images in the page are clustering together and pushing each other way into places they don't belong. Reducing the number of images (eg. what does the image captioned "Orangutans are the least social of the great apes." add?) and making selective use of galleries are both reasonable options. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Better? LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Use of plants as anti-inflamattory balms may fit better in the intelligence or tool use section than in the diet section.
Not really. Its like how animals may wallow themselves in mud to protect against skin irritation. LittleJerry (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but it's not diet. Perhaps just move to the main section above? CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It feels odd that both the lead and one image caption emphasise the "even bird eggs", while the body text treats bird eggs simply as part of the list while specifically highlighting that they eat other primates.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In nest building, I suggest rewording "leave their mother for the first time", as leave might mean to disperse.
Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a mention could be made of the birth of twins.
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest placing the reproduction and development subsection ahead of the social life and nesting subsections, as it contains information that better contextualises those other subsections. (eg. the earlier phrase about leaving their mother for the first time is much more understandable given the "never without physical contact" information.)
Moved after nesting. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The age at which children disperse away from their mothers should be included somewhere, probably in development, and perhaps dispersal should be explained since its only mention comes as "During dispersal" which reads as assuming knowledge from the reader. (May also be improved by the subsection reorganisation.)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 03:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Url for "Deaner, RO; van Schaik, CP; Johnson, V. (2006). "Do some taxa have better domain-general cognition than others? A meta-analysis of nonhuman primate studies" is dead.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "solve some invisible displacement problems with a representational strategy" is jargon-heavy, and should be explained like "calculated reciprocity" is below. "cooperative pulling paradigm" could also do with a similar quick explanation.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "first accurate description" should be reworded, as its specific meaning might not be conveyed to some readers.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I would suggest saying "Indonesian Borneo" instead of "Kalimantan, Indonesia" for accessibility.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • In the population table why are Sabah and East Kalimantan split but Sarawak and West Kalimantan combined?
That's what it does in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah I see. That source (which has a more detailed table on page 7) appears to be using a preprint of what I think became this table. I would suggest using the final published source. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The authorities in "Since 2012, authorities" should be specified.
Why? Authorities is obvious: the government. And the source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
There are 2 possible national governments and multiple possible local governments. From the source I suggest the article says for now that it's the Indonesian authorities. CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • The paragraph about Pony and the albino should be moved into the Conservation centres subsection, and integrated with the other BOSF info.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The current first and last paragraphs in Conservation should be merged. They both cover the same foundation (which I note lacks Foundation in its name in the specific article title, so perhaps this article should reflect that). CMD (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved. LittleJerry (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis, everythings fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The images seem better now, and I think I'll leave it for others to further comment on them. The Borneo Orangutan Survival information is still split across two unconnected paragraphs. CMD (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing the above. Will take another look soon with a more refreshed eye. CMD (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis? LittleJerry (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. Looking at Primate, which is an older FA but still quite a decent article, there are several facts about orangutans mentioned there that are not included here. These include endocranial volume, an explicit note on climbing technique ("quadramanous climbing" although a less jargony explanation would be better), fishing and tool-assisted fishing (there are better sources than the one in the Primate article), a tad more on legal status, and a figure for extirpation rate in Sumatra. I believe all these would fit into the article, and they suggest further possible inclusions, such as historical population estimates (eg.). I would also suggest an explicit mention of only 3-4 births in a lifetime for each female.
Added more. I don't see the need for historical ranges and expiration rates. Those are more appropriate for the individual species and we already have the Endangerment of orangutans article. LittleJerry (talk)
The current "Interactions with humans" section is more about cultural significance than an overview of current interactions. Papers like this one are interesting in that regard. There also seems to be a minimal amount of information about cultural significance and opinions in the local area as opposed to globally. I'd also advocate the inclusion of some contextualisation about the local pressure for development, which is crucial to understanding orangutan conservation, rather than attributing it all to international demand. The only mention of local attitudes is a short brush into folklore, whereas they're often seen as obstacles to the economic advancement of those in poverty. These attitudes feed into the hunting, pet trade, and sometimes even indifference or distrust towards conservation.
Added more on local killing of orangutans. LittleJerry (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
The article should include information about domestic legal protection. (In Malaysia I know orangutans were supposedly covered under a 1972 wildlife protection act but looking now I can't find them in the actual law. They are however included in the replacement 2010 law (pg 101) as a totally protected species, as well as under the separate laws of Sarawak and Sabah.) CMD (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That again seems more important for the article on the Bornean orangutan. There are three species, and looking at the different laws that protect each of them is too much for this article. LittleJerry (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I understand the species/sub-species argument with regards to the scientific name etymology information, but disagree it applies to much of the information here. The species split is for many purposes a technicality, and a recent technicality at that. Most of the laws I mentioned are older than the split between the species. Local communities are not distinguishing between species, conservation material doesn't distinguish between species, and I doubt many people in the wider world will either. Are there any examples of protections/treatment/etc. differing by species? Outside of scientific fields such as taxonomy and evolutionary implications, I can't see how what makes this article comprehensive will have shifted significantly since pre-2001. Taking your work on Wolf for example, that's an article that exceeds wp:size guidelines, yet it wouldn't greatly benefit from being stripped of most of its Status and Conservation section if at some point various subspecies became reclassified as species. CMD (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis, all done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • When and where were these first published? And the last is still missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. File:Primatenskelett-drawing-transparent.png isn't used in this article. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
It's in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
All fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Jens Lallensack[]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


Older nominations[]

Central Park[]

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a large public park in Manhattan, New York City. Built to a careful plan by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, Central Park is one of the most visited places in NYC, if not the world. There are many interesting features about this park, such as eight waterways, six miles of roads, plenty of woods, sporting fields, landmarks, a zoo, a museum, and numerous events that are hosted there. The history of the park is complex and interesting as well, with two periods of decline followed by wide-ranging rehabilitation programs.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a few months ago thanks to an excellent GA review from SilkTork. After a much-appreciated copy by Twofingered Typist, I think it's up to FA quality now. The article is quite long, but I feel that it's warranted, given that it's classified as a vital article. I look forward to all comments and feedback. epicgenius (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

To assist in assessing the article, it's worth repeating the criteria here:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

I was impressed with the work that epicgenius had done on the article when I did the GA review, and also with their responsive and helpful manner. I will take a look at how it fits some of the FA criteria, though I won't have time to look into all aspects, such as the "comprehensive" requirement. I was satisfied it met the "broad coverage" of GA, but to ensure it meets "comprehensive" requires a bit more reading and research than I have time for right now.

For those looking at this FA who may be a little put off by the size of the article, epicgenius's prose (at least when I read it for GA) is clear and readable, and the article well organised into digestible chunks. SilkTork (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Criteria:

1A - well-written. Criteria met The prose is clear, readable and informative. It has improved since the GA, and is of a professional standard.SilkTork (talk) 10:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1B - comprehensive. It has the broad coverage required of GA. I have not researched enough of the topic to judge if it meets comprehensive, though I suspect it does, and will not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Raising a concern here regarding coverage of music in the park. Ping me when this has been addressed so I can strike this concern. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1C - well researched. As with comprehensive, I have not done a thorough review of available sources on the topic, though I was impressed with the research done for the GA, and if I recall there wasn't much (if anything) that I turned up in my GA review research that wasn't already in the article. So I would not object if the consensus is that the article should become featured. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1D - neutral. Criteria met I found the article neutral when I did the GA review, and I have looked through the additions since, and nothing has changed. It still remains neutral. SilkTork (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1E: stable. The criteria for FA is slightly different to GA. The GA stable criteria is: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing war or content dispute", and it passes that. But FA is: "and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." So for FA, the changes do not need to be because of a dispute. The intention is that when an article comes to FA it is reasonably complete in terms of content, detail, and prose. If changes are still occurring, that is suggestive that the article is not yet complete. The article has undergone recent changes. Material on census tract was removed yesterday: [8], and the day before the Further reading section was removed: [9]. The debate would be if such changes are "significant". For me, the article is stable, and I don't see such positive ongoing ing as harmful to the article or to its status as a FA. I will, though, pay attention to anyone who has concerns regarding stability. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
@SilkTork: Thanks for your comments and observations. I really appreciate them. In response to your concerns about criteria 1E: one can say these s were made in response to the featured article process, i.e. in preparation for nominating this article. In terms of additions, I didn't add anything major. epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any significant issues with the criteria in part 1, including 1E: stable. I don't have the time to examine 1B - comprehensive and 1C - well researched any further than I did for GA, but I have no reason to think that the article doesn't meet those criteria. And I am very comfortable that the article meets 1E - stable, even if the wording of the criteria is not clear; like you, I can't imagine that it would refer to positive s made in preparation for the FA review - though I'm slightly unsure as to what it might refer to. SilkTork (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2A - a lead. Not met. This is my first genuine quibble. The lead, to be fair, hasn't changed significantly since the GA, but if I was doing a GA again today, I would ensure the lead contains a summary from each of the main sections in the article. I raised it as an issue in the GA, but I don't think I followed up on it as closely as I could have. Looking again now I see that Cultural significance, which has a spin off article, Central Park in popular culture, is summed up by "and is one of the most filmed locations in the world" (which, incidentally, doesn't quite match what is said in the main body: "Central Park is the most filmed location in the world" - can you check to see if it is "the most filmed" or "one of the most filmed"). And while looking at the spin off article I was aware that some very famous concerts are not mentioned in that article, such as The Concert in Central Park. The lack of mention of the concerts would also come under 1B - comprehensive. The classic concerts are mentioned in the main body, but not the pop, rock and reggae concerts. And I just noticed that the classic concerts are mentioned in the body but not in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment. What is the thinking behind Cultural significance and Concerts and performances being in two different sections in the main article, but discussed together in Central Park in popular culture? Oooooh. I just noticed that in Central Park in popular culture in the Music section it says: " Numerous concerts have been hosted in the park, mentioned [[#Entertainment|above]]". But these are not mentioned above. I've taken a look back at the article, and found an older form from just over a year ago, which mentioned the concerts: [10]. That older form is unsourced, but does appear to contain useful information. SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the claim from the older article, "The oldest free classical music concert series in the United States—the Naumburg Orchestral Concerts, founded in 1905...", something that might be true? It might be worth looking into. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Basically, "Cultural significance" is talking about events that mention the park, while "Concerts and performances" talks about events from the park. I've tried to expand the lead without having it become too bloated. Because we do have a Central Park in culture sub-article, the concerts and performances in this article are summarized. Nevertheless, I'll try to add some brief examples. epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2B - appropriate structure. Criteria met. There is an appropriate structure. I tend to prefer fewer sub-sections as, per MOS:OVERSECTION, "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose." For example, I wouldn't have Sculptures and Structures and exhibitions as subsections of Art and monuments. And I might consider in Landscape features, using a WP:Definition list markup instead of sub-headings, but these are personal preferences, and the article works fine as it is. Indeed, as I said at the start, there is a compelling argument for using the bite size sub-sections to ease navigation and digestion of such a long text. SilkTork (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
2C - consistent citations. I have never quite understood this criteria, and I can recall in a couple of my FAs someone requiring me to go through and ensure each citation was written out exactly the same way. I don't think it means that. I think it means using either Harvard or standard footnotes but not both together, as using both together creates two different ways of presenting citations. The article currently does use both the more standard footnote citation alongside the Harvard footnote citation, so technically fails this criteria. For example, Cite 1 uses the standard footnote ( "About Us". Central Park Conservancy. 2014. Archived from the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved March 25, 2014.). While Cite 2 uses the Harvard footnote (Central Park Conservancy 2011, p. 9.). Personally I don't think it matters, as both can be understood. But if we are to have such a criteria for an FA then it should be met. The article should either have all standard or all Harvard. If selecting one style over the other, I would strongly recommend the standard style as that being the most helpful to readers and researchers. With the Harvard style you have to look in two places to get all the information (link/full book title and page number are in two different places); while with the standard you get all the information in the single citation. However, while flagging this up, I would say that it's not an issue for me, so I'm not raising it as an objection. But if you want the FA flag with all the criteria met, then there should be consistency in citation style. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
3 - Media. Criteria met. Only one image has been added since the GA review, and I've checked that, and it's fine. The media criteria is the same as for GA, and nothing substantial has changed, so this is fine. SilkTork (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
4 Length. Criteria met. This is the same criteria as for GA, and nothing substantial has been added, so this is OK. SilkTork (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

There isn't a big difference these days between GA and FA. The main difference is that good articles only require broad coverage, while featured articles require comprehensive; and featured articles require consistent citation, while good article only require that there are organised citations. Of the criteria I looked at, the only concerns I can see are that the lead doesn't quite summarise the content, and that there may not be enough coverage of music in the park. I wouldn't be able to fully support this as I don't have the time to do the comprehensive research required, but once my quibbles are satisfied I certainly wouldn't have any objections. I think this is a fine article. Ping me when my quibbles have been addressed so I can strike them. SilkTork (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@SilkTork: Thanks for the comments. Regarding the distinction of standard vs. Harv citations - I think both may be used interchangeably, e.g. in the articles about Statue of Liberty and The Cloisters (which both passed with both standard and Harv citations), and even in my recent nomination of Barren Island, Brooklyn, where a similar issue was brought up. It would be more inconsistent if one were to use citations both with templates and with no templates, or both CS1/CS2 type citations, which should not be the case here. But this is open to interpretation, so let me know what you think.
I have slightly expanded the lead to include a short summary of every top-level section as well. Do you think the lead is sufficient or should I add more?
I also added a few examples of concerts and other musical events at the park. Let me know if that's enough or if I should elaborate a bit more. I really appreciate the detailed feedback. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Comments by Ceoil[]

Will take a closer look at this next weekend. Early impressions are good, though it may need to tightening words wise here and there. Nothing fatal than can see so far. Ceoil (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski[]

Reviewing... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

2010 Twenty20 Cup Final[]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

One of the most gut-wrenching cricket matches I've been to. Somerset lost their second final in a row, more or less on a last ball technicality. But really just because the Somerset players didn't know the Laws of Cricket, or at least, forgot them. As always, all comments and criticisms welcome. Harrias talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[]

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

The match and aftermath sections flow well. Background and build up I found a little clunky. Not helped by rather large paragraphs. At times it felt like just a collection of facts. I know that to a large extent that is the nature of the beast, but could the flow be smoothed a little?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor[]

Nominator(s): NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about American singer-songwriter Meghan Trainor, known for her breakthrough single "All About That Bass" and commonly hated by many. Being in the workings since 2014, the article underwent a GA review by Ritchie333 in November 2018, then endured a disastrous FAC a month later. I have been slowly nursing it up to standard ever since, consulting WP:RSP and Nikkimaria for its sourcing, Nick-D for neutrality purposes and Gerda Arendt for prose evaluation. I would like to commence this nomination by thanking them. And I firmly believe, that with its prose quality, accessibility, quality sourcing, comprehensiveness and flow, it is one of the best articles produced by Wikipedia and worthy of the golden star. So let's give it that title.--NØ 05:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

Removed the 1960s bit.
Removed.
Added.
You added it as a publisher, but in this case it should be cred as an agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done.
Done 1. Confused about FN90, which does have an author. FN91, on the other hand, just gives the author as 'Rolling Stone'; which I'm not sure should be added since it isn't a person.
The link for FN90 lists two authors, while the citation includes only one. With regards to staff authors, you should consistently either include or exclude them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Swapped with Billboard.
Done.
Fixed.
Removed.
Replaced.
Amended.

--Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help, Nikkimaria! I have responded to each of your comments above.--NØ 05:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review

Images appear to be free and correctly licensed. buidhe 07:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

2017 EFL Championship play-off Final[]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Commonly accepted as the most valuable single association football match in the world, this play-off final went all the way to a penalty shoot-out. Marvellous, as they say, play-offs are the ideal way to get promoted but the worst way to lose. As ever, all comments will be addressed as soon as practicable, and thank you in advance for your kind attention. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review: pass[]

Harrias cheers for the comments. I've responded above. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 16:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Harrias well with just one voice against the use of such sources, there seems to be a general consensus in favour of their use, specifically in the match report itself. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been following the discussion. I've got some back to work training this afternoon (because after three months, I've forgotten how to do my job, or something...) After that I'm going to have another pass through checking the fixes and should hopefully be able to wrap this up then. Harrias talk 11:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
As you say, the general consensus seems to be that these sources are acceptable, so I consider this point resolved. Harrias talk 17:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Harrias cheers, I think I've now addressed your replies. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, all sorted. Harrias talk 06:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review[]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[]

I've copyed a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

That's everything. It's hard to write descriptions of match play that are engaging. There's a tendency for match descriptions to collapse into proseline; you've avoided that but it doesn't sparkle. Not something I'd oppose over, though. I don't have good advice on how to do better -- I think it's one of the hardest things to do well in writing for Wikipedia. Anyway, once the minor points above are fixed I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Mike Christie I've responded above, apologies for not noticing your comments until now. I can do sparkling match reports when the matches are sparkling, so keep your eyes peeled for 1998 Football League First Division play-off Final...... Many thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
All but one point struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gonzo_fan2007[]

Support from WA8MTWAYC[]

A great article overall (I was really pleased with Huddersfield's promotion) and it meets the criteria imo. I've got some minor comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

WA8MTWAYC thanks so much for your great spots, and your support. Very much appreciated. Do let me know if there's anything else I can tweak. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man No problem! I've read the article again, but found no errors or something like that. It's a great piece of work that also mentions the odd fact such as Huddersfield's negative goal difference (certainly quite unique).
There is however something you could do for me, but only if you're willing to of course. I've listed List of Burnley F.C. records and statistics as a FLC, but so far it has received only one review. Cheers. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Will do. Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, The Rambling Man! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Infinity Science Fiction[]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about another minor science fiction magazine of the late 1950s. Its main claim to fame is for publishing Arthur Clarke's story "The Star", which was rejected by The Saturday Evening Post as blasphemous, but which went on to win that year's Hugo Award and is now considered a classic. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review[]

"The Star" is one of my favorite SF stories. All sources appear encyclopedic and properly and consistently used except as follows:
  • There are at least three different formats for ISBNs.
    Gateways to Forever only lists a 13-digit ISBN, and some of the others only list a 10-digit one. If there's a way to look up a 10-digit one from a 13-digit one I could do that but I don't know of a way. For the McAleer, I used the ISBN on the ebook I found online, which doesn't divide it, but I just found a cheap used copy online and will update the ISBN when it arrives. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Westport, CT or Westport, Connecticut?
    Fixed. I keep copying over references from old articles and forgetting to fix them; I need to just go through and fix all of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why are the dates in day month year format in an American English article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    Because I'm mid-Atlantic and can't remember which is which. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Comments from Ian[]

Placeholder... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War[]

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Conan the Barbarian is the central figure in this sword and sorcery play-by-mail/email (PBM/PBEM) game which occurs in the Hyborian Age created by Robert E Howard. The game launched in 1985 and has been available for play for 35 years, one of the longest-surviving games of the PBM genre. I believe this would be the first PBM game to earn FA status.

This is a renomination for FA. It currently has GA status and Gog the Mild was kind enough to give it a peer review after I addressed comments from the first nomination. Airborne84 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
Thanks for your review Buidhe! Much appreciated. Responses below.
There is a copyright notice in the larger advertisement next to the image.
I'm happy to change the tag to {{PD-text}}; but, as Shem and (probably) Xachotl within the image are terms from Robert E. Howard's works which Cabinet Entertainment still asserts copyright to, does that cause issues with the tag change?
The issue is that if the sheet is above the threshold of originality, the way you have it displayed won't be legible to readers so I don't see how FUR is met. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll defer to your judgement on the threshold of originality. If you feel that {{PD-text}} is appropriate in this case, I'm happy to apply it. I just don't have the relevant experience. If unclear, I can upload a more readable image of appropriately larger size with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Please advise what makes the most sense. Thanks.
I will upload a higher-resolution image with {{non-free no reduce}} tag. (Done)
I had the same concern, thank you. I'm not an image expert. I propose to upload a larger version (as small as possible that allows reading country names), with an accompanying {{non-free no reduce}} tag. Will that work?
I have uploaded a larger version of the map with a {{non-free no reduce}} tag. The image should be of adequate size now to read the country names, but not so large, I think, that a passing admin would feel the need to reduce the image size.
Great comment, thanks. I updated the image's legend to identify which kingdoms are non-player kingdoms. And you are right, the rationale was inadequate. I updated it to highlight why this map is different than existing Hyborian Age maps (esp. province size and scale). Please advise if it still needs adjusting.
I added some text in the main body to on battle frontage and terrain, pointing to the image. I also did what I intended in the first place, but did not, which was to link the battle orders image to this resulting image. It's not an exact translation (I couldn't get RSI to upload some images with free-use licenses), but it's close enough to show that the orders from one image results in a configuration on the battlefield in this image. Updated the FUR. Please advise if I missed something or anything is otherwise inadequate. Thanks.
  • As a general rule, the more non-free media included the stronger the FUR should be for each. In this case there are quite a few non-free images, and in my opinion the FUR for the second map (File:Small_cutaway,_low-res_portion_of_the_Hyborian_War_game_map.jpg) is not strong enough to support its inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Nikkimaria. My concern in this case is that the second, smaller cutaway map shows a portion of the Hyborian War game map with provinces which are one of the three elements of gameplay. None of the maps of the Hyborian Age do that, including the first map in this article. I propose that the main map is necessary to show the scope and scale of the broader game setting, while the second map highlights a very small portion of the RSI game map to visually show the reader what the first cannot: the scale of the province or seazone—the single geographic element of gameplay (with the other elements being troops and characters). Again, if it's a showstopper, I'll remove the second image, but I think it will reduce to some degree the encyclopedic value of the article for the reader. Please advise and thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 01:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Update on image issues—Buidhe
Thank you for your work on this Buidhe—it's probably more of your time spent than the average nomination and I appreciate it.
Unfortunately, there is no box or other product associated with the game. Hyborian War is similar to other play-by-mail games in its general lack of graphics and images. The "setup" is the printed game rules and the game map which can be seen here in its entirety. There are some images/sketches on the individual country startup sheet covers, but they have a copyright notice on each, are very narrow in scope, and generally aren't appropriate for a lede image, IMO. For a long time, the lede image I used was just the simple name "Hyborian War" until I came across this early advertisement and I said "finally, an image that shows exactly what this game is about". It's stated in the lede and in the main text: "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." It is taken from an advertisement, but it perfectly shows the central focus of the game, while highlighting the game's central character, within the Hyborian Age setting. No free existing image that I know of will do so. I strongly recommend retaining.
FUR states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since this is an advertising image not a cover, and it would be possible to play the game without ever seeing the ad, I just don't see how its omission would be significantly detrimental to the reader's understing of the game. buidhe 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Buidhe. I'd say that's due to a failure on my part to adequately link the image to the game in the lede. The lede now says "A central focus of the game is conquest and expansion through military action and diplomacy." I could add after that in the lede the passage from gameplay that says "Military activities such as raids and invasions figure prominently." That's a clear link to the image. Would that help? The gameplay section in the main text also covers the military activities in more detail. Having played the game, military activities (raids and invasions) dominate gameplay (as the name suggests). I can replace with an image of the text "Hyborian War", for example, but this is the single best image I have found that shows the central focus of the game. Airborne84 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, I replaced the lede image. Can you check the new one for acceptability? Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That is an acceptable non free logo. Passing buidhe 02:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No issue.
Were you talking about this image as well Buidhe?
Agreed. Perhaps in the future the company will release their game map with a free license to allow its use here to show the province details. I'll remove the second map. Thanks. (Done)
OK. This was in response to the previous nomination where a reviewer suggested something along these lines. However, I agree there is some redundancy. If there is concern from other reviewers, I think there is room for using a different image that shows an open field battle or a set piece battle that is underway so there isn't overlap with the other image. Image removed. Again, thanks for the careful look here. Airborne84 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, anticipating that another or might note that I haven't accounted for all the points from the first nomination now, with the removal of the images, I've added another image that doesn't overlap quite so much with the set piece battle orders sheet. Would you mind checking it out? Much appreciated. Airborne84 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
It's possible that these types of images are copyrighted by the player and not the company, since they are the result of the player's ideas and commands. The company's computer just processes them and prints them out. However, I am not the expert and went with the conservative route. Airborne84 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but not enough imo because "open field" is only mentioned once in the article text—not the kind of extended discussion that could support an additional non free file. The copyrightable parts of this image are the individual illustrated figures, which presumably were created by the company. buidhe 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Removed. Airborne84 (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Other comments
Fair enough. They are moved into footnotes. Unless you feel that it's a show-stopper, I would like to keep the quotebox with RSI's description of Cimmeria, Conan's homeland. I don't think it falls into the category of emphasizing a person's statement as you mentioned. Airborne84 (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
It looks like advertising to me and also violates MOS:layout because it sandwiches the images. Why can't it be integrated into text? "RSI described Cimmeria, Conan's homeland as ..." buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Removed. Forgot about the WP:Sandwich issue. Thanks.
I saw the citation needed tag on the topic sentence about mixed reviews in the late 1980s. I don't have a source for the sentence. Was aiming for a reasonable topic sentence for a paragraph which also provided a less than glowing side of the game and company to balance the positives and ensure NPOV. Am open to a recommendation here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I would say it is better just to remove the sentence and let the reader evaluate the reviews. buidhe 03:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Thanks.

Support from Hurricane Noah[]

I am not exactly familiar with game articles, but it looks like the article has everything it needs. I'm going to support promotion to FA based on the quality of the prose. NoahTalk 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Noah. I can't take cr for the prose though. That would go to Gog the Mild and Smuckola for copying my blunt attempts at stitching words together into a readable product. Greatly appreciate the review. Airborne84 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ichthyovenator[]

A very well-written and comprehensive article! Just a couple of thoughts:

Thanks for weighing in!
I think that would work fine as well. I'm not attached to either way. The real expert in this area is Gog the Mild though and I'd value his input as a third opinion. Gog the Mild, do you have thoughts on this?
No feedback either way, so went ahead and made the switch Ichthyovenator. I think this works well. Image and new transition to setting seem fine. Also reworked the first "spell-out" of "play-by-mail game" as (PBM) between the two paragraphs from the reversal. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 19:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This wasn't a requirement either way, I just found it helpful since I personally had no prior knowledge of what PBM games were. Good job with this! Supporting now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's an improvement then. Much appreciated!
Nice catch. Fixed.
Fair enough. Changed to "overwhelming". Think that reflects the source without the added connotations. Let me know if this doesn't work.
"Overwhelming" fits well :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, nice catch. Fixed. Not sure how I missed that one.... Airborne84 (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the Mild[]

Nb, it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for one review for the combination of this review, the source review, and the citation spot check.

Hi Ichthyovenator. I reviewed this at GAN, copy ed it for GoCE and helped Airborne84 a fair bit in getting it ready for FAC, see here, so I am pretty sure that I will be supporting. Having been so close to the article for three months, and nothing from this genre having appeared at FAC before, I wanted to get some fresh eyes on it before commenting myself.

@WP:FAC coordinators: you may also like to note that while I had not come across Hyborian War before seeing it at GAN, in my misspent youth I played numerous PBM games and had several articles and reviews published in Flagship, the UK PBM magazine, which probably makes me as much of a subject expert as you are likely to get. I also have a passing acquaintance with the Conan universe and own a couple of Howard's books. As such the article gives an accurate account of how PBM works/worked and the game mechanics seem at one with those I was familiar with. I am holding myself in readiness to carry out a source review and/or a first FAC spotcheck if required. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt I am formally supporting. I believe the article to be comprehensive as regards the topic and to reasonably put it in context. It includes contributions from all of the sources or types of sources I would expect and the prose is IMO up to FA level. (Warning: I did a fair bit of copy ing, so take this opinion with a pinch of salt as I may be judging my own input to an extent.) It is soundly structured, stays focused, and has a helpful use of images. I do not see any - non-source - areas for improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

SG review[]

Really appreciate you taking the time to review this SandyGeorgia! Airborne84 (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot get this source to open, but it looks like Terrablood is listed as the author, but publisher is missing??

The archives in External links for Terrablood will not open either ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the source and used a different reference. I adjusted that source in External links; it should work now. (Also removed two of the External links as they are in the Refs and are redundant.)

In the image caption, should we say, “Map of the Hyborian Age”? Can an age be mapped? Or is it better, map of countries during the Hyborian Age? (I dunno ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Changed to "Map of Hyborian Age kingdoms." Please advise if that doesn't work.

External jumps do not belong in Notes, I don’t think?

No problem. Removed the external jumps.

This statement is sourced to a forum which requires log in:

Could you provide a quote of what The source provided there, to help convince me this is a reliable source for the statement? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The best, most concise quote is probably "This will be a regular-speed game, total privacy (no contact, no posting)." The context is that the website administrator who posted that works directly with Reality Simulations, Inc. (RSI). The website admin puts a game together on the Road of Kings website, advertising the rules (as in the no-contact example noted), and once 36 players are signed up, sends the player information and their RSI account numbers to RSI which then begins the game. (RSI actually sends out a promotional flyer for the Road of Kings website and the Grimfinger website in each game setup.) I slightly adjusted the wording though because in this case it's not the players organizing the game, it's the website admin. It now reads: "These websites allow the organization of specifically-formatted games (such as no contact between players)".
Gog the Mild is a competent copyor, but he may not have reviewed the image captions ... I am having all sorts of ce issues with this image caption, which Gog might better address ...
Thank you Sandy. Indeed, looking through my notes I seem to have missed the captions. Sloppy of me and thanks for the prompt. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I am now happy with the image captions. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
What does “here” add? Why not “choose battle tactics”. Array? I leave this to you all since I am neither a gamer nor a good copyor, but that sentence is convoluted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
It was indeed convoluted. I like your suggestion, so changed to the simple "Orders allow players to choose battle tactics."

What is the source for Skills required in the infobox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

None other than they are general skills required for a game of this type. Since no direct source, I removed that entry in the infobox.

A lot of information about developers is mentioned only in the infobox—not the article—and is unsourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I've removed some of the developers that are sourceable to the RSI website, but are otherwise probably not notable. I added the map illustrator Liz Danforth to the main text as she appears to be notable across various works in the gaming community, and all developers in the infobox have sources in the main text now.

Hyborian Age is modifying world, which is odd and seems to call for a hyphen, which is odder. And Age is a period. How about ...

  • It is set during the Hyborian Age in the world of Conan ... ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Well put. I went with your suggestion. Thanks.

What is “worldwide” adding here? Isn’t it obvious that anyone with access to mail or internet can play? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case it's consequential that the game is accessible worldwide as the email option is only available "in" to RSI, but not "out". I.e., players can email turn orders to RSI, but RSI sends all turn results by postal mail to players, apparently due to a contractual constraint. Between a slower 28-day turnaround game option and an extra Australia office, RSI has been able to offer the game worldwide. IMO, for a game with a postal play-by-mail aspect, worldwide access is noteworthy. I clarified this in the gameplay section—that RSI mails all turn results by postal mail.

What is simultaneous with what? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

It adjudicates player orders at the same time as other player orders. That makes it a closed-end game where everyone starts at the same time. Some games are never-ending and the company adjudicates player orders whenever they are received; players can enter and leave at any time—an open-ended game. Since that is way too much nuance for the lead, I just deleted "simultaneous" from the sentence: "It uses a computer program to adjudicate player orders."

What does “still” add? Redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted "still"

The word “various” is overused in the lead, including twice in one sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed various instances. :)

Again, confused how a time period is being used. Should this be ...

Agreed. Adjusted as you suggested.
Sentence needs to be disentangled ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Disentangled. (Split into two sentences and tweaked.)

Generally, some of my prose queries could be because I am not a gamer, but based on this look at the lead only, I suggest another pass with Gog the Mild, and then please leave a note on my user talk to continue reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Done! Also scrubbed the article for WP:MOSNUM and NBSP formatting as you noted in your summaries.

Direct quote in the lead which is uncited, and content not contained in the body ... lead should summarize body, and all direct quotes require citation.

Added the quote in the main text with inline cite.

There is a problem with RSI links in citations. RSI 1985 goes nowhere, and one RSI 2020 goes to Setup rules, which is 1985 copyright, so where does the 2020 come from? And other 2020 link to pages that have no date, so what is 2020? These dates should reflect date of publication, pls check all ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed all. Either removed date where there is none, or added the correct date where there is.

The word various is used six times in the article, and is a hopelessly unhelpful word ... might you review those instances with Gog the Mild, attempting to vary the wording with something more specific? One example of how the word Various tells us nothing:

Better to either drop it, or say what those means are ... pls review all instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. "Various" removed, and means are explained whenever mentioned in the article.

Next year, this statement becomes inaccurate:

Avoid making statements that become dated, see MOS:CURRENT. ... has had an active player base since 1985. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed to: "had an active player base since 1985"

With these changes, I think you will be good to go. Because I know zilch, zero, nothing about gaming, I do not feel qualified to support, but I do not see anything holding you up once the changes above are complete. Per Gog’s knowledge of the game, I trust the article is comprehensive. Sorry for all the typos, brevity, and lack of italics ... iPad typing (sucks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Yep, the article is comprehensive so far as I am concerned. You probably noticed that, following the advice of a well known Wikipedian whose name temporarily escapes me, I suggested a swift withdrawal when this was first nominated for further background and context to be developed off-FAC. To my mind this has been done. Of course, I am just one or, there is no similar article to act as guidence and I am probably a bit close. My major concern was how comprehensible the jargon and cant would be to a non-gamer. Apparently reasonably, and thanks for your pointing out various areas where this and the prose generally could be improved. (PS I have removed all instances of "various".) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Yep ... I saw my role as an independent reviewer to make sure it made sense to a non-gamer. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
PS, did you all check in with Ealdgyth as she requested in the first FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
He did but I've been swamped outside of wiki and did not have time to get back to him. It's on my talk page. Mea culpa for not even replying there, sorry! --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I think I've addressed your remaining comments above (please advise if not). Greatly appreciate the review!! The article is better for it.
Ealdgyth, no problem at all! I believe I adequately addressed SandyGeorgia's last remaining comments. The article should be ready for you now! :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ruhrfisch[]

It has been several years since I reviewed at FAC, so I am mostly going to comment on the prose. This seems well done, but there are a few places where I think more context could be provided (if there are sources to support it). I have played Dungeons and Dragons (decades ago) and currently am playing Axis and Allies online, but have never played a game by mail like this. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, thanks! Standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Really appreciate the review!! Thanks for your time on this. Airborne84 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Done!
Excellent catch, thanks. Done!

Play-by-mail game overview

I really appreciate this comment. I wrestled with whether this sentence was clear to the average reader. Reworded as you suggested.
Closed end. Done! I did this in PBM Game overview.

History

Done!

Setting

Done. I wasn't able to give an exact number. One RS gives 400 stories and 500 poems written overall, but doesn't parse them between pre and post death or Conan vs. non-Conan stories. I think I was able to give reasonable context for the average reader though. Please advise if not.
I stated in a footnote in Development that game materials are marked as Copyright 1985 by Conan Properties Inc. There is nothing more detailed than that to cite, unfortunately. While that means RSI must have a license from 1985 that's probably renewed periodically, I think it would be a stretch to say that.

Gameplay

It points to the image in the section. The "front line" for the troops in the image is at the top of the image, not the left or right. I added the words "numbered" and "Xachotl" in the text so now it reads "The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example". If you think another way of phrasing it is better, please advise.
Done—mostly. Two areas I couldn't address: (1) RSI certainly could start a game with less than 36 players, but doesn't say if it actually does so in sources, and (2) someone playing more than one kingdom in a single game. The answer is emphatically no. But I can't find a source stating it on RSI's webpage or elsewhere. I think it's implied in how hard they make it to play a "friends" game, but it's not outright stated that I can find. I address the rest of these in a footnote.

Game analysis

Done. I went with 21st century for the latter since it's unclear exactly when the second list was published. It was retrieved in 2020.

Development

Unfortunately, this doesn't appear in the sources.
This again is not described in the sources. It's unfortunate as it would be good to add.
OK, this appears to follow the structure of FA-level video games as well (can't compare to FA PBMs as none exist)
Done.

Reception and legacy

Done.
Done.
Done.

Hope this helps, overall well done and intend to support once these issues are addressed. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ruhrfisch. Really appreciate your review on this. Please advise if I addressed your comments adequately above. Happy to engage further as needed. Thanks for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for all the s and glad my comments were helpful. I still have two minor quibbles and a suggestion.
  • Per WP:CITELEAD, direct quotations in the lead need to be cited with an inline reference, so "marvelously complex" needs a cite. Since the lead is a summary of the article, I do not think it needs to have citations for anything else.
Added inline citation to the quoted words in the lede.
  • I think per the MOS, sword and sorcery should be linked in the lead (first appearance)
Linked. Delinked second use.
  • I still find the reference to the battle-order image quite confusing ("The eight-unit numbered vertical frontage in the Xachotl battle-order image example represents a battle occurring in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58]"). I think this is in part because it is the only place in the article to use the phrases "battle-order" or "vertical frontage" and one of only two places to mention Xachotl, and the reference to the image is buried in a farily dense sentence filled with several unfamiliar words. Would something like this work better? "The order for a set piece battle pictured here shows eight units in columns, and represents a battle occurring in the provice of Xachotl in open, tundra, or oasis terrain.[58] "
I adopted your version. Thank you for the suggestion.
Feel free to away and hope this helps, - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch thank you again for your review. Please advise if there are any remaining comments that need addressing. Airborne84 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been met and I am happy to support promotion to FA now. Please let me know if you need me for anything else here. - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass[]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation spot check[]

Siamosaurus[]

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is on a mysterious genus of semiaquatic dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of what is now Thailand. If it passes review, it will be Wikipedia's fifth spinosaurid FA, probably our longest article on an animal known only from teeth, and the second FA on a dinosaur tooth taxon after Dromaeosauroides. Though fragmentary in nature and potentially dubious, hope you'll find this an interesting read and a good example of how much we can glean about ancient life from even the tiniest pieces of fossil material. Comments and suggestions very welcome. Thanks in advance! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

One thing, maybe it's an overstatement to say "Annotated skull diagram of the closely related Spinosaurus", considering their distance in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Good point, if it was indeed the first dinosaur genus named from Thailand (the species but not genus "S." fusuiensis was named before at least), I think it would also warrant mention in the intro. And if fusuiensis was the first species named, that would of course also warrant mention, but we can only do this if there are sources that state it outright. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
"S." fusuiensis wasn't from Thailand, though? --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, good point again, I guess my mind got confused after the articles were merged a while ago. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I checked the naming dates of all other Thai dinosaurs and this does seem to be the case; the first bones discovered were of Phuwiangosaurus, but Siamosaurus was the first formally named. I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to locate sources explicitly stating this though, the best I've been able to find is that Siamosaurus is the first reported spinosaurid, which is what is already in the lead and article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review
Since I was the one recommending to tag them as such, I might as well explain. Images tagged as anatomically inaccurate are still usable in sections about historical or cultural significance. They are not to be used in other sections, though, unless to specifically illustrate outdated ideas. Also pinging PaleoGeekSquared, have you seen the comments above? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack[]

Impressing article, so much for a few teeth!

Look like it's been quiet here for some weeks so many thanks for the review! ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that such books, unless cited or mentioned in the scientific literature, are best reserved for uncontroversial info. I've read the Theropods book myself and it seems to have some very speculative or questionable content, such as the section on the running speed of various extinct theropods and dinosauromorphs. I think the size estimates can probably be kept though as long as there's not that many others available and its clarified in text what the type of source is, which I've just done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The size estimates may be an edge case and I do not have a strong opinion on that. But I fear that systematic decision regarding Siamosaurus? fusuiensis that this book made has to be removed. It is not really relevant since it has no bearing on science (it is not a book that can be taken serious and be cited by scientists in the first place). The theropoddatabase, the personal website of Mortimer, is another difficult case, maybe a bit more unclear; the systematic decisions published there are also not cited in the scientific literature at all. I would therefore also argue to exclude them, as systematic decisions are always highly controversial. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, realized I was accidentally doing that in multiple articles, looks like I missed one! Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
That would definitely be helpful! But I checked the sources again and unfortunately it is just stated that it was a tooth and not really clarified beyond that. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Reworded to "such as a skull or postcranial skeleton", is that better? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to "taxon". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to "they can be distinguished from each other". ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Masked Singer (American TV series)[]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most popular TV shows in the United States at the moment. I think you'll find it an interesting read, especially with the behind-the-scenes info that's written. Per Wikiwho, I'm responsible for about 94 percent of this article's content, and I happened to create it way back in 2018 as well. Coronavirus has given me some extra time at home, so I've been able to expand it greatly in the past couple of months. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm super excited to have started this process; I hope I will learn a lot by responding to your comments :) Heartfox (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Hi Nikkimaria, I've scaled up some of the images and I've attempted to write more detailed fair use rationales for the images you noted. Heartfox (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Think the cast multi-image should be larger but otherwise this looks better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Increased width to 400. Heartfox (talk) 06:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The Beautician and the Beast[]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

What do you get when you put the lead from The Nanny and a James Bond in a 1990s romantic comedy? Well, if you have ever asked yourself this (oddly specific) question, you would get this film. It is about a New York City beautician who falls in love with a Eastern European dictator after being hired to tutor his four children. The film received primarily negative reviews, and was a box-office bomb, grossing roughly $11.5 million against a production budget of $16 million.

This is my first FAC for a film article so I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to further improve it. I was inspired by the FAs about films and looked to those articles for inspiration and guidance. I'd like to thank @Kailash29792:, @Shshshsh:, and @Numerounovedant: for helping with the peer review. Thank you in advance for any help, and I hope everyone is doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Kailash[]

Support: Having reviewed the article during the PR, I found it satisfactory then and still do. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Drive by comment from Nick-D[]

I don't think I'll post a full review, but the statement in the lead that "the film performed well on the ancillary market and has since gained a cult following" and material on these topics later in the article appears to be based only on claims made by the star of this movie. Stronger (especially independent) sourcing is needed to support this. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Nick-D: Thank you for the comment. I highly doubt I will be able to find a stronger, more independent source to cite this information so I removed the statement in the lead altogether. Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Shahid[]

Support

As mentioned above, I was one of its PR reviewers. I enjoyed reading the article (film I'd never heard of quite frankly), and I find it comprehensive, well written and well sourced. Aoba47 was highly cooperative throughout the process. I'm sure a similar attitude will be employed by Aoba47 on this FAC as well if there are any constructive comments. ShahidTalk2me 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support. It is a rather obscure film so that is understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review[]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Damien Linnane[]

  • It looks like the page was cleared. Here is the archived version of the webpage, which has the information, and I have adjusted the citation so the archived link is the first one available. I have also added the year. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have removed this part as I agree that it is not particularly beneficial or interesting to a wider audience. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I was unable to find the year it was first made available on Prime Video. I did find out that it was on Prime Video when the service was first offered to Canada in 2016, but that's not much help here. Thank you for bringing this up as I was able to find sources about how the film was available on Netflix (for a very short time) and is now available on HBO Max so I have added those references. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I initially thought it was notable enough since it was hosted through Vulture.com, but upon further reflection, I agree that it is not high-quality enough and there are already plenty of reviews in this section so it is not really adding much. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work as usual. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

  • @Damien Linnane: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything that I missed or anything else that requires further improvement. I hope you have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help and support. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Paparazzzi[]

  • Didier C. Deutsch is a music producer, with his book being cited in the article. I had previously introduced him with a descriptive phrase in the "Themes" section directly before this one, but I am open to suggestion on if something should be added here too. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure how that happened. I have linked the first instance, and removed the second instance to avoid repetition. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I see your point. The parenthetical part does seem to have a more personal tone than allowed for Wikipedia. The unfavorable comparisons are sourced in the review, but I have revised that part to hopefully make the prose cleaner and more neutral/objective. Let me know if further revisions are necessary though. Aoba47 (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing this out. Not sure how I kept reading over that. I have changed the second instance to "she" instead. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • She wrote for TV Guide. She is referenced earlier in the "Critical reception" section and is linked there because she is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article actually. I thought that was a male critic too, but I have honestly never heard of the name "Maitland" before. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll review the sources later. In the meantime, you can address my comments above. Regards, --Paparazzzi (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the review so far. If you ever need help with anything, feel free to ask and I will try to do so to the best of my abilities. I hope you are having a great end to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find anything unusual with the sources. I'm going to support this nomination. Great work! Paparazzzi (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and looking through the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak[]

  • I have added more information to the ALT text. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I used the first names because the film features multiple characters that have the same last name (i.e. Boris, Katrina, Karl, Masha, and Yuri). For this reason, using the last name alone would be confusing. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Revised, but I kept the "headline" part as it is important to the plot. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not think so. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand your point. I went with the order that was used on the Rotten Tomatoes citation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not believe so since "The" is capitalized in the film's title. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I was initially hesitant about this, but I see your point. It is helpful to point out that The Nanny was on the air at this time as it adds more meaning to the later criticisms about it for unfamiliar readers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is unencyclopedic since the sentence is about how Drescher wanted Dalton to have humorous lines as well (most likely to avoid him just reacting to her character all the time). Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is appropriate since it is in the context of a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Sitcom is linked in a previous section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Understandable. It is always good to remember readers that are more unfamiliar with the subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Cartoon network freak: Thank you for the reviews. I believe that I addressed everything. I hope you are having a great weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
I have read your responses and all your comments seem to be justified. Thus, I can support this nomination. This is a really strong article. All the best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review[]

  • I have removed the original title. Looking back, this title was supposed to be sourced with the film commentary, and I somehow misplaced this citation there instead while rewriting the article. Apologies for that mistake. I decided to remove that part altogether as I no longer have access to the audio commentary to look back on to verify that information again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

... [To be continued]... --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review so far. I have made the recommended adjustments, and I have gone through to add page numbers for the remaining Newspapers.com sources. Apologies for not adding them prior to the FAC. I'm not sure how that slipped my mind. I never thought about using clippings, but I could see how they would help with accessibility. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the remaining Newspapers.com links wth clippings. I tried to find more accessible links for the two Highbeams sources, but I unfortunately could not find any. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for being proactive. I made a few more s. I hope they are self explanatory. You are good to go in my book. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to do this review. You have helped to improve the article immensely. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian[]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC) and ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}

This article is about the meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian. This is one of many articles written about the powerful storm that stalled over the Bahamas at peak intensity and made at least eight total landfalls. I have renominated it per the request of a few project members. NoahTalk 22:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review
  • @Buidhe: This likely means that your browser's width is significantly larger than mine. NoahTalk 10:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but featured articles should also follow the MOS for a variety of reasonable browser settings. buidhe 10:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Some articles won't have leads large enough to avoid "sandwiching" the infobox. I believe this article to be one of those cases because it isn't particularly large. NoahTalk 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by JavaHurricane[]

Doing. JavaHurricane 09:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Hurricannehink[]

Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Just changed the mention for the season. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed the lead to state when it became a TD and a TS. I removed that bit about the windwards. NoahTalk 21:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed and did a minor mod for the second. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Done.. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I would rather leave that in Dorian's preparations since there wasn't really a "track error" and large location changes here. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This shows that Dorian moved just east of the island. NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

All in all, a good read, well-researched, and well-cited. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else NoahTalk 22:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Support!Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84[]

Did a quick run-through. Reads nicely. Will return in a bit to finish. In the meantime, only one note below:

  • @Airborne84: Thanks! I have added your suggestion. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 21:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The good news is with that level of detail I don't have much left for you as far as comments for the article. Airborne84 (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Airborne84: I think I took care of the citation and all the dashes that needed to be addressed. NoahTalk 01:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't second-guess Buidhe on the images, but the sources look good and the prose reads well. I also like the records section that appears to be above and beyond that of other FAs of this type. Well done. Airborne84 (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: Should this be added to the urgents list to get another review? I know two usually isn't enough. I put in a request for a source review a while ago as well. NoahTalk 20:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas Phantom in UK service[]

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the use of the McDonnell-Douglas F-4 Phantom by both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Hammersfan (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Buidhe[]

More questionable sources:

Again, this is not an exhaustive list of the unreliable sources that have been cited in this article. buidhe 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Please let me know if there is anything further that needs to be dealt with.Hammersfan (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I hope you are well. Thanks for your efforts with the article. I have a few suggestions below (please note, I haven't gone line-by-line through the article yet): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Follow on comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Looks like in this pass some captions that are not complete sentences had periods added - should be full sentences only. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose A lot of work has gone into this but I believe there is a lot of work to do on two criteria which will take some time:

Edward Thomas Daniell[]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Reverend E.T. Daniell, a talented young English artist who travelled around Turkey and the Middle East during the 1840s, but who died suddenly of malaria when abroad. I am very fond his evocative etchings and watercolours of Norfolk and the Middle East! Amitchell125 (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Therapyisgood[]

Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
@Therapyisgood: Above suggestions completed. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from L150: Hi, I reviewed this at GA! Great work - I haven't gone through the article line-by-line but here are my comments so far. L150 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've moved the images around a bit as suggested, let me know what you think. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
No, not really. Sentences amended accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Sentence amended (and an error I spotted corrected). Amitchell125 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Down to three. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Support - I'm pleased to support this article. It does require someone with an art background to cast their eyes over it, but I think it is nearly there. Thanks. L150 11:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[]

I've copyed; revert anything you disagree with.

Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I have done a certain amount of rewording, but the Norwich School of painters was not the same as the Norwich Society of Artists. I may need to make that clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
What I was commenting on was the society -- you have The Norwich Society of Artists, which was founded in 1803...it was dissolved in 1833. in one paragraph, and The Norwich Society of Artists (1803–1833) in the next. Just cutting the parenthesis would probably do it. I was thinking the later mention could be moved up but I don't see an easy way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sentence amended, your version does sound better. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Not quite sure where Ireland crept in, so paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed: sentence removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Struck, but did you mean to drop those wikilinks? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Changed the sentence to help clarify it. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
That's better, but now I reread it I don't think we need the "how". Perhaps "Daniell taught Rigby etching, and she showed him her drawings; a private letter from her to Frederick Beecheno, written in 1891, revealed the warmth of the friendship she and her future husband Charles Lock Eastlake felt for him before their marriage"? This makes the first part of the sentence more direct; it's no longer apparent that the letter is the source for that part of the sentence but I don't think that's important -- the citation will tell the reader, if they are curious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Explanation provided. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, done the latter. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Used Hamilton to help get the phrasing right. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This looks very good, but I would be more comfortable supporting if one of our resident art experts took a look. You might try soliciting reviews from Ceoil, or Johnbod, or Iridescent, but anyone who knows fine arts (I know very little) would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Struck most points, a couple of minor issues left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Support, but I would like to see a review from someone with expertise in this area; I know Amitchell125 has asked Ceoil who would be an excellent choice. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Andreas Palaiologos[]

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about one of my favourite historical figures, Andreas Palaiologos, nephew of the last Byzantine emperor and "emperor"-in-exile from the 1480s to 1502. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Removed fixed px size for the Bessarion image. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't. I've removed the 100 years ago template; since the image is from a Greek-language source maybe it would be good to point out that the image would be in the public domain in Greece as well? Since the creator of the image is unknown/anonymous, Greek copyright law states that it's the date of publication (1904) + 70 years. The Greek public domain template was deleted in 2011 though so I can't add that (if there isn't some other way). Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
If there's no Greece-specific tag on Commons you can just use a generic PD tag like PD-because and add the explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, true. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Added US PD tags on all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added a source which presents the same borders. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine[]

Claiming my place here, glad to review this little gem... Constantine 19:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The article reads well and is quite comprehensive, the referencing is very good and includes, as far as I can tell, all the relevant scholarly works that deal with Andreas. From reading it, I couldn't immediately detect any significant omissions, so my comments will be on style and clarity:

Yeah, true. I've reworked this bit in the background to introduce the principality. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Added a link to Rhomaioi. I wonder what the popes made of his use of "Romeorum" and why Andreas went with "Romans" for his despot title and "Constantinople" for his imperial one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Added, and linked "Rhalles" to Raoul (Byzantine family). Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's an annual pension. Clarified. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit I had no idea what it meant either, so had to look it up. Your guess seems to be correct (link). Should this be clarified in some way in the text or is it fine? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Rephrased and fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to "Mikhailovich", added his principality and added interwiki link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that works better. Changed to "precarious". Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed last name used to Spandounes and linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Harris 1995, the sources used, states that the deeds were "recorded", so maybe he didn't literally write of his deeds. I've changed the entire thing to "For instance, Sixtus IV recorded his generosity towards the Palaiologoi in the frescoes of the Ospedale di Santo Spirito in Sassia", so the article now just mentions that the deeds were recorded. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Harris 1995 mentions that it was Runciman who said this, so just added that it was Runciman. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise an excellent piece of work. Will have a look in my library to see if I can find anything that can be added, and once the above have been taken care of, will be happy to support. Constantine 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I tried to incorporate everything I could find, but I only had access to what was online so I'd be happy to add anything if you find some missing info :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ichthyovenator, your changes look good. One suggestion would be to briefly mention that the Morea had been partially held by Venetian and local Greek/Albanian stradioti during the Ottoman-Venetian War, out of which Cladas' revolt grew. This is the reason Andreas could hope to find some support there: Ottoman power was still shaky in the peninsula. Otherwise I didn't find much, I still haven't had a look at my copy of Zakythinos though. Constantine 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that could absolutely be mentioned. What source should I use for this and where do you think it fits best? Early in the "attempted expion ..." section before Clada's introduction maybe? Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd say Setton, he has more than enough material on the Ottoman-Venetian war. Perhaps after " in the late summer of 1481, Andreas planned to organize an expion against the Ottomans." would be a good spot. Add "At the time, the Morea...." and explain why the moment was opportune. Constantine 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Right, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: I've posted a request at WP:REX for Zakythinos, as I can't seem to find the copy I had. Since this may take time, and since the article is fine as it is and my suggestions have been addressed, I move to support. Well done, once again! Constantine 20:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: since I got the chapter unexpectedly quickly, a few remarks: Zakythinos (p. 290) writes that Thomas called his sons over in spring 1465, which contradicts the statement that Thomas summoned the children to Rome shortly after that,[13] Andreas and his younger brother Manuel did not choose to rejoin their father until a few days before Thomas died in 1465. This actually makes sense, for how could an underage boy 'choose' not to heed his father's summons? Harris has copied most information that Zakythinos has to say, but there are a few details that are missing. I can add them over the next few days, if that's OK with you. Constantine 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Yes, that does make a lot more sense. Since I don't have the text (and don't know what publisher or OCLC/ISBN to put) you'd be more than welcome to add anything Zakythinos says that is currently missing, if you have the time! Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ichthyovenator: Done! Constantine 19:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Thank you very much for the additions! I guess that's everything we know of Andreas, then. He might not have been able to retake Constantinople or the Morea, but perhaps he can claim his place on Wikipedia's main page :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka[]

I also like the Palaiologi. :)

Consider adding a "Background" section. Few ors had information about 15th-century history. I think the short section should cover the Palaiologi and their European policy, the Despotate of Morea, the Venetian possessions in the Pelopponnese, the Ottoman expansion, the Church union and Bessarion. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added a background section. For the info on the European policy and the church union I just moved up some of the info on this that was already in the "Legacy" section, since this resulted in an awkwardly short "failure of Palaiologan policy" subsection, I had to restructure that a bit and removed the subsections there. I didn't bring up Bessarion in the background section since I felt that he was properly introduced without much confusion under "early life" but if you feel that something is missing there I could add more on him as well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Background

Thank you for adding the section.

Of course "once Byzantine" isn't wrong but yeah, I see what you mean. I've removed "once Byzantine" and added Anatolia. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed the second "control" to "authority". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That's true. Changed to emphasize religion rather than geography. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I see what you mean and I agree, it's difficult to find a good replacement, though. Something like "adherance to Christianity" or "Christian faith" wouldn't really work since the popes were well aware that the Byzantines were Christian.
Terms, like "lack of heresy" or "willingness to put an end to East-West Schism"?
Went with "lack of heresy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure this is directly relevant to Andreas and the rest but it doesn't hurt to mention it. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I wonder your sources mention that a Catholic prince, sponsored by the popes had any hope to achieve popular support in the Morea.
I don't think this was mentioned, no, but I think we can surmise that Andreas himself did not know a whole lot about the social dynamics and religious history of the Byzantines; he was raised in Rome and thus probably had a quite western perspective on the whole thing. If he had succeeded with any of the at least 4 attempts/schemes to get control of some land in Greece his religion and backing would likely be hindrances, yes, but it might have worked out fine either way; after all some of the Catholic domains founded in the Fourth Crusade lasted for centuries. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Early life

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Both done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to consistent "papacy". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to something close to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Financial troubles

Introduced it right after it's first mentioned in this section; I found it difficult to fit it into the background section in a non-awkward way. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a quite questionable claim. The sources don't say where he got the claim from and there were probably living Komnenoi descendants of the Trapezuntine emperors at this point. Maybe he just thought the Trapezuntine title was connected to the Constantinopolitan?
Did he actually have rights either to Constantinople or Trebizond? What about "claims"? Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Byzantines did not have formal succession laws, but by the time Andreas claimed to be the Emperor of Constantinople (1483) he absolutely was the most senior "heir" of Constantine XI, so the Constantinople claim/right checks out. The Palaiologoi did intermarry with the ruling family of Trebizond a bit, but none of Andreas's immediate ancestors were Trapezuntine. The closest thing I found was that Andreas's step-grandmother was Eudokia of Trebizond but that doesn't give him a claim since she wasn't his ancestor. Constantinople wasn't a fabrication, but he might just have made up the Trebizond claim to squeeze some more money out of people. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
My concern is that the text suggests Andreas had actual right to rule Trapezunt (and Serbia). Could I claim to sell my neighbors' house? I am Hungarian and they are also Hungarians, moreover we live in the same village, and one of them is a cousin of mine. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooooooh, yeah I wasn't reading this properly. I missed that it said "rights" even with you pointing it out. I've changed "rights" to "claims", which would be correct. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Could be, but I'm not sure. Andreas lived on the Campo Marzio whereas Sant'Andrea della Valle is in Sant'Eustachio, the districts are right next to each other so might still be possible, I don't know. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair point.

Attempted expion against the Ottomans

It's the longest section title so if there's something better I could change it, but I don't think it's wrong. It's an attempted expion and it's against the Ottomans. Do you have another suggestion? Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The 1481 expion attempt is the only one where Andreas himself was to lead the thing, yes, but he was involved in other stuff as well. Notable, his sale of the imperial title to Charles VIII of France in return for the promise of being granted the Morea is another attempt at organizing an expion to retake Constantinople and restore the empire, albeit not with himself as the leading figure. I've rephrased this a bit so that it's not only focused on expions as he was involved in other schemes of trying to secure Greek territory too. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Done for the first one at the same time as addressing the previous point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
They are mentioned in the previous subsection ("Manuel Palaiologos (not the same person as his brother), George Pagumenos, Michael Aristoboulos (all recorded as accompanying Andreas to Brindisi in 1481)"). I've added them here as well.
Changed to mercenaries; Clada was definitely a mercenary at this point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes. Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I believe what was referred to with this was the Ottomans failing to take Rhodes. Changed to "the major Christian realms of Western Europe were too disunited to join together and wage war on the Ottomans". Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The source used here, Harris 1995, just says that he became "involved in 1485 in a plot to seize Monemvasia from the Venetians". The source Harris uses for this statement is "ASV Consiglio dei Dieci, Misti reg. 22, f. 190v (orig. 154v)" but I can't find what that is supposed to be and it would probably be in Italian, which I can't read. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Travels and sale of the imperial title

Has to be, linked. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Don't hate the player hate the game 😎 Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No hate. He was like the Federal Reserve: created money ex nihilio. Joke.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Legacy and analysis

Again, arguably he inherited the right to Constantinople, but the rest of the titles seem to be made up, yes. I've changed "sell his inherited titles" to "sell his titular claims". He did sell his claims to Charles VIII, so wasn't just offering them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That little help ever arrived hasn't been stated previously in the article. I think the first sentence serves as a nice recap but I could remove/rephrase this bit if you feel it is necessary. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OK.

Lede

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This was added as per Airborne84's comments on the lede below. I've removed the stuff on his claiming of the despot title in the following paragraph instead, see if that works out well. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
OK.
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see why, but done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
We do not list actual childrens' names in lede. A list of the names of possible children is even less informative.

I finished my review. I had so far only read Runciman's remarks of him. Thank you for completing this nice and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for looking this over and reviewing! Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. You addressed all my concerns, so I am gladly support the article. I enjoyed reviewing it. Borsoka (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by Airborne84[]

Nice article. Reads well. Appreciate your work on this. Some notes below.

Restructered lede slightly and removed some things; it's now 4 paragraphs. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. The first paragraph appears a bit misaligned with MOS:BEGIN in that it jumps into temporal activities fairly quickly. I think the MOS is looking for a first lede paragraph more along the lines of Neferefre, before getting into the biography itself (although it could be longer in this article). It should be an easy adjustment, I think.
I see what you mean, but I'm struggling a bit with this. Everything apart from the first sentence could be pushed down to join with the second paragraph and work well there but then the article would start with a one-sentence paragraph. Going by the Neferefre example I suppose the first paragraph should mention the titles he was a pretender to and why, but I feel like some context is needed (which is provided in how it looks now). Open to suggestions if you have any. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The titles is what I was thinking. I think if you very briefly summarized the titles after the first sentence, as in he "held x and claimed y titles", or just state what title he actually had, the first para would then adhere with MOS:BEGIN by "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround [him]". Paragraph 2 would then provide the details. An alternative would be to combine paragraphs 1 and 2, although that might require trimming some material.
I've made an attempt. I split off the first sentence into its own thing and added more to it, combined most of paragraphs 1 and 2 and trimmed it a little bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
This works, thanks.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've created a background section per Borsoka's suggestion, with a map of the despotate's 1450 borders and some more context. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Nicely done. Only thing I wondered was whether you had a reason for the order in "Bulgaria, Serbia, Thessaly, Macedonia and central Greece" vs, say, alphabetical?
Also, you did fine at linking the sections together in the rest of the article to "tell a story". There is a rather abrupt transition between the end of this new section and the start of the bio. This wouldn't be easy for obvious reasons, but there are "scene setter" possibilities to smooth the transition. And, if properly done, it would impress readers—including FAC reviewers.... Something to consider only, not a requirement.
No reason for not using alphabetical, just put them in in a random order. Changed to alphabetical. I've changed it so that the first thing mentioned in the bio is Constantine XI's death at the Fall of Constantinople (since the last thing mentioned in the background is the Ottomans closing in on Constantinople), which might make for a smoother transition. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to find good conversion rates and whatnot but its nigh-impossible since the value of a ducat appears to have differed depending not only on time but also place. I've removed "although this seems a generous amount". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that Charles was considered a serious threat by the Ottomans, but yes, it has little to do with the rest of the paragraph. I've split it off into its own short one-sentence paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's doable. But if others object, you could also leave it at the end and just find a smoother transition to it.
Went with your suggestion
Yes, I meant a single primary source. Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Fixed I think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Canada lynx[]

Nominator(s): Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a North American cat that I came across when I was looking for information on lynxes, and I realized our article on it can be improved a lot. I was fascinated by its unique appearance and its strong correlation with snowshoe hare populations. So I began work on this article a few years back, and it has recently become a GA. After a thorough copy, I feel we can take this to the FA level. I hope you enjoy reading this, thanks! :) Sainsf (t · c) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Support by Enwebb[]

Note: I'll be claiming points for the WikiCup for this review

  • Done
  • I have revised this part a bit, it is not exactly a single study.. rather it is a collection of results from more than one. Seems there has been no recent research that one can get hold of even after a lot of searching, and the results stated here are mostly based on work in the 20th century. There seems to be nothing that opposes this theory.
  • Good point, but I am unable to find any information on that.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • fixed
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Canadian English. Seems a few inconsistencies had appeared since I last checked it, I have now corrected these instances and more using a script and added a template mentioning the type of English on the talk page. Sainsf (t · c) 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what's the script? Seems useful! Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll come back with more later today, just wanted to start a section. Also, would you consider adding a review to Horseshoe bat? Enwebb (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Thank you for your comments, I will address all of them soon. So far I have added the required citation, I missed it while I was rearranging things a bit in that section. I am not sure I can review articles at the moment but I will surely take a look at your FAC and may be a few others next week. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 15:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Enwebb: I have replied to all of your comments. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 10:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
This was very well written. I couldn't find anything besides my minor quibbles. Thanks for addressing so quickly. Enwebb (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Enwebb! Your comments showed me some errors I often make so I am not repeating those ever again :) Sainsf (t · c) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Why is it significant that the animal is in Payette's coat of arms? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I could not find any details of its cultural significance except for this only proper instance of its use as a symbol so I included it. Can remove it if it is that irrelevant though, or if we find better things to add. Sainsf (t · c) 21:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't think the fact that this is the only use of it as a symbol you could find, is a good indication that this is a use that should be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Right. I have removed this part. Sainsf (t · c) 09:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Casliber, Jimfbleak, and J Milburn: Pinging a few biology FAC reviewers as this has been inactive since 2 weeks, my apologies if any of you is busy. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do when I get a bit more time. It also seems archiving time is a bit slower now because of the pandemic, so I think they're a bit more lax. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Seems you've already racked up the necessary reviews, but I'll come back if it stalls! FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I've finished scheduling TFA now, so should be able to take a look early next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I can't promise anything I'm afraid, but best of luck with the review regardless! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[]

  • As the text preceding it says, it means the territories are formed such that individuals of the same sex avoid each other. Any suggestions to clarify this better?
  • To quote the source, "The second migration (M2) relocated a common ancestor to five felid lineages (ocelot, lynx, puma, leopard cat, and domestic cat) across the Bering land bridge to North America for the first time,8.5 to 8.0 Ma". I think it matches what is given here.
  • "3.24" is an approximation but the estimated interval is 2.53-4.74 mya, so I have replaced it with this time range now. That should include the rough estimate for the oldest species.
  • Oh this one could have been a real error. The source I used here included details of the Eurasian lynx too without specifying it, thanks for pointing it out. The rest of the sentence is accurate. Deleted.
  • No it's actually sloping, reworded
  • Changed to "a specimen from Alaska was reported to have bluish-gray fur"
  • Sorry, no clear info about those
  • Same side, added
  • They did not store the kills for later but could not finish all of it so some of it was wasted. This is stated in the line "Lynxes rarely cached their kills, unlike coyotes, and this may have led to incomplete consumption of some kills".
  • Fixed
  • Removed

Thank you for your time. I will get to these in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 12:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I have addressed all your points, could you take a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[]

Very comprehensive, so just a few niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I'd expect a paragraph division predators/diseases, so predator plus plague/other diseases looks odd
  • I have now changed this to disease/predator.
  • Do bears ever kill lynx?
  • Sorry, couldn't find sources clearly stating that
  • with the plague, I'd expect a link to Yersinia pestis and mention that it was acquired from infected prey
  • Done
  • There has been some discussion on this here [11]. I am not really sure why "Canada" is preferred over "Canadian", User:7&6=thirteen you can clarify this better (I really couldn't figure how to use the ping template for you, that "=" confused it I guess). Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Will respond to these soon. Sainsf (t · c) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it's the species name. ... 7&6=thirteen () 10:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Replied to all your points, mind taking a look? Cheers and stay safe! Sainsf (t · c) 09:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Changed to support above. I raised the bear issue only because it's a much larger predator, so it is certainly capable, and I know that in Europe bears negatively impact on lynx by competing for food Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Image review[]

Nb, I intend to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Duke and Duchess of Windsor's 1937 tour of Germany[]

Nominator(s): ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A bloody fool rather than an all-out Nazi, seems to be the consensus. Edward VIII, not me, that is :) Something rather different from me, this will hopefully complement our already-featured article on the King, which, of course, could not give due weight to this curious—verging on the bizarre*—episode of his career.

I look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions. Prost! ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

*Literally gatecrashing, for example, courtesy of their driver being plastered. ——Serial # 15:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Name change discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment on name change[]

  • Oppose until a stable NPOV title is found --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    The term "Nazi Germany" should be avoided if possible. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Why? It is the title of our article about that state, Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to bother Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany either. ——Serial # 19:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
For the same reason the main article is so named (WP:COMMONNAME), it is a slang term avoided by historians. Actually, the term "Ex-King of Britain" bothers me more; it is a poor description of the King-Emperor. I would prefer "Duke of Windsor", which is accurate, unique and concise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
There's currently a talk page discussion on the preferred name, Hawkeye7, where your input would be appreciated by all. ——Serial # 09:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
By my count, there are 15 books in the Nazi Germany#Bibliography section referring to the state as "Nazi Germany" in the title, so I would not say that the term is avoided by historians. But in any case, that discussion belongs to Talk:Nazi Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as current title discussion (including an appeal at WP:AN) indicates this does not have title stability yet. Hasteur (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
If the FAC coords are wondering why Hasteur—who has had an account since 2007, and yet has never reviewed a FAC before (or, for that matter, commented at WT:FAC)—has suddenly decided to pop up and oppose now, I draw your attention to the fact that the last interaction between us resulted in some embarassment for Hasteur. I had accepted a nomination at AfC, which he disapproved of (" I question your judgement with respect to this draft and suggest that you return it back to Draft space") and promptly nominated it for deletion. The community did not agree. It was closed (speedily) by an administrator, who stated that sanctions for disruption will be imposed if you make more nominations that are so grossly erroneous.
TL;DR: the word retaliatory springs to mind. ——Serial # 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for Assuming bad Faith SN54129... I am a or in good standing and not under any sanctions. I read the Administrators Noticeboard. Are you trying to imply that ors who don't have experience in a specific area of wikipedia are prohibited from participaiting in direct contravention of what you claimed/said/wrote in the other case. TLDR: Nice ABF you have there. Hasteur (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Uh-uh. TL;DR: you would not have cared otherwise. Your oppose does not help the project (or indeed you "good standing"), whereas closing and implementing the talk page discussion would have. That you chose the one coures and not the other speaks volumes. ——Serial # 17:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologise, Hasteur, it is as you say irrelevant how you got here, and my remarks were perhaps a little over the top and certainly over-personalized. Thanks for looking in, it's the more the merrier here usually. And usually much quieter... ——Serial # 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: I accept your apology. I was simply expressing my view in light of WP:FACR (paraphrased) A Featured article is stable: it is not subject to ongoing wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. The "abnormal" Request for closure piqued my interest. I didn't consider who was involved, simply looking at the topic and reading the "thesis" of the related Request raised enough concern for me that I did not consider the proposed featured article stable yet. Hasteur (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Hasteur. Any thoughts on this? The appeal to AN had the (eventual) result of moving the page back to its non-contentious original title, which, as it has now been arrived at by community consensus (rather than just my choice) would make impossible for any further move even should anyone want it. All the best, ——Serial # 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The article title appears to be stable. I think (possibly as part of the promotion to FA) that in light of the previous moves in addition to the charged nature of the page, we might want a preventative Move-Protect. Just spitballing, ideas to improve the article/wikipedia. My previous oppose is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Note for Coords and Bot ... I am making all the adjustments for the name change so the bot won't be foiled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Support form Wehwalt
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments by Wehwalt[]

  • On "British government", you pipe to National Government (1935–1937) The Windsor marriage and thus the visit was after Baldwin left office, which at least our article treats as the termination of the National Government.
Changed link to [[National Government (1937–1939).
  • "Windsor was a known admirer of all things German.[16]" Perhaps something could be said here about the heavy German influence in the royal family.
Excellent idea: added a footnote explaining the German roots of the family and the reasons for the new name.
  • "One of Windsor's own supporters, Chips Channon—Conservative MP for Southend West—commented in 1936 that the Duke "is going the dictator way, and is pro-German".[24][25]" This seems a bit duplicative of what was said earlier in the paragraph. I'd also omit the "own". Be careful of tone: there is no need to pound the point home that going to Nazi Germany on a visit such as this was a bad idea, it is today self-evident.
I swung this around and broke it up a bit, some of it going into the historiography section, for example.
  • Regarding studying industrial affairs, it might be mentioned that Windsor had at least the reputation of someone concerned with the problems of the working classes, "Something must be done".
Yes, fair point, again: classic quote the something must be done; apparently Balders tore him off a strip over it!
  • "men such as Bedaux" You haven't yet established who he is.
The source names Bedaux, but we don't need to; changed to "associates", which conveys the general lacklustre nature of his advice.
  • "Windsor was keen to restore his public image and standing," Isn't this similar to what you say at the end of the previous section, "This way, argues Adrian Philips, Windsor intended to rebuild himself a public position.[36]"
Tweaked it slightly, but I want to keep the sense that in the past, this is what he wanted to do, and was subsequently given the opportunity to do so.
  • Nazi Germany is not linked on first mention.
Done.
  • Le Meurice Probably does not need italics. Also, later, "Academy for Youth Leadership".
Done.
  • "The Windsors' hotel suite in the Le Meurice became the focus for its organising, and many different contacts and visitors visited. " What is "it" in "its organising"? The tour?
Indeed, I've reworded.
  • " In a telegram to the Foreign Office, the Duke stated[15]nIn accordance with the Duke of Windsor's message to the world press last June that he would release any information of interest regarding his plans or movements, His Royal Highness makes it known that he and the Duchess of Windsor are visiting Germany and the United States in the near future for the purpose of studying housing and working conditions in these two countries.[15]

— Edward, Duke of Windsor" You're saying who wrote it twice.

Of course, removed.
  • There should be spaces either side of ellipses.
I have literally never read that before1 Embarrassing, but Done.
  • "The first indication of this was on their arrival at Berlin's Friedrichstraße station on 11 October. The historian Susanna de Vries has described how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal" on their arrival;[51]" "on their arrival"/"on their arrival"
Lost the last arrival.
  • "German media set great store by the Windsors' visit, and the Duke responded with full Nazi salutes.[33] " He responded to stories (?) with Nazi salutes?
Yes, that's daft isn't it; you're right about over-egging the salutes, so I got rid of this mention and found some interesting thing wrt German perception of the duke.
  • "The journalist Andrew Morton suggest that the couple" Not sure if you were going for "suggests" or "suggested".
Suggests, as it goes.
  • "The Windsors dined with his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha on the 19th,[49][note 14] which was attended by over 100 guests including." "his cousin of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" may be too royal-speak. We are also waiting to hear who the guests included.
Inserted a duke of. I think there was more in between the two points which has got lost, but the source doesn't actually list any anyway.
  • "Prince Phillip von Hessen[23]" The spelling of Phillip seems at variance with our article on him.
I just went by the source.
  • "Their telephones were bugged by Prince Christoph of Hesse, on the orders of Reichsstatthalter Hermann Göring, for the duration of their visit;[50]" I'm not sure what "for the duration of their visit" adds.
True, removed.
  • the Nazi leadership was kept fully informed on events at every stage of the tour.[29]" I expect this is British English so should "was" be "were"?
Yeeeas...done.
  • "This made particularly easy, argues the modern historian John Vincent, as the German government were funding the visit.[50]" missing word in early part of sentence, you are inconsistent in capping "German Government".
Standardised.
  • "During the men's' discussion," I'd lose one of the apostrophes.
Done.
  • "The couple were repeatedly greeted with the Nazi salute;[29] the Duke reciprocated in kind, a number of times and which made him appear sympathetic to their views.[32] " Some awkwardness in sentence. I also note you've mentioned him making Nazi salutes before. If you are going to place such emphasis on this, you might want to footnote that this was hardly unheard of, for example the English football team in Berlin in 1938, nor greatly controversial at that moment.
Excellent point. I've reduced the number of times I mention the salutes to just this one, per weight, and added a footnote pointing out how common it was, incl. the football reference. Cheers.
  • "Lord Halifax" I would at least mention he was a cabinet minister.
And linked.
  • "captured by the allies" Should allies be capped/linked/both?
Both.
  • "Another interpreter present, Paul Schmidt, later described his memory of Hitler's and the Duke's meeting:[31]" You at least imply there was no interpreter present for the meeting between Hitler and Windsor. This bit comes as a surprise. And I don't see any need to have Schmidt sign the quote that follows.
Removed the sig; not sure how to get around the presence of the interpreter. Indeed, it struck me when I ws writing i that it seemed odd for them to need an interpreter; but Windsor would have spoken classical German I suppose, and Hitler probably the argot of Vienna (?) so maybe. On the other hand, he could have been there more as a witness or minute taker; but unfortunately, the source uses "interpreter".
  • "Gauleitung" this may confuse the reader, with no link.
Linked.
  • "Baldwin's government attempted to manage the public relations issues surrounding the visit, " Atop the greasy pole, for all the good it did him, was Chamberlain, by the time of the visit for some five months, I reckon.
Yep. Already changed that final photo but forgot about this mention!
  • Reactions, I would assume, should cover the reaction in the British press, surely. Did Chamberlain, or the FM (Eden) have anything to say?
I'm leaving that for now—will require researching.
That's it for now. Hopefully these can be cleared up. Interesting topic.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Always good to see you Wehwalt, and thanks for these suggestions, particularly maintaining NPOV etc, they've led to some interesting additions. Cheers! ——Serial # 18:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Holding off on a re-read until the opposers are happy or until you ping me again, since I imagine there will be changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Support I've made a number of minor changes. I would still suggest the following:
  • Consider moving the mention of Chamberlain up in the text, perhaps to where you mention Number Ten. He still seems an afterthought and the reader would be excused if they thought Baldwin was still PM.
  • You might mention that former Labour Party leader George Lansbury was among those who visited Hitler.
  • An enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for those extra thoughts, Wehwalt, they're useful. Lansbury especially, as it shows it wasn't just the nobs that went over :) and Chamberlain, well I forgot to point out that he became PM in May that year, so frankly Baldwin had nothing to do with it. Which makes it close on to being clarification of teh century! All the best, ——Serial # 17:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Moisejp
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments Support from Moisejp[]

Very interesting topic!

  • Be careful of consistency: First World War / Second World War vs. World War One vs. World War I. Moisejp (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that": Could I suggest "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that"? Otherwise I'm not sure that it's a complete sentence. Using "Although" in this way is okay in spoken English, but I'd argue it's not totally correct in written English. Moisejp (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, Moisejp thanks for this points, which I've addressed. You're definitely correct in the first and probably in the second :) if you can think of anything else that would improve the article, let me know! Cheers, ——Serial # 08:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Serial. I'll try continue this review soon. I was in part holding off until HJMitchell's issue was resolved, and I see now it has been. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Moisejp, apprecaite your coming back. I've addressed your suggestions—hopefully—often by the simple means of stealing your suggestions :) cheers, ——Serial # 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Lead: "disrupt the first year of George's reign": First mention of George, I think. Does he need more of an introduction? Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Good idea: I've added a sentence introducing him as King at the beginnig, which allows him to be called George now.
  • Royal and governmmental view: "The royal biographer Sarah Bradford suggests that not only the visit indicated that Windsor had no intention of retiring." Is "not only" correct here, or perhaps it's a leftover from a previous "not only...but also" construction? By itself it feels incomplete. Moisejp (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, and also caught by Harry Mitchell below.
  • "The Duke had a ("genuine", says Middlemas) sympathy[46] for the cause of improving working conditions." I'm torn but feel overall the extra value of "genuine" here may not be great enough to offset the extra resulting wordiness. How would the following be: "The Duke was sympathetic to the cause of improving working conditions: a few months earlier, for example, he had declared—in what the historian Michael Bloch calls a "celebrated remark"—that "something must be done" about unemployment." Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was a bit random, so have removed and tweaked per your suggestion.
  • 11–23 October 1937: "Ley and a welcoming delegation—which, although a private visit of a guest of the GLF, included von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer—met them on the platform." This sentence also feels slightly wordy to me, and I wonder whether the inclusion of "although a private visit of a guest of the GLF" adds enough to warrant the extra twists and turns. If it could be removed, then the sentence could be greatly simplified to something like "Ley and a welcoming delegation including von Ribbentrop and the Gauleiter of Berlin, Artur Görlitzer, met them on the platform." Moisejp (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Adopted your suggestion, cheers.
  • "Also waiting was Ogilvie-Forbes, who presented them with a letter informing them of the inability of the Embassy to provide them with services." / "This contrasted with their treatment by the UK resident in Berlin, Ogilvie-Forbes, notes Bloch. Forbes had been instructed not to receive the royal couple, give them rooms or in any other way assist them." These details feel possibly repetitive since they are in such close proximity with each other. If there's a way to merge them together, that could be nice, but if there's not, maybe it's okay.
No, you're right: I've merged the second mention into the first and moved the footnote up.

Moisejp (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "Horcher's, the finest gourmet restaurant in the city". Could be subjective? Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, it was :) but yeah, completely unencyclopedic, so removed.
Any thoughts Moisejp? There's no rush of course, but just a reminder that we're still going strong here :) ——Serial # 17:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I'll try to jump back in soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Footnote 10 (minor comment): I'm not sure what "In the event," is supposed to mean here, and whether it may be a turn of phrase I'm not familiar with. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Nothing's too minor, Moisejp. Thanks for that—yes, it was a bit colloquial I agree, so have removed it. Apologies if I was rushing you! Please, take all the time you want. ——Serial # 09:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Good work on the article. I'm ready to support now, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've given to review this, Moisejp, and am very grateful. Cheers! ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[]

Oppose. Tone is far too flowery for a neutral encyclopaedia article. I've only thoroughly read the lead but that read like an orial piece. For example, we have statements like it may be that he saw himself in the role of peacemaker, The government suspected, correctly,, the highlight of their tour, and lack of good advice he received rather than outright Nazi leanings in Wikipedia's voice. The last needs better attribution than "modern historians". As for the rest, it's not for Wikipedia to tell the reader how he may have seen himself, that the government was correct, or that the meeting with Hitler was the highlight; we just summarise the facts from the reliable sources and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Where the sources draw conclusions about things like motives, those should be included with in-text attribution. I'm not seeing so many problems further down the article, but I am seeing a lot of linking of commonly understood terms and Easter-egg links, and a lot of places where the prose could be tightened to better meet 1a. It's a fascinating bit of history and I'm glad to see it getting some attention but I think there's work to do yet before it's of FA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for this; a question though. Would you mind if I gave your review one-tenth of the attention I have given other reviewers, or would you consider that very rude of me indeed? ——Serial # 09:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't think it rude, but I would be more inclined to come back and offer a full review if I saw that you were noting and addressing my preliminary concerns. I tend to be thorough in reviewing a relatively small number of FACs rather than spending a little time across a lot of articles, so there would be little point in investing several hours in reading and reviewing if the nominator and I were not going to see eye to eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that dropping a bald oppose like that is the subtlest or surest way of ensuring we see eye-to-eye.
Having said that, your points undoubtedly have merit. So: I have gone through and removed (four?) overlinks (honeymoon, unemployment for ex.). There may well still be possible overlinking, and I'll discuss that happily, but I am averse to removing apparently obvious links that may not be so obvious outside of the Anglosphere.
Your concerns wrt to the contents of the lead are more tricky, not the least because this is all fully-sourced material (often direct quotation) from the article body. So d you think it needs citing? That would probably need a consensus, per CITELEAD.
I'm currently giving it another prose run, mostly looking at run-on sentences, etc.
All the best, ——Serial # 10:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Meh. Forgot to ping. ——Serial # 10:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think @HJ Mitchell:'s oppose was valid at the time, but since then the lead has been greatly improved. Thanks Harry for highlighting. I just gave a once over; my changes were mostly small stuff. Ceoil (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree, the lead is much better now and I've struck my oppose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
To follow up, one remaining thing; "had tea with Hitler" seems like trite - it was a formal and highly politicised occasion. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Difficult...the "Background" section establishes his changes of name/title. Having said that, a tweak in the order and calling him PoW might do it?
"Denied" is better. Ironically, with what's to come, it's seems out of lace here and seems better forwarded to a footnote.
Indeed, as also caught by Moisejp :)
Split in two and generally shortened.
Reduced down to two usages. What's your opinion on false titles? This accounts for my (monotonous) sentence structuring when it comes to quotes, opinions etc.
It's one quote (double quote marks) with a quote inside (single quotes)?
Personally, I'd say pretty emphatically, yes. Mainly because it's one of the few times we actually have an indication the sort of encounters they were having: he met all these important people—von R., Speer, Goebels, Hitler etc., but we rarely get a hint of what they discussed. But with Goering, funny story from Simpson.
For what it's worth, I could probably have mined other similar anecdotes from their autobiographies, but wanted to avoid using them as much as possible. Whereas this anecdote, although from the Duchess, comes straight from a RS.
Done.
Thanks, thought I'd caught em.
All things being equal, I totally agreed with this, and have done so!
Tricky...it's a load of people giving their opinions, which has to be directy attributed inline. Also, re. sentence structure, see my comment above wrt false titles...
Not if you say so. I was going by MOS:BLOCKQUOTE which suggests quotes of 40 words or more might be blocked off, but admittedly they were all pretty close to the edge (and indeed, in one case was a bout two short!)
No, gone.
See above for reasoning, but I've trimmed it so it's now moot and inline.
I'll be addressing this, obviously.
True; reduced to two, if I can count right.
I've reduced the number of quotes—particularly the short ones which can be rephrased—substantially. See above, again, re. false titles for the reasoning for the quotes' lead ins. Happy to be advised on other methods though obviously.

Very well-researched and put together, but more work is needed on the prose, I feel. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this thorough review, HJ Mitchell, appreciated. I've addressed most of your points, nearly always incorporating them, although, as I say, those that relate to footnotes require careful consideration. Cheers, ——Serial # 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Quick reply. I don't have a strong opinion on false titles. I tend to use them where the concision doesn't cause ambiguity but there are ways of avoiding them while still varying the sentence structure. If you've culled a dozen footnotes without any great loss I suspect more could go; war memorials don't really lend themselves to footnotes but if you look at some of my history articles (eg British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and my current project, Death of James Ashley) you'll see that I do make use of them, but for side details that would clutter up the prose. I'll have a look at the prose etc and the point-by-point on the footnotes in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Twelve footnotes, HJM—calm down, calm down :) anyway, I look forward, with pleasure, to implementing any actionable or quantifiable suggestions you might present. All the best, ——Serial # 14:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Footnotes[]

The elephant in the room, eh. The good news first: I've removed eight footnotes and cut 3,316 bytes from them, so what remains should be leaner and tighter.

Conversely, it seems that we have different—perhaps fundamental—philosophical approaches to the role and purpose of footnotes; maybe we write articles on very distant topics. Illustrating the difference in our respective approaches—the difference, not right or wrongness—I had a look at both our last ten FACs: over the course of yours, you have used four footnotes. Mine? About 210. That's multiple reviews in which multiple reviewers accept—if not agree—the use footnotes play in contextualising. I'll go to each one in this article shortly, but briefly, a footnote is useful for illustrating the relevance of the cited material without distracting the flow of the prose. For example, individuals (important ones only, of course): who are they and what have they done to be part of the story? Places: why (if at all) is something happening in a certain place relevant? Dates: does something integral to the story continues in its own, less relevant but yet related path? Most importantly, to provide context that presents alternative, relevant, interpretations which again would be distracting in the main body; to attempt to answer/fulfil obvious questions that may be thrown up to the reader—even Randy!—in the course of the narrative; and to clarify, and possibly resolve contradictions in the sources.

This is especially important in an article like this, in which it is impossible to avoid the overarching hypothesis of the duke and duchess' Nazi sympathies, but in which, when put in context, it becomes apparent that they were very much not alone. And this isn't an academic or ancient argument: he's still remembered for it today. These footnotes, by putting the event in the context of the time, are ensuring a difficult to achieve neutrality and one which would be harmed, I think, by their removal. Having said that, the extent to which I've trimmed them hopefully indicates the depth of consideration I've gave your suggestions, and in many cases, I went with them. But I'm afraid I couldn't accept—at face value—a stand-alone statement that x-amount of footnotes in a y-sized article is too much; all things being equal, everything should be considered on its merits.

Anyway, that's my stall HJ Mitchell, and I hope it isn't an offensive one to you. ——Serial # 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  1. Replies to the question: who had she married?
  2. The source in the text says he was acting against his Cor. oath: this points out that, actually, he never took one, so the reader is left to draw their own conclusions (presumably, off the record, that Cadbury is referring to the spirit rather than the letter of the oath).
  3. This in response to an above reviewer: for NPOV purposes, it emphasises that "Germanic sympathies" shouldn't be misinterpreted, as the family was still very German, culturally.
  4. Important to point out that these allegations are clearly fictive, but it would be out of place to say so in the lead.
  5. Answers the question, well when did she get a state tour?
  6. Contextualises King G's being "horrified", Europe being on an edge etc.
  7. Clarifies that there is an alternative interpretation of his intentions.
  8. Answers the question, how did his friends try and help?
  9. Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
  10. Explains who Bedaux was and why he is important to the story.
  11. Ditto, Weideman, and that he had a previous, if second-hand, link to the duke.
  12. Contextualises a conspiracy theory; viz. that the author is popular but unreliable professionally.
  13. Notes a pre-existent# link between Ley and Bedaux for the reader to consider.
  14. Explains why Hitler believed what he did.
  15. Answers the (rather obvious!) question, if he was called Edward why did his cousin call him David?
  16. Explains, briefly, why he was royal but she was not.
  17. Direct quote from a primary source illustrating the govt's position in detail, which would be too much for the text to bear.
  18. I'm finding it difficult to see, personally, how the opinion of Hitler's chief propagandist on the article's major protagonist is not relevant!
  19. Demonstrates the links between Windsor, his brother and their cousins. Again contextualises his thoughts as part of a broader canvas.
  20. Explains background.
  21. Expands upon Ley and provides context for historians—and the duchess'—opinions.
  22. As I suggested above, it would be out of place in the article to point out that, actually, what G. said came to pass very shortly.
  23. Again, this was suggested by another reviewer, pointing out that, actually, Hitler's Nazi salutes were not as unusual as we might think today. Everyone, including lowly beings as football players, did it. Essential NPoV context.
  24. You suggested moving this into the body: not a bad point, although the line about him spending most of his time there helps explain why they met him there rather than Berlin, say, which after all, was the centre of their tour.
  25. Contextualises Halifax's trip.
  26. Again, for NPOV reasons, contextualising the duke's opinions on the communist threat by noting how common it was within the British establishment.
  27. Background on why Bedaux—and, therefore, Windsor by association—was disliked in the states.
  28. Alternative interpretation, unnecessary in the body, for the US government's view.
  29. I don't think explaining why an island in the middle of nowhere was on the duchess' mind is unhelpful to the reader...
Did some more cutting along the way, as it goes, as having formulated my reasoning beforehand (above) focussed and my approach. Cheers, ——Serial # 18:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Moved the Ribbentrop reference into the body; notes on the sourcing should be separated unless issues with the sourcing are under discussion.
Moved.
You'll enjoy this: I've got rid, as it effectively repeats material already in the background.
Yeah why not.

Moved.

I still believe it Clarifies that the words quoted by the sources (most of them, in fact) are strictly wrong, but would be an unnecessary distraction to say so in the article itself. Also contextualises why this was an unpopular stance with his government.
Done.
Well, it was intended to show that he was a professional spy, rather than just on this one occasion. But, fair enough: removed.
Suggestions actioned. Re OS: it was a—pretty effective!—illustration of precisely why Higham is considered unreliable: but I agree it's unnecessarily lurid and tabloidy.
Moved 18 into body. Merged 19&20; also shortened the resultant note considerably.
H'mmm.
OK, removed the football stuff :)
Moved to the body. It doesn't sound a particularly wild claim—unofficial official meetings have rather a long tradition, particularly in diplomacy.

That's potentially another dozen or so footnotes that could go, which would bring the total down to about 17. Even that is more than I would have used had I been writing this article, but it's less overwhelming and keeps the article on-topic (criterion 4 of WP:FA?). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks HJ Mitchell, all useful suggestions and generally actioned. I think your suggested compromises—moving material into the article body—is a useful one that I'll certainly bear in mind for the future. I still believe them to be an essential weapon in the struggle for criterion 1b—neglect[ing] no major facts or details and plac[ing] the subject in context. ——Serial # 14:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Comment from Nick-D
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Drive by comment by Nick-D[]

I don't think that I'll review fully, but would note that "Even so, says Vickers, Hitler made the Windsors "travel a long way to see him",[25] as he was at his Bavarian retreat known as the Berghof" suggests that this historian was ill-informed. The Berghof was more than a "retreat", as Hitler more than a third of each year there, and foreign visits to it were a significant element of Nazi propaganda (see Bombing of Obersalzberg#Background). Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D. To clarify, "retreat" was my word, not the authors. And to be fair, I can see their point: Everywhere the article mentions the Windsors' as going—Berlin, Karinhall, Pomerania—are all in the far northwest. The furthest south they (seem to have) ever gone was Essen. And that's still >800 KM from the Berghof. Having said that, it's not particularly encyclopedic information anyway, so I've got rid of it. That also allows a couple of sentences to be shortened. Also, although I already mention Halifax and Lloyd George visiting Germany, your suggestion re. the number of guests he received at the Berghof is well-made, and I've added a bit highlighting that anyone who was anyone was probably seen there at some point. Thanks for the suggestions, much appreciated. ——Serial # 16:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Image review by Nikkimaria
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Image review[]

  • File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg needs a more extensive FUR, and would suggest using a different fair-use tag
  • File:Oscar_Nathaniel_Solbert.jpg: the UK tag requires that the image include details of research done into authorship, and what's the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Neville_Chamberlain.jpg
  • File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not getting on to the images sooner, Nikkimaria, I had my hands ful somewhat :) Right. Here we go.
  1. File:Duke and Duchess of Windsor meet Adolf Hitler 1937.jpg: stronger FUR applied ([13]), but not sure what other fair use tags there are?
  1. The "unique historic image" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just the event depicted, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. You could replace it with a generic {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. [NEW] File:Vincenzo Laviosa - Duke and Duchess of Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg: PD CoO/US.
  1. When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Created "About 1934"; no word on publishing date (if there is one, of course). If that takes this out of the running, this one seems to have been released under a CC licence?
Would need a more specific copyright tag on this one. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I swapped it out for the Yugoslav one? ——Serial # 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes - this one has a Flickr tag which states "Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined". Can such information be determined? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. [NEW] File:Stanley Baldwin ggbain.35233.jpg: PD-US
  2. [NEW] File:Oscar Nathaniel Solbert.jpg: Tricky one. Research indicates that the original was made under the auspices of Bassano Ltd. They merged with Elliott and Fry in 1965. According to the NPR, The National Portrait Gallery owns all the surviving negatives (But then, I guess they would say that, wouldn't they?). A further cause for concern is that it was uploaded by a serial copyright violator on en.wp, Elisa.rolle, who has been blocked several times as a result. That makes me extremely wary of accepting anything at face value. Frankly, unless you think that what I've done adheres sufficiently to the {{PD-UK-unknown}} research requirement, I'd willingly pull it.
Done.
  1. Think this ought to be removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. Swapped for File:Charles Bedaux.png.
The uploader of the source image for that one has had multiple images deleted for copyright concerns...

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

:D Right, nominated t for deletion too. Have removed but not replaced.
  1. File:Duc et duchesse de Windsor avec Hitler (1937).jpg: PD in France; is there anything we can do to use this?
  1. When did it enter the public domain in France? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
14 November 1937?
It was published on that date - I'm asking when the copyright expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Ooops, 2012.
Okay, so the five-point test would suggest that it's still under copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. File:Neville Chamberlain.jpg: Chamberlain seems to have no free images at all, almost. Bizarre. can I use this, would you say?
  1. Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Appreciate any advice you could give Nikkimaria, and apologies, again, for keeping you waiting. ——Serial # 14:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this Nikkimaria, I've made a few changes. ——Serial # 15:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And again, NM...sorry about the repeated pings. Slow but sure wins the race! (Hopefully) ——Serial # 16:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks very much! ——Serial # 17:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: For some reason I thought I'd resolved this, but now I look at it I think not. Could we approach it a different way—you tell me which images are incorrectly licenced, and I'll remove them. Much simpler :) ——Serial # 16:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Duc_et_duchesse_de_Windsor_avec_Hitler_(1937).jpg. File:King_Edward_VIII_and_Mrs_Simpson_on_holiday_in_Yugoslavia,_1936.jpg should have a more specific tag. File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg is not incorrectly licensed but the FUR needs work - what's currently in the purpose of use parameter would be better suited to the replaceable parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Nikkimaria. Got rid of those first two: neither were under a CC license that I could find, indeed the latter is under some wierd "The Commmons" thing (slightly misleading title!) in which they palm-off "no known c/r restrictions" as a thing. The last one, I've adjusted the FUR as you suggest. What think ye? (Possibly the last time I have to ping you...) ——Serial # 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Dudley
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comments by Dudley[]

  • I suggest using full face portraits of both of them.
Excellent idea, should've thought of that. I've used this one of them together from just a couple of years earlier.
  • "Having abdicated the British throne in December 1936, his brother Albert has taken the throne as King George VI." This sounds clumsy. Maybe "He abdicated the British throne in December 1936, and his brother Albert became king as King George VI."
Used that, thanks!
  • "Modern historians tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of the Duke's lack of judgement and good counsel, rather than sympathy with the Nazi regime." But he was getting good counsel from the govt and allies such as Churchill and Beaverbrook, and he chose not to listen to them. In the historiography section you quote one historian acquitting him of Nazi sympthies and one condemning him for them. This does not seem like a consensus.
I deliberately avoided suggesting there was a consensus, I hope (note, tend to...), but it's a fair point about counsel: I've gone for "...tend to consider the 1937 tour as a reflection of both the Duke's lack of judgement and disregard for the advice he received"?
  • "Even had Simpson converted to Anglicanism, both her previous husbands were still alive." This seems like a non-sequitur, as you have not said that her religion was an issue, or what it was.
Fair point; I can't even remember why it's important if indeed it is. So removed it and recast the sentence.
  • "Windsor's great-grandmother was the daughter of a German princess". His great-grandfather was German.
That's absolutely true of course, and I admit my original sentence might have looked a little forced: but that was because the source wrt the family's Germanity was Propopoulos, and he only mentions Victoria. But, via a different source, I've added Albert (which pf course conveniently emphasises their German-roots even more!)
  • You are inconsistent whether to capitalise "king". I think it is correct to capitalise when it is short for George VI, but not in "believing that, as King, Windsor would have strengthened Anglo-German relations".
Check.
  • "However, royal biographer Frances Donaldson notes that "in his farewell broadcast Edward had said: 'I now quit altogether public affairs', but almost in the next sentence: 'If at any time in the future I can be found of service to His Majesty in a private station, I shall not fail.'" I am not clear what point you are making here. He said that he would always serve his majesty but then undertook the tour against George's opposition, so why the "however"?
There was a reason, I think there had been a later "although" which has since been lost. Anyway, well caught: removed.
  • "However well-intentioned, says Bloch". You should give his full name and link on first mention.
Done.
  • "Bedaux has been described by Bloch as an "enigmatic time and motion tycoon".[15] John Vincent suggests that Bedaux planned" Why the past tense in the first case and present in the second?
Yes, thanks; I intended all modern opinion to be in the present and those of contemporaries in the past. Have adjusted a few more occurrences (also answering your point below, there!).
  • "This led him to suggest that the Duke should "head up and consolidate the many and varied peace movements throughout the world"." Suggested to who?
Clarified it was to the duke.
  • "although says that at that stage, ot was still only" Typo for "it"?
Absolutely, cheers.
  • "The author Hugo Vickers has suggested that Edward" In this and other cases you are inconsistent whether to use past or present case when quoting historians. I also do not see how it helps the reader to describe someone as an author - everyone you quote must be an author!
See above for tense. True re. author; have changed to biographer and journalist.
  • "However well-intentioned, says Bloch" Does Bloch think that the tour was well intentioned? Is that the opinion of other historians?
No, not really; he implies that it was done for the best of reasons (i.e. the working class, etc), but I admit it's a bit of a reach to draw any personal intentions from that.
  • "Deborah Cadbury suggests that it was at a 1936 dinner that Hitler may have first learned of King Edward VIII's sympathies." In the lead you say that he did not have Nazi sympathies. Do not comments like this belong in historiography rather than only quoting historians who acquit him?
I'm tempted: although it seems slightly too detailed for a general overview of his politics to mention a specific occasion. I've adjusted the lead to mention his pro-German sympathies, but I think it's important to emphasise that being pro-German (which he was: while on the tour, he regularly, reports one RS, "slipped into his mother tongue, German", for example) did not necessarily equate to being pro-Nazi (which is really unknown, although I suspect that, if there is any kind of historiographical consensus, it's that he was the former rather than the latter (notwithstanding that, like others, his fear of communism outweighed his dislike of Hitler)). If you think the Histogy section is too slanted towards "letting him off the hook", then I can probably find some more negatively-inclined press (I added Russian reactions to the "Reactions" section, and were pretty clear in their belief that his entire bloody family were Nazis!!)
Appreciate you looking in here, Dudley Miles: I've implemented most of your suggestions (although apologies for my ?turgid? replies!) ——Serial # 14:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Serial Number 54129 as other reviewers are active at present, I will hold off in order to avoid duplicating their comments. Perhaps you could ping me when these other reviewers have finished. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: well, things seem to have calmed down: Harry hasn't ed for a couple of days, but hopefully will look back in. Thanks for what you've done so far, in any case. ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the period, but I am concerned at the very different view of Edward's attitudes in this article compared with the FA article on him and the DNB one. You say "The Duke had been sympathetic to Germany since he was a youth, on account of his family's German origins" and quote an "RS" above (but not in the article) as saying his mother tongue was German. This is not correct. The other articles say he was taught German and French by a tutor and say nothing about his German origin or being pro-German. The DNB article says that he was desperate for a foreign tour, supported a negotiated peace with Germany and refers to his "non-political naïvety". I think you at least make clear that the idea that he was influenced by his origin to be pro-German is one view, not an undisputed fact. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
H'mmm. I read our FA, DM, and, notwithstanding that WP:OSE, I'm not surprised they differ. Frankly, I'm glad they do. That passed FAC over a decade ago—when this passed as one—it's full of unsourced material, and is pretty lightweight in its coverage of his early years. So it's not surprisng, I venture, that this article focusses on his "Germanness" more than that: here, it is integral to the context of the article, whereas there it is one of just many personality traits.
Having said that, I agree that we can't be sure, with historical hindsight, what his personal views were, especially as a "youth", and that since his own "Germanness"—such as it may have been—is only touched on in a footnote in the body, while his German tutor, etc., is mentioned inline. That makes mention of his supposed-Germanness undue in the lead, so i've tweaked it to say merely he was sympathetic in this period. What think you, Dudley Miles? ——Serial # 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I have just noticed another issue, which is that the article cites books without page numbers. The issue was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive80#When are page numbers needed.... I do not see how citations of electronic books without page numbers can be acceptable as it is impossible for readers to check them, even if they have access to the source. Ealdgyth have you come across this issue in your source reviews? What is your view? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Messed up ping to Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That would've come up in the source review anyway Dudley Miles. I looked for a policy on it, with no joy. Unfortunately, that discussion doesn't seem to have established a firm consensus; and while page numbers for a printed book are essential per WP:V., an electronic source can be accessed via the ctrl + f function I guess. ——Serial # 18:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers. Using ctrl+f assumes that 1. the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. 2. that you have used the same words in the article as in the book 2. that the words are uncommon enough that they do not give many hits. Trying again to ping Ealdgyth. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Butting in re e-books; I normally use the chapter title; I think that's about as close you can get, and seems absolutely fine. E books do not have page numbers, but are still absolutely RS under the normal conditions. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
That is fine with books which have short chapters, but some have chapters with 30+ pages. Looking at online discussions, there are students with e-books complaining that when lecturers ask them to comment on pages in a book, they cannot find what they are supposed to be writing about. E-books are OK for reading, but they are not suitable for referring readers to specific comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of references is to verify the claims in an article. If the particular format makes it tedious to do this, then that hardly makes the material used any less valuable. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to experiment with the |loc= parameter, which seems the closest we currently have for addressing this issue. I urge the FAC community to grasp the mettle on this and codify a guideline to operate under. Until that happens—with all respect to everyone here—whatever we (I) do now will be what someone likes / doesn't like, which will satisfy few and annoy most... ——Serial # 10:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, {{Cite ebook}} has obviously been considered for service in the past, although it's only ever redirected to {{Cite book}}. Time to change that perhaps. ——Serial # 10:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: With regard to "WP:V does not allow an exception for e-books from the requirement to provide page numbers", it should be clarified that WP:V actually makes no such requirement; the relevant section specifically allows for non-paginated in-source locations: Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). ——Serial # 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Ceoil: who might also find this useful :) ——Serial # 11:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
True, I did not read it carefully enough. However, the reference to "sections" covers divisions of web pages. It does not appear to cover ebooks, which do not comply with the requirement to cite sources "precisely", even if chapters are specified, except in books with very short chapters. Many books have chapters with over 30 pages, and some are very long. Michael Lapidge's Anglo-Saxon Literature 900-1066 has a chapter of 52 pages, Simon Keynes in Kings, Currency and Alliances has one of 47 pages and Alfred Smyth's King Alfred the Great has one of 72 pages. In such cases, chapters are not "such divisions as may be appropriate", and are no better than uncited statements for readers with paper copies of books. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: If you're suggesting an RfC, I'd fully support clarifying the FAC (and, for that matter, GA and PR too since it affects them) approach to e-sources. ——Serial # 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
(taking off coord hat here, just as a plain reviewer) I'd say that the current footnotes to entire ebooks are not enough for verifiablity. Using the loc parameter should be good enough, although whether it works with sfn is an open question. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I cannot find loc= in Template:Cite book. What is it for? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
See §3.5.6. ——Serial # 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah I have worked it out now. In sfn you can use loc=, in cite book it is quote=
Continuing on from my comments above, loc= in sfn or quote= in cite book can be used with a quote to allow another ebook reader to find the correct location of the citation with ctrl-f, but it is no use to someone who has the paper book. Similarly page= is no use to someone who has the ebook. I think we have to face up to the fact that there are now two separate classes of readers, e-book readers and paper book readers, and the citation formats of each class are no use to the other class. I am thinking of starting an RfC proposing that there should be two classes of FA, Standard FA and E-book FA. Ditto for GA. (E-book FAs and GAs could still use citations with pages for books not available as e-books.) This is the only way to prevent disputes over whether sourcing is acceptable. WP:V would need to be revised, as it seems to me to currently rule out citations to e-books. Any comments Serial Number 54129, Ceoil, Ealdgyth? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent idea Dudley Miles, and as I said above, I'd support anything that clarifies the current—opaque, to say the least!—situation. The brutal fact is that the issue is going to become more frequent as time passes; give it a few years and dead-tree books could be confined to university and deposit libraries, who knows. But certainly, e-books are here to stay, and we have to acknowledge that and find a way of working with them. The current situation—that a reliable source would fail a FAC because of its format is a frankly bizarre one: but I judge you right in your reading of the letter of the law. If you go ahead with an RfC, or know when one runs, I'd appreciate a ping!
Incidentally, I've cited the e-books in this particular candidate as requested, by means of chapter/paragraph. All the best! ——Serial # 17:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: No rush, of course :) but did you have any further views? (On RfCs generally or this article particularly!) ——Serial # 12:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
1. Ha. I will quote you Meryl Halls, managing director of the Booksellers’ Association at [14]: "I think the e-book bubble has burst somewhat, sales are flattening off, I think the physical object is very appealing." In addition, it is very unlikely that it will ever be economic to produce e-book versions of the great mass of older books with limited sales.
2. Adding the paragraph number goes a long way to solving the problem, but I think very few people will understand the symbol you use, and accurately counting paragraphs up to 50, or even more with long chapters, will be a pain. How about also using the loc= field to give the first few words of the paragraph to make it easier to tie down the correct one, and also explaining your system in note 1. Readers of real books should then be able to find the correct paragraph without too much difficulty.
3. I do not think it will then be necessary to take the issue as I suggested above to RfC, but if you agree that the system in the previous paragraph solves the problem then it might be worth recommending it at RfC.
4. Re n. 56 Unknown ODNB author 2004. Previous versions were by Philip Ziegler and his name was probably omitted in error. I suggest emailing DNB about it.
5. I am not sure you need any more input from me as you already have 3 supports, but I will look at the article again if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
1. I hope she's right! Still, they'll certainly remain with us, so I wonder how many times we'll (not us personally, but you know) be having this discussion in future :)
2. Thank you. I've added a explanatory guide to the references. I agree it's backbreaking work to count paragraphs—it took me most of yesterday to do so. You might be right about using the first words in the loc field: I'm not wholly convinced though, mainly as I see an opportunity for confusing, rather than aiding the reader, who would, after all, still have to check the opening words of every paragraph to find the one they were looking for. I might return to the question in the (not so distant) future and undertake the project, but it would be far too disruptive to do so now. Interesting though.
  • I did not make myself clear. I think that a paragraph number would be very helpful, but with a large number it would be very easy for the reader to miscount. Having the start of the paragraph as well as the paragraph number would make it easy for the reader to confirm that he/she is at the right place by just checking that the paragraph found by counting starts with the correct words. Quoting the first few words of the paragraph will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs. There would also be a need to allow for cases where the ref is to several paragraphs. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
will also allow an e-book reader to go straight to the correct place without the bother of counting paragraphs, although, as you said previously, Using ctrl+f assumes that...the reader has an e-reader and the electronic version of the book. Anyway, thanks for looking in, DM, your reviews are appreciated as always; I think we're all done here. Cheers, and stay safe! ——Serial # 09:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
3. No, but as I said, I'm sure this is going to keep occurring, particularly in more "popular culture"-orientated nominations, perhaps. (In fact, I'm surprised it hasn't already—I'll look into that, see how it's been addressed in other noms (if it has been, of course)). You might be right, though, an RfC might be OTT if there's already an established procedure.
4. Ah, it's tempting the to assume Zeigler it is then. Annoyingly it's not listed under his contributions, either. Funnily enough, I emailed them when I wrote the thing to ask them—of course, they never replied. It's hard to imagine they are that inundated with messages! I'll give em another go, or a tweet from a twit perhaps :)
5. Ah! Well, all things being equal, I'd like consensus to be as clear as possible...our coords are overworked as it is :) would you mind looking it over once again? Pace of course, to our discussion above. Cheers Dudley Miles, all the best to ye. ——Serial # 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Further comments[]
  • "The historian Jonathan Petropoulos hypothesises that the British government were aware that they could not prevent what was, officially, a visit by a private individual." "hypothesises" is an odd word here. OED defines it as "To frame a hypothesis or supposition", which seems very theoretical for something the govt must have known.
He suggests, would be better.
  • "The scholar Susanna de Vries describes how the Duchess "covered in jewels ... did her best to look suitably royal".[89] Cadbury also says the Duchess—dressed in royal blue—appeared regal to their welcoming party." Why "also"? You have not quoted Cadbury before in this context. And you do not need to repeat "the Duchess".

I cut mention of Cadbury and merged/shortened the two sentences.

  • "They were greeted by Ley, who kissed her hand and called her "Your Highness"[91][note 15] and presented her with a large box of chocolates." "and...and"
"who kissed her hand, called her "Your Highness" and presented her with a large box of chocolates", better?
  • You say what happened outside the station, then what happened on the platform. This seems the wrong way round.
Good point, so moved Ley and his atmosphere to the next section.
  • "He was seen, says the journalist Andrew Morton, as Modern, progressive, vigorous, and accessible. Even his mock Cockney accent with a touch of American seemed more down-to-earth and unaffected than the disdainful patrician tones of a man like Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. He remained an intriguing international celebrity, his marital turmoil only enhancing the iconic mystery surrounding the man." This seems to be about the international view, but in the context "He was seen" refers only to the German view.
I've kept the bit about German media liking him here, but moved the comment re. cockneyness, etc., to the background section where it acts more like an overview of the man. Thoughts?
  • "heavy program" Presumably this is an Americanisation of the spelling of "Programme" in a British newspaper.
Indeed! And although I wouldn't usually alter a quote, I've taken the liberty of doing so, as elsewhere Boyd (or their or) has Lloyd George, I think, "saying" "color".
  • "Pathé caught the moment they emerged from the station..." This appears to be about their arrival in Germany. Should it not in the correct place in the article?
Yes, moved to the preceding section.
  • "historicist". OED define this as a believer in historicism!
Oops, Freudian slip :) he was a researcher, at least.
  • You say that Ogilvie-Forbes met them on the platform, but in the letter you reproduce he says it was at the hotel.
Yes, good point, and one I'm not sure what to do about: the sources say he was at the station (although apart from the German delegation, obviously). I wonder if he attended as a personal favour/out of respect to the duke, and then made an official visit to the hotel?
  • "press on with his policy towards the east" This seems euphemistic. How about something like "territorial expansion into Central and Eastern Europe"?
Yes, done.
  • "where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel, where the Duke received" where...where
"where they stayed at the Vier Jahreszeiten Hotel; the Duke received a number of personal guests."
  • NSDAP. What does this mean?
  • "In these aspirations, the Duke was in the company of a large swathe of the British ruling class: apart from Lloyd George and Lord Halifax". "apart from" is ambiguous. Presumably you mean "as well as"?
Yes, bizarrely that reads as if LG and Halifax hadn't visited!
  • "Another wrote that" Who?
Unknown correspondent stated.
  • "Roosevelt wrote to Windsor expressing hope that the tour would eventually go ahead, but Morton believes this a "conciliatory" gesture from the President." I take it you are saying that Roosevelt was disingenuous? You could be clearer.
Tweaked.
  • This is a good article, but I am still concerned about the emphasis on his Germanness. I raised this before and you replied that the WIki article on him is unreliable, but I also cited DNB and you did not reply on this. You say "Windsor was an admirer of Germany. This was as least in part due to his upbringing, suggests King, noting that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native, and the walls of the royal residences of England were lined with portraits of his Hanoverian ancestors"." DNB does not mention a German heritage and says "However, from other teachers David learned French and German (and later he also became a fluent Spanish speaker)." This is an authoratative source, but I cannot find any evidence that King is. I cannot trace any reviews of the book and I have never heard of Kensington Publishing. Do you have evidence that King is a reliable source? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
To avoid being misquoted, and in the interests of precision, I'd like to emphasise that neither I nor (I hope!) the article mentions his "Germanness". I don't think he was German, and we're definitely not trying to say that; what he had was German heritage through his family background, and I don't think any source disputes that.
The Edward VIII article is, strictly, not reliable anyway per WP:WINRS; but especially so as, coincidentally, it was nominated to have its FA-status reviewed at the same time. It's true that ODNB doesn't emphasise his heritage, although I note it mentions him having relatives in Germany.
As for King, well, it's this chap (crummy article though), and Kensington Publishing has an article here which lists various—in wiki-terms—notable authors. I don't see anything to set off alarums; King isn't making—or being used to support—any particularly radical claims: although I'm always happy to tweak the language if you think it will help. Cheers, Dudley Miles! ——Serial # 07:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
1. There is nothing in the King article which shows that he is a reliable source. 2. The article on Kensington Books lists mainly romantic and horror novelists, plus Gerina Dunwich, who is described as "a professional astrologer, occult historian, and New Age author, best known for her books on Wicca and various occult subjects". It is not an academic publisher. 3. It should be possible to find reviews of a reputable biography. I cannot find any of King's book. 4. DNB says that Edward was taught German by a tutor. You quote KIng saying that Germany was "the country of [Edward's] heritage; his mother had raised him to speak the language as fluently as a native". This is a radical claim and is disproved by your article, which states that Schmidt was the translator at the meeting between Hitler and Edward and Forwood accused him of mistranslating. This shows that Edward was not fluent in German and King is not an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dudley Miles, I swapped out that quote from King, but luckily have reliable sources for e.g his fluency in German (not shown by Paul Schmidt's presence at the Berghof, and now clarified in the text) and his ancestry. No-one has anything to complain of now, unless they bought a Charles and Di teatowel in 1981 :D ——Serial # 14:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Ha ha, Dudley Miles, I found another source, this one explains your question above re. the diplomat meeting them at the station and Pgivie-Forbes visiting his hotel: the former was only (deliberately) a Third Secretary, reflecting their understating of the visit. Good news! ——Serial # 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks fine now, apart from the citations of King. I think you should delete him from the sources and find other refs where he is cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: yeah, I have done now so: everything was more or less sourceable from scholarly texts, except for one sentence I removed completely. ——Serial # 18:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Cheers Dudley Miles, we got there in the end :) thanks as ever for the in-depth review...and almost the source review! ——Serial # 18:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Ceoil
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support by Ceoil[]

Have been following this almost by since the nom, and I hope helping with the ce. The visit is fascinating, obv for all the wrong reasons; my god the wrongheadedness and hubris. The page brings all this out excellently, well done to the nominator. It is now at a point where I can support, though I see it is continually improving from the feedback above. Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Very kind, Ceoil, and I hope you know I appreciate your copy s—you always leaver the place better than you found it. Take care of yourself! ——Serial # 12:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Support from Airborne84
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support by Airborne84[]

Comments coming. Airborne84 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I can tell a lot of work went into this. Comprehensive. Sources look good. Thanks for your efforts. Comments below.

  • Could you briefly introduce Robert Ley in the lede? E.g., "the couple were chaperoned by Robert Ley (2-3 word intro)". The name without intro gave me pause as I tried to figure out who he was.
I recast this, to read The Duke and Duchess were officially invited to the country by the German Labour Front, and were chaperoned for much of their visit by its leader, Robert Ley; better?
Better, thanks.
  • "Ley's behaviour was reported to Hitler". By whom? If it's known who did it, this would be welcome info, I think, for the average reader. I found myself wondering who it was. If it's not in the sources, OK.
Unfortunately, it isn't, but I found another sure which provides an eyewitness account of the gatecrashing and have swapped out that sentence. A quote from Sopple: still doesn't say who grassed on Ley, but mentions Göring, etc.
No problem. This works fine as well.
  • "The tour may have given rise to later suspicions that, on in the case of a successful outcome to Operation Sea Lion—a German invasion of Britain—the Duke would be appointed a puppet king." There's a grammar problem in there somewhere. Is the word "on" extraneous?
Indeed! Gone.
  • "Vickers, similarly, suggests that episode such as the tour have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi:" This passage needs a slight copy.
It was pretty bad that. How about that while the tour may have helped fuel the theory that the Duke was a Nazi...?
Much better, thanks.
  • In your sources, I think this one is missing a "W": "indsor, Duke of: From Mr. Ogilvie-Forbes (to Mr. Harvey)".
Well spotted!
  • Also in the sources, English-language titles of works are rendered in title case, so "Wallis Simpson, the Nazi minister, the telltale monk and an FBI plot" and similar should be adjusted.
I've changed that; I couldn't see any others, but if I've missed any, could you let me know? I don't think so, but.
The only other one I saw (Unknown ODNB author) doesn't appear to fall under the listed WP:MOS works for title case, so I think you're good.
  • What makes the Context section near the end different than the Background section at the beginning? I.e., why couldn’t the Context material be combined with the Background? I'm not saying it needs to be, I'm just wondering about the rationale. The context section actually addressed another of my questions about the German background, since there was some passing German context in there (as well as throughout the article). Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent point: I don't know. And because I don't know, and no-one else has noticed, I've moved it into its own "Political context" section of the background. How does that look?
Very nice. The background is comprehensive and sets the stage well for the reader. This actually solved another concern of mine that I won't bring up now. Something else to consider would be to swap the last two subsections in the Background section. Then, that section would start broad, narrow a bit to Political context, narrow a bit more to the British Royal and govt. view, and then narrow still more to the Windsor's views. You'd have to study it a bit more than I did to see if that would work well—my initial look at how the transitions would work within the section and to the next section seemed like it might work fine. However, to be clear, my support does not rest on you making this change. Just something to consider. Airborne84 (talk) 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a good idea, Airborne84, taking the reader from the general to the particular: I've done that. Appreciate the support :) All the best. "See" you soon! ——Serial # 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much for flying in, Airborne84 :) let me know if I've addressed your points satisfactorily. I've noticed your low-level copying, by the way—much appreciated! "Many hands make light work", as they say :) ——Serial # 07:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Source review by Buidhe
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Source review—pass[]

  • Unknown ODNB author — this is not the best way to format it imo. I would omit the author and use |ref=CITEREFODNBdate, or alternately |author=ODNB (which would match TNA)
Done.
  • Center of the Web—as this is an ed collection (apparently ed by George Constable [15]) you need to cite the chapter and the author of that chapter.
Negative ed collection. It's available at Archive.org (you shouldn't need an account for such an early page as this); the authors are "the Editors of Time-Life Books"; George Constable is the big-time or of the entire thing (over the Exec-Editor even) (or possibly a general consultant, according to our article), and apart from them, an entire page of ors and consultants. I doubt there's room on the template...
Hmm, you're right.
  • Primary sources appear to be used minimally and appropriately. (Although Speer was so mendacious I would have probably just left him out).
You know dat. I had to go and wash my hands afterwards. But he was following on neatly from the other nazi views. Having said that, I've found a RS that bacs the quote up independently.
  • NDE—this publisher is so obscure I can hardly find any info about them online. Why do you think it is RS?
Not so much the publisher, but the author, a respected German historian, etc., and while NDE is bizarrely obscure, if I'd cited the German electronic ion—an imprint of Random House—the French ion, published by JC Lattès, the German print ion, by Heyne Verlag. Anyway, you get my drift. Although I agree that it's odd no Eng-lang ion seems to have been published in—for example—London, only Canada and South Africa, as far as I can see. Perhaps they're trying to put a bit of work the colonies' way.
  • BBC News Inconsistent date format
Done.
  • pp. 122–186. not verifiable.
Meant to be 182-7, done.
  • p. ch.5 §72. should use |loc=
Done.
  • Other sources appear to be at least marginally reliable. (t · c) buidhe 19:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Err, right! Cheers Buidhe, hope you're well. ——Serial # 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Above issues are resolved, however another has appeared: "Williams 2020, p. 230. Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation." (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
D'OH. Thanks Buidhe, totally forgot to add the source). Unbelievable...done now :) ——Serial # 12:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose by Carabinieri[]

Hi, I've started by looking at the sources. There are several statements I've been unable to verify:

Thanks for spotting that typo; the word you want is condiment.
Thank you.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Very funny!
The closest thing I was able to find is "After they drove away, Hitler said to his interpreter: 'The Duchess would have made a good queen'". That's not the same thing as saying that she would have been friendly to Germany.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I think if anyone reads that to mean anything other than "a good Queen to Germany", then they're reaching a bit, as that entire section is regarding how good he would have been for them; and no-one is suggesting, I imagine, that Hitler had much concern for how good a King he would be for Britain! Still, I could tweak it, if you would prefer.
The section is about Hitler and the Windsors being impressed with each other. It also says that, according to the interpreter, Hitler thought the Duke of Windsor sympathized with Nazism. There is no indication that he assumed the same of the Queen or that he thought the two would have been friendly to Germany were they on the throne.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think not; although I agree that it would read much more clearly if the words [of the day] were inserted after "the Prime Minister".
The source Urbach gives is a memorandum sent by Churchill in 1940. Also, in that paragraph she is writing about the suppression of documents on the visit so it makes sense that that would have happened later. Using this quote in the article doesn't make sense to me, since it's about said suppression which isn't mentioned. Urbach doesn't say anything about the Prime Minster 'working against' the tour.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, it makes sense to me, as they are discussing the Duke's behaviour in the late 30s, when Chruchill was in his wilderness...having said that, I'm not so invested in Urbach (!!!) as to insist on her quote staying in.
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly. Are you saying that Urbach is indeed referring Chamberlain? Then why is she referencing a memorandum written by Churchill in 1940? Are you also disputing that "did everything to keep the institution intact" is a reference to the British suppression of documents related to the visit? If you are, what do you make that quote out to mean? And where does Urbach say that the Prime Minister worked to stop the visit?--Carabinieri (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,--Carabinieri (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, ——Serial # 14:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding more issues:

They will not tie back to the tour, as they are not intended to. They provide standalone background. Although the reference to Japan was a hangover from a now disused source, and has been removed, good spot. ——Serial # 15:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources and the article's text-source integrity probably need to be vetted more closely. Just looking at the background section a lot of the details also seem a bit extraneous to me: for example, Wallis's marriage history and the technical legal details of the coronation oath could easily be trimmed. There are also way too many quotes. Per WP:MOSQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style" and per WP:CLOP: "Quotation [...] may be appropriate when the exact words in the source are relevant to the article, not just the facts or ideas given by the source".--Carabinieri (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Seriously? I have given you multiple instances where you misrepresented sources and this is your response? Please substantiate your claim that I have misread sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid the sources often do not say what you think they say; that's why you cannot find what you are looking for! All the best, ——Serial # 15:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please substantiate these claims.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Confusing Churchill's discussion of Chamerlain with Churchill himself; not recognising the value of a piece titled the Broken Balance between the World Wars in a discussion regarding the, err, European balance of power. For example. Cheers! ——Serial # 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@DrKay: No, let me. I appreciate you popping in—our resident expert, so to speak. For what it's worth, I've addressed three out of the four pints you raised—each is good—except for the Ziegler. Is our own knowledge sufficient to make that claim do you think? I mean, I'm sure you're correct, but is it strictly verifiable? Incidentally, you also don't need to reply here if you don't wish :) but it would have been rude of me not to have, in my book. All the best! ——Serial # 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Well if I am a resident expert, we now have two! Ziegler was cred as the author ten years ago, but I see that his name has been removed. So, as the ODNB currently stands, you're correct that it's anonymous. DrKay (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Horseshoe bat[]

Nominator(s): Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a family of bats that have been quite relevant in the news lately as the possible origin of SARS-CoV. They have a lot of diversity and some strange features, even for bats (pubic nipples!) Enwebb (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sainsf[]

This is a placeholder for now, I will add all my comments next week. I find the article really interesting and beautiful after reading a few paragraphs here and there. Thank you for your work on this important topic :) Sainsf (t · c) 10:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay this is my first set of comments, will add more as we move forward:

Moving on (note the underlined point above which might have escaped your notice), Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I will add my comments on the last section in a few days. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 11:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That is all from me. Once again, marvelous work! Respond whenever you are free. Cheers and stay safe, Sainsf (t · c) 13:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick Chap[]

Since I reviewed the article at GA, the principal changes have been in citation formatting. I believe the article gives an excellent overview of the family, its ecology, and its relationships to humans including its hosting of coronaviruses. I therefore have little to add just now, though the cladogram could include a cropped photograph of Craseonycteridae, and it might be helpful to pop in a sublabel below Yangochiroptera saying "(most microbats)". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finally giving me the motivation to hunt down a good picture of the Kitti's hog-nosed bat. I've never been happy with the sparse media files we've had for it, and we now finally have a real photograph! I added in the sublabel you suggested. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Excellent, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review[]

  • Palaeonycteris_robustus.png: the illustrator of the specific plate is not stated (I don't think, at least, but I don't read French), but the authors of Annales des sciences geologiques were Edmond Hébert (d. 1890) and Alphonse Milne-Edwards (d. 1900)
  • Rhinonicteris aurantia.jpg: this came from Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the Collection of the British Museum (1878), author George Edward Dobson (d. 1895)
  • Rhinolophidae_vs_molossidae.png: is an amalgamation of two images. The illustrator of the top image was Philibert Charles Berjeau (d. 1927). The name on the plate for the bottom image is "Bruch". I would guess Carl Friedrich Bruch (d. 1857) was the illustrator; his older brother Philipp Bruch (d. 1847) was also a scientist, but studied mosses, not animals
  • Suggest adding all these findings to their respective image description pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  • For the maxilla image, I increased from upright=1.5 to upright=2
  • Added alt text to images. Enwebb (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Nb: it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

Still an instance of "Sub-". I have changed it.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick comment from Therapyisgood[]

Doing a quick search through the article, I am surprised the word "flea" or the word "ectoparasite" is not mentioned at least once. From my work on the Hectopsylla genus I am aware fleas often inhabit bats as a host. Though I am also not that familiar with ing articles on topics where every bit of knowledge isn't included. Can you comment on this? Is there any published material on their parasites? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I am curious if you are still actively pursuing this nom. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Therapyisgood thank you for your points! I had a major disruption IRL and will get back to this in earnest this upcoming week, including adding a section about parasites. Enwebb (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Content about predators and parasites added in a new subsection. Enwebb (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Therapyisgood if you would like to add more comments, please do so. I'm able to more regularly now. Enwebb (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack[]

Fabian Ware[]

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fabian Ware was fascinating. He went through three careers, first as a high level colonial educator, then or of The Morning Post and finally as the founder and de facto CEO of the Imperial War Graves Commission. Gibson & Ward (1989) write that "There are many human beings who have made their mark in history, but none other has left such a profound and lasting memorial to mankind's sacrifice on behalf of democracy as has this remarkable Englishman". I hope I've been able to do him justice with this article after almost two years of work, bringing the article up from this state After comments by Gog the Mild, HJ Mitchell, copys by DuncanHill and a GA review by AustralianRupert, I feel this article meets the FA criteria, or could with your comments. I have access to all the sources, and can provide scans poorly taken photos upon request. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Nb, I intend to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • Crane talks extensively about various British leaders refusing to accept another war as a possibility, and I had intended to add mention of it, but never did because the section mostly talks about other Britons and speculates as to what Ware could have done or might have thought or would have known. Cut.
  • actually the leader writer, a uniquely british thing that I thought was just most senior. I have linked to the article.
I assumed it would be. Rubbish copy ing.
  • should not
  • fixed
  • Yeah, added (not sure what happened there, but I knew where it should go). I cannot add a page number, because it's from the GBooks preview which doesn't have them, but I could add a chapter?

Having gone through this in some detail three times over the past year I feel that this is in pretty good shape. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • thanks again Gog! I've now added 'leader writer' to my mental dictionary. Perhaps in several years I might be proficient in British.
Maybe. I've been studying it for quite a bit longer, and I haven't got the hang of it yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891 Talk Work 15:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius[]

Reserving a spot here. I think the article looks good so far, but I will leave some comments later. epicgenius (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Hi Epicgenius, and thanks for 'claiming' a spot! I want to stress that there's absolutely no rush here, but I was just curious when/if you thought you might be able to comment here? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • changed to to purchase an airship for the United Kingdom"
  • went with your phrasing
  • changed
  • somebody else added a word
  • cut this whole paragraph down based on Buidhe's suggestion below.
  • flipped phrasing around
  • Ware
  • used to call her Lilias Borthwick in the first mention. How does it look now?
  • Looks good. If you're going to look it over during the weekend, I'll look back on Monday. epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • fixed
  • Was damaged upon arrival because it's hangar was too small, hopefully clarified.

More later. 🇪 🇵 🇮 🇨 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇮 🇺 🇸 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  • many thanks for these Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Epicgenius: Thanks again! I've given the article another read-through and caught most (all?) of the missing words and out of place sentences, and hopefully some of the unsavory wording. Not saying it's perfect, but I think it's better now. Perhaps you could take another pass? Eddie891 Talk Work 11:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

This is much better than before. Here are some other things I noticed.

  • Cut
  • rephrased to "After a suggestion by Macready on 6 September, the organisation was transferred completely to the Army by the end of October"; let me know if that isn't better
  • "French General" Joffre
  • Unfortunately, Longworth (the official CWGC history and most comprehensive source) only says one-fifth. A brief google search returned no promising hits
  • that's the word!
  • fixed
  • replaced with "in the same year" but could come up with something slightly more creative if you don't think that works
  • It's just unclear whether discussions began earlier and whether Churchill was doing any more than making grand proclamations (he wasn't really beginning negotiations, just proposing them). Does "dated back to 1919" work better?
  • unfortunately, Stamp isn't forthcoming with the source, and doesn't specifically cite it anywhere. If I had to guess, its probably from a CWGC report, but a google search reveals no hints. I could post a question to the humanities ref desk, remove, or just leave as is. What do you think?
  • This isn't really a big deal. I think we can do without saying who said that.
  • Quigley just includes him as an adviser, nothing about the institute. He was likely there in his capacity with the IWGC, but no way of really knowing. I know that the conferences would have people serving as advisors (O. D. Skelton did in 1923) to their ruler, but not as representatives, so Ware could have been to advise George V. Unfortunately, this is all speculation.
  • agree
  • his obituaries don't mention it. The ODNB says his wife died in 1952 so yes on that. I'd assume his children survived him, but as Crane is fond of saying, his work was his life so T doubt any of the sources will mention conclusively. I can add his wife's life span to the article if you want?
  • Adding the wife's lifespan works. epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. With regards to prose, I think the article is all good now. epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Theramin[]

Signing off

This is a great article on an important man (I admit, I did not recognise his name, and now I feel as though I should have. "Their name liveth for evermore", indeed.).

I noticed a few small nits from a read through. I was tempted to go in and just fix these myself, rather than writing the usual laundry list, but some of the fixes are not entirely clear and you might like to comment on some of them.

Done
  • I think Oliver Borthwick died in March 1905, a few weeks after his 32nd birthday. Not really "in late 1905".
  • quite right. Source does say late 1905 but given that there was a times obit (which I've added as a source) in March, it's highly unlikely he was alive in late 1905.
  • spelled out name
  • I am usually very relaxed about redlinks, but for both Lancelot Bathurst and Oliver Borthwick, do we think there will be enough to justify the redlinks?
  • Oliver got an obit in the New York Times and The Times (though the NYTimes is just a paragraph) so he's borderline, and I figured might be worth the link. LJ has a Wikidata entry but no claim to notability so I'll cut the link, good call.
  • Longworth just says 10th French Corps, but it's reasonable to assume he was talking about the 10th Army Corps and added French to clarify that it wasn't a britis formation
  • Seems rather odd not to link Lady Bathhurst under that name (I know we already have a link under another name, but that is only clear once you get to the footnotes: perhaps her change of name could be mentioned nearer the link).
  • I just converted her first instance to Lady and refactored the note for clarity. She would have been Lady Bathurst since her marriage which if I remember from writing her article was in the 1890s. Her name wasn't changed in between afaik, she is just referred to interchangeably by the sources.
  • I think there have been several places called Winchester House. This one was 21 St James's Square.
  • Just said 'St' James Square' so we don't include anything Longworth doesn't explicitly say, good call.
  • "Jewish graves were to be marked with a double triangle on a stake" - with a link for Jewish but not for Star of David? (I assume the triangles overlapped to create a star in the traditional manner, not displaced like the double triangles on a cardinal mark.)
  • Presumably, and I've added a link -> nice call
  • Cut the second mention and made the first legible, good spot
  • We have an "ambassador Ambassador of the Soviet Union".
  • so we do, cut
  • We could link the Italian article on General Ugo Cei [it].
  • added

My main comment is that the flow is a bit uneven and staccato in parts, with several passages of: "On [date] [action]" … "On [date] [action]" … "On [date] [action]". That can easy to slip into / difficult to avoid in a largely chronological biography, but some elegant wordsmithing to smooth the narrative would be welcome. Theramin (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks Theramin for those most helpful comments. I've enacted most of your changes, some comments. As to the uneven and staccato-ness, I'd completely agree --> elegance isn't my strong suit. I'll take a look at it later today and hopefully smooth it out some. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • blegh, It's choppier than I thought. I've tried some elegant wordsmithing, but I fear it mostly consists of burying the dates where possible. Let me know what you think-- any suggestions you may have would be welcome. Eddie891 Talk Work 02:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Are you asking me to copy the article? I can take a look, although I tend to use a lighter tool than the lady currently on my user page, and it might take me some time to get around to it. Perhaps someone else might like to have a go? Theramin (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • It was my way of saying that I've tried to smooth it out as best I can, but it very likely needs another set of eyes. If your time allows I'd appreciate a copy-, but please don't feel at all obligated. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • removed
  • Hi again, Nikkimaria. It seems that we will be unable to verify that the image is in the PD. Although I think it most likely is, I don't see that information forthcoming. File:Fabian Ware.jpg is the fair use version, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to do now. I reached out to the cwgc and they were unwilling to release any pictures of Ware. Seems to me like the commons image should be deleted and fair use one used unless we get a definite publication date. Your thoughts/advice here would be greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Might be worth reaching out to MrClog to see if he got an answer to his email, although I see he's gone inactive. Otherwise if no other potentially free image exists then yes, we should use the fair-use version. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria I left a message on their talk (albeit only a day ago) but they were also active within the month that the NPG should have responded. I've looked pretty extensively, but cannot find a clearly free image of him. Here's what I propose doing, given that it's unfortunately not clear the image is pd: Closing the fair use images FFD request as keep, replacing the commons image with that one, and keeping a close eye on the issue. If MrClog hears back and it turns out the image is public domain, (with your consent) I'll ping you on Fabian Ware's talk to re-review the licencing. Should a pd image arise, the (unused) fair use image can then be deleted. I've looked extensively and read into the issue, and that seems like the only way to resolve it. The CWGC already turned down my request to release an image, though I fully intend to ask them again by letter. Hopefully this will allow the image review to be resolved. Let me know what you think sorry for all this pinging, if you'd rather I didn't, I'll stop. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The FUR should be a bit more expansive. Other images are appropriately licensed but I did notice some style issues in captions. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: I’ve had a go at those changes, if there’s a more specific thing you want changed about the FUR, just let me know. I really cannot thank you enough for bearing with me on this image review so far- it’s been quite the learning experience for me, and I’m really sorry that the images needed so much work- I should have been more diligent in checking them before the FAC. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

No worries. That's better and good enough for our purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Er, I'm not sure when exactly, but the source website says "Restrictions on use: Nil Copyright: Expired" I could add at {{PD-because}}, but I am not sure whether there's an applicable tag. Replaced with Prince-Edward-Duke-of-Windsor-King-Edward-VIII (retouched).jpg, because I cannot be sure about the publication date.
  • Same question here I'm afraid: where and when was this first published? Additionally the UK tag in use requires that the image description include details of steps taken to try to ascertain authorship. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh dear, I had hoped an image from another FA wouldn't need licencing work. Replaced with File:17th Earl of Derby.jpg
  • Sorry, another question on that one: what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Nikkimaria: My understanding is that under the old (Canadian) Copyright Act, photographs were protected only for 50 years after their creation, so this would have entered the PD in 1988, meaning it was in the PD on January 1, 1996, meaning it is in the PD in the US. Not sure if this is correct Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely it's PD in Canada. However, the US situation is a bit more complicated than just a 'PD in 1996' yes/no, and depends on when the item was published - see the Cornell copyright chart. Also on looking more closely at this, it seems the watermark suggests a UK rather than Canadian origin? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Okay, just add the cred author and date of death to the author field in the image description and this should be good. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • replaced with File:Cimetière britannique de Forceville 5.jpg,
  • Sorry but I don't know what to tag it with here, replaced with File:Merchant Navy Memorial - south elevation 01.jpg and File:India Gate in New Delhi 03-2016.jpg

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Nikkimaria: mostly replaced the images with better ones that illustrate parts of the text still. Let me know what you think. I can add alt text, but am embarrassed to admit that I don't really understand the concept of alt text (and our page doesn't help my understanding much). The main thing I am unclear on is how much description and detail the alt text need to give. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Typically you'd want alt texts to be fairly concise. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've had a go adding them, but I don't hold any illusions they are good
  • Nikkimaria: would you have a look now? Many thanks for dealing with my image-incompetence. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Partial source review[]

  • I've cut down
  • There should only be websites inline (mainly because they don't often have publication dates). I tried to move those that I missed.
Source checks
  • It's published in 1900 actually, revisiting the source. It's more specifically cited in The Morning Post 1900
  • No particular reason I guess
Other comments
  • Buidhe: excellent points on all counts, I've added a dedicated 'list of works' but kept mention of the IWGC book because (though it's all alone) I think it merits a mention in the prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • well they should be organised by date... (doesn't mean they are Face-smile.svg). Think I fixed them up. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note[]

Hi, noting the partial source review above but I would like to see all sources checked for reliability and formatting, and I see Buidhe has kindly requested that at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review – pass[]

Formatting and consistency

  • Cut-- There was a duplicate mention of one of Ware's awards earlier, another source went into more detail.
  • think I got them all to YYYY
  • un-linked
  • cut

More to follow. Harrias talk 15:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • standardized to |website=Commonwealth War Graves Commission I believe
  • I don't see an author, added date. It's listed as part of BBC Four's feature here, but I doubt we can say for certain it was a single author
  • The use of all caps for "Tony Law" in the lead indicates that it was him; it's relatively common for "magazine" style article such as this. Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • added both
  • Done
  • Well it's listed as a |website=, but changed to publisher
  • I think I standardized and definitely got the *, but could you double check please? There's a |work= for #91 but not for #174 but I think that's because they are different sources
  • One uses "The National Archives", while the other is just "National Archives". Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • standardized.
  • Think I got them
  • The first gives the title as "Imperial War Graves Commission HC Deb 04 May 1920 vol 128 cc1929-72" (the title and subtitle on the page), whereas the second simply uses "War Memorials" (the title alone). Harrias talk 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just the title will be fine, cut
  • Think I got them

More to follow. Harrias talk 15:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)