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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular 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, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

An 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.

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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

Sumitro Djojohadikusumo[]

Nominator(s): Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about an Indonesian economist/politician/rebel/oligarch/aristocrat/statesman, depending on when and who you ask (well except "economist", everyone agrees on that), who formed Indonesia's economic policies from 1950 to 1957 and 1968 to the 1980s and arguably to this day. Previous FAC failed due to general lack of interest (helps that Indonesian history isn't exactly common knowledge). Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Addressed. Is the "legend" sufficient? Juxlos (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not quite: what represents the operations? The dashed lines, the arrows, both, something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The black arrows. Added. Juxlos (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhodesia Information Centre[]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Rhodesia Information Centre was the unofficial, and illegal, embassy the Rhodesian government maintained in Australia from 1966 to 1980. As the Australian government did not recognise Rhodesia's independence it had almost no contact with Australian officials. Instead, it spread propaganda trying to win Australians over to the white minority regime in Rhodesia and helped businesses evade the trade sanctions against the country. The Rhodesian Information Centre survived multiple attempts by the Australian government to close it, including one which led to a High Court case in 1973 and another which caused a backbench revolt in 1977, and was finally shut down by the Zimbabwean government in 1980. As a result, while this is a slightly obscure topic, the article covers a lively period in Australian foreign relations and provides insights into Australian attitudes towards white minority rule in Africa during this period.

This is my first non-military history FAC. I developed the article as a lockdown project after becoming interested in the topic after the Bradley v Commonwealth article appeared as a DYK in August 2021. The article passed a GA nomination in September that year. It's since been considerably expanded. I'd like to acknowledge the historian Matthew Jordan who, during the period last year before libraries reopened, kindly sent me a copy of his impressive volume of official documents and analysis concerning the Australian government's approach to Rhodesia. Thank you in advance to reviewers for your consideration of this nomination and comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Comments by a455bcd9

Interesting article, I didn't know anything about this subject: thanks and congrats! A few comments:

A455bcd9 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mother of All Demos[]

Nominator(s): MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... a famous computer demonstration from 1968 for the Association for Computing Machinery / Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (ACM/IEEE). This demo featured a variety of technologies that would become essential in modern computing, like windows, computer mice, video conferencing, a collaborative real-time ing. The name "The Mother of All Demos" comes from the importance of this demo in modern computing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Roanoke Island, North Carolina, half dollar[]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... Another of the commemorative half dollars of the classic era, with a subject that would have been familiar if you had gone to school when I did, but probably isn't much taught today, the colony of Roanoke Island, and the birth of Virginia Dare. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[]

Punic Wars[]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having taken the articles on all four constituent wars to FA, I am pleased to present the over-arching Punic Wars for your consideration. 118 years of bitter enmity between Carthage and Rome boiled down to 7,200 words. I took this article through GAN in September 2020 and have been tinkering with it since. I have recently been able to give it the time it deserves in an attempt to get it up to FAC quality and take on board comments from the FACs of its four "sub-articles". I look forward to your thoughts, comments and opinions. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had a feeling this article would show up here eventually :) (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placeholder from Airship[]

Will return shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC) As always, I emphasise that these are suggestions.Reply[reply]

Thanks: On first reading that sounds reasonable - I wasn't over happy with the lead myself, but couldn't see what to do with it. I'll come up with a suggestion and post it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt[]

Just a few things,

  • "this was possibly the largest naval battle in history by the number of combatants involved.[88][89][90] " It might be useful to give the number.
  • "in what is now Piedmont, Cisalpine Gaul " I don't doubt that it's Piedmont but is it still Cisalpine Gaul?
  • " Fabius became consul in 215 BC and was reappointed in 214 BC.[193]" Reappointed or reelected?
  • "frequently with success.[201][113]" Do you mean to have these out of numerical order?
  • Claudius Nero is linked on the second use. Ditto Pyrenees.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9[]

A few comments on the lead (merely questions or suggestions, not demands):

A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Unlimitedlead[]

Hi, @Gog the Mild: nice to meet you again! I'm somewhat caught up with other Wikipedia business right now, so I'll slowly add more comments over time. Upon my first read, I've located some possible punctuation errors. I have listed some below, but I'd suggest consulting someone more knowledgeable in that field than I am.

Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign[]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign. It is the second half of of what was once one article on the logistical support of the American armies between September and December 1944, but the article was split. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from TAOT[]

I remember reviewing this last time it came here. Happy to see it back, and I'm hoping we reach a consensus to promote. Comments will come shortly; this is a long article, so I will go section by section. I do have an active FAC as well if you wish to return the favor. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead

More later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background

Will continue in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ports

More to come soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highways

Railways

Air

Inland waterways

Outcome

Overall, well written article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to support on prose. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[]

  • "From September onwards, an increasing volume of supplies came directly from the United States in Liberty ships that were stowed to make optimal use of cargo space." You have in this sentence "an increasing volume of supplies", that takes a singular verb, and "Liberty ships", that takes a plural noun. You say "were stowed", so I'm forced to assume the Liberty ships were stowed, not the volume of supplies. Yet that seems odd.
    Trying to say too much in the one sentence. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "quayside". "Dockside" seems more American. Not also that this link goes to a waterfront area in Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
    Changed to "dockside" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The ending of the lede doesn't sound like an ending, but seems to leave off.
    Added another paragraph
  • "albeit on reduced scales" This is a bit unclear whether the units were pared down or their rations and supplies were.
    Added "of rations and supplies". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The German strategy was to conduct a fighting withdrawal to the Siegfried Line (which they called the Westwall) while holding and demolishing the ports and harbors. These would be held as long as possible." Probably these could be combined into one sentence (beginning after the parenthetical) " ... while holding the ports and harbors for as long as possible, and demolishing them".
    That will work. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)[]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm new at this so go easy... ;-) Okay, Eric Harrison was, along with Henry Petre, one of the founders of the original Central Flying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Petre, he remained a part of Australian military aviation after World War I, and so was the first man to be known as the "Father of the RAAF", a title more commonly bestowed in later times on one of their students, Richard Williams. So Harrison is, as described by an RAAF officer in 1999, something of an "unsung hero" now, but I hope worthy of your attention... FTR, this has long been an A-Class article at MilHist but I never got round back then to adding some new references and sending to FAC as I did with Petre's article -- better late than never...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[]

Image review

Tks Nikki, let me know if all good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Recusing to review. I will make minor copy s as I go. Shout if I mess anything up.

I do. At the point he was posted the war had not ended and I am not sure that it was expected to. Or rephrase to something like "when he was posted to Britain" → 'when he took up a post in Britain' perhaps?
Tweaked.
Ah, yes, indeed.
Then perhaps 'Their daughter and only child, Greta ...'?
Sure.
I don't object to the imprecision, but to the casualness of "just". Eg, I am happy with 'On 5 September 1945, as the war ended'; or 'On 5 September 1945, at the end of the war'; etc.
Tweaked.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tks for reviewing, Gog -- replies above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second round replies above, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supporting, but note the two remaining instances of "the Central Flying School". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tks Gog. Actually you've made me re-check more sources -- seems that in its early years it was generally referred to as the Central Flying School, but in its later incarnation (WWII and after) the the was generally dropped; in either case the abbreviation is generally just CFS without the. So I've altered the captions that had "Central Flying School" alone accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Harry[]

Hi Ian, welcome to FAC. I hope this will be the first of many nominations! ;) You haven't left a lot of nits for me to pick.

That's it. I'll support now as I feel it meets the criteria even with those two minor imperfections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Harry, that's done -- for good measure I've also made Greta a subclause in Their daughter and only child Greta joined the WAAAF... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Space Shuttle Columbia disaster[]

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster in 2003. The article's GA review was just completed. The 20th anniversary is February 1, 2023, and it has been my goal to get it to FA-status before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[]

I reviewed this article at GA, and believe that it meets Featured Article standard. It seems like only yesterday

Image review - pass

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Harry[]

I remember this clearly. I was at school. :(

I remember it as well! One crazy thought to me is that back then the Challenger disaster seemed far away (I wasn't even born yet), and now the time since the Columbia disaster until now is longer than the time between the two disasters. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[]

  • " After completing STS-107," Does the mission end at some point before touchdown?
  • "nearly catastrophic" maybe "near-catastrophic"
  • " It flew for the first time in April 1981" I might say "It flew in space for the first time" to let out the ALT.
  • "which provided protection for temperatures below 650 °C (1,200 °F). " Maybe "at" for "for"?
  • "The ET consisted of a larger tank for liquid hydrogen (LH2), stored at −253 °C (−423 °F) and a smaller tank for liquid oxygen (LOX)," You don't need to say both larger and smaller. All you are doing is establishing relative size. I'd delete "larger".
  • "but it was stated that the ET was safe to fly.[5]: 125 " Does the source say who concluded this?
  • "At the time, the mission or ground crew did not notice the debris strike." I would move "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
  • "she had asked about the imaging requirement from a flight director but not the Debris Assessment Team" This is a little fuzzy what requirement? This is obviously a crucial event.
  • "was concerned with the potential delays that may be caused by a foam loss event." Suggest you don't need both "potential" and "may", consider ..."was concerned with the potential delays from a foam loss event."
  • "flight director Steve Stich sent an e-mail to Husband and McCool to tell them about the foam strike and inform them there was no cause for concern about damage to the TPS, as foam strikes has occurred on previous flights.[5]: 159 " has should be had.
  • "Soon after it entered California airspace, the orbiter shed several pieces of debris, which were observed on the ground as sudden increases in brightness of the air around the orbiter." I'd change "which were" to "events"
  • Perhaps more could be said about what took place in Mission Control after contact was lost. The time the vehicle was expected to land would be useful as well.
  • "The crew remains were transported for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology at Dover Air Force Base." I would say "to" rather than "for".
  • "worms" It would be good idea to say what they were doing there, what sort of experiment. Weren't there other animals? You mention that they would have been euthanized under the rescue procedure the review board discussed.
  • "the KSC" I think I'd get rid of the "the" (you do this at least twice). Similar "the JSC".
  • "NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe convened the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) " Is "convened" the best word? It wasn't meeting until some hours later.
  • You use "argued" twice with respect to the board's conclusions. I'd sooner see "found" or "concluded". The board wasn't getting into a debate.
  • "As a result of the foam loss, NASA grounded the Space Shuttle fleet.[34][43]" This, I assume, refers to the 2005 mission on Discovery and not the loss of Challenger. If so, I'd add "again" to the end.
  • "from its scheduled launch of July 1" no year is mentioned in this paragraph.
  • On the two subsequent missions, I think it would be useful to mention what vehicle would have been used had serious damage to the shuttle been discovered on orbit.
  • I would suggest deleting any of the musical tributes that can't be supported by secondary sources as trivial.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marina Bay MRT station[]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is actually an old GA of mine, promoted back in 2020. Now, with the opening of the Thomson East Coast line, I've greatly expanded the article particularly information on train services and the artworks in the station.

Cheers to the new triple-line interchange station on the Singapore MRT network! ZKang123 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp[]

Comments[]

Rectified above problems. ZKang123 (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anna Lee Fisher[]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Balon Greyjoy (talk)

This article is about Anna Fisher, one of the first six women selected to be astronauts by NASA in 1978. During her long and distinguished career at NASA, she was involved with the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station and the Orion spacecraft. This article is the fifth in the series about the first six women astronauts, following Sally Ride, Judith Resnik, Kathryn Sullivan and Rhea Seddon. Unlike those astronauts, Fisher has no biography, so its writing was more difficult. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Harry[]

Not sure why this doesn't seem to be attracting much attention. Let's fix that.

—There are other places the prose could be tightened but the FA criteria don't demand perfection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back Harry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your invitation to participate. Two things immediately come to my mind: (1) The sentence "Anna was interviewed by Connie Chung, and that night Bill took Anna and Resnik, who had also been selected, out to dinner to celebrate". Now "Connie Chung" links to a journalist, but that article doesn't mention any position ever held at NASA. Is this the same Connie Chung? If yes, NASA needs to be mentioned, if no, then a disambiguation link like Connie Chung (NASA) might be necessary. (2) Anna Lee Fisher's mother was born in Hof, Bavaria, Germany, and grew up in Munich; also Anna Lee Fisher is fluent in German. (My source is that I met a German autograph collector at a fair once who showed me a personalised autograph he had obtained from Dr Fisher as a child which was accompanied by a short letter from her in German). Might or might not be useful in the article.ViennaUK (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matangi (album)[]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought I would give people a break from endless articles on Gillingham F.C. :-) Back in 2013 I successfully nominated this article for GA but I'm not sure why I never brought it to FAC as I had done with the artist's previous studio albums. So, nine years later, here it finally is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[]

Comments to come soon FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG: hope you are well, just wondering if you still hoped to take a look at this article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi there. I was waiting for Your Power to finish their review before I start mine.
@FrB.TG: - all done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support on prose. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image and media review (pass)[]

Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I still wanted to help in some way. My comments on the images and audio sample are below:

I hope that this review was helpful. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review. To summarize my comments above, I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to both images, revise the Matangi image caption, and either remove or provide a different rationale for the audio sample. The last two bullet points are clarification questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aoba47: - thanks for your comments. I'll address the first three in due course but re: the last one, I couldn't find anything of note. The album was not a major success (only one week in the UK albums chart), is not one that has been a major influence on any other artists as far as I can see, did not boost M.I.A. to greater success like that Taylor Swift album did for her (her career was already on a downward trajectory, TBH), and has not really been written about in any significant way since its initial period of release. Her first album was featured in a book published years later called something like "Albums You Must Hear Before You Die" but nobody really looks at this one in the same way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I was surprised because I remember "Bad Girls" just being everywhere at the time, but this is probably a case of me confusing that with the album having a greater sense of importance. If anything, that song may have a more long-lasting legacy than the album. I appreciate that you took the time to answer this question. Your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All other points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. File:M.I.A. - Festival Primavera Fauna 2013.jpg checks out to me. I would recommend archiving the source link and adding an author link to user's main Flickr account, but neither of these points are requirements. If you ever want to add an audio sample to the article, please let me know. I have briefly scanned through the article, and the Jim Carroll review would provide a solid justification for "Bad Girls" as an example of the album's "hard-bodied pop tracks" or the Alexis Petridis review identifies "Bring the Noize" as representative of the album. Either way, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from NØ[]

Glad to see you take on something music related! That's all from me :-)--NØ 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: - all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elias[]

Hi Chris! With all the help you've extended in my previous two FACs I find it fair that I finally review one of yours :-) I have one up right now if you're interested!

My primary concerns have to do with sourcing and the professional tone of the prose. I have not done a full spot check of the article references, but if anyone deems it necessary then by all means. Currently, I do not feel confident to offer my support - I am leaning oppose. Sincerely hope this gets addressed promptly - I may do a proper, full review of the article once these initial concerns are struck. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing...

My stance on the article's readiness for the bronze star remains, although I am glad to see swift progress. :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
12:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Your Power: just as an update, I believe the only things outstanding are adding some more about lyrical themes and sorting out the archive links. I tried running the IABot to archive the existing sources but it didn't do anything, don't know if I am doing something wrong......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: it tends to do that for me as well. Unfortunately it seems that someone would have to do the archiving manually. Anyways, I have done another round of copying+addition of new content in light of the recent additions you made to the article. As always feel free to revert ones with which you disagree. With that, some more comments - I am really sorry that my review has dragged this far!
  • "Her fans gave her two ideas" the tweet by itself seems to indicate it's the other direction?
  • I doubt PopCrush is a high-quality source to use here, which means that the bit about the "car imagery" (which that source supports) can be cut
  • The "Reviewing the album track by track..." line is barely understandable and IMO does not add anything of value to the article.
  • Re. third paragraph of reception section: again, the use of "noted" here is discouraged. Also I have difficulty tracking what that sentence is supposed to mean.
That should be all, hopefully Face-smile.svg Appreciate all the effort undertaken to tidy up this article. A bit of a tangent, but I've seen a lot of memes with the caption "live fast die young bad girls do it well" within the past two years, and it only occurred to me where that line came from after reading this article. Huh. The more you know. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All of those last few points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Your Power: I think I have addressed every point above to the best of my ability, would you be able to re-visit.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @ChrisTheDude - you really worked your butt off with this article, wow! You deserve your 10s - the article has improved significantly compared to when I first arrived here! The only thing holding back a support from me is this bit from the lead: " 'Bad Girls' ... became one of M.I.A.'s most successful singles." That requires explicit attribution somewhere in the prose and I just don't see it. As much as I want to see the archived versions of the source links, I understand that it is beyond the scope of my intended prose review; thus it won't really stop me from supporting once the last concern is addressed. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Your Power: - I just deleted that claim as upon reflection I think it was questionable (it was only her fourth biggest hit in the UK, for example) and re-worked the sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, that last pressing concern has been addressed! After a lot of reading and commenting I am confident to say I can now support this article based on the prose quality and comprehensiveness. Nice work! Hope to see you work on more music articles soon; love to see you branching out into new topics. Face-smile.svg ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Your Power: thanks for your support. Just to note, while I haven't done much related to music here at FAC, over at FLC I have successfully promoted over 80 music-related lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DAMN. When I tell you my jaw dropped upon seeing that number... I see notifs about your FLs passing in places like the WP:SIGNPOST, but I was not aware you've been doing that for a while. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
07:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Japanese fire-bellied newt[]

Nominator(s): An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a species of newt endemic to Japan. It is found throughout much of the archipelago, in a wide range of habitats. It is rated as near-threatened, and its population is at risk of capture for the pet trade and human development. This is my first FAC nomination, so please forgive my inexperience. This was previously successfully nominated for GA status, and both before and during the review, I went to great lengths to include as much relevant information and context as possible. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator note: Just flagging up that as a first-time nomination this will need a spot check for source to text fidelity. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Is it better now? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploader states that it is public domain, but not on what grounds. What would your suggestion be? An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The artist's name (Josef Fleischmann) can be seen in the lower right, and he appeared to have died in 1925[2], making this public domain, as he died more than 70 years ago and it was published in Europe. So you should add the same tag as here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't see a saved , so added[4] it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I could've sworn it saved. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Henni147[]

This is my first FAC review for an article in the biology category, so it's a bit of uncharged territory for me, but I'd like to leave some comments. As a non-specialist, I can attest that the article is reader-friendly and easy to understand.

That's something I would normally wholeheartedly support, but I think they are already quite similar, and making them more similar might break up the article more than necessary. As for the heading names, throughout animal articles in general, "Lifecycle and behaviour" is much less standard than "Behavior and ecology", same goes for "Captivity" vs "In captivity" and "Threats and conservation" vs "Conservation". If anything, the other article should be changed. Still, I rearranged the lead to resemble that of the other article more.
Yes, that was brought up during the GA review. I've trimmed it even further, so hopefully that's good enough (let me know if you would recommend even more).
I changed it as you suggested for both instances, so it should be okay.
I removed links from some simple words, and added one to habitat. I also removed the link to newt, since rewording to keep it and the nearby link separate would have looked strange.
Done (all of the current captions should work as alt text, so I used them.)
I thought IABot could do that automatically, but it hasn't been working for me. I may require assistance. It might've been because I was shy of my thousandth , which I just achieved. It worked now.

That's it from me at first look. I may give a more detailed feedback about single sections and citations later, but this will take a bit more time. Overall, the article looks promising and I think that with some adjustments it has the potential to be promoted for FAC. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henni147 thank you very much. I've replied to all your comments. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent. Thank you very much for your detailed comments and quick adjustments! The article structure looks much better already, and if you say that these headings are more the standard, then I fully support to keep them as they are. I will take a closer look at the changes later. Henni147 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Recusing to review. I will make copy s as I go. If you are unhappy with any, could you discuss them here? Thanks.

Done.
Could I bring your attention to "Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages" followed by the reasons why at the top of the FAC main page. Just indent your response and the reviewer will pick it up. Thanks. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for enlightening me. I fixed it. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a little confused. Could you rephrase?
It seems that it has been established that newts who did not consume TTX contained little or none of it. You report that this experiment establishes that they will consume TTX and not show ill effects. Does the TTX then stay in their system? The point being that this would be a strong indicator that the hypothesis that TTX in the newts all comes from diet is correct.
I added not only that, but further details on the results of the experiment that should bring everything together,
As opposed to Japan's smaller islands, some of which they are not present on. Could you suggest a reword?
'including all of the major ones'.
That doesn't completely work, as they are absent from Hokkaido (which may or may not be part of Mainland Japan depending on how it's defined), so I removed it entirely in favor of specific islands (Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu). I also tweaked a similar statement in the body.
I didn't want to give it undue weight by implying that it was a particularly major food source (as it might appear that way due to how the lead is worded). However, I suppose there's no real alternative to your suggestion for consistency's sake, so I did it.
I mean that the range of the species can be divided into the ranges of four groups that all belong to that species. I don't particularly see a need to change this one, as the MOS usually allows mildly vague wording in the lead, which can then be fully explained in the body.
There is a difference between vague and misleading. How would you feel about 'before splitting into four distinct varieties each with a mostly separate range' or similar?
That's a very good suggestion. I used that.
The study was not entirely clear, but it suggested that the clades may be different species, even though they are taxonomically recognized as being a single one. I reworded it to be less ambiguous while still keeping the original message.
Suggestion?
'Currently, their population is on a decline' perhaps. A verb is always useful ;-) .
Ohhhh, I did not notice the word you were talking about at first. Thanks, I fixed it.
Removed
Done
Done
I don't want to suggest they all split at once, which the word "later" seems to do. Any possible alternatives?
Ah. Point taken. Let me think on. If I don't get back to you, leave it as it is.
Removed from all.
Done
Done
Done
I was hesitant, but it actually looks quite nice. Done.
Done.
The linked source happens to be about a small island population, but its observations appear to apply to all populations. I moved several things around for better clarity.
Moved.
It's a rather odd term that I can't find a good definition for, but it should be better now.
I think there was some confusion here, but I've fixed it in the article.
Fixed.
Would you prefer I eliminate the current ones or add more?
I am a fan of WP:OVERLINK. And suspect that most readers can work out what "marshes" etc are.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Tschudi appeared to be the only instance of an unspecified foreign language work, so I corrected that.
Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild, excellent suggestions. I have implemented all except a few I would like your recommendation on. I will get to your newer set soon. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.
Done.
Done.
Moved.
The source actually says "in and around", I just noticed. Fixed it.
Removed.
Done.

A fine article, I enjoyed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good to hear :) I think I've gotten everything. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.
Thank you very much for your support and encouragement. An anonymous username, not my real name 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[]

Looking forward to reading this. I will make some minor copys along the way, please feel free to contest them. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a brief mention.
Mentioned it.
Done.
An attempt was made, and it looks marginally better, but that's about as good as I can get it.
The source doesn't mention exactly who first thought it was extinct, but I added everything else.
I found some interesting information on that, which I included.
According to the source, the other species are all found in either southern China or the Ryukyu Islands, so it would be true for all members. I added this.
It's a passing mention that is now included in the description anyway thanks to my other changes. Since the information around it is about maturation, which is relevant to life cycle, I think it's best to keep it.
Unfortunately, the source doesn't really say. The best I can find is this sentence: " This fatal mistake was often observed in laboratory trials; newts that reacted to a mammalian predator with the immobile display lost the opportunity to escape and were killed". This would suggest that escaping is the usual alternative, but it doesn't mention them actually doing so.
Reworded.
Implemented, although you should probably take a look to make sure it's as you envisioned.
That is a very good idea. I did so.

That's it for me for this round. This is an admirable effort, and I expect to support eventually. I do wonder if the source material has been mined completely; see comments above, this source, and these, which I just found. Many of the scholarly articles are admittedly dense, and if they're only using the newt as a model organism their utility here is likely to be limited; but I suggest examining the heavyweight studies once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replied to all comments. I will look into adding extra sources if you can think of any important information that's missing. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention, but I've requested a cladogram be made for the first point, which I'm waiting on currently. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts[]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you get when you throw a niche-but-beloved late '90s franchise, cars, Legos, and infuriated fanboys into a blender? You get Rare's misguided masterpiece, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This honest-to-God attempt to innovate in a genre that'd stagnated outside of Mario ultimately did more to kill the series it was attempting to resurrect than it did to, well, resurrect it, but it's seen a bit of a renaissance in recent years thanks to its inclusion in Rare Replay. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear about how it was unfairly maligned and innovative, offering a massive amount of constructive freedom a full three years before Minecraft's proper release.

This article has been a GA for several years, but I recently gave it a major overhaul as part of a personal project I've started and I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet. I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato[]

Hello. I am not able to perform the FA review, but St Mary's Street, Tenby - geograph.org.uk - 873512.jpg and File:Saint-Malo remparts 001.JPG are missing alt text. Otherwise, it looks good, and good luck with the FA! DecafPotato (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DecafPotato, there is alt text for those images already present. Not sure why it isn't showing up in the toolbox? EDIT: fixed it, just had to separate the two alts. JOEBRO64 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went to try splitting the alt text, and you already did it. Nice. The issue might be something to do with the multiple image template? Idk. DecafPotato (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria: responded above, thank you for the image review! JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Artemy Vedel[]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a Ukrainian composer, little known outside his own country, who composed mainly liturgical works based on Ukrainian folk melodies, and who made an important contribution in the music history of Ukraine. The article received peer review comments from Gerda Arendt and Tim riley. All feedback comments would be, as always, much appreciated. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[]

I suggested at PR that a section on recordings could be added. I still think it would be a useful addition, but a quick check on existing life-and-works FAs about composers shows that some, including such big fish as Mahler and Mendelssohn, have been elevated to FA without one, and so it must I think be accepted that the lack of one here is not cause for objection on grounds of FA criterion 1b (comprehensiveness).

@Tim riley: I need to be pointed in the right direction with this one. There lots of recordings of Vedel's music that could be listed, but the information about them all comes from commercial websites, and there doesn't seem to be any reliable source that provides the information I need. The detailed WorldCat information available is already in the article's Authority Control, so there's not need to duplicate it higher up. Thoughts? Amitchell125 (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few minor comments on other points:

Yes, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Implication now gone. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've spent more time looking for how his anniversary was commemorated than was actually spent commemorating it. Sentence deleted accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look in again with a view to supporting. – Tim riley talk 10:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these comments Tim, and I'll do some research on recordings, with a view to adding to the article if possible. Amitchell125 (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the FAC coordinators are happy for me to contribute to the article having already supported its elevation (Ian, Gog or colleagues, what say you?) I shall be happy to run up a Recordings section for your consideration. Alternatively, if you fancy trying your hand at it, follow the link to WorldCat I put in my postscript to my comments at the peer review. Tim riley talk 19:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, not a problem. Go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Gog. I'll run up a draft section on recordings in the next day or so on the usual lines, for the nominator's consideration. Tim riley talk 22:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas having waded through the numerous entries in WorldCat for recordings of music by Vedel I find they mostly consist of multiple reissues of two recordings of a couple of pieces. I can't find anything like enough to base a Recordings section on, and I really must apologise for supposing there would be. Sorry, everyone, and I unconditionally withdraw the suggestion that we can have a Recordings section at all. Tim riley talk 22:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a final read-through I am happy to add my support. Good prose, clear exposition, evidently balanced and well sourced. The illustrations are no doubt as good as possible for this out-of-the-way subject. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 22:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gerda[]

I am happy with the changes made during the PR and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[]

Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • File:Артемвй_Ведель,_меморіальна_дошка.JPG is of a modern sculpture, which appears to mean the image cannot be used. Did you have a particular tag in mind?
2008. (citation used in article). Did you have a particular tag in mind?
No - I agree without more information it seems unlikely the sculpture is PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image removed, it's place now taken by the commemorative stamp. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Дніпрові кручі у Києві.jpg - own work by Alina Vozna, tagged accordingly.
The own work tag covers the photo - what is missing is something for the architecture. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Understood, but as the buildings date from the 11th-18th centuries. I, is there a specific tag available? I have searched for the correct PD tag for old buildings (including anything in photographs in FA architecture articles), without any success. Please, what is the correct tag I have to use? Amitchell125 (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can confirm that all of the architecture pictured was erected in the 18th century or earlier, then {{PD-US-expired}} would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Dvoeznamennik_17c_GIM.jpg - now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure, image removed. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early 19th 20th century, or earlier. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but where though? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kharkiv. It was published in the supplement to Dmytro Bahaliy's 2-volume История города Харькова за 250 лет его существования (1655-1905) (History of the City of Kharkov: 250 years of existence (1655-1905)), which was written in the first two decades of the 20th century.
When was that work published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1912 (see link). Amitchell125 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the former, the date given in the description is both more recent than 100 years ago and after 1927 - is that not accurate? If no, when and where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The artist, Fedor Solntsev, died in 1892. I have corrected the date given on the WikiCommons page, as 1943 is an error. The tag is (I believe) correct. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When and where was it first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a painting, so I'm unsure if a publication date (other than 1843, the date it was painted, as stated on the WikiCommons page) is appropriate. Also, I don't think the place it was painted is known, but it is likely to have been somewhere associated with the artist (e.g. his studio), and I don't think this information is relevant. Am I incorrect?
You are correct - what we care about is publication, as defined here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I may have found what was needed—this link states that the watercolour appeared in an 1843 publication, now held in the V. G. Zabolotny State Scientific Architectural and Construction Library in Kyiv. I've amended the text in WikiCommons to explain this. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tag sorted, the author is unknown, so I have put this. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Kyiv, then part of the Russian Empire. Koshetz is wearing his seminary clothes, so it would have been taken there at the time he was a student. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That helps to identify when the image was created, but we need to determine publication in order to assess US status. Is that known? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've looked hard, but nothing has come up, so for the moment the publication date is not known. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, what is the first publication that has been identified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not been able to find any examples of books that includes the photograph, only online examples, as listed in WikiCommons. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay. The current tagging is based on the work being published before 1917 - if we can't demonstrate that, the tag will need to be changed to something that can be supported. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I don't know which tag you might be referring to, I've replaced the image with one that I believe has no issues (this), although I would have preferred to use the one of him as a younger man. Did you have a specific tag in mind? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Ukraine#Stamps incorrect? Amitchell125 (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. Probably worth amending the tag's language to reflect the information provided there. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can try and get that done, but it's not something that needs to be done for this nomination, is it? Amitchell125 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Smerus[]

Nice article - but a couple of points:

a) the lead seems to me rather 'top-heavy' and over-detailed - you may want to consider thinning it out. Do we need, for example, Koshetz's comment on the difficulty of performance quoted twice in the article?

Agreed - lead section trimmed down a bit. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

b) Where you are sourcing articles/websites in Ukrainian, you should make it clear in the citation that the original is in Ukrainian, and, most important of all, you must check your translations. Maybe you are using Google Translate? As examples

1) 'ТЕЛЕПЕРЕДАЧА «ОЧИМА КУЛЬТУРИ». № 28. НЕСУСВІТНІЙ АРТЕМ ВЕДЕЛЬ' does not translate as ' "Television "through the eyes of culture" – No 28 Non-world Artem Knowledge" but as ' "TV show "Through the Eyes of Culture" – No 28 The unworldly Artem Vedel"
2) "Ведель Артем Лук'янович – композитор, диригент, співак, скрипаль" does not translate as "Artem Lukyanovich in charge: composer, conductor, singer, violinist" but as (in English standard name order) "Artem Lukyanovich Vedel: composer, conductor, singer, violinist"

Please go through your sources and check the translations are accurate - otherwise this article cannot merit FA status.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ouch! I thought I'd checked these, I have a friend who will help with this, I'll let you know when the Ukrainian has been re-checked. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Citations in other languages all noted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smerus: Corrections to translations from other languages into English have been done—with thanks to Ата to helping here. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, I am therefore happy to support the article as FA. --Smerus (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your Power[]

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

"Try not to abuse your power / I know we didn't choose to change / You might not wanna lose your power / but power isn't pain."

Content warning - this article is about a song dealing with abuse of all kinds. Most importantly, sexual abuse - there is a focus on older men who sexually exploit young women. The lyrics are simple, yet its power lies in its message's simplicity. It's very political (many critics drew connections to #MeToo), but it's also personal (it references Eilish's own experiences with abuse as a child), highlighting the universality of power imbalances. It was considered one of the best songs of 2021, as well as one of Eilish's best songs. Read the article and you will see why!

Now for the meta-commentary - this is the third Billie Eilish-related article I have taken to FAC and fourth overall! This song also is where I got my username, and is one of my favourite songs by her. "Your Power" holds a special place in my heart, and to see its article grow so much has been extremely cool :D Can't wait for what you think. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
09:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media review by Sammi Brie[]

There are four freely licensed images, all with CC licenses or cropped from CC licenses, and album art with an NFUR. All images have adequate alt text. There is also a 15-second song sample with NFUR.

This article passes on media review. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the prompt review on the audio + photos, @Sammi Brie :) ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
12:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[]

More soon. FrB.TG (talk) 12:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking this FAC, @FrB.TG! Glad to come across you in enwiki again. And congrats on getting Alejandro (song) promoted - seems like getting Fame Monster song articles the bronze star has become your long-term project in the encyclopedia? If so, I wish you well in the endeavour Face-smile.svg ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Although that is was the plan, I'm not sure how much longer I can keep up. For one thing, I don't have some of the resources to access restricted sources that I once had. For another, I don't have that much time for such an ambitious endeavor. -FrB

I believe all of your comments above have been addressed, @FrB.TG. Feel free to read through the article again if you remain unsure of your final stance. Thank you once again for the helpful comments! ^^; ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support good work. FrB.TG (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[]

Comments from Mike Christie[]

I'll copy as I read through; please revert and/or complain if I screw anything up.

More later, or possibly tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dime Mystery Magazine[]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the magazine that started the weird menace genre in 1933 -- a subgenre of horror which appears to be about supernatural events but isn't. In these stories, the horrible things that happen to the protagonist always turn out to be the evil machinations of a crazed scientist, or of a greedy relative who is after an inheritance, or something along those lines. Pulp publisher Harry Steeger was looking for a way to improve sales of one of his magazines, and created the new subgenre after he visited the Grand Guignol in Paris. Other magazines soon appeared to cash in on the new market. Weird menace stories only lasted a few years; by the early 1940s Dime Mystery was publishing unexceptional detective fiction. It lasted until 1950, close to the end of the pulp era. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47[]

Wonderful work as well. I greatly appreciate your work on these magazine articles. They are an invaluable resource for anyone who wants to know about them or is already into them. My comments are fairly minor. I did have some clarification questions and apologies again if the answers to those are obvious. They are just questions I thought about while reading through the article. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review and the compliment! Replies above; in a couple of cases I haven't made any changes yet but can do so if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. I greatly appreciate the time and energy you have put into your explanations. Everything looks solid to me and I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moisejp[]

Hi Mike, I hope you're well. I'll review this, seems really interesting so far.

  • By the way, I noticed repetition related to this between the "Publishing history" and "Contents and reception" sections: "The new magazine struggled,[1] but rather than cancel it, Steeger decided to change it to focus more on horror" / "Rather than giving up on the magazine, which would have meant losing its second-class mailing permit, Steeger decided to change its focus to horror." Would it likely be better to avoid this repetition? Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The next sentence too: "The lead novel was eliminated, and replaced with a story of no more than half novel length, allowing more fiction to be included" / "There were no more complete novels; the word "Book" had already been dropped from the cover two issues earlier.[3][9] Rogers Terrill, the or, now wanted lead stories no longer than about thirty-five thousand words, instead of about fifty-five thousand words." Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've removed the second one of these but I'd like to keep the first -- I agree it really belongs in the "Contents and reception" section, but a brief mention seems necessary to explain why the title changed and what Steeger's response to the poor sales was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All right, along the same lines, I also got confused just now, on my subsequent read-through, that at the first mention of weird menace in the main narrative, it is only defined as "horror" but if the reader goes quite a bit farther down, we learn that a requirement is "appears supernatural, but ultimately has an everyday explanation" (which matches how it's described in the lead). But it may be okay. Your choice to have a "Publication history" that overlaps a bit with other sections is not a convention I'm used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid; and if we do assume it's valid, then a bit of overlapping may be okay, even if it's not what I'm used to. Moisejp (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've used this approach in other magazine articles, and usually it works well because there's rarely much overlap between the business aspects of a magazine's history and the sort of fiction it printed. Here I can see it's confusing not to be clearer at the start. I've added a more detailed explanation of what kind of horror story Steeger was looking for in the "Publishing history" section, at the risk of repetition. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose and apparent comprehensiveness (I don't know much about the topic, but it seems comprehensive to me). I'm satisfied with the s and explanations related to my concerns. Moisejp (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elias[]

Claiming this for review :) Will begin reading once I'm done with another FAC review ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is all from me! I have to give you 10s for the prose, as it is extremely well-written and engaging! Man I could not help but think about Scooby-Doo when reading the entire thing - surprised that the article for weird menace does not mention the show at all. Anywho. All the prose needs is some tightening in lots of places, a couple more long pauses, and some clarifications. After that, I'd say the article would be as well-written as it can be Face-smile.svg

Thanks! And thanks for the review. I've made most of the changes you suggested; there are a couple of follow-up comments above. Yes, Scooby-Doo is an obvious parallel, but so far I haven't seen a source make that point! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second round of changes made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike Christie excellent. I did another readthrough of the article, and here are the third batch of comments I got:
  • "the publisher, Harry Steeger, was inspired to create the genre by the gory scenes he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater". Two things. First, I don't think one person singlehandedly "creates a genre" like that - I see better ways to phrase it. Second, "gory scenes" can imply that the plays he saw there involved a lot of gore, or some real-life violence happened to occur within the theatre and it was so gory that Steeger developed a morbid sort of inspiration from it. Admittedly I find the latter more fun and intriguing, but alas, that is not the case here. I would suggest the wording be clearer.
    Fair enough. I made it "was inspired to create the new policy by the gory dramatizations he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater in Paris". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The author [Terrill] mentioned his predicament..." personally not a fan of WP:ELEVAR, as I argue that writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias such as this one.
    Not sure what you mean here -- are you saying "predicament" is elegant variation? And I see I need to clarify this anyway -- the author was not Terrill. Now reads: "Terrill had a novel he wanted to use, but it had been written for the old policy, and Terrill asked the author to cut it down from sixty thousand words in only a few days to be used in the first issue under the new policy. The author complained to Norvell Page, a fast and prolific pulp writer. about Terrill's request, and Page produced a new thirty-five thousand word novel, Dance of the Skeletons, by the deadline." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It might just be me, but "not that far behind" sounds too conversational and unencyclopedic.
    Now reads "soon followed suit". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "produced a new thirty-five thousand word novel" the adjective here should technically be hyphenated as such - "thirty-five-thousand-word novel" - but that is clunky. "produced a new novel with thirty-five thousand words" ?
    I'm not a huge fan of doing it either way, but I agree it's wrong as it stands. Changed to use the additional hyphen, which I think is a little smoother despite the hyphenation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A wikilink to folks who do not know what purple prose means would be terrific.
    Done. I recall MoS saying at one time that we weren't supposed to link inside quotes but apparently that's no longer the guidance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "was completely regular" I see no reason to include "completely" there
    Yes, removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The titles for the "Galactic Central" references need to have the magazine title in italics
    I'm not sure this is correct -- the web page doesn't italicize the title, and I think the intent here is to match the target. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are the final comments I have in store. Wonderful, comprehensive work - I learned a buncha stuff while reading through the article! I hope my comments above have been constructive and helpful. Please feel free to object to anything you think falls short of being constructive Face-smile.svg ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the detailed review; I really appreciate it. More replies above; let me know if you think more changes are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And one more reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, my review here has wrapped up. I am now confident to support based on prose quality. Note that I am not super acquainted with the topic area so I cannot say anything with certainty wrt. comprehensiveness, but I personally felt like I learnt everything I needed to know walking away from the article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, if you have the time and effort to do a prose review, I have an open FAC about a recent song here. Cheers, and have a good start to your week! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[]

Source review -- pass[]

Hi Mike:

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the duplicate links to Ashley. Xenophile is a fanzine, so wouldn't normally be considered reliable, but the reliable sources here are citing it explicitly as their source, so I think that's evidence that it's trusted by the professionals. This Google Books search shows it cited numerous times by reliable sources, including Ashley, Bleiler, and Weinberg. The content is an interview with Harry Steeger, so it's not about amateur opinion; the question is whether the fanzine is a reliable source for reporting Steeger's words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmm, in my milhist sphere I know reliable works that cite David Irving and Paul Carell, but try referencing them directly in a WP article...! Obviously not something as controversial here and I can see that the few citations relying on the interview are pretty basic so yes, borderline, but okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I tried to use the secondary sources that were clearly drawing their information from Hardin where possible. The main things here that are only cited to Hardin are the per word rate and sales figures during and after the war. I cite the interview for the Grand Guignol as well, but I could drop that if necessary because Jones does cover it in a source that predates Hardin, so it's there as backup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Ian[]

Couldn't resist reading the whole article and lightly copying as I went, so just let me know if any probs there. Looks comprehensive and logically structured. BTW, does this genre mean you're done with SF mags now...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your copys look fine as always. No, there are still a few left! Though many will be too short for me to bring to FAC, and quite a few more have only a marginal relationship with sf. But there are a few major magazines left to do -- Interzone and Asimov's, for example. Mike Ashley's last book is now out; it goes up to 2020 so it will let me do some of these. But some of the marginal ones are interesting too; I'll probably bring The Black Cat here next, which has some interesting details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look forward to that, and happy to support here taking Sturm's image review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Gave it a read-through, see nothing to quibble about.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Older nominations[]

Theodora Kroeber[]

Nominator(s): SusunW, Vanamonde

This article is about Theodora Kroeber, writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties. This nomination is the result of a collaboration with SusunW, and received feedback pre-FAC from @Ipigott and Tim riley:, as well as a GA review from Chiswick Chap some time ago. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Tim riley[]

I informally reviewed the article a few days ago, and such quibbles − all minor − as I had then were attended to. On re-reading the article I find nothing further to cavil about, except the order of the citations [5] [1] [4] at the end of the second sentence of the Early life section, which looks a bit odd. I am happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. It is well written, widely sourced from what are evidently scholarly sources, as well illustrated as I assume is possible, seems balanced and proportionate, and meets all the FA criteria in my view. − Tim riley talk 18:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated; your review was very helpful. I've fixed the cite order issues, caused by my late addition of a footnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[]

Image review - pass[]

Added alt text description. (Vanamonde, alt text is not the same as the caption. It is text read by a screen reader for someone who cannot see it to describe what is in the image before the caption which tells the person why that image is relevant.) SusunW (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks SusunW, that makes sense, I seem to remember someone told me not to describe the image; but it's quite likely I misunderstood when that's not needed...Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive by comments[]

The MoS states "Citations for books typically include: ... place of publication". It is broadly accepted that this may be omitted, so long as it is done consistently; so fine.
Possibly. I would like to, but let me see if RL time permits. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[]

Recusing to review.

Nah. It's your article. And it seems entirely defensible now.
  • Nursing corps was common lingo at the time (end of WWI) even in the UK for those hundreds (thousands?) of women who weren't actually nurses by profession but volunteered to help with hospitals as part of their "war work". - S
So if we were writing in 1922 it would be an aceptable usage. But as it seems to be 2022 ...
Afterthought: Ms F Nightingale, who lived not far from where I do, never gained a formal qualification in nursing and had a total of four months semi-formal training. Yet I suspect few of our readers would quibble with her being described as a "nurse". Autres temps, autres moeurs.
Changed it to worked as a volunteer nurse. - S
  • I find nothing at all about tuberculosis or failing business in newspapers. Newspapers say he had Bright's disease and complications from that caused him to lose his sight, forcing him to close his successful business. You do notes differently from me, V, so check that I did it consistently.- S
  • I agree the wording in Buzajlko is awkward. If a juvenile offender is convicted, they become a ward of the state, but she is talking about "families", so we don't know at what phase these children were, i.e. accused, convicted, in parental care, wards, etc. Perhaps to modify your suggestion a bit V, "ten families whose children had been in juvenile court." - S
  • No idea what he died from. Newspapers didn't say. - S
  • According to the source the classes were very small, for example in one course there were 9 students, 4 of whom were women;(pp 77-78) in another there were 3 students, 2 were women. "…graduate programs in anthropology had to attract a certain number of qualified students for the programs to continue and the new profession to grow… The presence of women as students clearly helped to expand the number of graduate courses offered… their presence actually benefited [Julian Steward], resulting as it did in a broader range of graduate courses". (p 120) In other words, if students didn't enroll, the course(s) would be eliminated; if sufficient students participated, they could add additional courses. - S
Consider boiling this down into a brief footnote. I don't insist on this, but I think it would be helpful.
Okay. - S
Yep.
I assumed that it was something like that I am not concerned on an OR front, just that reading it one is a little puzzled. Not a big deal if you wish to leave as is. Ot move Sackman's comments to the end of the section?
Moving is a good suggestion, done. That way we're leading with an obviously mixed assessment. - V
  • done - S

And that's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks as always. I've worked my way through, a couple replies for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Sources are reliable, and the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Mike. I've removed the publisher for journals; it often isn't meaningful information, anyhow; and added locations for the newspapers. I'm not sure about keeping it only for non-obvious ones, that seems a little subjective. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pass. Yes, I guess it is a bit subjective, but it's an option people take. I think there's a short list somewhere in the MoS of the cities one doesn't have to add further identification for when used as publisher locations -- e.g. London, New York, Paris, but Reading, UK, and Easton, Pennsylvania. That same list would probably work as the "obvious" list. But putting them all in is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from czar[]

resolved

Nice to see these Le Guin-related articles continue! I copy ed some sections directly but wanted to bring a few thoughts here for consideration:

  • Is there a reason why so many sentences are using a compound ", and" format when both clauses are connected ideas that don't need separation? I.e., what is the function of the comma in "Charles's family were recent Polish migrants, and Phebe had grown up in Wyoming"?
  • removed comma in that sentence. - S
  • It's unclear whether she moved with her family to Orland and if she did, whether she worked as a volunteer nurse there; relatedly, there is a fair amount of depth on what the father did in Orland that seems tangential to the biography at hand. It could be summarized as that his business and health failed, culminating with his suicide without the details of the local chamber of commerce and Bright's disease, etc., unless that is somehow important?
  • Nurse in Colorado, fixed. Moved it to the note to explain about the discrepancies in sources and summarized. - S
  • "Nine pieces were collected" Unclear if the book is just these nine or whether this is some special subset of the book's stories. Also can recast to remove passive voice.
    Addressed passive voice, ed slightly. There were only nine stories, but some commentary from Kroeber also. - V
  • "Described as a classic" By whom? If this was phrased "A 'classic'" then we'd know it is whoever wrote the citation. Same with "A review volume stated" vs. "One reviewer stated".
    Adjusted wording on the classic. Not sure the other needs changing; it's more descriptive and less an assessment. - V
  • "Ishi had died of tuberculosis in 1916, and Theodora undertook to write an account of his life" This implies a connection but there was a great gap in-between 1916 and 1960.
    There's no "and" right now; there's separate sentences. Not sure who made the change, but it looks better to me. - V
  • It was challenging to write Ishi and it recounted the destruction of the Yahi people but those are presented as two separate ideas. Was it the destruction of the Yahi people that made the book difficult to write?
    It was both; the destruction of the people, and Ishi's loneliness. Adjusted wording. - V
  • "A review of the 1964 version noted that it was illustrated by Ruth Robbins" Shouldn't this fact be separated from the section on reviewer opinions?
    Agreed. Moved up to where the version is first discussed. - V
Sources do not give more details - S
It currently implies that his early death was due to pneumonia (or else why mention it)—is that the case? If not, it would be trivia and can be removed. czar
It feels to me like context for their relationship, rather than a cause of death; but if that's unpersuasive to you, I can remove it. - V

czar 16:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Harry[]

An excellent piece of writing. I'm really picking nits here.

Thanks! Comments nonetheless much appreciated. - V
Sorry. I don't have a computer right now. It went to the shop on Thanksgiving and I am borrowing my husband's for a few minutes. The history of women in psychology is parallel to other fields. They were first barred from studying at all, then when admitted to study in the 1890s were not allowed to obtain degrees.[6] In 1906 of the 175 members of the APA only 22 were women.[7] Very little is known of the women who obtained degrees in psychology between 1906 and 1945, as like all women, they were not subjects documented for the historic record until the mid-1970s.[8][9] Obviously, all of these are general sources and none specify whether this impacted Kroeber. - S

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comments; I believe I've addressed them all. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm happy with your answers. What's left is mostly orial judgement and that's usually best exercised by the people most familiar with the source material. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Corp Naomh[]

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highly ornate and visually appealing (although badly damaged) 9th or 10th century bell shrine that was heavily rebuilt in the 15th century for the better. Originally commissioned as a reliquary container for the hand-bell relic of a, by then, long dead Irish saint (whose identity is now lost), it is now considered a high point of medieval Irish metalwork.

Much appreciation to Sailko for the images –the object is not normally on display for some odd reason, probably conservation as there is plenty scholarship. Part of a series on Insular art; feedback/insight/criticism gratefully welcome. Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments[]

Changed this to "mounts" Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gog the Mild[]

Recusing to review. Placeholder - please ping me once the above has been addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's ok, cus the MoS suggests that "The word the at the start of a name is uncapitalized, regardless of the institution's own usage".
I ended up removing the claim, remembering that it wasn't there on last visit...the (underfunded) NMI website is notoriously poor and out of date. Ceoil (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this Gog, given your current limited wiki time. 20:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Monds = protrusions, the sheets now clarified as bronze. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed whickers, but the point was the fine detail on such a small figure. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)