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 editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

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

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

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

Featured content:

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 edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

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

Nominations

John Leak

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is the latest in my series about South Australian winners of the Victoria Cross, Australia's highest award for gallantry in combat. Leak won the VC at Pozieres soon after Australian troops joined the fighting on the Western Front in WWI by eliminating a German machine gun post that was holding up his battalion. Later in the war he was convicted of desertion, but the sentence was soon commuted and then suspended. He returned to combat and survived the war, but struggled with his war experiences for the rest of his life. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Sources look reliable, no issues. Checked some of the online sources which support the content. Thoroughly researched. buidhe 03:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) @Peacemaker67: On first read, this looks short but sweet, and as someone who knows nothing about the subject, the prose is engaging. I will leave detailed comments later, but I had a few questions first.

  • Australian recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest award for gallantry in battle that could be awarded at that time to a member of the Australian armed forces. - for a lead sentence, this seems clunky. Is there a way to condense this?
  • I don't think so, while still explaining the basis of his notability. It is a standard formulation for FAs on Australian VC recipients which I've used half-a-dozen times. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since it's consistent with other articles, I'm fine with the wording as is. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He was the son of a miner, James Leak.[4][5] - Do you know anything about his mother? It's fine if you don't.
  • No, details of his early life are rather sketchy, and he didn't give interviews, so it is likely no-one will ever know for sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
  • In January 1917, Leak was charged with disciplinary offences for entering the Sergeants' Mess and demanding a drink, and disobeying his regimental sergeant major. He was convicted and underwent fourteen days detention as a result. On 23 February, he went absent without leave until 2 March, and was awarded four days detention as punishment. On 23 March, Leak was transferred from the 9th Battalion to the 69th Battalion. - This paragraph reads as if it was converted from a timeline. I would switch the wording up a little. By the way, is this supposed to be 14 days' detention?
  • Not sure what else to do here, but added a short preamble and changed it up a bit and split the para, see what you think. The second period was 96 hours. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • but this time only received a fine - Does the source say why the punishment was different?
  • No, but given later events, perhaps the court martial realised he was struggling as a result of his experiences, or they didn't want to delay his return to the frontline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended - This seems pretty cursory. Any idea why the sentence was commuted?
  • Leak and his new wife - Don't know about you, but "new wife" sounds weird to me. Especially as it's given that this is his first wife, and the article is describing her as though she is his property or something.
  • A street in Gallipoli Barracks in Enoggera, Queensland, is named after him.[34] The John Leak monument was unveiled in Rockhampton on 20 April 2012 to honour Leak, who enlisted in the city.[35] In 2015, Leak's grandson Peter Townsend said his family always travel to Rockhampton for the Remembrance Day service, which is held annually at his grandfather's memorial.[36] - This is in later life, but talks about legacy. Furthermore, the sentences don't necessarily flow: it sounds like these are three different things. Is it possible to expand on these?
  • added "and legacy" to the section header. The last two are directly related, as they both refer to his memorial. All three relate to memorialisation of Leak. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I will make more comments later, but so far, so good. epicgenius (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: By the way, there's no rush on this. Just let me know when you have a chance to respond to these comments. Besides the notes I pointed out above, this looks quite good. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
G'day epicgenius, thanks for looking at this, all done so far. Here are my edits. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Looks good. After looking over the page again, I couldn't find any new issues. I'll support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks again! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Victoria Cross image has two alts
  • File:John_Leak_P02939.jpg: suggest using PD-US instead of the URAA tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

This is looking good to me. The only little concerns I have are that we sometimes seem to use a slightly too informal tone for an encyclopaedia, and perhaps there may be one or two instances of redundancy in the prose. Perhaps it would be worth having a look through for more examples other than the ones I've listed here. Feel free to argue or discuss any of these points. I'm inclined to support this, but would like to read it a few more times first after these have been addressed or cheerfully ignored! Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "before deploying south to the Somme river valley, where they would experience their first real fighting in France": I'm never sure why we need to use the "would" construction. Why not "where they experienced"? And I wonder if "real" is redundant here? If we are concerned that they had minor skirmishes before this, could we replace "fighting" with "action" or similar?
  • "The 9th Battalion was being held up by a pair of German machine guns. A furious bomb (hand grenade) fight began, with the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians being outranged by the German "egg" bombs. Leak ran forward and threw three Mills bombs into the machine gun post, then leapt into the post, attacking the garrison with his bayonet. By the time the rest of his platoon got to the post, Leak was wiping blood off his bayonet with his slouch hat.": To me, this sounds a little too much like a section from an action thriller rather than encyclopaedic (especially the first sentence which sets up tension, and the use of "furious"), but perhaps that is just me. However, I would appreciate a little more explanation of why the "egg" bombs (and maybe an explanation of what on earth "egg" bombs were) were outranged. Also, I wonder do we need the later extended quotation from the London Gazette which effectively just repeats what we have here. Finally, "with the [bombs] being outranged" is an example of "noun plus verbing" (I believe they're called fused participles) which I think are best avoided where possible, and could easily be done so here by rewording as "and the heavier Mills bombs used by the Australians were outranged..."
  • I think I've addressed this. Providing a brief description in the chronology then the full citation at the time the award was made is the approach I've used in all the other VCs I've done. I think this is the best way to approach it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "While in the UK, he got himself into trouble with the military authorities on two occasions.": "got himself in trouble" perhaps lacks a little of the formality we should be using?
  • "The 69th Battalion was soon disbanded to provide reinforcements to existing units": Redundancy?
  • "Leak was not coping with the effects of shell-fire": Again lacks a little formality, but I wonder if we could expand here. Presumably this comes from his evidence at the court-martial, but I think more explanation would help. If we know specifically what it was that troubled him, that would be a useful addition. If not, could we perhaps find something relevant that describes the effects of shell-fire, and maybe add it as a note?
  • added "that he was affected by "combat-related trauma" and linked to combat stress reaction. Added "relentless" to "shell-fire" to better explain what the issue was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "His sentence was life imprisonment, but this was commuted to two years hard labour. Ultimately, the sentence was suspended, and Leak returned to his unit on 23 December.": The obvious question that will be asked when this is read... why?
  • "At some point his wife disappeared from his life": I'm guessing the answer will be "We don't know"... but why did she disappear? Presumably she was dead if he remarried? But I'm not sure "disappeared" is the best word. It leaves me with visions of spontaneous human combustion, and a pair of smoking shoes...
  • Fair enough. Changed to "At some point he and his wife separated, it is unknown what happened to her." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We kind of drip-feed information about his children, which I'd imagine reflects the sources. But I wonder would it be easier to say something like "They had eight children in total, although their first died within a year of her birth; the last was born in 1948."
  • "remembering lost mates": Again, I wonder if "mates" is too informal? Sarastro (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: Changes look good and I think this comfortably meets the criteria. A very interesting tale. Sarastro (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

James Humphreys (pornographer)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

An insalubrious character, James Humphreys was a peddler of mucky mags, a strip club owner and a pimp. In order to carry on his business in the 60s and 70s he spent thousands on bribing the Dirty Squad, as the Obscene Publications Branch of the Met were called. Cars, cash, jewellery and holidays ensured the money kept rolling in from his Soho porn empire. Then it all went wrong and Humphreys used his records of bribes to get a shorter jail sentence after beating up his wife's lover. Thirteen bent coppers were banged up because of his evidence. This is a new article that's recently gone through GA. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass

Per previous review. buidhe 13:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Buidhe, I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tentative Oppose by Fowler&fowler; looking to support, given progress

The first FAC was archived on 2 January 2020, and a discussion was continued on the Talk page. This article has seen just one edit since. The GAC was conducted long before the first FAC was archived. I have not had time to even get much beyond the lead. The nominator made no effort to ping me. Surely that is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please point out exactly where any action here "is not in consonance with WP:FAC rules". I am sure that the @WP:FAC coordinators: will explain the basics to you, and that your oppose is unactionable, given there is no "specific rationale that can be addressed". And in future, please WP:AGF. - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This article has a major blind spot, a major gap: that of sexual exploitation and abuse of young women. He did that his entire life. There is no mention anywhere in the article. The article deadpans its way through. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
We are clear as to exactly what he did. If you wish to provide reliable sources that directly link Humphreys to any additional exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry), please provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler 's reply at 16:29, 12 January 2020‎ — continues after insertion below

(edit conflict) The point is is that for that information to be included, we would need a specific source that directly and explicitly links Humphrey's to the exploitation of, etc. No-one (I'm sure) disagrees with your point in principle, but Wikipedia cannot be seen to make the link independently to the sources. That would be both original research and synthetic. The most that we could have without such a source is a (probably single sentence) piece of context in which it is noted that the 60s was a decade in which female rights came to the for, but so did pornography (or something). But it would be part of the general background rather than accusing Humphrey's personally. ——SN54129 16:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Where is that background? There are books written on sexual exploitation in Soho in the 1960s and 70s, often not just of underage women, but foreign women, who were more vulnerable. Where is there any mention of that? There are apparently "normal levels" of sex abuse in the porn industry (according to the nominator); there are also "normal levels" of corruption in the police. The article is entirely about the breaches of the latter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
DO YOU HAVE ANY SOURCES THAT STATE HUMPHREYS WAS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXPLOITATION OR ABUSE? - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Who is "We?" And "additional?" Where is there any mention of sexual exploitation or abuse? Are you saying your article is comprehensive about sexual exploitation and abuse of young, and even underage, women for which James Humpherys was directly or indirectly responsible? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
"We" is Wikipedia, (i.e.: the article is clear). Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (above the 'normal' levels of the sex industry)? If so, please could you provide them. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
What are the "normal" levels in the sex industry? I have no idea. Your article makes no explication of these standards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
If you have no idea, how are you basing an oppose on it? The article links to various other articles which deal with the wider social impacts of the sex industry. I think we'd be going well outside the limits of a biography if we start looking at the social impact of pornography in this article.
So we're back to the question again: do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse (i.e. those that fall outside any general coverage that appears in the articles linked from this one)? - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I was alluding to the use of "normal" without telling us what constitutes that notion of normal under which James Humpherys was engaging in sexual exploitation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

F&F, you should also oppose because the article makes no mention of the Sociology of punishment or imprisonment either. ——SN54129 16:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

If a man was a warden at Auschwitz and there is no source for his directly killing the inmates. Can we nominate a biography of his to FAC that does not tell us about the context, about what went on in Auschwitz? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Wut. ——SN54129 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Take the suprious and straw men discussions elsewhere. Do you have any sources that state Humphreys was directly responsible for any exploitation or abuse? I am going to disengage from this line you are pushing now. I consider it increasingly disruptive as it is outside the scope of this biography. The socio-economic impact of pornography and the sex industry is dealt with in article linked directly from this one. Should you have any constructive comments to make about the article, I will deal with them, otherwise I have better things to do. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
How is the latter half of the second paragraph in the Later life section a comprehensive summary of this report in The Independent? The Independent article says, "His wife, June, 59, who often acted as a maid to the prostitutes, forced the women to pay such high rents that they frequently had to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week to meet her demands, Southwark Crown Court in south London was told. ... The judge said he accepted they did not coerce or corrupt the women they used, but 'on any view the financial arrangements for them were extortionate'. Humphreys, of West Hampstead, north-west London, admitted living on immoral earnings; his wife, charged under her maiden name of Packard, admitted aiding and abetting him."? I have many more sources ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This is actually a good point to make, and I've added something about the amount of time the women worked. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
As long as those sources aren't memoires of retired peelers, that's fine :) ——SN54129 18:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Serial Number, that's what comes of writing articles on what some people describe as "hobby topics". If you choose to do that, you'll end up being crucified here because you haven't written an article on a "vital" topic. It's that sort of mindset that makes for a less than smooth review process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with either hobby or vital, and everything to do with a slanted, sanitized, and incomplete account. Have you, for example, used the sources I pointed out to you on the article's talk page:
  • Tyler, Melissa (19 December 2019), Soho at Work, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-18273-8
  • Mort, Frank (2010), Capital Affairs: London and the Making of the Permissive Society, Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11879-7 to give the reader a background or context to Humphreys's career? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Please do not lie: tThis article is not slanted, sanitised or incomplete. No, I have not used those sources. They are not about Humphreys, and the information they contain is too far away from this biography. We have articles about pornography and the sex industry that readers are able to read. They do not need to be given a lecture on the socio-economic impact of prostitution in this article: that is what other articles are for. If you wish to improve the other articles, or, indeed, create a new article the sex industry in 1970s London, please feel free, but it would fall outside the remit of this article, except for a link. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The description of the sting in Cyprus in your summary begins with, "In January 1972 Drury, Humphreys and their wives travelled to Cyprus and Beirut for a fortnight's holiday." and continues with "A journalist flew to Cyprus and was given a copy of the hotel register; the newspaper hired a private investigator who visited the branch of Thomas Cook on Regent Street, where he obtained a duplicate of the receipt, which showed Humphreys had paid for Drury's ticket." But that is not how the narrative unfolded. There was no public awareness of that trip. It was uncovered in an investigation directed by Laurie Manifold, the head of the investigative team at The Sunday People. The description in Roy Greenslade (27 May 2008), "Subterfuge, set-ups, stings and stunts: how red-tops go about their investigations", in Hugu de Burgh (ed.), Investigative Journalism, Routledge, pp. 329–330, ISBN 978-1-134-06871-5 is fuller (I have italicized some important elements.)
Roy Greenslade's description

The starting point was a passing mention to Manifold by a freelance reporter with good underworld contacts ... That information was nowhere near sound enough to publish. Even though Humphreys confirmed it to Manifold, documentary proof was required. ... Manifold sent a reporter, Sid Foxcroft, to Cyprus to see if he could check the register, and he immediately had an amazing stroke of luck. On arrival at Nicosia airport, the Greek Cypriot taxi driver recognised Foxcroft as a former comrade in the 8th Army and offered him help. Within minutes of getting to the hotel the driver persuaded the manager to show his old friend the register, which recorded the fact that Drury and Humphreys, and their wives, had stayed at the hotel at the same time. But it did not show who paid the bill because it was a package tour pre-paid in Britain. Manifold guessed that the package tour operators were unlikely to provide a copy of a receipt if approached straightforwardly. He told me: ‘I thought there’s only way to get this, and we've got to break the law. You’ve got to take a chance sometimes’. So he hired a man he had used before, an ex-army officer with a shady past he knew as ‘Matt’, to bluff the clerk at Cook’s in Regent Street by pretending he was Drury’s accountant and that he’d lost his receipt. The clerk accepted the story and supplied him with a duplicate, which confirmed that Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday. The result was a sensational front page: ‘POLICE CHIEF AND THE PORN KING: Was it wise of Commander Drury of Scotland Yard to go on holiday with this old lag? ’ (The People, 6 February 1972).

Do you think your summary will be helped by accommodating the italicized sentences in Greenslade's account in some fashion? You may not have seen this source, but our imperative is to be comprehensive. Note: I will make my more detailed comments on the Talk page of the article and link them here, as this review might become too long. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x 2 I am well aware of the Greenslade source (and, indeed, we use it in that section). The additional information is not core to Humphreys's biography and we cannot bloat this article out with extraneous detail of what the journalists did. What we have in the article is entirely correct. Where there is a question over how the information was passed to The People, we provide both alternatives. How they got confirmation from the London end, we clarify this. I don't see anything else useful for this article in what Greenslade has written. If you disagree, please bullet point exactly what facts you think are missing and why/how they are crucial to Humphreys's biography.
Please do NOT paste information both on the talk page and here: that way confusion lies. I am concerned that you think you will be making this article too long, but if we are going to discuss blocks of text that are extraneous to this article I can see how that would happen. - SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Greenslade's account says nothing about being given a copy of the hotel register—the register, in any case, is a bulky thing—only that he was shown the register. It says nothing about a private investigator (not even an undercover investigator, only man with a shady past, who broke the law ...). It says nothing about paying for Drury's "ticket." A ticket is ambiguous because you make no mention of a package tour. And, it wasn't just Drury's ticket. Greenslade says, "Humphreys had paid for Mr and Mrs Drury’s holiday." I asked because I'm perplexed at the paraphrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Greenslade's isn't the only account, and the weight of all the other sources differ at a few points to his. The other sources include input from people involved, investigative journalists, and people who have looked into this matter in depth, not in the limited way that Greenslade does. - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, Greenslade is the only one who has been cited. Where are those other sources? Why have they not been cited? The ones that say, "He was given a copy of the hotel register," for example. You don't have to give me quotes, only the names of the references; I'll look them up to see if the description can be improved. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
There are a series of sources used in the text when discussing the holiday. Start there. - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I've changed 'ticket' to 'holiday' and added a second source. Neither change is really needed, but given the needless pressure being applied when it doesn't need to be... - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am going to bed now. In the last FAC, I had barely covered the first paragraph of the lead and one paragraph of another section when the nominator withdrew his nomination. Because of my comments and queries, those paragraphs stand changed. I will be looking at the article more closely this coming week. My main concerns, which are the same as my concerns in the previous FAC, are:
    • (1) Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material. This is my major concern, not the prose. This was my major concern in the previous FAC as well.
    • (2) Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and especially of exploitation of women, including sexual abuse of them, in the industry. I am not convinced that the absence of source material (if that turns out to be the case) for James Humphreys's direct complicity in sexual crimes against women is an excuse to not discuss the indirect complicity of belonging to a milieu for which such crimes are documented.
    • (3) Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity. I will be examining all these issues more closely this coming week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) Updated with numbers for the issues listed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, the paragraphs were changed, but for no reason other than me trying to get over an impasse. The article was not improved by the changes (and the clue was all the other reviewers who disagreed with you).
      • This article is NOT the venue for an examination of the abuse of women in the sex industry, unless you can find information that directly links Humphreys to specific acts.
      • "I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity". So you are speaking from a position of ignorance in your Oppose? (and I sincerely hope the FAC co-ords take note of that). I don't mind people opposing when they know what they are on about, but when they don't know the subject and haven't read the sources, but make up spurious claims that you think there is untapped source material, then it makes a review process something of a rather unfunny joke. I do hope this isn't going to be as disruptive a process as the last review, which I regret having withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry that was a note to the coordinators about the issues that have caused me to oppose this submission, the issues that I will be looking at more closely this week. I'm a little stapped for time now, but, in addition, I will also be looking at:
  • (4) The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy; most have sections. There is nothing in the article about how history, his friends, his loved ones, and indeed he himself has judged James Humphreys. There is certainly no absence of data there. There is nothing about his character. There is again no absence of data there.
  • I have now numbered my FAC issues. As I go through them in more detail, I will be presenting my actionable suggestions here, Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is little actionable in anything you have said do far (aside from one or two minor points, and certainly very, very little given in good faith) that needs to be actioned SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A legacy section? I’m afraid this shows complete ignorance of the subject matter. If you can get to grips with the subject matter before making any more similar comments, it would be best for all. - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Continued note to the coordinators about (4)) By "legacy," I mean the extended usage, "a long-lasting effect of an event or process (OED)," the "lasting influence of a person or thing." I mean the summing up of a life or career. I mean the contemplation or retrospection of the lived life, the tributes, the criticisms, the aftermath. There is no shortage of those in the sources for James Humphreys. I will be making a list of those as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I look forward to seeing what unencyclopaedic dross you come up with in an attempt to justify this unjustifiable, oppose made in complete bad faith. This clutching at straws is all very second rate and disruptive.
And rather than sending notes to co-ordinators, perhaps you can drop the obstructive manner and address comments about the article to the nominator. Grandstanding has no place in any review. - SchroCat (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, Laser brain, I wanted to let you know that my detailed review has not begun yet. I will start it once I have the literature I have requested from Inter-Library loan. I will respond to the relevant critiques some time thereafter, and in this section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of Fowler&fowler

Note1: I have possession of a couple of sources. While I wait for the rest to arrive through the inter-library loan, I thought it might be a good idea to begin the review. Could only the nominator reply here? All other editors, excepting the coordinators, please reply if you must, in your own subsections and either ping me or mention me in your edit summary. I will reply to you here. Note2: Can we collapse the discussion above? It is less relevant to my review which properly begins below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Issue 1 Summarizing the cited source material.
Section 1.1 Early life; beginnings of criminal career
  • Sentence1: James William Humphreys was born in Bermondsey, South London, on 7 January 1930.{{sfn|Cox|Shirley|Short|1977|p=145}}
    • Root, {{sfn|Root|2019}} which you are using significantly, says, "Born in Bermondsey in South London on 5 January 1930,
    • I can see that the date of birth of a James Humphreys (from his death record in the England and Wales data) was 7 January 1930, but why have you preferred Cox, Shirley and Short (1977) to Root (2019) absent the use of primary source data? If you are using the latter, then why has it not been cited?
      • Because we know the 7th is correct, so we're ignoring the incorrect. I could add another footnote to say that one source has the 5th, but as we know it's wrong, there seems little point in adding confusion to the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Sorry, my error. I meant if you are using the primary source data to make the determination of accuracy, then it should be cited. (No footnote is needed, nor should Root be cited; but the birth or baptismal record you are using should be cited along with Cox et al) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • There's no need for that. We have a solid source that gives the date. Extra sources are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
            • You have two solid sources. One, Root, which you have cited 15 times in the article; the other, Cox et al, which you have cited 13 times in the article. They have conflicting dates of birth for Humphreys. I asked why you have preferred Cox et al in this instance. If it is because of some knowledge from primary source data, then that data needs to be cited. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
              • We have the correct date in the article and we have a solid source. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sentence 2) He left school at age 14 and began a career of petty criminality;
    • Root says, "Humphreys’ rap sheet in the Metropolitan Police files is interesting reading and shows how he developed from petty crime as a youngster, before graduating to more serious crime."
      • One could, for instance, say, "X passed his law school exams in 1945 and began a career in law." Or you could say, "Y joined the Syndicate at age 15 and began a career in crime." Or one can develop, in Root's words, and the evidence of the development can be seen in retrospect in a rap sheet, but how does one begin a career, i.e. take the first steps of a course of continued progress in a domain whose organization is not described? (Note this is not a stylistic issue) In the end, as you well know, from November 1945 to October 1962, which constituted some 17 years, he spent more than 11 years in various prisons or reform schools. What was the career then that he had begun in November 1945, that of a petty criminal or a long-serving convict?
        • One could not say that. There is nothing about a "syndicate", or anything close to that in the sources. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The sentences beginning with X and Y are examples of correct usage for "career," implying that "career" cannot be applied to what Humphreys. Again, how can someone who between November 1945 and October 1962, i.e. 17 years, spent 11 years in correctional institutions, be said to have embarked in 1945 on a career of petty criminality? Do you mean, "he fell to petty crime?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
            • I'm afraid you are again selecting a very narrow definition of a word that has much wider use. I suggest you check the OED, which supports the use of the term we have here. I am afraid that if I came across the phrase "he fell to petty crime" I'd be both confused by what it meant, and think that the writer is trying way to hard to write purple prose. - SchroCat (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
              • OK, if you don't like that. How about, "He began to get involved in petty crime?" Or, if you like "criminality," "He began to engage in acts of petty criminality." There was no prognostication of a career in 1945. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
                • The wording is absolutely fine as it is. You may have done it differently, but there are several different ways it could have been done. This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (Sentence 1, cont): while still a teenager he became friends with Frankie Fraser, the London gangland enforcer.
    • Root says, "Humphreys left school at the age of fourteen, and while still in his teens became friendly with the notorious gangland figure ‘Mad’ Frankie Fraser." For Root, this is a literary device to weave in a theme that he thinks is important--that Humphreys was a snitch, a cop informer, in the opinion of some, including Root himself. Root continues after that sentence,

      "But later events would change this feeling of friendship. ... (In 2012, Frankie's son) David Fraser said that Humphreys, who died in 2003, had been no friend of Frankie’s for many years, and that James Humphreys was ‘a grass’. As this book will prove, Humphreys was, with no doubt, a police informer, and in some high-profile cases too."

      • Why are you mentioning the friendship with Fraser here, and doing so in fragmentary form, when you don't mention it again anywhere in the article? What information is the mention of friendship meant to convey to the reader? Why the "still?" What meaning does that impart? They grew up in the same neighborhood after all. (See sentence 8 below.)
        • We're mentioning it because it shows the milieu in which he was brought up without thrashing the point beyond any relevent meaning. We say they were friends when they were young: we put no spin onto the point, and your interpretation of Root is into OR territory or reading behind the author's intent. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The current sentence does not say anything about the milieu, nothing about the circumstances of their friendship. They could have met at a reformatory school, for instance. As such the mere mention, without context, is ambiguous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • We reflect the source. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 3: When he was 15 Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking, and was fined £5.
    • Root has: "Just a year after leaving school, 15-year-old Humphreys was arrested for housebreaking and stealing fur coats and other articles, and fined £5 in April 1945."
      • The fine was not just for housebreaking.
        • It's fairly inplicit that when one breaks into a house, it's normally to remove some of the contents, but I have added "and theft" to remove any doubt. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 4: Seven months later he was sent to an approved school—a reformatory school in which children who had committed crimes were one of the classes of inmates[1]—for stealing a car.
    • (I can give you the grammatical reasons if you'd like, but) you can't put a long appositive, "a reformatory school ...classes of inmates," between two prepositional phrases without creating ambiguity and diminishing comprehension.
      • You could have: After stealing a car seven months later, he was sent to an approved school--a reformatory school in which ..." Or, as most people know what a reform school is, you could have: Seven months later he was sent to an approved school—a reformatory school—for stealing a car.
        • No, you couldn't have "After stealing a car seven months later": we don't know when he stole the car, but we do know that the sentencing after the case against him was seven months later. I have dropped the term and explanation into a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • That's an easy fix: "Seven months later, after stealing a car, he was sent ... " But I see you have dropped the m-dashes. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 5: He was released the following year, but was sent back in October 1947 for a series of offences.
    • Root has: "Humphreys was returned there in October 1947 for receiving a stolen motorcar, clothing, tools, housebreaking and stealing a sewing machine."
      • Your phrasing is too general. In other words, why is there reason to mention the offense(s) at all if the description is to be so general? He would not have been returned there without some good cause in the realm of offenses. Besides from Root, it is not clear if it was a series of offenses or just one offense involving disparate aspects.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Again, how does what Root describes constitute a series of offenses? (Note: (OED) Series (n): A number of discrete things of one kind (esp. events or actions) following one another in succession over time, or in order of appearance or presentation. OED attested examples: 1958 W. S. Churchill Hist. Eng.-speaking Peoples IV. v A more immediate cause of the rising was a series of defeats and reverses suffered by the British. 1987 M. Das Cyclones i. 2 They held another series of meetings. 2011 New Yorker 14 Feb. 95/3 He had a series of liaisons, each of which he confessed.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • FFS... We could change to "several", but to little end and no gain. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 6: In 1948 Humphreys was sentenced to three years in Rochester Borstal for theft; he was released in February 1950.
    • Root has, "In June 1948 he was given three years in Borstal for stealing a roll of cloth, and again for taking a motorcar without consent, being released early in February 1950."
      • The starting month presumably fell through the cracks of a previous revision.
        • No. The month isn't of great importance in the scheme of things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • If the particular month of the year is not important, then why have you mentioned the month of release? Why the month of the following incarceration? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • From a novice reader's perspective, such as mine, "theft" is too general when following specific mention of a wiki-linked-prison. There is nothing wrong with adding the roll of cloth, etc.. If anything, from a modern perspective, when the offenses are detailed, the sentence seems too harsh. It gives the reader a window into the making of a criminal in the 1950s' Britain.
        • I think we're OK with the general term, without the shopping list. And we have a "wiki-linked-prison" for clarity: Rochester Borstal gave it's name to borstals for young offenders. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 7: Nine months later he was sent to prison for a year for aiding and abetting other criminals, and released in June 1951.[2][3]
    • Root has, "In November 1950, he was sentenced to his first adult prison term of twelve months, now aged 20, for ‘assisting and comforting’ two others who had stolen goods worth £22 4s 6d."
      • "Adult prison term" is an important detail.
        • That's lazy writing. Prison is an adult punishment. For minors it is/was approved school, Secure Children's Home, borstal or (for slightly older prisoners) Young Offenders Institute. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • The Government of the UK uses the term "adult prison," here, "Young people aged 18 are treated as an adult by the law. If they’re sent to prison, they’ll be sent to a place that holds 18 to 25-year-olds, not a full adult prison." Root says this was his first "adult prison term." He was 20. The Wikipedia pages Young Offenders Institute and Her Majesty's Young Offender Institution describe themselves as prisons for those who have not attained the age of majority. If a "prison" unambiguously meant a place for incarceration of adults, those descriptions would be self-contradictory. Neither the OED nor Britannica makes such a delimitation in their definitions of the term "prison." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • We do not need to go into this in minute detail (aside from pointing out that 18 is an adult in UK law). We do not need to be so lazy or stupid as to use the awful phrase "adult prison". This is a non-discussion point. Move on. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sentence 8: In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple soon divorced.[4][5]
    • Root has an offhanded later mention ca 1962: "When Jimmy Humphreys was released on 26 October 1962, he was 32 years old. Handsome and desperate to ‘make it’, he had already been married once, to a woman called June Driscoll."
    • I can see the marriage record in the England and Wales data.
      • Where are you getting the divorce information? Why "soon," and not a firm date, if you actually have the information?
        • I can't find the record for the moment, so I've removed this temporarily. It will raise questions from readers asking why we don't mention the divorce before he remarries, but hopefully I can dig out the source before then. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Why is there even a need to mention June Driscoll so perfunctorily, i.e. by name and by month of her marriage (rummaged from primary sources)? It is beginning to border on original research. Why not simply say when mentioning his second marriage that he had been married once before and citing Root in a correct paraphrasing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
            • Her marriage is in the chronologically correct position. It's perfunctory because the sources have no further information. Just because Root puts it in a different place, there is no need for us to follow suit. - SchroCat (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
      • (An aside, whose theme I will pick up in a different section: Mad Frankie Fraser has a much more evocative description in his diary co-authored with James Morton, Random House, 2001, 2019):

        "Jimmy Humphreys, Eva’s husband Jimmy and me had nicked a lorry load of tea from outside what was the Ministry of Health building by the Elephant. I knew Jimmy Humphreys because he was a local boy; came from Southwark and he’s a few years younger than me. He’ll be about 70 now; very presentable, smart dresser, a very good appearance. Did all the usual things, a bit of approved school, a bit of burglary. ... When my sister Eva got married and was living in Great Dover Street, Jimmy Humphreys and his first wife June were down on their luck and Eva, through the kindness of her heart, had them and the baby to stay for about four months until they got on their feet. He wasn't a bad fellow then. A good thief until he broke up with June and after that, he went bad."

        More later, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Very colourful, not not encyclopaedic. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, there is little point in going round in circles with you demanding changes are made your way when there is no benefit to the article. If you have new points to raise, please do so below, but there is no merit in relitigating the same points over and over. I have given my reasons why things have not been changed, and I see no reason to alter that position solely to satisfy your whim. - SchroCat (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Graham Beards

Support unreservedly. This article was ready for promotion at the last FAC nomination, which was withdrawn because of a confrontational review based on the usage of a couple of adverbs.Graham Beards (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks Graham, your kind words during the last review, and subsequently, have been very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Graham Beards: Are you suggesting that the article is comprehensive with respect to the topic of sexual exploitation of young and underage women? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:15, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The topic is not "The sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is James Humphreys (pornographer). Also, please do not ping me, or attempt to lobby me when I have already declared my support. Address your comments to the nominator.Graham Beards (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

Without a doubt, as per Graham. This article meets all the criteria. It's a pity to see Fowler&fowler, engaging in this rather immature and stupid line of rhetoric. I would encourage the coords to examine this oppose against the FA criteria and subsequently kick it into a ditch where it belongs. CassiantoTalk 18:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cass, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I note Fowler&fowler's 8,511 bytes of utter feet stomping that the article has not gone their way, above. I maintain my support, unreservedly. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

coord note

Did I miss the request to run this early? The previous candidate received was archived on 2 January, and its only 12 January. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth, the bot was late to run. Ian closed the last FAC on the 30th. So it is a little early, but only a few hours. Graham Beards (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth, In addition to the slow bot, I emailed Ian, who gave me the green light. Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This is my fault. A markup error on the nomination page meant that the Bot could not see Ian's close. Because of the time of year, I did not correct the problem until 2 January. My apologies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
It's not a problem Hawkeye, (and thanks for the explanation). It would explain why edits made 'post close' have largely been ignored by the sole opposer to this article, with the unfortunate and entirely erroneous claim of "only one" edit having been made. - SchroCat (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

′’’Everyone’’’ if you don’t want me refactoring your comments, please do so by striking thru all commentary on other editors. There is no need for editors to discuss other editors motives. If it doesn’t stop, it’s going to require outside intervention. And Mama Ealdgyth really does mean everybody here. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, Moder Ealdgyth...unless you're feeling particularly God-like (quite apt, I think this FAC might need some divine intervention), in which case ALL HAIL Modoreynd Ealdgyth to whom we lowly FACers are mere Módoru... :) ——SN54129 19:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Ealdgyth is out on the road with hubby in semi truck. First day, hasn’t even had a chance to find the laptop in the pile of stuff on the bunk...so yes, Ealdgyth is CRANKY. Let’s not make her have to dig for the laptop while barreling down the highway at 63 miles per hour (101 km/h). She should have the truck cleaned and arranged by tomorrow and won’t have to edit from the iPad then...and if you think hubby invites Ealdgyth along just to organize the truck, you may be on to something....Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe, Ealdgyth, you can give your opinion on the editor whose oppose has nothing to do with WP:FACR and everything to do with his own personal preference. I think if you fix that, they'll be no need for editors to discuss other editors. CassiantoTalk 20:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Cass, it isn’t necessary to comment on other editors. This comment here isn’t helpful. Or do you think the FAC coords are incapable of actually reading the nomination and seeing which reviews are based on the criteria? That is, after all, our job. We don’t need nominators and reviewers muddying up the nomination commenting on other editors. If other editors are not engaging with the criteria, we’ll know and judge accordingly. So please strike any comments on other editors. Thank you. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
And it's unnecessary to oppose an article that does not fail the FACR. The oppose here isn't helpful, either. Of course I think the coords are capable of reading a nomination and judging it against the criteria, which is why I find it puzzling that there has been a tumbleweed moment with regards to Fowler&fowler's oppose, and a very vocal challenge over people daring to talk about it in this candidacy. CassiantoTalk 22:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
at this point, an oppose isn’t a nomination closer, so for now, let’s let the discussion develop, without unnecessary commentary on other editors. If folks don’t refactor their comments by mid a day tomorrow, I’ll take my red pen to anything that isn’t helpful. I’d prefer that folks do it themselves, and I’m trusting that we all are adults and can discuss content without attacking or feeling attacked, as long as the comments stay on the content. It is possible to disagree with other editors without it being a battleground. Prose is the most subjective of the criteria and as a coord, I’m much less worried about differences over prose than I am about the other aspects of the criteria, especially when other reviewers do not agree on the nature of prose concerns...I.e, if a reviewer opposes on prose and word choices but many other reviewers do not agree that the prose concerns are a concern, it not something that should hold up a nom. Note, that is all hypothetical..and I have no idea if that situation applies here or not. The nom is only 12 hours or so old. At this point, my main concern is productive discussion that doesn’t focus on editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Just backing up a point that Ealdgyth has made here... folks can and do disagree on subjective prose matters all the time. As a coord, I'm going to consider opposition over subjective prose matters to be a matter of consensus. I'm hoping the discourse can stay civil and comments can remain about the subject and not about other editors. A nomination that turns into a bloodbath is more likely to be archived than one where there is civil disagreement over the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic commentary
It would have been a lot better if the first comment in this review was not a spurious oppose made - and I am sorry to say it - in bad faith. No good reasons have been given for the oppose and there has been such an unconstructive attitude from the very start that it is unsurprising that some heat has been generated by it. You'll note, I hope, that every single other reviewer in both this FAC and the previous one has approached the review in a constructive and collegiate manner, making suggestions and comments, all of which have had the best intentions of the article in mind. Those comments have been dealt with in the manner in which they were made. There is only one area which has not been a smooth ride, and it is when a reviewer has started with bad faith, a BATTLEFIELD approach and playing "Gotcha!". To oppose because we haven't added a lecture on 'pornography is bad' and then to say there must be sources to say Humphreys was an abuser - when there is complete ignorance on the subject - makes it extremely difficult to any normal, rational editor to deal with it in any other way than to consider that part of the review as something of a farce. While reviewers need to be protected in order to undertake a thorough review, there needs to be protection for nominators from spurious reviews in which a reviewer is more keen on grandstanding to the co-ords, rather than providing a good faith review. LB, Ealdgyth, Sorry for the rant, and feel free to collapse it or delete it in toto, but there are times when dealing with such bollocks just isn't worth it. I'm sure the reviewer would be delighted if this review is archived for any excuse - it would stop them having to admit there are, for example, no sources that say Humphreys was an abuser. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with SC here. I struck my comments not because I was ordered to do so, but because I want this article to pass, relatively drama free, and in the hope that (the person who shall not be named) would have their oppose omitted from the final tally based on it not falling within the scope of the criteria. CassiantoTalk 16:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Coordinators: My oppose has little to do with the prose, although there are issues with the prose which I have not addressed. My oppose, as I've indicated above, has to do with (i) vague and inaccurate paraphrasing, (ii) inadequate background to the strip club business in SOHO in the 1960s and 70s, porn-shops, and prostitution. That business was specific enough to 1960s SOHO, that it is not explained away by making a reader click out to a generic striptease or other link. My contention, moreover, is that the nominator by so doing in several sections has inadvertently sanitized instances of Humphreys's corruptness or venality, which is the counterpose to police corruption, (iii), etc. ... there are other issues, which the coordinators will be able to read about in my oppose section. The nominator cannot first withdraw his nomination on a whim in the middle of my last review, then abruptly renominate again 10 days later with one change, and expect me to be responsive in real-time. It is only today that the nominator in a series of edits has implemented my critique in the days following his withdrawal. He has, moreover, made no acknowledgment of it on this page for a coordinator to read, or for that matter anywhere else. So, as I've said above, this is a busy time for me. I will round up the sources, not all of which are easy to find, a large number of which are primary sources—including videos of the pornographer, his wife, his cohorts, and journalists, reminiscing—and in the next week or ten days complete my review. Given the circumstances, my request if very fair. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Can you stop being so rude and ignoring me, the nominator, simply to grandstand to the co-ords? You have shown an extremely poor attitude in both FACs and have not approached either of them in any form of good attitude. Instead you have been intransigent, obstructive and shown a BATTLEFIELD approach that does absolutely no-one any favours. Your post above contains so many inaccuracies that my AGF is stretched too far to think that they are not deliberate mischaracterisations of the situation. I have not, for example, in any way or in any location said, hinted or given any indication that you need to be "responsive in real time". It is a falsehood to claim that I have done so. I have not added the information you have requested at all: you have asked for entirely different information to be added - things way outside what anyone would expect in a standard biography. Now drop the obnoxious attitude, try not to continue playing "Gotcha!", learn that the name is Soho, not SOHO, and spend less time writing 'notes' to the co-ords and more time treating other editors like they are not something you have had to scrape off your shoe. - SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 :) Believe it or not, I am trying to help you. Or rather your article. As long as you understand that my review won't be done in a day or two, I will be happy. In fact, my review may not even begin for a day or two, until some books I have requested from Inter-Library loan arrive. But my sole goal remains making the article for which you have done much work even better. I apologize for capitalizing Soho, but I have been reading Melissa Tyler's new book, SOHO at WORK, Cambridge, 2020. It is the content that is important. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Given your attitude and approach so far, I struggle to believe that you are trying to help in any way. (As an aside, that is not the first time you have called this "your article". As I had to point out last time, this is not my article. It is an article on which I have worked. Nothing more. To keep calling it "your article" does suggest a degree of ownership that does not exist.)
There is no rush on any review (and I have not given any indication at any point that there is), as articles are not promoted until a very minimum of two weeks have passed, and normally much longer. If your obstructive approach and inflexibility is lessened then this will become much less of a trial for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I am puzzled and distressed at the clash, above, between two editors I much admire. I have looked closely at all the points made, and I can in conscience only repeat that to my mind, and after a further careful reading, the article meets the FA criteria, and with the exception of Fowler&fowler the other contributions so far (both from editors I respect greatly) express the same opinion – quite emphatically. I didn't think the first nomination should have been withdrawn, and I support this second one. Tim riley talk 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Tim, thanks very much for your second review on this article. It is much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 18:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Still supporting. The additional load of comments from Fowler&fowler seem to me to amount to "I'd do it this way". As I am entirely happy with the way SchroCat has done it, meeting, imo, all the FA criteria, I continue to support. Tim riley talk 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map, and an inset might be helpful to give a wider perspective on where in London this neighbourhood is situated
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:James_Humphries,_1972.jpg: the source link has some more information on provenance that would be worth copying into the image description
  • File:The_Sunday_People,_27_February_1972.png: suggest expanding the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Many thanks, Nikkimaria. These all now duly attended to. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support per my support of last time. I also think that the first nom should not have been archived.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks Wehwalt. Yes, in hindsight, I should have let things run, but I was trying to avoid disruption. It seems it has just been delayed, rather than dissipated, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Support. I also supported the last nomination and my opinion has not changed. Moisejp (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks, Moisejp, for your comments and tweaks on this article on two occasions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I've read over this, and I can find no major issues. There are a few tweaks I would perhaps make, listed below, but none of them affect my support and I think they can all be safely ignored if required. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • ”The severity of his crimes increased”: I wonder would tweaking to “increased over time” or similar be a little better here?
  • ”Humphreys had to bribe the police to ensure they did not close the business down. When he expanded into other areas of the sex industry—sex shops and book shops selling obscene material—he had to pay an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.” I also wonder, as we are twice talking about the bribery, could this perhaps be combined into one sentence? Something like (but not necessarily exactly) “As Humphreys expanded his business and moved into other areas of the sex industry, he had to bribe an increasing number of policemen to be able to operate.”
    • OK, something along those lines added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Seven months later he was sent to an approved school “: Perhaps we could add a word or two on what an approved school was for the benefit of the lazy reader like me who doesn’t want to click?
    • Yes, let me dig out a word or two to explain. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”In July 1951 Humphreys married June Driscoll, but the couple were soon divorced.”: Do we need “were”?
  • ”assaulting the police in the process”: One policeman? Or several, as it looks like here?
    • Unfortunately the source does not clarify. It reads "for receiving a quantity of stolen goods and assault with intent to resist arrest". - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”changed the direction of his profession”: Doesn’t sound quite right to me. “Changed direction” by itself, or “changed the focus of his profession” would sound more natural. But perhaps it’s just me.
    • The original version - that "Humphreys changed direction professionally" was probably the best way to phrase it, but someone had conniptions about the use of the word "profesionally" (that's 1,800 words of my life I'll never get back), so we had to take a backward step to the current version. I'll ponder on a more suitable rewording. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Without wishing to reignite any wars or create another 1,800 words, I think the original version was better but understand that compromise is often necessary but rarely satisfactory! Whatever you decide won't affect my support in any way. Sarastro (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Rusty performed in three acts a day”: I always think “per day” looks more elegant.
  • ”Within the next three years Humphreys owned between six and ten other sex shops.”: This doesn’t sound quite right to me. It feels like it should be more along the lines of “Over the next three years Humphreys acquired/opened…”
    • OK, now adopted. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”The head of the Flying Squad, Ken Drury, dined with Humphreys so often, the officers under his command noticed how much weight he was putting on; Humphreys bought him an exercise bicycle and a rowing machine to help him keep the weight down”: No issues, I just feel that I should feel more appalled than I do… this made me laugh out loud.
  • ”the owners would receive a coded telephone message”: Could this not just be “owners received”?
  • ”The squad which gave obsceity a meaning of own”: I’m assuming that’s a typo in the newspaper sources list… although it is the Guardian, so maybe not. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ha - no, just proof I could have copyedited the Grauniad at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

On the issues above: I notice that no-one is really addressing the oppose other than the nominator. As I read it, F&F objects on four areas. This is my take on his objections, in case the coordinators or anyone else is looking for other opinions on the matter.

  • Vague and inaccurate summarizing of the source material: I'm afraid I don't see this. The examples which F&F says are vague and inaccurate do not appear to be either to me. Yes, the source contains more than the article, but this is a summary. We can't have every detail from every source about every person in the story.
  • Inadequate background material on the sex industry in SOHO, London, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s: As others have said, I don't believe that this or any biography should be giving detailed background on the times/places in which the person operated. We have a summary in this article, which is adequate for the purpose unless/until someone writes something which comments on Humphreys' role in exploiting women or in the sex industry. As far as I can tell, most sources seem to look at him from the viewpoint of police corruption rather than a giant of the sex industry, but I may be wrong as that was from a cursory look. I had a look myself to see if there was anything which linked Humphreys and the sex industry, but nothing jumped out, including a look at JSTOR. The only thing I found was "Cleaning up the Dirty Squad", an article that I can't access without coughing up money, but which is not directly about Humphreys and once again is looking at it from the police corruption POV. And to reiterate, this is not an article about the Soho sex industry. Too much about that, which isn't directly concerned with Humphreys, would be undue in my opinion.
  • Besides, I am not convinced that there is no source material for his direct complicity: Umm... That is an interesting reason to oppose, which I would argue is not related to WP:WIAFA. I am not convinced that Joe Root should be England captain as it is destroying his batting. Unlike this grounds for opposition though, I could immediately find many good sources that expressed that opinion were I ever to take his article to FAC. A gut feeling is not a grounds for oppose, and I see that examples of these sources have not been produced by F&F. Nor could I find any.
  • The absence of Legacy. Most FA biographies have a paragraph or two about legacy: Well, putting aside WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would strongly disagree that a biography MUST have a legacy. If the person HAS a legacy, fantastic. But if there is no legacy... you can't have a legacy section. Opposing on these grounds is pure personal preference and I don't think helps to take this forward.

Overall, I do not really see what F&F sees, and would not personally consider them valid grounds for oppose. Fortunately, I'm no longer a coordinator. Sarastro (talk) 20:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro, thank you very much for these comments. I will work through the top layers containing the suggestions, most of which look advantageous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all your comments regarding the lone "oppose". As I said above that the topic is not about "the sexual exploitation of young and underage women", the topic is "James Humphreys (pornographer)." But the opposer seems to disagree with me. I have been reluctant to engage with them any further because after the article's first FAC, a singularly nasty personal attack was made against me on their TalkPage [1]. Also note that they describe their review as giving the nominator "a hard time". Graham Beards (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree too, although as someone who lives in a city where most forms of pornography and prostitution are legal, I founds some parts of the text puzzling. The article provides an explanation of the situation with reference to pornography; but it is far from clear what the legal status of his brothels was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Hawkeye. I thought the details of arrest/court case would have given enough detail, but I'll look at a sentence or footnote to clarify. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Article seems fine to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

It looked pretty sound to me on a first read through and a bit of background study. A couple of suggestions to book my place are below. None of them are points which I would wish to go to the barricades over.

  • "Humphreys was arrested for assault on his wife's former lover" Reads a little oddly. Maybe 'assaulting'?
  • "but the couple soon divorced" Is any more precision available?
  • Sadly not. The sources are a bit thin on detail baout his early life. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Colin Manchester, the professor of law" It may just be me, but that reads a little oddly. Maybe 'Colin Manchester, a professor of law', or 'the professor of law, Colin Manchester'?
  • Went with the latter. - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "It was suspected that the Richardson Gang—the South London criminal organisation" A picky point, but perhaps 'a South London ... '?

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Gog, I'm much obliged to you for those. All tweaked in this edit. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the fragmentary nature of my comments. I keep getting distracted with background reading. Next up:

  • "Between 1969 and 1972 Humphreys made £216,000 profit from his shops" Is that what Humphreys "made" before or after deducting the bribes?
  • It's not clear from the source, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "gave him the advice "Get them when they're young", as they would still be amenable to bribes when older" I feel that this needs a little more detail. Perhaps 'as they would then remain amenable ... '?
  • "help him keep the weight down" 'his weight'?
  • Bottom two done. No problem with the fragmentary nature: I'm always delighted to get comments in any way! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "The report continued on the inside pages with the statement" Perhaps 'The report continued on the inside pages, including the statement'
  • "Eric Mason–an owner of ten sex shops" Perhaps "an" → 'the'?
  • "In September 1972 she received a three-month gaol sentence for possession of a firearm; there were some reports that she may have been threatening Humphreys with it at the time" In the context of the sentence, could "at the time" be rephrased or recast?
  • "Humphreys said he would drop pornography over central London" Do we know if this was as in dropping from his pocket or as in an air drop?
  • "Frank Mifsud—a Maltese criminal who ran a string of brothels—travelled to Ireland and then Brazil" Is there any point in giving Mifsud this walk-on part?
  • I think so. He is a notable enough individual to have his own article as he appears in several of the sources. I've red linked him and will put something together to cover the basics (as well as those of the red linked policemen too) - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Grumble, mutter.
  • "11 people were arrested, one of them Rusty Humphreys, at the couple's Brook Street residence" Were all 11 arrested at Brook Street? If not, perhaps a semi colon. If so, perhaps swap the order of the last two clauses.
  • "When Rusty was arrested, police searched the premises" I assume the premises refers to Brook St, but with Greek St having intervened, 'police searched the Brook Street premises' may help keep things straight for a reader.
  • "All but one were found guilty" Which one, which one - I can't stand the tension. Was it "one other". (Why is he (or she) nameless anyway?)
  • Someone called Clive Miles. He doesn't appear elsewhere in Humphreys's story and was found not guilty, so I haven't named him. - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough.
  • "the couple were arrested in November 1993.[14] The couple, who were living in West Hampstead" Possibly change one "the couple" to 'both'?
  • Note I: "£216,000 in 1972 equates to approximately £2,799,000 in 2020" If we are being approximate then '£2,800,000' perhaps.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Having finished my comments I read through Fowler&fowler's grounds for their object. I struggle a little to relate these clearly to any of the FA criteria, so it is probably best if I leave their consideration to better brains than mine.

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

  • Claim away - you've certainly earned them here! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Gog, thanks again for these: all very useful. I've adopted all your suggestions, bar two, which I've explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Your usual tight, well written, informative offering. Captures the spirit of the times well and doesn't contradict any of the sources I have consulted. Nicely balanced in my opinion, although you must have been spoilt for choice for quotes from Mars-Jones's summing up. Happy to support.
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog; I'm much obliged! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from SN54129

Piling on, I know, but I supported the first time around, and nothing has changed for me to otherwise affirm and attest to that view. I seem to have missed the oppose in the previous FAC, but, reading that then and this now, I see they are effectively the same arguments which have been resoundingly refuted by Sarastro1 above. While I respect the emphasis the opposer paces on social and equality issues—a stance which certainly does them credit—I note my own suggestion, tongue-in-cheek but otherwise deliberate, that the level of extraneous context that the opposer appears to require would be UNDUE at best, and at worse necessitate a completely different article. It would be the equivalent of demanding that a brief history of greengrocery is inserted somewhere into this. ——SN54129 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks SN - much appreciated for the second time. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I don't have any major issues. It looks good from my American standpoint, and reading the above comments, I don't think a Legacy section is needed - it would be tangential to the actual subject. Mostly, I agree with the supporters who have already commented.

I did have a few queries:

  • There are a couple of places where links are right next to each other, e.g. gangland enforcer Frankie Fraser, giving the impression that there might be just one link.
  • Silver, Humphreys and Eric Mason–the owner of ten sex shops— - inconsistent dash usage, the first is an en-dash.
  • I tried to swap this out, but it seems they are both em-dashes. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I meant to just copy and paste the second dash. Currently, this is the first dash: and this is the second dash: It's more pronounced when it's in plain text. Anyway, this is a minor nitpick, not anything to delay a support for.
  • She was released in late October.[72] - if I'm counting correctly, this was two months out of the three-month sentence. Was the sentence shortened?
  • I presume it was time off for good behaviour, but the source doesn't clarify, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the 1996 BBC television series Our Friends in the North the character Benny Barrett, played by Malcolm McDowell, was based on Humphreys.[121] In 1999 Humphreys discussed the possibility of their life story being made into a film with Film4 Productions, who gave the film the provisional title Rusty; as at 2019 the film remains unmade - the two sentences have an abrupt transition. I suppose this was intended to be a paragraph for media mentions, but then Humphrey's death is mentioned in the next sentence.
  • I'll have a think on this one. I was sticking to a chronological run, and ideally it would be a separate paragraph, but it obviously needs to be looked at again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks Epicgenius. I'll have a think on the last point and see if I can come up with a better solution. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Let me know when you resolve the last point. I don't see any other issues at this time, and am leaning toward supporting this article. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      • How does this look? I've moved the death upwards and left the screen stuff in its own para. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
        • @SchroCat: Looks good. I'll support this article now. epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Many thanks for your thoughts and comments here - they are all most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I've read this through three times, once at its earlier appearance, and have gone through it side-by-side with the FAC criteria. I'm clear it meets these, hence the Support. I don't want to add fuel to the debate above, and fully acknowledge the differing view expressed. If I'm reading it correctly, and my apologies if I'm not, the concerns relate to 1b, Comprehensiveness, and that the article fails to fully represent James Humphrey's villainy. On the first point, I think the article does cover all of the major incidents of Humphreys' life and sets these in the context of the criminal, and certainly exploitative, environment of 60s/70s Soho. More could certainly be written on this point but, in my view, it doesn't need to be, for 1b to be met. On the second point, I do have a concern of my own re. wording. The opening sentence of the lead describes Humphreys as "an English businessman". The opening line of the "Strip club and sex shop owner" section speaks of Humphreys "chang[ing] the direction of his profession". I'm not sure I'd use either term. The article title is "James Humphreys (pornographer)", and I don't think Profession is the right term to describe how Humphreys made his living. Wikipedia, and the dictionaries I've checked, define a profession as "an occupation involving training and a formal qualification". The Cambridge Online dictionary goes as far as to define it as work "that is respected because it involves a high level of education". The article makes clear that Humphreys' formal education ended at age 14, and his subsequent life was certainly not respectable. If I look for a comparison, Paul Raymond, who was never convicted of any criminal offence, is described in the article lead as "an English strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer", and I think he could more fittingly be described as a businessman than Humphreys. All in all, I'd call a spade a spade, Humphreys a pornographer and his business the sex trade; thus "James William Humphreys (7 January 1930 – September 2003) was an English pornographer...On his release from Dartmoor Humphreys changed the focus of his activities and..." My support isn't conditional on these changes being made, but I do think they'd improve the article. KJP1 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

As always KJP1, many thanks for your thoughts on this. There was some extensive discussion on the point of "profession", but the OED is quite clear with one of their several definitions: "professional, adj. and n. Of a person or persons: that engages in a specified occupation or activity for money or as a means of earning a living, rather than as a pastime. Contrasted with amateur.", so I am not sure we have a problem with the use of that word.
The opening is something that could be considered a little more. Raymond, as far as I am aware (although I am not an expert on the point!), was only ever a strip-club owner, publisher of pornography and property developer and had no other business interests; Humphreys had a much more diverse career: safebreaker, strip-club owner, publisher of pornography, restaurateur, drug dealer and owner of a number of brothels. It was this diverse range of interests that led me to use "businessman". We could tweak it to say he "was an English businessman and criminal who owned... etc". Would the addition of those two words overcome your concerns? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat - It's your call, as I say we're discussing preferences not deal breakers. But for me, safebreaker + strip-club owner + pornographer + drug dealer + pimp + repeatedly-convicted felon = criminal, not businessman, even allowing for his restaurant. And in normal usage I would describe none of those activities as a profession. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Without expressing a preference one way or the other on this - for I have no strong views on the point - I merely observe that prostitution has long been called "the oldest profession". Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Quite so, and due to Kipling, according to our article. But surely in a literary/ironical/euphemistic, rather than an encyclopaedic, sense? KJP1 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, how about "...the direction of his nefarious activities" ? Graham Beards (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Nefarious soundtrack cued... ——SN54129 19:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Cwmhiraeth

I would like to suggest that "James Humphreys (criminal)" would be a better title for this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, let me have a think on that and (much more importantly) read the policy on titles. I thought they were supposed to reflect their main reason for being in the encyclopaedia (in which case pornographer just about shades criminal), but I may be completely wrong on that. Much of his activity was legal, although rather seedy (the strip clubs were all legitimate lines of business, as were a few other of his lines of business - the sex shops were a mix of legal (softcore pornography) and illegal (the more explicit work)). I'll look into it and get back.
@WP:FAC coordinators: if we decide a change of title is needed (although that's only at the discussion stage here), is it better done during a review, after it, or does it not matter? I'm not sure it's in the FAC criteria, but I'm thinking more from a technical point of view in having the review and the article under different names.
Cheers to you all. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I was wondering what exactly a pornographer was, and the definition seems to be "a person who makes or sells pornography". Humphreys did that, but did a lot of other seedy / illegal things too. He was certainly a criminal, having served several terms in prison. If you thought there was merit in my suggestion, you could start a move discussion on the talk page, but I would have thought that could wait until after the conclusion of this FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
OK - we can wait until later, that's absolutely fine with me, and would probably suit the co-ords too. My gut reaction is that "criminal" may not be the best way, but I think I' could be easily swayed on that; it is certainly a good topic for further discussion (I'm not married to the term "pornographer", and if it goes it wouldn't be any great loss to me - we just have to make sure we get the right name to change into). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, there's certainly precedents for changing an article title after the FAC, and it's a lot easier in terms of closure, FACbot and so on. If it was something people felt strongly enough to oppose over I'd probably say let's bite the bullet now -- or at least let's have it out and get consensus now, even if we change it afterwards -- but I don't think that's the case here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ian - I'll hold off opening the discussion etc until after the FAC. There is enough of a rough consensus to keep it as it is until later, but we can always revisit the point afterwards. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest waiting until the FAC is closed and then having a discussion. For what it is worth, I prefer the current title. Graham Beards (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)~
The current title is fine. “Pornographer” is by an overwhelming majority his label in the sources. I am traveling and without my sources, but will elaborate on all this and more in my oppose above when I return on Thursday. The article title, in my view, is not even remotely an issue. It was not for nothing that he was called the Emperor of Porn. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I too prefer "pornographer". If the sources call him a "pornographer" and we call him a "criminal" that would suggest to those not familiar with his story that pornography was/is illegal in the UK, which of course it wasn't/isn't. CassiantoTalk 18:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I concur with Graham Beards, Fowler&fowler and Cassianto. The OED defines "pornographer" as "A person who produces or provides pornography; a pornographic writer, publisher, or artist". This seems to me more precise, and more helpful to the reader, than "criminal", which by comparison is a bit vague. But I also agree that this is perhaps not the forum in which to debate the title. Tim riley talk 18:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Donald Forrester Brown

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Donald Brown, a New Zealand soldier of the First World War who was a posthumous recipient of the Victoria Cross. Only the second New Zealand soldier to be so recognised during the war, it was awarded for his actions during the Battle of the Somme in the First World War. The article was submitted to FAC last year but was closed without promotion due to a lack of comments at the time. Source and image reviews were done by Brianboulton and Nikkimaria respectively; it passed the source review and I have actioned the comments by Nikkimaria. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, Zawed, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • suggest linking draper
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • is there potentially a link for Totara?
  • Done, as a red link. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link trench warfare?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link company, battalion and division?
  • Done - I linked the second mention of battalion, not the first which was part of a unit name. I thought it could be potentially confusing otherwise. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link commission
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link second lieutenant
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • improving the existing defences: is it possible to very briefly explain this? I know what it means, but potentially "improving the defences" might be unknown to the general reader
  • Have added a bit and expanded from another source, the one I relied on initially didn't shed much light on this. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Otago Regiment was back in the front line on 1 October -- is it possible to very briefly explain what they did in the intervening period?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • seizing of an enemy machine gun --> "seizing of a German machine gun"?
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, The New Zealand Division on the Western Front 1916 – 1918 --> "1916–1918" (remove the spaces?)
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the References, Official History of the Otago Regiment, N.Z.E.F. in the Great War 1914-1918: endash
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "October 26, 2009" --> 26 October 2009, for consistency
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • McGibbon is probably overlinked in the References
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • (brief biography details) --> not sure that the italics are necessary are here
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • external links work (no action required)
  • there are no dabs, all images have alt text (no action required)

Thanks for the review AustralianRupert. I have responded as above and my edits are here]. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries, added my support above. I made a couple of minor tweak also - please check you are happy with those changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs and source review

  • Please make it explicitly clear where I can verify middle name
  • Have recited his name in full in the early life section, which is supported by the cite at end of that sentence. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • At least 1 link to First World War, in either the body or lead, would be nice
  • Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Source says McFarlane was her birth name (maybe {{nee}}?)
  • Have added. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #3 has the notable fact that he was the youngest son. May I suggest "...was youngest son and one of 10 children..."?
  • I've tried a variation so I didn't have to move cites around. How does it work for you? Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "should Switch Trench" → "should the Switch Trench"
  • I disagree but can see why you raised. In hindsight, the introduction of Switch Trench in the narrative wasn't handled well. I have rephrased it, is the current form acceptable to you? Zawed (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean by "With Brown's death". Are you suggesting he would have otherwise advocated for his own nomination?
  • No, not the intention. The issue here is that officialdom wasn't moving very fast to recognise his gallantry and it may have been different if he was still alive. I suspect that it was easier to take a go slow approach for a dead hero than a living one. I have rephrased this section. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    @Zawed: "... recognise Brown's gallantry wand it was not until the officers ..." --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs thanks. I have fixed and dished out a self-administered face slap. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. For some odd reason, my brain could not figure out that it was a misspelling of "and". I feel stupid. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be easier to read if Arthur Foljambe was the subject of the sentence
Done. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have checked every online source cited and AGF on offline sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Coffeeandcrumbs: thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have responded to your points above and with changes to the article. My edits are here. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support and source review completed – A short but heroic life is well documented in this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Segnosaurus

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the first FAC nomination of a therizinosaur, one of the strangest dinosaur groups (and one of my favourites); they would have looked like huge, pot-bellied birds, with long claws on their forelimbs. This article is about one of the first known members of the group, and therefore also covers the long standing mystery about them, and how palaeontologists slowly realised what they were. It can therefore be rather technical and complicated in places, but I hope it is readable. It has been GA reviewed and copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — Inconsistent abbreviation
Don't know how to do this? Weight conversions have the "abbr=on" turned on, but it doesn't abbreviate the short tonnes.
Yeah I'm not sure either, and honestly I'm not even sure what "short tons" would get abbreviated to. Removing abbr=on makes it consistent (1.3 metric tons (1.4 short tons)) but clunky. May as well just leave it as is.
  • There appears to be inconsistency in the second paragraph between "would have been" was "was"/"were". Is this because of known/unknown parts of the skeleton?
  • Looks like this comment might have been overlooked.

History of discovery

  • Soviet-Mongolian — en dash?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • formerly GIN — Meaning it was formally labelled "GIN 100/80"? What do GIN/IGM stand for, and why the renaming?
Geological Institute and Mongolian Institute of Geology. I think only the current full name is worth mentioning, the sentence now says: "housed at the Mongolian Academy of Sciences under the specimen number IGM 100/80 (Mongolian Institute of Geology, formerly GIN)". No idea why the name changed, but I think there has been some organisational messiness at the Mongolian institution, many of their specimens are also scattered all over the world in various traveling exhibitions... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Two additional specimens — Are they also held by the Mongolian Academy of Sciences?
Yes, all IGM specimens should be (unless they are temporarily exhibited elsewhere, as is the case for many specimens). FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 — Where were they found?
Listed in the preceding paragraph under their "true" specimen numbers IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In 1983, Barsbold listed additional specimens GIN 100/87 and 100/88 but in 2010, paleontologist Lindsay E. Zanno suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83 because the Russian-to-English translation of Barsbold's article has several typographical errors in regard to specimen numbers. — It seems odd that the discussion of these specimens is limited to what their specimen numbers are (which would seem to be footnote material), rather than what the fragments actually are.
They are covered in the preceding paragraph, is it currently unclear? It is adressed by the sentence "suggested these may refer to paratypes IGM 100/82 and IGM 100/83". Maybe I should add "(which had already been listed in 1979)"? I'll do that for now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Got it, that makes sense now.
  • Any idea what caused all the post-collection damage?
None stated by the sources, but it is probably just neglect, and perhaps by transportation. Many important Mongolian specimens have been on perpetual world tours (I saw some of them in Denmark in 1998), which has kept some important holotypes away from researchers. I don't think that is the case for the Segnosaurus specimens, but I could imagine that Mongolian museums may have had some financial problems in the post-Soviet era, which may have contributed to lack of care. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Description

  • 1.3 t (1.4 short tons) — inconsistent abbreviation
Like earlier, not sure how to fix it, or if it can be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mandible and lower dentition

  • at about a 30 degrees — At about 30 degrees? At about a 30 degree angle?
Not sure what the copy-editor did there, changed back to "at about a 30 degree angle". Maybe clunky? FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The 22nd and 23d — 23rd?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Postcranial skeleton

  • Global comment: citing to individual pages in an article is significantly more helpful than citing to a full article. It's even more helpful when there are inline citations father than end-of-paragraph citations. In the first paragraph here, for example, one would have to look through four articles comprising 75 pages to track down the support for any one fact. And for the three cites to footnote 5, for example, someone would have to make it through 115 pages of Russian to figure out which part is being relied on.
Hehe, we do link to the English translations, though (the Russian originals don't appear to be online)! I have cut down/specified the page ranges of the longer articles. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • tetradactyl (four-toed) — Does this specifically mean four toed, or something slightly more general that could also encompas four fingered?
It means it has four digits, but when used in the context of a hand or foot, it means four fingered or four toed (like tridactyl is for three digits). Do you think I should state the more general meaning? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The word "massive" is used 11 times in this section. It's also not clear what the various parts are "massive" in relation to. Perhaps reword some.
Heh, didn't notice that, but it's the word the source uses. I guess "robust" could also be used, so I've replaced with that where I thought it made sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Classification

  • First sentence should be split up.
Now: "enigmatic group. Their mosaic". FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Barsbold found segnosaurids ... within Theropoda. — This is a bit confusing, it could either be split up or reworded.
Changed to this, any better? "Barsbold found that segnosaurids were so peculiar compared to more typical theropods that they were either a very significant deviation in theropod evolution, or were possibly outside the group, but he retained them within Theropoda." FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • be most basal clade — What does this mean?
Basal is explained and linked in the first paragraph under Description. Or do you mean a more specific explanation for the mention you linked? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph, the first two sentences have semicolons; it's perhaps worth rewording so only one does.
Said "and" instead second time around, not sure if it looks good enough. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me.

Paleobiology

  • Is there a way to include the 's' as pert of the braincases link? The template says that "This template will also handle suffixes like plurals, etc., added onto entries," but doesn't appear to actually do so. Pinging IJReid, who created the template.
Yeah the template doesn't automatically blue text behind the link, but you can pipe the link as normal with the pluralization and it works just the same. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • precocial, capabale of locomotion from birth — To follow the convention of the article, should "capabale of locomotion from birth" be in parentheses?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Fossil therizinosaur nest attributed to Segnosaurus for unclear reasons — Why are the reasons unclear?
Yeah, this is an issue I'm not sure what to do about. No eggs are listed specifically as belonging to Segnosaurus in the literature (and it would be impossible to make such a precise identification when two other therizinosaurs are known from the same formation), yet this museum, and others for some reason[2][3], list nests as specifically belonging to that genus. I assume they are conflating the wider (outdated) term "segnosaur" with the genus Segnosaurus itself, but that explanation is also iffy, since the assignment of such eggs to therizinosaurs was done in papers that did not sure the term segnosaur. I originally used the caption "", which is less specific, but I wondered whether people would be confused since the name Segnosaurus itself is used on the museum label. Should I just switch back to the original "Nest attributed to therizinosaurs"? Also pinging Jens Lallensack, since I wanted to ask this during the GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why is it labelled as Segnosaurus; maybe it is just an oversimplification, to give museum visitors a genus name (which is what they want to hear usually), or it is just an inaccuracy due to the fact that it is a small English museum that is specialised in marine fossils. I would just go with the original caption. Maybe also add the museum where the photo was made. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The weird thing is, such eggs are also labelled as Segnosaurus in at least one American[4] and one Polish[5] museum, so maybe it has something to do with who supplies them? I'll go back to the old caption, and I should probably add museum names to all relevant captions if I do it there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You might email the museums and ask, though that's well outside the scope of FAC.

Diet and feeding

  • they could therefore crop, manipulate, and chew food in a sophisticated manner — Sophisticated, as in they used oyster forks and fish knives? In all seriousness though, what does it mean to "crop" food?
In the same manner as cutting branches and leaves from a vegetation with garden scissors. I said "plants" instead of "food", better? The source only says food, though. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • facultative herbivory — facultatively?
If it had been "herbivorous", yes, but here herbivory is a noun (the condition is herbivory). Should I change to "facultatively herbivorous"? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • symphyseal — Link to Symphysis?
Mandibular symphysis is linked to under history, should I add another link? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  • See what you think about the author links I added—I'm a fan and would suggest doing it for the rest, but up to you.
I usually keep them out because it looks like a lot of duplinks. But I have no problem if they are added. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 1, 4, 10, 23, 32 — Retrieval dates not needed for sources originally published in print. (Compare with #42, where the retrieval date is helpful.)
Removed, they were added when archive links to the citations were added. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 2, 8 — Are you citing to specific sections/chapters (in the way that 11 and 14 do)?
Just pages, the first one doesn't even have chapters. The difference is that those books have single authors, while the rest cited have multiple chapters with different authors. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 15, 19 — Is there some sort of identifier you can add, such as an DOI, ISSN, or OCLC? Also, given that a translator is named, is it in Russian, or English?
Both citations say "(in Russian)" at the end. As for identifiers, I haven't been able to find any more info about these citations, because the complicated thing is that western researchers use PDF translations of the papers that are found online, not the original papers themselves... Therefore, when these citations are listed, they are very limited, copied from the translated PDFs it seems. Most English language articles that cite these Russian papers don't even use the original Russian titles either. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 17 — Is there a Russian title as well? And same comment re: identifier.
Couldn't find it, unfortunately; this is one of the translated PDFs that didn't have the original title listed anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 31 — First names given, unlike initials in most of the references. I'd recommend full names—figuring out who someone is by their initials can be a pain (e.g., "G. M. Collinson" in Herbert Maryon)—but your call.
I usually only use full last names, because often researchers are not listed by their full names in the original citations, so it is impossible to keep consistency otherwise. I have tried before that I used full names except a few where I couldn't find them, and then reviewers requested consistency, and the only way to do that was abbreviation... FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 38 — Identifier?
None that I have been able to find. It was in National Geographic magazine, I have searched for the issue, but found nothing of use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the ISSN might be 8755-724X.
  • 42 — Date (November 05, 2013) not given. Also, why are you using {{cite journal}} for a press release?
Added year, and used cite news, is that the best option? FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Seems like either cite news or cite website would work.
  • 48 — Are the page numbers correct? When I open the article, it looks like it is pages 1–11 and e1–e4, not "158–168.e4".
Yes, that range was auto generated, not sure what's up wit those numbers. Moreover, the paper was open access when I read it last, now it's paywalled... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 52 — Pages 1–16, no?
Yes, not sure what happened there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As usual, FunkMonk, looks good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Will fix issues through the coming days. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Now answered all the points, Usernameunique, with some questions added as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Some responses above, FunkMonk, but nothing major. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking through now...

Through 1974 and 1975, more remains [of this kind of dinosaur] were uncovered at the Amtgay and Khara-Khutul localities; - bracketed bit redundant?
Removed. It was because the previous sentence said "discovered fossils that included", so I wanted to make clear the new fossils were also of the dinosaur. But I guess readers would understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
why would you not say "meandering river system" instead of "meandering fluvial system."
Changed to river. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise very little to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

I've also been wanting to do one for a while, it was just a matter of which one. In the end, I liked this one, because I grew up reading books where it was presented as a total enigma. So it has been nice to and nostalgic get the history sorted out out. It was also one of the first dinosaurs I illustrated for Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
They are exactly as they are in the paper, where they are different figures (3 and 5). In any case, they focus on two different morphologies, one on the folded cutting edges, one on the triple cutting edges. Or do you mean why they are in separate sections? Because of lack of space, and because their features are also discussed under the feeding section, so it seemed a logical way to place them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I mean it would seem sensical to use {{multiple image}} in this case   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "that lived during the Late Cretaceous in the region of Asia that is now known as Mongolia" Why didn't you just say "from Mongolia" or "discovered in Mongolia"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How about what it said before the copy edit "in what is now Mongolia"? Tried with that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I just think "in the region of Asia" is funny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "whereas most theropod groups were carnivorous" you should probably say "most other theropod groups"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Changed to that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus was a large-bodied therizinosaur" Just to verify, Segnosaurus was big compared to other therizinosaurs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus replaced its teeth" was it a polyphyodont?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Such split carinae are known from..." this should be split into 2 sentences or you can use a semicolon   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why do you use "scapulocoracoid" instead of "shoulder girdle"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What's a brevis fossa?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Segnosaurus fossils were possibly representative of a new family of dinosaurs he tentatively classified as theropods" makes it sound like theropods was the new family of dinosaur   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems important to note in the lead that Segnosaurus is the most complete therizinosaur known   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...via a late-Early Cretaceous landbridge" is there a time interval attached to that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...were adapted for relatively slow progression. Segnosaurus and its relatives were not adapted for rapid locomotion" these are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "a composite prosauropod-like segnosaur skeleton" any reason it's in lower case and not italicized?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • endocranial anatomy and braincase are the same thing   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Subterraneously constructed nests are also indicative of a lack of parental care during the incubation period" but how? Animals can bury their eggs and guard over them (like crocodiles)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...but found it mysterious it should then have a horny beak" but why? Turtles have a horny beak   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "therizinosaurs could have fed on wasps" why did he say this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Herbert Maryon

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

When the Queen asked him what he did, Herbert Maryon responded that he was a "back room boy at the British Museum." This humble (or, perhaps, deer-in-headlights) comment belied the fact that Maryon, at Buckingham for his appointment to the Order of the British Empire, had only just embarked on his second career; a sculptor, metalsmith, and archaeologist for the first half of the 20th century, Maryon joined the museum's research laboratory at the end of the war and immediately set to work on the treasures from Sutton Hoo, one of Britain's greatest archaeological finds. In other work, he excavated one of Britain's oldest gold artefacts, restored a Roman helmet from Syria, and influenced a painting by Salvador Dalí. When nearly 90 he retired for the second time—then left for an around-the-world museum and lecture tour (where at least two Wikipedians, Peter Knutsen and AJim, heard him speak in 1962).

This exhaustive article has been built over the last three years. It is easily the most comprehensive take on Maryon's life and contributions, collecting information from hundreds of sources, and spawning a number of related articles (e.g., Works of Herbert Maryon). It was reviewed by KJP1 last May and recently given a fresh copyedit by me, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • As per Commons, signatures are eligible for copyright protection in the UK
  • This page doesn't reflect an official policy and as far as I can tell, its UK commentary merely reflects one user's opinion from 12 years ago. None of the sources mentioned offer more than a line or two of analysis, and the one court decision mentioned in the UK is significantly mischaracterized, which makes me question the sweeping declaration that UK signatures should not be used on Wikipedia. A better analysis, I think, would ask whether the signature does more (and/or is intended to do more) than fulfill a utilitarian purpose; here, there is no question that it is simply a utilitarian signature.
  • Our article and the source provided there seem to support the Commons claim. Do you have any alternate sources suggesting that signatures aren't protected by copyright in the UK? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Newcastle Libraries only posts images to Flickr that they understand to be in the public domain (link).
  • I understand that, I'm just wondering why they have that belief in this particular case. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added.
  • Yes. Both were published in 1954, so—assuming life +70 applies—the earliest either of them could enter the public domain is around 2024.

Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of duplinks in rather close succession throughout.
  • Thanks, FunkMonk. Good point about the links—removed other than the post-nominal in the first paragraph, where the first link might get overlooked. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Herbert Maryon studied from 1896 to 1900" I assume his name is repeated in full here to separate him from his siblings mentioned before?
  • Exactly.
  • "Memorial to Bernard Gilpin in St Cuthbert's Church" Could you specify it is by Maryon and when? Perhaps that image should moved a paragraph down to where it is mentioned?
  • Added. I'll probably eventually move it two paragraphs down and add a second photograph (of an earlier work) above, but have left it where it is for now.
  • "The University of Reading War Memorial" Likewise, the caption establishes no context or date.
  • Added. It's now The University of Reading War Memorial, designed by Maryon and dedicated in 1924
  • "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were featured in The Studio and its international counterpart." Any dates for these?
  • Added "Three other commissions in silver—a loving cup, a processional cross, and a challenge shield—were completed towards the end of Maryon's tenure and the school and featured in The Studio and its international counterpart". I've left a specific date out since while they were presumably done in 1904—Maryon's last year at the school—they weren't featured in the magazines until 1905 (The Studio) and 1906 (International Studio).
  • "along with an altar cross designed by Maryon for Hexham Abbey" Any of the crosses seen here?[6][7]
  • Yes, right in the middle: it's the one seen here. It might be possible to get a photograph from Hexham Abbey of just the cross, which I need to follow up on.
  • "vade mecum" Could this be explained in parenthesis?
  • Why not full name for Cellini as everyone else?
  • Only because he's frequently referred to by his last name only, but that's not a particularly good reason. Now given as Benvenuto Cellini
  • Why not spell out W. G. Collingwood and G. M. Collinson? All other names are.
  • W. G. Collingwood because he seems to have gone by his initials, but I've changed it for the sake of consistency. I haven't been able to find the full name of G. M. Collinson.
  • "Three years later he witnessed" Could a year be given instead for simplicity? Wouldn't want to break up the flow by making the readers calculate, hehe...
  • Done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" Is the first "at" needed?
  • Nope, removed.
  • "While there he published his second book, Modern Sculpture: Its Methods and Ideals." Date?
  • 1933, added.
  • "These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson,[18][127] and Sir Charles Parsons" Dates?
  • Added: These included at least two plaques, memorialising George Stephenson in 1929, and Sir Charles Parsons in 1932
  • "The statue was the subject of "adverse criticism" Why?
  • Because it's ugly? Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the answer to this, despite a fair amount of searching. The footnote I've just added adds some depth; works by Jacob Epstein had recently been tarred and feathered, so the tarring of Maryon's was presumably a copycat event. Yet while that indicates where the students likely got the idea of tarring and feathering, it does not answer why they decided to take it out on Statue of Industry. A librarian at Durham University also found a brief excerpt in the November 1929 issue of the college's magazine The Northerner, but it doesn't shed much light either: "Angry critics of our 'industrious' raggers suggested that they should be punished by being splashed as they splashed the statue. They would then have been 'moist with their own – betarred.' [Tut! Tut! – ED.]". There are a few other ways I’ve been meaning to look into this—by emailing a few more libraries, and by trying to nail down the universe of newspapers/school magazines the statue might have been mentioned in—but so far it’s unclear.
  • "when he was 64 or 65" Maybe bypass this irritating uncertainty by just saying mid-60s?
  • Done.
  • "He spent the World War II years, from 1939 to 1943, engaged in munition work." Any further details on this?
  • Nothing, unfortunately. I've spent some time looking for this, but haven't been able to find anything beyond how Maryon described that time in a later bio, which is "Munition Work, 1939–43".
  • "One of the gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns" Again, some context? Maybe add "excavated under Maryon in 1935" or similar?
  • Now One of two gold ornaments from the Kirkhaugh cairns, matching the one excavated by Maryon in 1935
  • The paragraph under "British Museum, 1944–61" is a massive wall of text, could it be broken in two?
  • Done.

Many thanks, FunkMonk. Responses above. —Usernameunique (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "to T. D. Kendrick" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "in the modern-day city of Homs" Odd phrasing?
  • Now The Roman Emesa helmet had been found in the Syrian city Homs in 1936. I was been trying to indicate that Homs was once called Emesa (without repeating the word Emesa), but it was a bit clunky, and risked making it sound as if "Homs" is a recent name.
Ah, sorry, I misread the text the first time and didn't see the "of" somehow. I actually thought I had removed the comment, but there we go... FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "D. E. L. Haynes" Full name?
  • Done.
  • "Not only the pose, but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression." Who said this? Long wuotes like that could use in-text attribution.
  • Done: "Not only the pose," wrote de Callataÿ, "but even the hammered plates of Maryon's theory find [in Dalí's painting] a clear and very powerful expression."
  • "W. S. Gilbert" Full name?
  • Done.
  • You mention Toronto twice, only linking it the second time
  • Fixed.
  • I wonder if the intro is a tad too long (a fourth)? The article itself isn't that long in relation.
I'll read the intro once this is answered, then I should be pretty close to support. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've shortened it by about 12%—does it still look too long? It's a bit hard to chop it down, given how many things Maryon did; each careers seems to have produced at least half a dozen things worth talking about.
  • " J. C. Orelli's" Full?
  • Done.
  • "tin are very brittle,"" Should the quotation mark not be before the comma?
  • Impressed you made it that deep into that footnote. Fixed.
Thanks for the review, FunkMonk. I think I've responded to everything above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Last tiny issue, I don't see this specifically stated in the article body: "and began an around-the-world trip lecturing and researching Chinese magic mirrors".
  • FunkMonk, it's in Herbert Maryon#Later years: Before his departure Maryon had been planning a trip around the world, and at the end of 1961 he left for Fremantle ... From Australia Maryon departed for San Francisco ... Maryon devoted much of his time during the American stage of his trip to visiting museums and the study of Chinese magic mirrors ... His trip also included guest lectures, such as his talk "Metal Working in the Ancient World" at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on 2 May 1962 ... Maryon scheduled the trip to end in Toronto. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I read it as if the trip around the world was for researching Chinese magic mirrors and lecturing about them. Maybe the text can be clarified a bit. Anyhow, no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I assume this would be a difficult subject to get a coherent story from if an actual biography hasn't been published, but I think it succeeds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments

  • Avoid having more than three citations in a row, especially in the lead; it's distracting.
  • I've cut down on these considerably, although have left a few places where the citations are independently useful. These are: different types of sources for newly discovered helmet fragments (see below), four sources which together support the general number of Maryon's publications, a variety of contemporaneous death notices, and in footnote 2, where the relevant literature (four articles/chapters) for a particular subject is listed.
  • Per WP:NOT and standard practice, we should not host an exhaustive list of Maryon's articles. Only keep those that are cited in the article or meet some other defined criteria.
  • This might make more sense with someone who has more publications, or whose list of publications is widely accessible online. In Maryon's case, however, the list gives a sense of the breadth of his studies and interests; helpfully provides links to all but nine of his articles; and lists some contributions, such as early articles in obscure journals, that would otherwise be overlooked. The three articles in Goldsmiths Journal, for instance, are not even mentioned online, and are only able to be listed because I found a copy of Maryon's cv in the Penn Museum's archives, and Serial Number 54129 then dug up copies in the British Library.

More to come. buidhe 14:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments, Buidhe, and sorry it's taken some time to get back to you on them. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

I have to head off imminently, but a few quick comments to start with... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be a bore, but... Could you say a little more about the Life Archive from which the lead image is taken? Are the images for sale? I'm just thinking about the not-often-mentioned non-free content criterion 2.
  • I would hardly expect you to forget one of the NFC criteria! In 2008, Life and Google partnered to digitize the magazine's photograph archive, which Google published online. Google did the same for each issue of Life. Although copyright of the photographs remained with Time Warner, rights were made entirely "free for personal and research purposes" (see press release). The images are also available for purchase (see the image's page, which has a "Buy framed image" link); as one article mentioned at the time (link), the commercial benefit to Time Warner is that the photographs, by being made widely available, are now widely monetizable.
What you are presumably getting at is that the best way to uphold NFCC #2, "Respect for commercial opportunities," appears to be to use the photograph at its full resolution as available via Google. That way it can be given greater visibility, and those interested in purchasing the image—in original resolution and/or for commercial use—are more likely to see it. I'm glad you noticed that; it means that we can find synergy between the interests of readers and of the copyright holder, by using the image at its higher resolution.
  • In the lead, you refer to him as a "teacher" - given that he's publishing books as well, and some of his positions were at major research universities, would "academic" or "lecturer" not be preferable?
  • Changed "while a teacher" to "while teaching," although he is still referred to as a "teacher" elsewhere. In his own 1960 bio (link), he is referred to as "Teacher of Modelling and Crafts, University of Reading, 1908-27; ... Master of Sculpture and Lecturer in Anatomy and the History of Sculpture, King's College." I chose teacher partly because of that description, and partly because it is the most general; considering the many, frequently overlapping corners of Maryon's career, it seems incorrect to pin him down as an "academic" or a "lecturer." Meanwhile, I just realized that among all the many descriptions in the first sentence, teacher is not one of them. Might have to add a seventh...
  • "coined the term pattern welding to" Words as words; you should use italics.
  • Done; good catch, I had no idea that was a thing.
  • Added. I've considered that one for a while, especially as it is singled out in the article, although hadn't until now because a) it doesn't come out all that well at small size, and b) I have my eyes set on another piece that I would like to get a photograph of. But this should do the trick for now.

Ok, more:

  • Is "The Jewelers' Circular" a periodical? If so, italics? And one of what? The critical notes?
  • italicized, and changed to One such note.
  • "led the one-time secretary of the Metropolitan Museum of Art to label Maryon not" If you're not naming the secretary, shouldn't that be a one-time secretary? Surely there's more than one.
  • Yep, done.
  • "teaching at sculpture at Armstrong College" ??
  • Fixed.
  • "The book received mixed reviews.[115]" Can you say that while citing one source? Or is that a source that specifically says that the book received mixed reviews?
  • It's a bit of a mixed review itself, so is being used more as an example than as support. I figured it's as good a place as any to cite that review.
  • "with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas" Comma splice - also, what does the this refer to, here? Brown umber, or the mix?
  • The plaster, actually, which leaves us with (I think) a grammatically correct but confusing sentence. How does it sound as: Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber, this was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • That's a comma splice, I think. How about Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster; this was mixed with brown umber. Plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Meant to say "which was also" there but edited too quickly, but that is also problematic. How does Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; this was also used to fill the in-between areas. sound?
  • I think that's still a little ambiguous. It's just not clear what the this refers to. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mixture was also used to fill the in-between areas do the trick?
  • I thought it was just the plaster? Not "the mixture [of plaster and umber]"? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry. Have been busy and edited too quickly. Meanwhile, that that also proves your point about it being unclear! I've changed it to Finally, the fragments were permanently affixed with white plaster mixed with brown umber; plaster was also used to fill the in-between areas.
  • "Yet as Bruce-Mitford wrote" Is it fair to present this in Wikipedia's neutral voice? It reads like editorialising.
  • No, that's a good point. Changed to Yet "[m]uch of Maryon's work is valid", Bruce-Mitford wrote. "The general character of the helmet was made plain."
  • "while a 1948 paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method, employed on the Sutton Hoo sword and others,[27] of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal." I understand your desire to have references following punctuation, but I'm struggling with the commas here
  • The awkward phrasing is more an attempt to keep the subject matter consistent, with Sutton Hoo mentioned in the prior sentence. How does Several of Maryon's earlier papers, in 1946 and 1947, described his restorations of the shield and helmet from the Sutton Hoo burial.[181][215] In 1948 another paper introduced the term pattern welding to describe a method of strengthening and decorating iron and steel by welding into them twisted strips of metal;[29][216][217] the method was employed on the Sutton Hoo sword among others, giving them a distinctive pattern. sound?
  • Could you perhaps make clear who claims that the hollow statue ideas were "great"?
  • Clarified: Although "great ideas" according to the scholar Godefroid de Callataÿ. We could get more specific, although "according to the professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the Oriental Institute of the University of Louvain Godefroid de Callataÿ" is a mouthful.
  • This is only a half thought, but it seems strange to talk about marriages and children only at the end when wives and sons have been alluded to earlier.
  • Let me know if you have a better suggestion, but I've spent some time thinking about this and I'm not sure how else to put it. There isn't a particularly logical place to put the 1903 marriage in the Keswick section (although "Mrs. Herbert J. Maryon" is mentioned there, and is presumably said wife, that relates to something that happened in 1906). And his son John is mentioned earlier—but in the last sentence of the preceding section. I think it might be easier to integrate the personal details into the rest of the article if we had better information, but all I've really found is names and dates.
  • At least some of your footnote references probably need some italics without them being there.
  • Is there a type of citation that you're noticing that needs them? I've italicized all of the newspaper and journal titles; are you thinking of things like "Mapping England" and "Historic England"?

Great read - I'm seeing very few issues. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, J Milburn—I appreciate the review. With apologies for tackling it piecemeal, I think I've finally responded to everything. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure you've come to expect this comment from me, but, for the record... Per WP:LEADLENGTH, the article's lead is too long. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Interesting reading. A few things.
  • The word "memorial" is used three times in a short span in the second paragraph's final sentence, once as a proper noun, once as a common noun and once as an adjective. Suggest avoiding one of them.
  • I've cut and moved this sentence significantly, and it now only contains one use of the word "memorial."
  • "At the end of 1899 he displayed a silver cup and a shield of arms with silver cloisonné at the sixth exhibition of the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, an event held at the New Gallery that also included a work by Maryon's sister Edith.[51]" Unless there is some reason not to, I would move up the Maryon to before "displayed" and substitute "his" before "sister".
  • Reworded.
  • "At the following year's exhibition the Manchester School of Art purchased a copper jug he designed for its Arts and Crafts Museum.[78]" Slight ambiguity, since it could be read to say he designed the jug for the museum, something which seems unlikely.
  • Reworded: At the following year's exhibition a copper jug he designed was purchased by the Manchester School of Art for its Arts and Crafts Museum.
  • "He was also the warden of Wantage Hall from 1920 to 1922.[9][10] " A link to the intended use of warden might be useful for American readers.
  • "and more helmet fragments were discovered during the 1965–69 re-excavation of Sutton Hoo;[190][155][191][192]" I note the refs out of order, if you are doing them in numerical order, but also are four refs needed for such a short passage?
  • I've cut down on the use of four refs as commented on above, although here I think there is some value to them here. [190] is a report of the 1965–69 excavations while they were still in progress; [155] is an article (technically, a chapter) published after the excavations; [191] is the finalized report; and [192] discusses the new fragments in the context of the helmet reconstruction.
  • "royal bronze effigies.[212]" I might reverse the adjectives.
  • Done.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Wehwalt. Responses above.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/...Baby One More Time (album)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [8].


Randall Davidson

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a biography of the longest-serving Archbishop of Canterbury since the Reformation: he served for 25 years, from 1903 to 1928, through momentous times, and in a quiet way he was one of the foremost religious leaders of his time. The article has had an exceptionally thorough and wide-ranging peer review, with input from Cassianto, Fowler&fowler, Gog the Mild, Josh Milburn, KJP1, Noswall59, SchroCat, Smerus and Wehwalt for which I am immensely grateful. I think the article now meets the FA criteria, and I look forward to colleagues' comments here. – Tim riley talk 18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cassianto

I never did finish, did I! Nevermind, it has certainly had the Rolls-Royce treatment since and is a stunning piece of work. CassiantoTalk 19:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Cassianto! Yes, I've indeed been privileged at PR. Support gratefully received. Tim riley talk 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Some trivia:

  • "and, after a brief spell as a curate he became chaplain and secretary" Comma after "curate"?
  • "Henry's father, grandfather, and great-grandfather were Presbyterian ministers" Link minister.
  • Hmm. You and I often differ over what is or isn't an everyday word. I can't imagine anyone reading this article will struggle with the meaning of the term. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. But note that I had to look up just what a minister was to see what what you had written meant. Knowledge of the intricacies of the various Christian hierarchies may not be as widespread as you believe.
OK, I'm persuaded. Linked. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • "he had hoped to study Greats (classics and philosophy)" Lower case g? "the less demanding subjects of Law and History" Ditto l and h? "Third Class Bachelor of Arts" And again. Followed by "degree in law and modern history". "Roman Catholic doctrine such as Benediction". "opposite the Chapter House".
  • Capitalisation has been tricky throughout this article, and I don't doubt others might not capitalise everything I have capitalised. "Greats" is always capitalised. I should think even The Guardian would capitalise it. I am persuaded about "third class bachelor of arts, though. The Chapter House is borderline, but is usually capitalised in the sources. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " he thought too much power was in the hands of its general" Optional: Link general to William Booth.
  • I think it was more generic than just Booth – it was the nature of the general's office he was concerned about. Tim riley talk
  • Note 8: "The 26 senior diocesan bishops sat, and (2020) still sit, as Lords Spiritual as opposed to Lords Temporal.[51] Davidson succeeded to the seat on the death of James Atlay, Bishop of Hereford." Should that be 'a seat'?
  • Yes, probably better. Done. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In 1895 Davidson accepted the offer of translation to the largely rural diocese of Winchester, which involved less arduous work" This reads as if it were the translation which was less arduous.
  • I have reread this sentence and try as I may I cannot see anyone misunderstanding its meaning. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Later: an alternative wording has come to mind. Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 18:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Optional: Link cope.
  • "the link between Buckingham Palace and Lambeth Palace" is, sadly, only likely to make sense to a learned few. Possibly a bracketed translation?
  • We've explained earlier that Lambeth Palace is the Archbishop's residence and headquarters, and I don't think many people will need Buckingham Palace explaining. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • "In August 1904 Davidson accompanied by his wife, sailed to the United States" Comma after "Davidson"?
  • Thank you. Much better. I had missed that article. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "241 bishops were present" One would normally avoid starting a sentence with a number. Perhaps 'It was attended by 241 bishops' or similar?
  • I have never seen an explanation of why it is sinful to start a sentence with a number. Seems to me a superstition on a par with the mythical split infinitive. I think the prose is crisper as it stands. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Later: I've turned the full stop into a semicolon, which now means the digits are in mid-sentence, appeasing the superstition without making the slightest difference. Tim riley talk 14:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "and reunion with other Churches" I read "other" as meaning the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Which further reading suggests is not what you intend. Possibly you could be more specific?
  • That's all the source says. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you mean that it is unclear in the source as to
"reunion with other Churches" is the actual wording in the source. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "an eight-day visit to combatant troops at the front" Are you sure that he visited "the front"? On the face of it it seems unlikely.
  • Davidson visited "more or less the whole front line held by the English from north of Ypres to the Somme". (Bell, Vol II, pp. 778–779) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Under Lambeth Conference, 1908: "Prayer Book"; under Revision of the Book of Common Prayer: "Prayer-book".
  • I thought I'd caught all those. The form "Prayer-book" is the usual version in the contemporary sources and I have tried to standardise on that, though my personal usage would be "Prayer Book". Now amended – thank you! Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "opened the door to Romish practices" Might it be mentioned to a reader what these may have been, and, more pertinently, why anyone might have objected to them. (Possibly a brief explanation of high v low church and its relationship to Catholicism earlier in the article may be appropriate?)
  • I'm not keen to repeat the examples given earlier – east-facing communion, lighted candles, making the sign of the cross, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament and so forth. Not that Joynson-Hicks was specific. He cleverly hinted at – and never named – the Romish excesses he professed to fear. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking more of something like 'ceremonial rituals and accoutrements similar to those used by the Catholic Church, also known as the Church of Rome, which the Church of England objected to because [you're on your own there I'm afraid]'.
I see what you mean, but we're straying into WP:OR here. Everyone in the House knew what his hints were referring to (bells and smells as you say) but, as far as I can now find, none of the sources interpret them into unequivocal plain words. If I can find such a thing after a a more leisurely search I'll add it. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
OK. Not a deal breaker, IMO. I can more or less follow what is happening, but I suspect that one doesn't need to be far removed from the internal Anglican wranglings of a century ago to find it impenetrable.
  • "He had served as Archbishop of Canterbury for longer than anyone since the Reformation" Optional: Footnote pre-Reformation A'soC who did serve longer?
  • There seem to have been some in the pre-Conquest era such as St Honorius and Berhtwald; after the Conquest I can only spot Henry Chichele, Thomas Bourchier and William Warham. (This is from our WP list of Archbishops of Canterbury.) The sources I have used, even the massively detailed Bell double volume, don't go into the matter. I agree it would be nice to mention the long-serving predecessors, and I'll look out a WP:RS next time I'm at the BL. Ideal for a footnote, as you say. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "and was buried with him" - 'alongside him'?
  • On top of, I should think. I wasn't looking closely when I was last at the Cathedral, a couple of years ago, but I think from the photograph in the article, the graves are not double-spreads.
My point was that, to me - and I may be alone in this - "buried with" means at the same time as. Not important if you are confident of your meaning.
Oh, I see! It's a fair point, but the dates rule out any misunderstanding. We could just leave it out if you prefer. Tim riley talk 10:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC) Or perhaps "buried in the same grave?" Tim riley talk 12:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
My point is a fairly trivial one, so I wouldn't want to beat it to death. I like 'in the same grave', but don't insist.
  • "this particular bark of Christ" Optional: Link "bark" to barque.
  • We aren't supposed to put blue links into quotations, but I think you're right, and I'll chance it. (Nice mixed metaphor in the quote, I think: mansions in a bark?) Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
From the MoS "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author."

Thank you for these points, Gog, as well as for your v. helpful input at the peer review. Much obliged. Tim riley talk 09:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No problem. An impressive article. A couple of minor points above for your minor consideration. If I haven't responded then I am content with your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Tim. A couple of comments above purely for your consideration. Great work, I am more than happy to support this outstanding article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Gog, thank you very much for your detailed input at PR and now here. I am much indebted to you, and hope to repay your thorough reviewing when next you want it. Tim riley talk 16:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Noswall59

I may have time to review this fully, but I apologise if not—things have been rather busy offline lately. I am glad that you found Grimley's book helpful. It has just occurred to me that Roy Strong's 2005 book Coronation probably has some discussion about Davidson's roles in the 1902 and 1911 crownings. I remember Strong going into some detail on the organising committees' "behind the scenes" politics which might add something to the article (or not, I don't know). I apologise for this slipping my mind while this was at PR. Otherwise, this is looking like a fine summary of the man's life, work and thinking. —Noswall59 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC).

This is the one that I mean (other booksellers being available of course...) —Noswall59 (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC).
Excellent! I'll put it on my list for my next visit to the British Library. I don't think anyone will object to my adding a sentence or two, if appropriate, after the current review is concluded. Tim riley talk 09:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Fowler&fowler

I read this article very closely during the Peer Review, taking time to weigh its every word, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, and section. I have no hesitation in recommending it for promotion to a Wikipedia Featured Article. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the author. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your valuable and detailed input at PR and for your support here. I am greatly indebted. Tim riley talk 09:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Lead
  • "He was the longest-serving holder of the office since the Reformation, and also the first to retire from it": the "also" brings nothing to the party.
  • The "also" is not needed grammatically I agree, but I have written and rewritten this sentence and the "also", to my mind, helps the flow and rhythm. It has, I think, the additional benefit of distancing the second part of the sentence from the first, making it clearer that he was the first ever to retire, not just the first since the Reformation. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Your call. I think it hinders the flow, but I never press my personal style onto others' work. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "In 1903, he succeeded": no need for the comma (you don't use it in this fashion elsewhere)
Early years
  • "Although high-church versus low-church controversies were rife": as these are the first mentions after the lead, best to link high-church and low-church.

Done to the end of the EL section. More to follow. – SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for these, SC. Looking forward to more, at your convenience. Tim riley talk 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:

Curate and chaplain
  • Do we need the Mews quote? This looks like one that could easily be re-written.
Dean
  • "unbudging". I'm not a fan of the word; would "unwavering" or "unchanging" suffice? (your call to leave as is, if you prefer).
Rochester
  • "1894–95" should be, according to the MoS, "1894–1895", in mmuch the way you have 1888–1890 above.
  • The MoS allows the shorter form for two contiguous years, if I read it correctly. I hasten to add that am not accusing the MoS of common sense here. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Winchester
  • "Purgatory" or, as our article has it, "purgatory"?
  • The sources use the capital. I think the supposed actual place is capitalised as a proper noun, but the figurative and more general use of the word ("...temporary suffering or expiation") has a lower-case p. The OED gives a pertinent example: "The doctrine of a purgatory seems innocent in itself..: it is only the absurd notion of praying or buying souls out of Purgatory, that renders it a heresy repugnant to reason". Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In this specialist sense I think the capitalisation is correct. All the examples in the OED are capitalised. (In more general senses it isn't capitalised, of course.) Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There are link for a few religions here (Roman Catholic and Baptist are in this section). Although it is advised not to link these (in MOS:OVERLINK), I think it's advisable to retain them here, given the subject.
  • I agree. I am as a rule in the less rather than more camp for links, but the links here are, I think, ones people might possibly find it helpful to click on, given the subject. Tim riley talk 10:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Done.

Done to the end of Winchester; more soon. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Canterbury
  • "In 1907, Davidson": another errant comma (there are a couple of others lower down I'll leave to you to sort)
  • Blast! I thought I'd caught all these. (Legacy of a short-lived and well-meant effort by another editor to improve the article with AmE commas.) I'll have another comb-through to find any further stragglers. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Domestic affairs
  • "and was succeeded by George V": this final sentence needs a citation
Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
  • "1913–14" (in title and first sentence): again, the MoS now suggests 1913–1914 is the way to go (another ridiculous change foisted without much of a discussion outside a small set of devotees, but we're supposed to pay the MoS some lip service at least)
  • Again, I think 2 contiguous years are exempt from the MoS's weird diktat. Tim riley talk 10:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is true, although it does make the Contents table look a bit odd with the following:
5.2 Domestic affairs, 1909–1911
5.3 Kikuyu controversy 1913–14
5.4 First World War, 1914–1918
Feel free to leave it as it is: I'll leave the decision to you over what to do with the rather silly decisions of the "Guardians of the MoS"®! - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
You're right: the headers do clash a bit with each other. I've changed the Kikuyu one to 4+4 digits, but left the 4+2 form in the text à la MoS. Inconsistent, admittedly, but what can you do given the MoS's prescription.(Rather silly, as you say: I can't recall seeing the 4+4 prescription applied anywhere else but Wikipedia, and I'm always uneasy when we're out of step with the rest of the world.) Tim riley talk 13:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
First World War
  • "and even considered resigning[100] But, despite": a missing full stop, or was it something else?
  • It was indeed a missing full stop. Now stopped.

Done to the end of the war, for now. As a general point, you may just want to cast you eye over your commas in lists: some are serial, some are not (and the serial are not in places where there is confusion ("put to Parliament in 1894, 1895, 1911, and 1912", as an example)). Best to make consistent, where possible. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Welsh
  • Any need for the accent in "élite"? The OED eschews the use...
  • it does! I think that may be fairly recent. I shall reset my autocorrect in Word. The e is now less acute (not even grave, in fact). Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Strike
  • You have "co-operation" here, but "cooperate" a bit further up
  • That'll learn me to cut and paste! Now relieved of the hyphen. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "John Reith, general manager of the BBC": the general manager?
  • I'm happy with or without the definite article here, and have added it. (I have so far lost a little bet I had with myself that someone would boggle at "general manager" and try to change it to the metachronistic "director general".) Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "fearing reprisals from the government": it's odd he feared reprisals, as he allowed the TUC their say and tried to get a Labour broadcast in too. Maybe he was coming under increasing pressure by this stage.
  • I don't know the details of the BBC and the General Strike, but the sources are clear so far as Davidson's proposed broadcast is concerned. KJP1 may know – indeed will certainly know – more about the wider question than I do. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That's my lot. A fine article – certainly up there with that on Lang, which is exceptionally good. – SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, SC. Your comparison with the Lang article means a lot to me, for obvious reasons. Tim riley talk 12:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. All good from me (I'll let you get on with the commas in your own time), but there is certainly passes the FAC criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Wehwalt, both for support here and for your input at peer review, for which I was, and am, most grateful. Tim riley talk 10:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

Just booking my spot in what's an already crowded field. Pleased to pick up the Source review unless a more ecclesiastically-minded reviewer has their sights on it. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

KJ, all comments gratefully received. A source review would be a bonus, especially from one who knows the period as well as you. Tim riley talk 19:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I also made a few suggestions at PR but the article was fully FA standard without them. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, KJ. You made so many helpful suggestions for sources at PR that I threatened you with being co-nom here. I am exceedingly grateful for your input, and for your support here. Tim riley talk 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Images

ALT seems OK to me, regarding use isn't one file of Tait sufficient? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Only one of Tait included, plus one of his son. Tim riley talk
Thank you for the review, Jo-Jo-Eumerus. Is there anything above that I need to action to make the images acceptable? Tim riley talk 21:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The provenance and broken link issues should probably be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Scans of originals now noted. No idea about the broken link. I should have known better than to use an image from Commons: they invariably cause grief at FAC. Can delete the image and do without in the info-box if you insist. Tim riley talk 22:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
That's more a problem with files that directly link to the source file rather than Commons. I don't think the broken link is a serious issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you so much for the review. Tim riley talk 12:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Given that the Clerk of the Closet article states someone can retain the office after leaving his see, I'd like to see a source for the 1903 end date
  • Source for "Appointed Clerk of the Closet immediately after his consecration, he remained in close touch with Queen Victoria"?
  • I'd suggest moving the archive link in your web sources to immediately before the retrieval date
  • Done.
  • FN56 should have full details for the original publication as well as the republication
  • I'm afraid they aren't available. This impression of the Book of Common Prayer (1662 version) was printed by John Baskerville, but no publisher is mentioned. The two functions often overlapped in those days but I really do not know whether that was so in this case. I have my own copy of the Prayer Book to hand, (printed in the 1960s) which I could cite instead if wanted, but I thought a link to an online source would be helpful to those who haven't a BCP on their shelves. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • One had slipped through. Now amended. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FN125: what source is this referring to?
  • Changed. (It was agreed at PR that "Barber" was a more appropriate citation than "Taylor", though it isn't as straightforward as chapter author -v- book editor, and I clearly omitted to change the ref.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • FN140 doesn't match other Times refs
  • FN144 should include doi, although I'm not sure why you're using {{cite journal}} in the Sources section and not here?
  • I'm not familiar with doi, and haven't used it before. Is it now a requirement for FA? WP:CITE says it is optional. Added, anyway. I could remove the template from the Quinault reference if you prefer. (The length of that article is the reason why it is sequestered under "Journal" – at 16 pages it needs a specific page number in the references.) Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Further reading should be a separate section rather than subsection
  • Begbie OCLC goes to a different work
  • Jacobs: looks like Magee is an illustrator rather than a coauthor?
  • I should say Martell's work, published by Durham University, meets the second criterion in the list at WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It is, incidentally, cited by Dan Cruickshank of Glasgow University in his The Theology and Ecclesiology of the Prayer Book Crisis, 1906–1928, which I have not read. The quotations are verifiable in William Bridgeman, Philip Williamson ed., The Modernisation of Conservative Politics - The Diaries and Letters of William Bridgeman, 1904–1935, The Historians' Press, 1988, p. 212, I am told, though I have not seen it. Tim riley talk 18:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria - I can certainly vouch for the quote. I have a copy of Bridgeman in front of me now. The full cite reads: “The Archbishop thought, ‘he absolutely muffed it ... a poor speech with no knowledge and no fire’. Bridgeman himself called it ‘the worst speech in his life’.” Philip Williamson is a respected historian of the Baldwin-era Conservative Party and, although this may be less of a recommendation, he taught me! KJP1 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Smerus

I made my meagre comments at PR, but am very glad to support this excellent article for FA.--Smerus (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Smerus, for support here and for your input at PR. Gratefully received. Tim riley talk 08:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from JM

I read this closely and had a shufty for further sources when it was at PR. I'm happy with Tim's respones, and particularly happy that he managed to dig up (and incorporate) the sources I identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, JM, for support here and for your input at PR. I enjoyed following up your suggested sources, and the article is the better for it. I am much indebted, and as ever, I hope you will feel free to ping me to repay the debt at any future PR you have up. Tim riley talk 21:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Fir Clump Stone Circle

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a stone circle in Wiltshire (where Avebury and Stonehenge are also found) that was unfortunately completely destroyed. Little is known of the circle, so it's a fairly short article. It gained GA status last year and is now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
  • Sources are reliable
  • Checked Hutton reference. No issues. buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Image review
  • All images are free and appropriately licensed.
  • Could you alter the map to make it more obvious where the circle is?
    • This still hasn't been done. I had to stare at the map for some time to figure out what it was showing. buidhe 16:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm not quite sure what you mean; would you like to see the caption on the map made clearer? Or rather alter the pinpoint on the map in some way? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A free or non-free image or diagram of the actual circle (like this one) would be helpful. Done buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Other comments
  • It seems a bit unbalanced when the "context" section makes up the majority of the non-lede article text. Maybe you could cite Richard Reiss directly to expand that part of the article? buidhe 05:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi Buidhe and thanks for taking the time to read this article. Your suggestion for a drawing of the circle is an excellent one and is something that I'm working on. I'll ping you when I've made it. I'll use the David Field and Dave McOmish book you link to in order to expand the latter part of the article a little bit but unfortunately it seems that Reiss' original report was never published and so is just sitting in an archive somewhere. Obviously, we can't use unpublished sources as that would constitute OR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I have now added a diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now...

  • ...who measured the size of the monument and recorded its existence. - odd order, and "recorded its existence" seems a bit waffly. How about just "described and measured it"
  • A fair point; I've made the change you suggest, which works well Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ...All of the other examples are ruined, - err, Avebury and Stonehenge aren't exactly not ruined.....
  • Oh, I would have to disagree. Both Stonehenge and Avebury seem to have stones missing, other stones are leaning at angles, and at least half the stones that are there are being propped up by concrete bases. Neither of those monuments are in states anything like how they would have appeared in the Bronze Age. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An adjective/descriptor would be good before Richard Reiss allowing reader to understand who/what he is.
  • A very good point. I'll add, quite simply, that he was "the archaeologist", which should do the trick. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The article ends rather abruptly - I was expecting some more discussion of Reiss' discovery - what was there - did he have to dig - what is there now. Not even a marker by the side of the M4? Is it directly under the M4? Do we have any sort of diagram? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, Cas. Apologies for the delay in responding; I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I used to. There is no marker by the side of the M4 and to be honest I am not precisely sure exactly where in relation to the motorway the circle was. Going through Reiss' original (unpublished) reports (which I presume are sitting in an archive somewhere) might reveal said information, but that would definitely be entering the realms of original research. Regarding a diagram, that's a point that others have also raised here; it's something that I'm working on, as it's a good idea. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is an embellishment of all of Reiss' investigations that can be added, it'd be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now added the diagram of the circle, as you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess we've scraped everything we can from what sources are out there, so I reckon if that is the case then it can't be made any better on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from JM

Just an initial placeholder comment for now; did you manage to get hold of a copy of The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire? From the Google Book preview, this seems to contain both a diagram and a comparison to another circle built in a similar style. These would both be useful additions to the article, I think. I know it's not from an academic press, but the authors definitely seem to be reputable, so it passes the RS bar. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking at Burl p. 413: Though I'm struggling with his notation, it looks like he's citing Reiss's private papers and two other sources. Now, we can't cite private papers here (unless they're somehow made public) but have you bee able to dig up the other sources? They're Nat Mons Record (whatever that means) and Wiltshire Archaeological Magazine. They may contain information omitted, but, at the very least, they'd be good to add to the bibliography. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments, Josh, and my apologies for the delay in responding to you. I'm not spending as much time on Wikipedia these days as I once did (probably for the best, as it does get addictive). Regarding The Making of Prehistoric Wiltshire, I had forgotten about it since the GAN but I'll be consulting a copy in the next few days; I'll certainly use the diagram in there as the basis for my own, which I'll add into the article. As for the Nat Mons Record, that'll be the National Monuments Record, which should be available online I think; indeed it's probably going to be largely the same as the HER record already in the External Links (although the latter will have been updated). You're also right that Burl cites an old copy of WAM on page 413 - that's intriguing, and I'll take a look and get back to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
So the 1894 piece in WAM is a short article by A. D. Passmore primarily discussing the Day House Lane Stone Circle but also mentioning the Broome Stone Circle. On the final page Passmore also mentions "a number of sarsens" at a Hodson. This is almost certainly the same phenomenon as the Fir Clump stone circle so I will incorporate it into the article. Thanks for spotting the reference! Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Confusing things somewhat is that in his notebooks, which Burl prints in his 2004 article, Passmore seems to discuss the Fir Clump stone circle and the Hodson circle separately (here). Things get confusing. It seems possible that at the time of his 2000 book, Burl listed Passmore's 1894 reference to a Hodson circle as a reference to the Fir Clump circle, but that on discovering Passmore's later notebooks he realised that they were distinct. I'll try and convey some of this confusion in the article itself, sources permitting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
This all sounds great. Ping me when the changes are made and I will take another look. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: Hi Josh; I've added both the diagram and some additional information taken from Field and McOmish. Do let me know if you have any other recommendations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just so I'm clear: Are we still waiting on some possible sources to talk about Passmore's maybe-this-maybe-another observations, or is that not going to be possible based on the sources that exist? I just feel that for a very minor circle like this - I can see people questioning its notability! - we should include everything there is to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@J Milburn: To be honest, I think the article now says everything that can be said on this issue. Hopefully archaeologists of the future will delve deeper into the circle (perhaps discussing its landscape context or something like that) which in turn will allow us to expand the article. At present, however, I think we have exhausted the sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Great; I see the issue has been explained in the paragraph beginning "In an 1894 article in". I'll aim to have a close look at the article soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've moved the pictures around a little; please check you're happy with this.
  • More than happy with the diagram in the infobox, although I shifted the picture of the M4 from a left alignment to a right alignment as I think it looks a bit neater, if that's okay. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Could I recommend that you name/link all of these seven circles near Swindon?
  • Good idea. I've listed them in the "Context" section; we do not yet have articles for a couple of them but I should be able to create these without too much trouble. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't mention this again (promise!) but I think the comparison to Winterbourne Bassett Stone Circle in Field and McOmish is worth noting. I just think it's nice to tie this in with other related monuments.
  • A fair point - I'll add it in! 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Other than that, I think I'm happy to support. I can't see there being anything else to say about this circle, and I think stone circles deeply worthy topics for FAs, even if - especially if? - they are gone. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support. Coordinators: Please note that I was the GA reviewer of this article, and I am taking part in the WikiCup. I will probably be claiming this review in the competition. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Lead

  • The buried megaliths — The body of the article says "fallen," not buried. Which was it? Were the stones still there in 1965, just not in their original standing form?
  • I've gone back to the Burl source, and he uses the word "fallen" in this instance, so I think we should use that in the lede too. Will make the change. And yes, it seems that the stones were still there in 1965, simply recumbent (and perhaps hidden amid undergrowth, although the sources don't explicitly state this). Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason Passmore's notes aren't mentioned in the lead?
  • There's no particular reason. Do you think we should specifically mention Passmore? The lede does already mention the information that Passmore reported in said notes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I like what you've done with it now. It seemed like a bit of the chronology was missing before.
  • The M4 is linked as "M4 motorway" in the lead, but "M4 motorway" in the body.

Context

  • "silent and empty monuments" — Whose words?
  • The archaeologist Mike Parker Pearson suggests that in Neolithic Britain, stone was associated with the dead, and wood with the living. — Why?
  • His argument stemmed from an ethnographic comparison drawn with recent Madagascan memorial practices coupled with his arguments about the chronological development of the Stonehenge ceremonial landscape. To be honest I think it would be a bit too complex to start discussing how he built his argument in this particular article. Certainly relevant for the main Stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany article, but not so much here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • are reported as having existed — Where do the reports come from?
  • In various antiquarian reports. Do you think this is something worth noting in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem particularly important, the passive voice just made me curious. Perhaps as many as seven possible stone circles once existed would do the trick.

Description

  • a photocopy of the original site plan — Reiss's plan, or another?
  • It would almost certainly seem that it was Reiss' plan however Burl doesn't explicitly state this, so I'm not sure whether we should either. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Discovery and destruction

  • the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior — Any word on why/how?
  • Unfortunately not. Although it was most probably achieved by lighting fires around the stones to crack them and then throwing on cold water to accentuate the cracking. That's what happened at Avebury, certainly, when folks wanted to destroy the stones. It may be that a farmer just wanted the stones out of the way if they wanted to convert a field to arable use, although it may instead be that the stones were broken up to be used as road metal or building material, again things that occurred at other prehistoric sites in southern England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • after they had been purchased by the Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society — How did the society come to purchase the notebooks?
  • Unfortunately I do not know and the source I'm citing (Burl) doesn't appear to say; it merely mentions that they were obtained "at considerable cost". Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I wonder if they might be mentioned in a newsletter/journal that the society puts out, but pretty tangential to the article.
  • He produced a plan of the site as it then existed — Is there a diagram, and can it be included in the article?
  • Yes and yes! Give me a few days, and I'll create a copy and add it into the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • these stones were removed during construction of the M4 motorway — Does the M4 now cover where the circle once was?
  • Unfortunately the available sources don't say if the motorway actually covers the location of the circle or not, merely that the stones were moved during its construction. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting article, Midnightblueowl. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to read through the article, Usernameunique. Glad you found it to be of some interest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure, Midnightblueowl. Adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro

Support: I think this article does an admirable job of making a coherent story out of something rather (and literally) fragmentary. Just a few queries from me which don't affect my support. Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I have one or two problems with archaeologists in these situations. They often produce some rather wild and dubious imaginings. But perhaps I'm a little biased. However, I wonder if any historians (as opposed to archaeologists) have made suggestions regarding the purpose of stone circles? As it is, the frantic speculations about associations with the dead and the supernatural make me a little wary. This is not to say we need to go into detail; I just wonder are there any other overviews of current thinking? (It occurs to me I may have a few issues where archaeology is concerned... Please feel free to ignore my insane ramblings on this point)
  • Oh, you made me chuckle with that comment! I think it's true that archaeologists (or at least, prehistorians) have less to work with than historians (at least when it comes to thought and belief) and thus can have space to be a little more imaginative in their interpretation at times. It's also the case that in the United States and Britain, archaeology is more closely aligned with anthropology than history and thus is influenced by anthropological theory (which can definitely be highly imaginative at times). As far as I am aware, few if any historians have spent time discussing the stone circles, for the obvious reason that the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age lies considerably outside the boundaries of recorded history. The only exception I can think of is the historian Ronald Hutton (The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles and then Pagan Britain), but in his writings he tends to lay out the various different theories about the nature of the stone circles that have already been proposed rather than putting forward his own interpretations. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "During the 19th century, the megaliths in Fir Clump Stone Circle were levelled and the circle destroyed.": This appears in the lead but does not come out quite as strongly in the main body where we simply have "He also recorded that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior". (I'm guessing we don't know how or why?) To strengthen this a little, I wonder would it be better to start the section with this, or something like "The circle was broken up at some point around 1860", or if we want to be more cautious, "The antiquarian A.D. Passmore recorded in 1894 that the circle had been broken up about thirty years prior. In the late nineteenth century, he produced two notebooks... etc"
  • Perhaps this discrepancy in tone is best corrected by altering the sentence in the lede. I'll change "levelled and the circle destroyed" to "levelled and by the 1890s the antiquarian A. D. Passmore observed that the circle was no longer visible". Hopefully that resolves the discrepancy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "A.D. Passmore produced two notebooks": Produced does not quite sound right, as if he designed them for publication. I wonder would something like "filled two books with notes" (which doesn't sound quite right either) be more appropriate?
  • I can see your point. I've replaced "produced" with "wrote" here, which I think is an improvement, but I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on the wording. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we know what happened to the stones? Are they potentially under the M4? Or perhaps now sitting unsuspected in someone's garden? Also, was there any other reaction to this at the time, such as in the local press? (I appreciate that the answer to these is almost certainly "we don't know", but I wonder if a search of 1960s newspapers might reveal something?) Sarastro (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I have not come across any mention of what happened to the stones in any of the published literature. I wonder if the stones may actually still be somewhere in or near to Burderop Wood, either piled up or buried, perhaps shattered into smaller fragments. It would be nice if the creation of this Wikipedia article might encourage further research on the Fir Clump Stone Circle, research which might reveal more about the actual destruction of the circle and what happened to the stones. As for the 1960s newspapers, it is always possible that a note was published somewhere, but if so it certainly hasn't been referenced in later archaeological publications. Moreover, I am loathe at this point to devote the vast amount of time to scouring Wiltshire press archives that such a search would necessitate! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They're probably part of someone's rock garden... and they have no idea! No worries on this. I was hoping there might be something online, but I see that the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have anything for the appropriate dates. And I agree it would be rather good if someone did a little more digging on this. Perhaps literally. Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I just noticed some replies above to other questions. Is there anything we could add, even if it's just a note, about destruction/removal of similar sites, or something general on why they were destroyed? Even if it's not on this specific site, it may be useful to know the kind of things that happened to similar places. Sarastro (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Good idea; this could be achieved in the form of a note. I won't do this just yet, as I'll need to look up the right sources in the literature, but is something that I shall try to do soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. I'm more than happy with these responses, and as I said, I was supporting anyway. As long as you're not secretly an archaeologist or something like that! Sarastro (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SG

  • WP:NBSPs are needed throughout.
  • Convert templates are missing.
  • In the lead. Fir Clump Stone Circle measured 107 m by 86.5 m in diameter. A circle has one diameter; concentric circles have distinct diameters. What is being referred to with these two numbers? The inner and outer diameters? Also, converts needed. Also, prose is overly convoluted. Perhaps:
    • The diameter of the outer circle was 107 metres (351 ft) and the inner circle, 86.5 metres (284 ft) ... ??
      • But not even that, because later on, the article says: it measured 107 metres (351 ft) by 86.5 metres (284 ft) in total width. Now diameter is width? Why "total"? 107 x 86.5 would be a rectangle. How can a circle have two total widths, and is that diameter or not? No idea what these numbers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with SG abut the slight confusion over the dimensions. A suggestion, if I can: in the Description section, perhaps open with the quote from Field and McOmish, which would clarify the shape there before you mention the measurements. You can then paraphrase that into the lead to make clear they are ovoid, and perhaps give the more complete measurements there, rather than just "107 m by 86.5 m", which does suggest something rectangular. Aside from that, and the conversion for those who still use imperial measurements, this seems to meet the FA criteria. – SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [9].


Sol-20

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The Sol-20 is a surprisingly little-known microcomputer given its place in history. It appears to be the first truly mass-produced personal computer - there are numerous earlier examples of PCs like the Micral and Altair, but they were only the CPU box and required an external terminal of some sort to be useful; most also did nothing when turned on and the user had to "switch in" a program. In contrast, the Sol-20 could be purchased complete, plugged into the wall, plugged into any television for display, and thanks to its onboard ROM, was running as soon as you turned it on. It pre-dates the "1977 trinity" machines -TRS-80, PET and Apple II- which also had these qualities, and sold some ten thousand or more units during its two-year production run. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review
The first is used only in a parenthetical note and seems uncontroversial? I could simply remove the note if need-be, it doesn't add much. The second is a re-"printing" of the original book, "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer", should I re-cite it to that source? I am actually quoting the web page itself, so I cited that, but I could probably get a copy of the book somewhere.
For the first one, I would remove the note. For the second I would credit the original source in some way. I don't think it's necessary to get a copy of the book but one could say something along the lines of, "reprinted from... "
Fixed and fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ham Radio Horizons and Byte sources should use the same format as other sources, unless there is a reason.
Moved.
  • Please cite specific pages for where the information can be found in the Byte article, Swaine & Freiberger 2014, Felsenstein 1977, Systems 1977. (Longer page range makes info harder to find).
Ok, so...
Byte moved and clarified exactly what I was quoting with another cite for the price comparison.
Swaine & Freiberger fixed, just an oversight.
Found an original for Felsenstein 1977, re-cited and pages added. That version showed blockquotes, one of which I begged to be included.
Systems 1977 - this is actually referring to the entire document.
That leaves Veit, which I simply don't have in a version with numbers. I know it's Chapter 9, and the page range is around 138 to 142, but that's all I can get out of Google.
  • Is Kilobaud Magazine being used to cite anything?
Apparently not, removed. That is very odd, normally the cite tool I have turned on would put that up as an unused template. Perhaps it is no longer working, I'll have to look.
  • Otherwise, sources seem reliable for what they're being used for. A cursory search didn't find any more information.
  • It's a shame there's only google preview for PC World article, which is one of the better sources from a RS perspective. If you'd like I can request it via ILL from my university.
Oh, I'd love that! I'm also STILL trying to get a photo of the expansion bus, I know someone that has one of these machines (still working if you can believe it) but he keeps forgetting to forward them :-) Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Requested. If you send me an email, I will send you the scan as soon as I get it. buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I was able to verify some information through source checks. buidhe 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Description—this is all cited inline as per FA criteria. Is it necessary to state "From the Sol Systems Manual unless otherwise noted."? buidhe 01:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Lead caption needs editing for clarity
  • File:Popular_Electronics_cover_July_1976.jpg lacks a sufficient FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
All should be fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Still a bit of an issue with the last of these - that fair-use tag is intended for cases where the publication, not the thing featured, is the focus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Is there some other tag I should use? Perhaps you can point to a similar example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7 I think this is a great article. Although I remember with other computers of the era, I'd never heard of this one. Which is a way of saying that your work here is truly appreciated.

  • "where it was a huge hit" Suggest deleting "huge" per WP:PEACOCK
Done.
  • Link "modem". Most millennials would never have seen one.
Added.
  • Link "baud" A term you never hear anymore
Changed and linked to BPS instead.
  • "The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired by anyone. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory from anywhere." "anyone"? "anywhere"? Sounds like hyperbole. Suggest deleting these words.
Deleted.
  • "with its primary funding source" Who was that?
Added.
  • "hacking minded engineers" hyphen required here?
That seemed wordy in retrospect, removed.
  • Footnotes a, c and f could use a reference
Well A is a claim of obvious fact, and the second part is reffed in the body. F already has the ref. Added C.
Suggest moving the reference to the end of footnote f? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Already is...
Moved to first.
  • "Stan Veit later joked to Les that they named it after Solomon in another way" Suggest "Stan Veit later joked to Solomon that they named it after him in another way"
Changed.
  • " a kludged up box of parts", hyphen required here?
Grammarly, which is normally spot-on with these, says no. But eyeballs say yes, so added.
  • 8" should be "8-inch" and 5.25" should be "5.25-inch" Remember, most people have never encountered the old measurements, and would not know what the whole 9x means.
Added. I assume we don't need a conversion here, as this was the name more than the physical dimension?
That would be my position. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "From the Sol Systems Manual,[32] unless otherwise noted." Do we need this?
I have always found this VERY useful because it indicates you will be referring to it a lot. A list of para-ends is not the same implication. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Again, let me thank you for taking on the task of writing this article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Oppose on 1c (specifically WP:V): I looked at the lead, which revealed a few minor issues to begin with, but the first section of the main body threw up quite a few more, which worry me a little. Therefore I am opposing until this is clarified a little (there is probably a simple explanation, but I think it needs clearing up, hence the oppose).

Lead: Parts of this are a little difficult to follow, but this is easy enough to fix with a link or two. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The opening paragraph of the lead is somewhat impenetrable to me as I have no background in computing. This would be less of an issue if we had some slightly better links: could we link backplane, I/O drive and boot code?
All addressed except I/O, which is explained in the 3P+S link.
  • ”It also included swappable ROMs with boot code that allowed it to start up running a selection of programs”: Perhaps a little redundancy here. Could we just have “Swappable ROMs with boot code allowed a selection of programs to run on start up.” Also, we could perhaps link start up here.
Reworded.
  • ”a motherboard known as the Sol-PC which was also available as free schematics”: I’m not entirely clear what this means. I know the lead is a summary, but am I right in thinking this means you could simply build your own for free if you were so inclined?
Correct.
  • Should the price be mentioned in the lead?
Indeed, added.
  • ”By that time, the "1977 trinity" -the Apple II, Commodore PET and TRS-80- had begun to take over the market, and a series of failed new product introductions drove Processor Technology into bankruptcy”: We are using a hyphen to break up the sentence when it should be a pair of emdashes.
Fixed, although you should feel free to do this yourself.
  • ”Felsenstein would later develop the successful Osborne 1 computer, using much the same underlying design in a portable format”: Why not simply “Felsenstein later developed…”? Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Reworded.

Tom Swift Terminal: Reading the first section, I checked a source to clarify something with a view to rephrasing it, but I could not find the information in the source. I then checked a few more references and I could not find the information in those sources either. I imagine that there is a simple explanation: either I am overlooking something in the source, the wrong page was given in the reference or a different edition was used to the one linked in the reference. However, as this is a sourcing issue, it does need clarification. It may also be worth the nominator and maybe other reviewers checking some of the other references to make sure they support the text given. If I am overlooking something, it may be worth quoting the parts of the source that support our text. I am more than happy to strike the oppose if this can be easily cleared up, or if I have misunderstood something. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, at the start of the History section, we need to introduce Felsenstein as we only do so in the lead.
Added.
  • The first couple of sentences are a little difficult to understand. It was trying to understand these first sentences that led me to check the sources.
  • ”The cost of running the system was untenable; the terminal cost $1,500 (their first example was donated), the modem another $300, and the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute.”: Using “cost” twice in close succession here. I’m not clear what “their first example was donated” means here: it was donated to them (by who, and why?) or they donated it to someone else? Nor do I understand what “the mainframe time would normally be dollars a minute” means.
Let's unpack this...
The cost of a Model 33 is referenced just below in the section about the Altair.
Added the donator, although I don't think that really clarifies anything.
Time-sharing systems of the era billed in terms of CPU time, typically minutes. It cost a lot. Added and reffed.
  • I'll be honest, it concerns me that this was not referenced before. However, it reads more clearly now. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Even the reams of paper output from the terminal were too expensive to be practical”: What paper output? Again, this is unclear to the general reader… why did the system need paper to operate?
Teletype Model 33's are teletype printers. The link to the Model 33 should do here.
  • Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. For an FA, the reader should not have to follow links to understand what something means. I had no idea that it was a printer, nor will, I imagine, the majority of readers. However, I'm not going to insist on a change here. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we could do with some dates in the first paragraph of history.
Added.
  • The first four sentences of “Tom Swift Terminal” are cited to Levy p 148, which is viewable for me online via the link. I cannot find any of the information cited.
I can see all of this information in Google Books between page 145 and 148. Can you see this section? I was using a PDF version lacking page numbers (one of the major reasons I believe ebooks are a plague) so I had to do my best by cross-referencing.
  • OK, this is a big problem. The reference says p 148, now you are saying it's somewhere between p 145 and 148. This fails WP:V. I'm inclined to agree with you about ebooks, but that doesn't mean that WP:V doesn't apply. I'm not sure what you were using, but even some kind of ebook reference such as Kindle use would be preferable to giving what is effectively the wrong page number. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
The page numbers appear to all be correct.
  • ”The replacement of the Model 33 with a Hazeltine glass terminal helped, but it required constant repairs”: The reference checks out about requiring constant repairs, but the reasons given in the source for switching are not related to costs but to unreliability.
Yes. Sorry, have to go, back later. Maury Markowitz (talk)
  • I notice this has not been changed yet. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • ”Since 1973, Felsenstein had been looking for ways to lower the cost”: I’m probably overlooking it, so could someone show me where the source supports this?
  • Just flagging this in case you missed it. 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This is mentioned again below.
  • Reference 6 covers most of the second paragraph of “Tom Swift Terminal”. But…
  • Article: “When he saw Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter on the cover of the September 1973 Popular Electronics…”
  • Source: Yes, he saw the January 1975 issue cited, but here it says that the picture was a design by Ed Roberts, not Don Lancaster.
I cannot find any statement like that. Ed Roberts was the designer of the Altair, two years later. This is definitely not in ref 6, where are you seeing this?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics is about Ed Roberts; looking again, I see that it was actually from 1975 not 1973. However, it did not support the text. The new reference supports the text given. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Article: “a 300 bits per second acoustic coupler that was 1⁄3 the cost of commercial models”
  • I can’t find this in the source cited.
Which part, the 300 or the cost? I think you mean the cost, and that's in there, "And it finally went on the market in ’76 or ’77, and it knocked modem prices down from $350 to $100."
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, which does not contain any of this information. The new version is referenced to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals this is on p. 17. It should not be the job of a reviewer to correct citations. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Article: “he began adapting its circuitry as the basis for a design he called the Tom Swift Terminal”
  • In the pages cited, he saw the magazine cover after he had come up with his ideas.
I am reading a paragraph that starts "In 1973, in September '73, the TV typewriter burst upon the scene" and ends "And that was the basics of the design of the Tom Swift terminal,". Can you be more specific - is the problem in the text in the Sol article or the source?
  • The version I reviewed was this version. At the time, this statement was referenced to Levy 2010, p. 156, on which the only mention of Popular Electronics comes after he had come up with his ideas. The current version is referenced to to Felsenstein 2008, p. 13, which STILL does not contain the cited information. A search reveals that it is on p. 14.
  • Article: “The terminal was deliberately designed to allow it to be easily repaired. Combined with the Pennywhistle, users would have a cost-effective way to access Community Memory.”
  • I can’t find this in the source given.
Which part, the easily repaired or the cost effective? The later is mentioned in the paragraph just above the one talking about the TST, he's talking about how much it cost to maintain the Hazeltine and that it wasn't worth it.
  • I cannot find that on the cited page. Possibly I'm not familiar enough with the topic to understand the reference, so could you please quote directly the text that supports our article? Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
"when I heard about this I said, "This maintenance contract isn't worth what we are paying.""
  • This does not support anything about repairing, or any comparison to the Pennywhistle, nor any indication that it would be more effective for users rather than the people running it. Also, this is not in the Levy reference to which the sentence is currently cited, but to Felsenstein 2008. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • A search of the book for “Don Lancaster” gives a reference to him designing a “TV typewriter” on page 155, but that page does not support any of the other information cited to reference 6.
Ahhh, there is a single missing ref in the middle. Added.

I'm stopping there for now. Assuming this can be clarified, I will strike my oppose. Sarastro (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a superb review BTW. In-depth and from someone "outside the box". It's too easy to write things based on prior knowledge, you don't even see you're doing it, so this sort of second-glance is invaluable for future readers. Example: I recently referred to Andre Norton as "that guy". Please keep going! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note: I'm still finding errors in the citations, as noted above. I notice that the nominator has rejigged the references since my review, hence my link to the version I reviewed which had the failed verifications. Also, we may be introducing new errors by adding citations mid-sentence. For example, we now have a reference in the middle of the first paragraph of Tom Swift Terminal to The Economics of Computers. As written, this reference is supporting the information about Felsenstein at the start of the paragraph, the Teletype Model 33, and the cost of the system in 1973. This is obviously not the case, so this information needs to correct reference. I'm afraid I'm unconvinced that this meets Criterion 1c as I am finding so many problems with verification. It may only be a page or two out, but this is not acceptable at FA level. And the version that I first reviewed had references that simply did not support the text. Also, to be blunt, an article should not be reaching FAC needing this kind of work doing. I am concerned at finding so many verification issues within just two paragraphs; I haven't looked at the rest of the article, but I am worried that this is replicated throughout the article. I am afraid my oppose stands. I will not revisit unless I have some reassurance that the nominator and at least one other reviewer have checked the rest of the article for verification. Because, to be honest, finding even one more issue would leave me inclined to suggest that this should be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC. Sarastro (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Note the last part of 1c, "...are supported by inline citations where appropriate". We appear to have different definitions of appropriate, as the level of detail you are expressing, to me, borders on overkill, but I'm aware opinions differ on this. All of the items (save one) are in the references provided, so the question is whether 1c is violated by having generalist citations like the style I use? I guess we'll need another opinion on this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
For reference I looked over your last FA. It has dramatically more inlines than I have ever used, so that clarifies the level you are looking for. Seeing as the article is not at that level, perhaps we can put a pin in the cite issue for a moment... would you mind continuing looking over the content for additional notes on content and gr? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm afraid I've never heard that argument before at FAC, and I think it's a long time since it would have been widely used in response to WP:V concerns. I've been around FAC a very long time now, and unless I've missed something enormous, every article has had this level of reference, and every source reviewer has required it. I may be very wrong, but if you raised this at WT:FAC, I think you'd be in a definite minority. However, we may possibly be talking at cross-purposes here. I am not requiring a cite at the end of every sentence. But, for example, those references which are to the wrong page (e.g. where we are referencing p 13 and the information is on p 17) are easily fixed by changing the citation to pp 13-17 where the information is on a range of pages. Also, there is nothing wrong with moving two or three citations to the end of a paragraph if they cover all the information in that paragraph. My only caveat would be that it should be easy for a reviewer (or anyone else) to find the facts from the text in a cited source; that is my primary concern here, that it is NOT easy to find. Regarding "put a pin in it", I'm afraid there is little point for me to review prose etc until the sourcing is sorted. I'm going to step back now and see what other reviewers think, but my oppose (which I've clarified is on 1c) stands for now. Sarastro (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. But as my main purpose in FAC is to improve the article, are you sure I can't get you to continue reading it? I found your notes on prose useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem with that is that, until the sourcing is settled one way or the other, it's a shifting sands kind of situation. There's no point polishing prose if the actual content could be changed over sourcing. I've no objection to doing so at some point, but not before any sourcing issues are finalised. Sarastro (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Strong oppose from Ealdgyth

  • Note f: "Here too the stories vary somewhat; Felsenstein's 2008 interviews state they went to the first meeting together, while his 1977 article states he did not attend until the second meeting in March. However, the first meeting of the club was in March," is cited to this Wired article. But noting in the Wired article supports the information it is cited to. There is no mention of Marsh or Felsenstein in the Wired article.
  • Note h: " In contrast, the Hazeltine 2000 terminal sold for $2,995, and the "low-cost" 1500 series, introduced in 1977, started at $1,125." is cited to this article. While it supports most of hte infromation, the "low-cost" bits are not supported in the article.
  • Sales section: "The Sol was initially offered in three versions. The base motherboard was offered as the Sol-PC, available as a kit for $575, or fully assembled and tested for $745. The Sol-10 added a case, keyboard and power supply, was $895 in kit form and $1,295 assembled. Finally the Sol-20 added a keyboard with numeric keypad, and a larger power supply to feed the five expansion slots and a fan to cool them, for $995 as a kit or $1,495 assembled. Advertising of the time referred to the Sol-20 as "The first complete small computer under $1,000"." is all cited to this ad from Processor Technology. Much of that information isn't supported by the ad, and the ad is a poor choice for a source, as it's not a independent source. The ad mentions nothing about the Sol-10 or the Sol-PC.
  • Tom Swift Terminal section: "Lee Felsenstein was one of the operators of Community Memory, the first public bulletin board system. Community Memory opened in 1973, running on a SDS 940 mainframe that was accessed through a Teletype Model 33, essentially a computer printer and keyboard, in a record store in Berkeley, California. The cost of running the system was untenable; the teletype normally cost $1,500 (their first example was donated from Tymeshare as junk), the modem another $300, and time on the SDS was expensive – in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour (equivalent to $96 in 2019)" is sourced to this page ... but the only thing that page supports is the "in 1968 Tymshare charged $13 per hour" ... none of hte rest of it is supported by the source given.
  • Software section: "CONSOL provided a simple terminal emulator function, along with a small number of additional commands to load and run programs from tape using TLOAD. SOLOS added names to the files on the cassette, the TSAVE command for saving data to the tape into a named file, and TCAT to print out the details of a named program. TXEC loaded and executed a named program in one step. SOLED included block-mode editing, used on some mainframe systems, but it is not clear if this was actually available." is sourced to this webpage, which basically appears to be a personal website. I'm not seeing any sign that this guy is an expert, so what makes it a reliable source? And a good bit of this isn't actually supported by the webpage - "TLOAD" most of the commands for the SOLOS, and most of the information given about SOLED.
  • Frankly, having checked all the online sources, I'm afraid I must strongly oppose. The whole article needs a top to bottom source integrity check against the sources. Given the number of issues with the online sources, it is going to be a long tedious chore to check all the offline sources against the text in the article. It really needs to be withdrawn and worked on away from FAC, with someone who is capable of doing a very detailed check against the sources and who has access to them. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
    • (Note I plan to claim WikiCup points for this FAC review) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

The spotchecks by Sarastro and Ealdgyth suggest this should be closed and improved on outside FAC; it might be good if one or both of them can be involved in some re-checks before another run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The Holocaust in Slovakia

Nominator(s): buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an important event that oddly didn't have any Wikipedia article until last year. This unfortunate episode in Slovak history occurred when its German-allied government deported most of its Jewish population, actually paying Germany for the privilege. It is a pair with List of Holocaust transports from Slovakia, currently at FLC. The article recently passed A-class review and has been copyedited by GOCE. Thanks in advance for your comments. buidhe 15:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

Three weeks without a review? That's not a good reflection on us reviewers, (although the difficult subject matter may be the reason behind that). I'll be along shortly to make a start. - SchroCat (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of points where the refs run out of order ("Hlinka Guard.[13][3]" and "militia.[13][3]" as two examples). I am not too fussed about the point, but there are some who will say it trips up readers to see the numbers out of order (your call as to fix or ignore)
  • "HSĽS' " I don't push the point, but a good rule of thumb is to see if there is the sound of a second "s", so I would normally put this as "HSĽS's" (although with the mix of curly and straight punctuation and upper/lower case it's a fairly ungainly looking mix!). Your call whether you follow suit, as there is a no real fixed rule either way.

Done to the start of Anti-Jewish measures. I have only general knowledge on the history of Mitteleuropa at the period, so I am reviewing on prose and readability only. More to come. – SchroCat (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


Sources
  • Spot checks not done.
  • Impressive amount of research and source gathering here. All sources and citations are correctly formatted and in line with the MoS requirements and FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 24 January 2020 [10].


Bridgeport, Connecticut, Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin with P.T. Barnum on its face, which given the troubled commemorative coin market of the 1930s has led to the obvious description of buyers of this and other issues as suckers, born every minute. Given the scarcity of coin collectors these days, the "born every minute" is probably not accurate, anyway...Wehwalt (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Ceoil

Support on prose, sourcing and comprehensiveness. The usual standard for numismatic FACs; most informative, have made a few trivial edits. Ceoil (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support..--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Usernameunique

Infobox

  • Thickness, but not diameter, is converted to inches
Well spotted, there was an error in the template. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Background

  • What is a calliope/what is its relation to a circus? The calliope article leaves it unclear.
There is discussion under calliope (music). I have piped.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • to a group authorized by Congress — perhaps "to groups"?
I've recast the sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Legislation

  • one of several commemorative coin bills to be considered on March 11, 1936 — What were the others?
There were about ten, plus a couple of medals and to bring back the three cent piece. I think we give the reader enough info.
  • authorizing legislation placed no prohibition on this — Should this be "the authorizing..."?
I could do "their authorizing ...". I'm not sure "the" adequately refers to several pieces of legislation. It feels like it doesn't.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • six coinage bills being considered one after the other — What were the others?
Like the above, I wonder if it's really needed. If you insist, I'll drop a footnote with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
On both counts I would find a footnote interesting—not only would it help integrate the articles, but it would also further illustrate one of the recurring themes of these articles, i.e., that the 1930s saw a glut of commemorative coins that flew through Congress for several years without much pushback. But totally your call.

Preparation

  • Do sketches of the originally proposed design still exist?
Yes, Taxay reproduced them and they're probably in the Numismatist. However, Kreis hasn't been dead 70 years so even though the Numismatist wasn't copyrighted at the time, I don't feel we can use them.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
You might ask at the copyright desk—it seems to me as if they might be in the public domain as either a) pre-1978 works without copyright renewal, or b) works of someone for the federal government, but someone there could give you a better idea.

Design

  • Dealer B. Max Mehl, in his 1937 work on commemoratives — Any reason why this is not cited?
I've changed to the more direct cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Production, distribution and collecting

  • May as well cite to the auction for the exceptional specimen: link.
Did that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  • Are 8 and 12 the same source?
No, 8 is the copy of the bill, that contains information about who introduced it and when, and to what committee it was referred. The other is the published transcript of the Senate committee hearing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Due to changes since my comment, they’re now 8 and 13. To confirm, those are the ones you were talking about? If so, I would recommend changing the citation format somewhat so that, without having to click on the link, one is clear what documents the citations refer to.

Looks good, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Usernameunique Many thanks, I've either done those things or have responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
My pleasure, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Three discretionary comments above. —Usernameunique (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I glanced at this and ended up reading all of it. I particularly enjoyed the comments on the eagle! I could find nothing to criticise in the prose or comprehensiveness. Very nicely put together, and very readable. Sarastro (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Looking strong, but still need an image review. @Usernameunique: Can I take your comments as having reviewed the sources for formatting and reliability? --Laser brain (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Checked the images, it seems like the only problem is that File:PT Barnum 1851-crop.jpg has a broken link. No ALT text in use, it looks like the images are pertinent and well placed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I've changed that link. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Laser_brain, yes, the formatting and reliability checks out. The difference between references #8 and #13 could perhaps be made more clear if there is further information such as subtitles that could be added, but that's a small matter that shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wolf

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the wolf, one of the most well known and well studied carnivores and the ancestor of the dog. This article has been worked on for months and has been both peer reviewed and copyedited. Credit to William Harris and Mariomassone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What's the difference between lime and green?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Wolves_attack_moose_2012-04-12_001_(cropped).jpg is tagged as being of low quality
Its the best one we got of wolf tearing into prey. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, the image quality is admittedly quite poor. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Capitoline_she-wolf_Musei_Capitolini_MC1181.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
I have not seen this required for other photo of pre-modern works. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
It should be fairly straightforward. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what tag to use. LittleJerry (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure why I have to add another PD tag for a work created before copyright even existed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama . Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Dore_ridinghood.jpg has no copyright tag at all
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Chinook2.gif needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Grenier_Saint_Martin_loup_MdlaC.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
When/where was the former first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. The image page states so. LittleJerry (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Not that I can see? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
It says it was made c. 1900 by Charles Marion Russell, an American. LittleJerry (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Made is not the same as published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


Comment from Tim riley

I'll have more comments later, I hope, but from a first read-through I wonder why in an otherwise BrE article the AmE "gray" is used throughout rather than the English "grey"? (The OED admits "gray" but favours the usual "grey"). – Tim riley talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This is written in Canadian English with Canadian spellings. See talk page. LittleJerry (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Tim riley, still reviewing? LittleJerry (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

Lead
  • "...is a canine native to the wilderness and remote areas of Eurasia and North America." Not sure of the technical meaning of "native" in zoology, but the wolf was surely "native" to pretty much the whole of these continents until driven out by man (as said lower down)? I suspect there is a better way of putting this.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "is the largest extant member of its family," which isn't named or linked for a long time after...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Only 3 lead paras, none very long. Large tracts of this long article (141 K crude bytes) are not mentioned at all.
Will get to. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is talk of wolves in Mexico, but the distribution map has them nowhere near that far south, apart from a little dot in the southern US.
We only have the IUCN to give us the full wolf range. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed., 2005), a standard reference work in zoology, recognizes 38 subspecies of C. lupus including the domestic dog." Do we neeed to spell out the source in the 1st para?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "its highly advanced expressive behaviour" is there a link for "expressive behaviour"?
No. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes - Wolf communication. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "long history of association with humans" is "association" the right word?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Although the fear of wolves is pervasive in many human societies,..." - nothing I can see lower down on societies where it was not "pervasive".
Pawnee? LittleJerry (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • "Coyotes, jackals and wolves are isomorphic, with the size relationship between their bodies remaining constant.." The mathmatical link here is completely useless ; what does this actually mean?
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "to overcome the deep snow that covers most of its geographical range" needs "in winter" or something. The "most of" only applies to the last 1,000 years or so, presumably.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Rest
  • "Habitat use by wolves depends on the abundance of prey, snow conditions, absence or low livestock densities,..." wonky grammar in the last bit.
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more later Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Ok, resuming. Sorry for the delay. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • These paras are too long & should be split: "The wolf has very dense and fluffy winter fur ..." (? at "In cold climates,..") and "A wolf's coat colour is determined by its guard hairs..." (at "In North America..."?)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ecology
  • "Wolves occurred originally across Eurasia above 12˚N and North America above 15˚N" this means nothing to most of us, so including indicative tips would be good - "including nearly all of India", "Guatemala and northwards" or something.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking in the range description - eg this is about the 5th mention of Canada, yet only now linked. Does "forest" need a link, or "insect" in "diet"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Probably split the "diet" section at "In North America..."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The prey animals of North American wolves continue to occupy suitable habitats with low human density, eating livestock and garbage only in dire circumstances." something missing/ too much here - cut ""The prey animals of"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Wolf and tiger interactions are well-documented in Sikhote-Alin..." should better locate with "Russian Far East" or "Pacific Russia" or something. These are Siberian tigers, which should be linked.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Behaviour
  • Picture caption: "Italian wolf pack resting in a shade" - these are Italian wolfs (presumably), photographed in France (Monts de Gueret Animal Park, not even near the border). Is "in a shade" colloquial in Canadian English (as opposed to "in shade")?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Too long para "The wolf is a social animal...."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dank

  • Can anyone point me to the most recent discussion of "wolf" vs. "gray wolf" vs. "grey wolf"? I support the current article title, but I think the first sentence could use some help, probably in the form of a hidden comment linking such a discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
It was discussed here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much. I added a hidden comment, and I changed the first sentence to "... also known as the grey wolf or gray wolf". Normally we don't give both spellings for an alternative common name, but I'm arguing that this is an exception, because there are plenty of people who always write "gray" instead of "grey", but "grey wolf" instead of "gray wolf". That is, they think that's the correct spelling, not a language variant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC) If anyone wants to change that to "grey (or gray) wolf", that works too, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sainsf

Here are my comments after a brief look through the article. I will keep adding over the next few days. Also, per the rules of WikiCup 2020 I declare my participation in it and that I will enlist this review in my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead
  • It is the largest extant member of its family would it be better to shorten it to "the largest extant canid"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 35.5–37.7 kg (78–83 lb) Why do we provide the average for males and a range for females?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Up to 38 subspecies of C. lupus Should we not stick to calling it "wolf" instead of bringing up its scientific name unless necessary?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • its more social nature The sociality article gives examples of both solitary and gregarious behavior. Maybe link it to the appropriate subsection. Maybe "more gregarious" works better?
There's not appropriate subsection to link to. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Link territorial, pathogens
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Although social animals, single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs I don't exactly see the contradiction here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The global wolf population is estimated to be 300,000 Include the year this estimate is of
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It has a long history of interactions with humans Should be "The wolf has a ...." looking at the previous line
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the infobox,
  • do we really need a ref for binomial authority if its already cited in main text?
Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I think the range map needs a caption, and should mention the year the data is from
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Etymology
  • ' What do the asterisks in front of a few words mean?
I assume it has something to due with the Germanic languages. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • Is the opening line on introduction of binomial nomenclature relevant enough?
Made changes. LittleJerry (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The etymology of Canis probably belongs in the earlier section
I disagree, the etymology section is on "wolf" and "lupus" which mean the same thing. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • on the next page is it a relevant point to mention?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • under the wolf C. lupus similar to the lead instance, is the scientific name needed here? I feel wolf should do, and it maintains consistency. 38 subspecies of C. lupus This instance is understandable in the context of that sentence so no need to discuss this one.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does "some 36" imply an ambiguity in the published number?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • more cranio-dentally robust links would be helpful
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In Admixture with other canids there are some duplinks – golden jackals, dhole, basal, red wolf. "Gene flow" could use a link
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • that was 12-14% admixed —> that was 12–14% admixed
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • in the Caucasus Mountains. and in Bulgaria. an extra period?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Description
  • Females tend to have narrower muzzles and foreheads, thinner necks, slightly shorter legs, and less massive shoulders than males Should we mention sexual dimorphism then?
I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The height should probably be included in the lead as one of the most common measurements
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Diet
  • In Europe, wolves eat apples, pears, figs, melons, berries and cherries This line appears to have a lot of common terms linked.. I get the point but maybe we can exclude a few like "apples" at least
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Like all land mammals that are pack hunters, across their range the wolf feeds predominantly on I think it should be "across its range", or the comma comes after "range", altering the meaning.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • with a pack being capable of bringing down a 500 kg (1,100 lb) moose I would be curious how many wolves we are talking of here in a typical pack, but that section comes later in the text. If possible, an idea of the number that could be capable of doing something like this would be a good addition.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Social structure
  • The wolf is a social animal A link to sociality would be good
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • covering roughly nine percent of their territory per day either one of "%" or "percent" notation should usually be followed throughout the text consistently
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I see many instances such as these two lines The wolf can be found between sea level and 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and Scent marks are generally left every 240 m (260 yd) with different units and abbreviations. Needs consistency throughout the article
The contexts are different. LittleJerry (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
At least the "m" or "metres" (abbreviated/nonabbreviated) notation should be consistent for all unit types. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Wolves advertise their territories to other packs Display (zoology) would be a good link for "advertise"
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Scent marking involves urine, feces, and anal gland scents. Scent marking is more effective at advertising territory Two sentences beginning identically. Could be merged or reworded a bit to avoid repetition. The following lines also use "scent mark" frequently, which could possibly be shortened to "mark" as scentmarking is the only mode of marking we are talking about here.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This includes the use of vocalization, body posture, scent, touch, and taste. The phases of the moon have no effect on wolf vocalisation Two different spellings for "vocalization". Please check for other instances of variant spellings
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Disablement
  • deliver a bite force of 28 kg/cm2 (400 lbf/in2) A link for bite force would be good.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the caption of an image in this section I guess it should be "white-tailed" deer per the article on the deer. Plus a link would be nice
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Infections
  • a hookworm known to infect wolf pups in utero "in utero" could be simply reworded to in the uterus.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Status and conservation
  • Two duplinks – Mexican wolves, Rocky Mountains
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Relationships with humans
  • would face should they follow him.(Matthew 7:15, Matthew 10:16, Acts 20:29) There is a stray period in between
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • increased cortisol levels in instances Cortisol may be linked unless it is linked elsewhere
It is. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In the image caption "Small farmers surprised by a wolf (1833) by François Grenier de Saint-Martin" it would be good to add a link to the name of the artist. I find a French wiki article on him.
Done. LittleJerry (talk)
  • "Dogs" is a duplink in "As pets and working animals"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

That is all. The article is wonderfully comprehensive and was a great pleasure to read. Amazing job! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support on prose. All my concerns have been addressed and I feel the prose definitely meets FA standards. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, which I conducted with FAC in mind. I wonder whether William Harris is co-nominator, as he is not listed? FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod and Sainsf, any more? LittleJerry (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey LittleJerry, sorry for the delay. I'll add all my comments by this weekend.. there shouldn't be many left though. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

Great to see this here. First comments below, more to follow.

  • Lead: fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality packs. – I don't understand the word "packs" here; the article body speaks simply of "wolf mortality", not the mortality of whole packs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-rabid wolves have attacked and killed people, mainly children, but this is rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters and shepherds. – This second sentence on attacks on humans seems to over-emphasise this aspect in the lead. This is much more detail and provided in the lead for all other aspects. Maybe include other highly relevant information instead, such as domestication and the origin of the domestic dog.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines—including the domestic dog, dingo, and New Guinea singing dog—as subspecies or even separate species has recently been challenged by zoologists. Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated. – Aren't these two sentences contradicting? First it is stated that the dog may not be a subspecies or separate species, which can only mean that it is the same subspecies as the wolf. Then it is stated that both are not closely related.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • link phylogenetic or maybe even avoid the term.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • They are regarded as having been more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves – Grammar seems off? Maybe "They had more robust skulls and teeth than modern wolves"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The Himalayan wolf appears to be part of a lineage that is basal to extant Holarctic wolves. Modern Holarctic wolves – I would introduce/explain the term "Holarctic wolf", as it isn't clear why the Himalayan would not be one part of it since it occurs within the holarctic region?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • An extinct Late Pleistocene wolf – Which one, and what is it, a species?
It is linked. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The wolflike canids are a group of large carnivores – "Wolvelike canids" is another vague term. What is included there?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • dhole needs a link.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the African hunting dog – what is this? Can it be at least linked?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • On average, adult wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The tail measures 29–50 cm (11–20 in) in length, the ears 90–110 mm (3.5–4.3 in) in height, and the hind feet are 220–250 mm (8.7–9.8 in). – Why this mixture of cm and mm? Better stick with one unit, to make it easier to compare these numbers.
Because ears and feet are smaller? Those are the measurements given in the source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The heaviest wolf to be taken by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service was killed on 70 Mile River in east-central Alaska on July 12, 1939, and weighed 79.4 kg (175 lb). – This seems to be, compared to the rest of the article, excessive detail. Not sure if the parts by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and 70 Mile River is really needed.
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The ears are covered in short hairs, which strongly project from the fur. – Are really the hairs projecting from the fur, or is it the ears? If the latter, than it sould be "and project from the fur" and without comma?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • generally develop the smoothest overall coats as they age. – unclear: this means the fur isn't smooth in juveniles?
I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Apart from those wolves which are white or black, these tones vary little across geographical areas. – This does not make sense to me. If the color of "white" and "black" wolves vary (as indicated here), than these would no longer be "black" or "white".
It doesn't say black and white wolves vary. It says that there are wolves that are black or white (the extreme ends of color) but otherwise they don't vary much in color tone. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • has reduced the wolf's range to about one-third of what it once was. – I suspect that this is excluding Asia; could this be made clear?
Not in source so no. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • the northern United States, Europe, and Asia from about 75°N to 12°N. – Restrict to eastern and northern Europe to avoid confusion? The "12N" only applies to Asia?
Not there. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • while they disperse from packs to form their own or join another one. – Though the latter is supposed to be rare? Maybe add ", rarely,"?
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Does this mean that typically, a lone wolf first searches for a mate, and then for territory to fund an own pack? It does not become very clear through the text.
Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Raised leg urination is considered to be one of the most important forms of scent communication in the wolf, making up 60–80% of all scent marks observed. – I would either word it "is considered to be the most important form of scent communication" or "is one of the most important forms of scent communication". Having both "one of" and "considered" seems overly careful.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)
  • Over what distances can wolf howling be heard? This seems to be an important practical information (people hearing wolves at night might want to know how close they might be).
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Content in the first paragraph of the "Reproduction" section overlaps with content from the second paragraph of the "Social structure" section. After reading that latter paragraph, important questions remain unanswered; this is only mentioned in that "Reproduction" paragraph. Other information is given in both paragraphs, leading to redundancy (e.g., Most foreign mature wolves are killed by the pack unless it needs to replace a breeder). Maybe it would be better to merge both together; maybe move everything related to wolf dispersal to the "Social structure" paragraph?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Some wolves may leave the pack but remain in its territory, waiting for one of the breeding parents to die before they can breed. – But these can only be the offspring of the breeding pair? Or does this only apply to male wolves that have been adopted by the pack at young age? If so, maybe mention to avoid confusion.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Females are capable of producing pups every year, with one litter annually being the average. – But this means that they are also capable to breed twice (or more) a year, since one litter a year is not the maximum but the average?
Yes. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • female wolves remain in a den located away from the peripheral zone of their territories, where violent encounters with other packs are more likely to occur. – should it be "less likely"?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As there are few convenient places for burrows, wolf dens are usually occupied by animals of the same family. – I don't understand; since one pack = one family, it seems self-evident that separate families/packs would not share the same den? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • However, the classification of a number of these canines as subspecies has recently been challenged by zoologists. – But "A number of these canines" seems now to refer to the "38 subspecies of C. lupus"? The cited source is only about the domestic dog (and its descendants). Furthermore, the source doesn't state that their status as subspecies has been challenged as far as I see.
Fixed. The source was supposed to be the article section link for more information.
  • The optimal pack size for hunting elk is four wolves, and for bison a large pack size is more successful. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs – this seems to be contradicting? Assuming that elk and bison are representative prey items (elk was mentioned to be one of the most important), a pack size of four is more successful than single wolfs/pairs?
It's saying that in general. And bison are not common prey. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • please link "lagomorph".
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • In August 2019, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service implemented changes to how the ESA is applied. This allows the removal of species from being treated as endangered, including the wolf.[144] As a result, the State of Minnesota declared that of the 6,000 wolves living in the lower 48 states, half of these live in Minnesota – I don't understand. How is this declaration of the State of Minnesota related to the ESA changes? Can this be made clearer perhaps? Does the recent ESA change mean that wolfs can be hunted again in places like Minnesota?
They were stating to the USFWS that their wolves no longer endangered. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Would inclusion of a map showing the historic range of the wolf be an idea (e.g., [11])? This would, for example, show that wolves existed in Great Britain but got extirpated there, something not mentioned in the text. Might be more helpful than the currently included "Wolf range in Europe" map, which is a bit redundant to the range map of the taxon box.
See [page]. And wolves being killed off in Britain is in the text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Another important practical information that could be included is tracks, as these can be commonly found. I could add a sentence if you wish, but I'm not sure where it would fit. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay. Put it as the last sentence of the first paragraph of description. LittleJerry (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Bank War

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This is the third time in about the last six months that the article has undergone a featured article nomination and has not been promoted. The failure of the article to gain promotion the previous two instances was not because of any opposition to it but because it could not attract enough reviewers. I fervently hope that enough people will come by to review this article this time around so that the question of whether or not it meets featured article criteria may be decided. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Quick note -- Hi, I've just removed the definite article from several headers as they were discouraged by MOS last time I checked. I left The failure of compromise and war only because removing "The" might make worse what seems to me to be poor grammar, i.e. we're technically saying "the failure of compromise and the failure of war", where as I assume we mean "the failure of compromise, leading to war" -- so perhaps you can come up with something better there grammar and MOS-wise... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose. I did undo the change you made from "Rise of Jackson" into "Jackson's rise." I believe that the former flows better, and while I fully understand that it is poor taste to begin a header with a definite artile, I do not think that it is as bad to have one in the middle of the header. I did change "The failure of compromise and war" into "Recharter," because that was the issue being debated. Using a one-word header there should resolve that problem. Thank you once again. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Maury This is a new topic to me so I'm coming at it fresh. It's quite fascinating, IMHO. Most of what I see is minor:

  • The lede is wordy. It would appear any number of descriptive terms could be removed without changing the actual content. For instance "extend credit where needed" - well, would one extend it where it's not needed? "supply the nation with a sound and uniform currency" - is not sound and uniform somewhat overlapping in this case? As it stands the lede fills an entire page on my screen and I think that should be looked at. I can get more specific, but I'd like to hear other thoughts on it first.
I removed "where needed" because it did seem unnecessary. Sound and uniform are not interchangeable. The currency being uniform means that it was virtually the only currency being used in the United States. The fact that it was sound means that it was stable and not overly fluctuating. We can have one but not the other. Overall, the lead seems about fine to me. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that the lead occupy no more than four paragraphs. This lead has exactly four, and it's a similar length to leads of other articles that I've successfully nominated for FA status where this issue was not commented on. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "boasted that the nationalists had the support of the yeomanry" - the linked article is about a type of British cavalry. The usage is descended from the original, which refers to some sub-group of farmers or landed gentry. I had no idea what this term meant, and was rather confused after reading the linked article. I would suggest adding a small NOTE or even parenthetical statement defining yeomanry. I assume in this case you refer to farmers, in which case why not just say that?
I fixed the link. Thank you for alerting me to that problem. I see no need to define the word yeomanry. It's a common term and anyone incognizant of its meaning can view the now-corrected link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Lots of jargon, odd phrasing, and unclear statements:
    • "scarcity of specie" - lack of hard money? Overuse of paper money? I shouldn't have to search to find out what the statement means.
Added "or hard money" in parenthesis. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "was exacerbated" - was worsened
I see no improvement here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "rapid emission" - printing?
I see nothing wrong withe emission. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "...of paper money and fraud" - is fraud a form of money? that's what this wording implies
Changed to "fraud and the rapid emission of paper money." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "As a result" - of what? "...of the devaluation of the notes,"?
I think that it's made clear by the previous sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "collapse of businesses, and bankruptcies" - what's the difference?
Removed mention of bankruptices. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Overall," - unnecessary?
Probably so. Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "himself privately" - remove "himself", who else could it be?
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • of "memorandums", he - why the scare quotes?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "planter class" - first use of this term. Link. Is this the yeomanry?
Link added. Yeomanry were small farmers. The planter class were much wealthier and owned large plantations, typically operated by slaves. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "A state bank" - is this the same as "the National Bank"? It sounds like he's referring to something else? If the next paragraph is the topic of this statement, it should be moved there.
State banks were run by states. The national bank was run by the federal government. State banks did business with the national bank, which provided them with notes. Who do you mean when you say "he?" It would be helpful if you'd use specific names and make clear what section of the article you're referring to. It would be easier to address your concerns in this way, both here and elsewhere. I did however add more information on state banks to the first two paragraphs of the article. This should help explain how they worked and what kind of relationship they had with the national bank. I felt that there could be more information about that. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "laid taxes" - did what?
Laid taxes, that's what. What's the problem here? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "not be taxed.[29] In 1819, Monroe" - two paras
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "sole political party in existence" - in the US? at that time?
Changed to "only political party in the country." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "would provide the support" - how exactly? Do you mean votes?
Yes. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "wielding universal white male suffrage" - this is unclear. How does one "wield" suffrage? Do you mean "win the election"?
Changed to "with the aid of." Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "supporting recharter.[155] The final bill" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "rendering Biddle" - giving?
I don't see an issue with the word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "practically immediately" - almost immediately?
Took out completely. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Jackson determined to " - chose? decided? began to?
Again, I don't detect an issue with word choice here. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that's it for now, more to come. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

    • "his first term.[72] To defuse a potentially" - two paras
If you aren't going to use headers, it would be better if you could at least list these concerns in order of where they appear in the article. The information on either side of this citation covers the same topic, and so I do not see the need for separate paragraphs. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Polemically, the veto message" - do we need "Polemically"? or is this the right place if we do?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "hard-money predilections" - leanings? favored?
I see nothing wrong with this. Adding the word "favored" would be grammatically incorrect. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be" - wordy
Maybe a little bit, but I don't think it's ridiculously wordy. Do you have an alternative proposal? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Clay arose and strongly criticized" - Clay strongly criticized
No, because with that version we don't know where he criticized it. As it stands now, the article makes it clear that he made his criticisms on the Senate floor rather than somewhere else. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Jackson's campaign benefited" - this para jumps back and forth between one side and the other. Should be two paras, one starting "In the end", which is clearly separate anyway. The remaining first para should be reoganized so it presents one side and then the other.
I don't see the need for two separate paragraphs and I don't think that the existing paragraph jumps back and forth. First it talks about Jackson's campaign strategy. Then it discusses Clay's before stating the results. That does not seem disorganized to me. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Scotched, not dead" - what does this mean?
Those are Jackson's words, so it's not possible to rephrase them. Trying to explain in other words what he meant would be awkward, especially because I think that the meaning is clear. If you don't know what this means, get a dictionary. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "deposits secure.[221] Jackson subsequently" - para break here.
I don't see why. Again, it would have been helpful if you'd listed your concerns in the order in which they appeared in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "or eviscerate the central" - eviscerate?
Yeah? What is it? Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "However, some of the deposit banks drew prematurely" - using the transfer warrants? if so that needs to be mentioned here.
I added a few sentences of explanation here which seemed to be needed. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "returned to Washington.[270] In Biddle's view" - para break
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "Having failed in their attempt" - just said this a sentence ago
I'm not certain what happened here. I removed the second appearance of that sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "as did good harvests in Europe" - it is unclear to me why good harvests in Europe would have any effect here.
More cotton being produced in Europe meant that there was a stiffer competition for American cotton. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "was, thus, the drop in the price of cotton that precipitated" - "the resulting price drop caused..."
Changed to something like this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • "one he had inherited" - direct quotes need immediately refs
I don't think so. There's no need to cite the same source twice in a row. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • there are 14 "howevers", but that seems OK in an article of this length.
I have a tendency to use that word a little bit excessively in my writing. I removed four usages of the word. It is now used only 10 times. That seems acceptable. Thank you for mentioning this. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's about it for now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, I have responded to your points. Thank you for your comments. I found several of them to be helpful, and the article has definitely improved because of revisions that I made in response to some of your suggestions. However, I had difficulty understanding what you meant at certain points, and I don't think that there was a need for the numerous changes in parlance that you suggested. Display name 99 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I still have significant problems with the article. It appears to be written with an eye to demonstrating the author's vocabulary as its primary goal. I find it hard to read in its current form, and because of this, I don't feel this is FA quality. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, this is arguably the most ridiculous thing I have heard from an FA reviewer. There's nothing wrong with a person reading an article on Wikipedia and not immediately knowing what every single word means. If they come across a word that they do not know and want to determine what it means, they have the means to do so. The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it. I truly do not think this article does. Many of the words that you said you had problems with are not obscure words at all, and you at times did not make clear what issue you had with them. If your knowledge of the English language does not extend beyond a middle school level, that's not my problem. I'm not saying that merely to insult you. I just cannot identify any other reason you would have for wanting all of this language changed. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
"The important thing is that an article not use complex vocabulary and florid speech just for the sake of it." - that is precisely what I am claiming is the problem, but I guess that wasn't clear because my "language does not extend beyond a middle school level". Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
That's more or less it. Display name 99 (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review (content)

I am willing to look at the use of sources, semi-randomly (based on source availability), for this FAC. This will likely take me a while, and my goal is to check 8-12 footnotes. (If this review is "not required" in the way that I am doing it, could someone at FAC let me know. I never understand why the focus is on reference formatting instead of use of sources; or if there are "exceptions" for people with prior FAs; and if so, which parts of the source review (content or presentation) they're exempt from.) The footnote numbers are based on this revision. I will only use the green text for quotes from the article. My results will be below, feel free to insert under each bullet point. Outriggr (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Clay... maneuvered the election in favor of Adams... [36]. Is this a fact or a theory? Meacham (2008), 45, writes "Though much may have been implied between them, the likely truth is that Clay and Adams did not reach an explicit deal." Or should I not view those two statements as at odds, given that "explicit deal" may not rule out "Clay maneuvered" (i.e., on his own)? I see that the 1824 election article says "Clay would use his political influence in the House to motivate House delegations in states where he had won at least a voting plurality to vote for Adams"--but I don't feel that the web source there fulfills that statement. Please confirm that my point is moot, I guess?
Meacham does not believe that there was an explicit deal between Adams and Clay. The article does not say that there was. It says that Clay maneuvered the election in favor of Adams. That is widely accepted fact which Meacham does not contest in the above quote. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton said that he was approached by Clay and asked to support Adams. He refused. (Parton III 61-63) The congressional delegation from Kentucky, Clay's home state, received instructions to vote for Jackson. It voted for Adams even though he had not received a single popular vote in that state. On the same day, Ohio declared for Adams. "Obviously Clay had powerful influence with both delegations." (Remini II 89) "And so, Clay told associates in mid-December, he would throw his support to Adams, which would give the secretary of state virtually all the state delegations he needed to prevail in the House." (Wilentz 2005 47) The part which is theory is whether Clay supported Adams as part of an agreement to be appointed Secretary of State. The article takes no position on that subject. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 1: pass. The sentence with footnote 36 is supported by Meacham 45-46, (although I feel p. 44 is relevant to the earlier sentence(s) about Clay).
Agreed. I added page 44 to the footnote. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 2: pass with comment. Fn 164 (Meacham 211) is relevant to the topic, but since it occurs in the middle of a sentence, whose main verb has not yet occurred ("was not bound" is after the fn), I'm not sure what its purpose is. To show what Jackson "averred"? OK, check.
  • Check 3: pass with style issue. Fn 76 (Meacham 75) refers to a quote which is missing the italics from the original. Other than that style glitch, the quote is used well in context.
Historians, especially popular historians like Meacham (who are writing for broad audiences and therefore try to make their writing as engaging as possible and less academic) sometimes add italics to emphasize a paticular part of a quote that they want us to remember. We don't carry those over to Wikipedia articles because they do not fit with an encyclopedic style. The italics also could not have been part of the original document. Letters were written by hand in those days and so it would not have been possible for there to be italics. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's Biddle himself, in his collection of correspondence, using the emphasis: https://archive.org/details/correspondenceof00bidduoft/page/70 ("great hazard of any system...") Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for finding this. Italics added. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 4. Fn 111 (Remini 1981, p. 326). The term "Kitchen Cabinet" was used by Jackson's opponents, as Remini says, but the article seems to present the term without providing that context: the creation of a "Kitchen Cabinet" – an unofficial group of Jackson advisors.[111] Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury Amos Kendall and Globe editor Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy... My main points are: this was the opposition's term; and, if something was informally "created" or organized (despite Remini 326 calling it an "invented concept"), we need to know by whom--Jackson, who is missing as an active agent in the current sentence. "Jackson sought advice from an unofficial group of advisors ... who were deemed the 'Kitchen Cabinet' by his opponents."--for example.
I've rephrased this and clarified that the term was used by his opponents. I think it looks better now. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 5-6: pass with comment. Pleased with correspondence of fn 121, 122 to Remini. However: at the beginning, I'm not clear how adjusting tariff rates pays down the debt—through which the federal government would adjust tariff rates, fulfilling one of Jackson's goals of paying down the national debt — when it's the 16+8 million mentioned next that does so? Tariffs are mentioned once later on p. 337. Is the "anticipated revenue" tariff revenue? How can that be if "increased revenue meant that the tariff could be adjusted to a more equitable [i.e. lower?] level"? (Remini 337, emph. mine)
Adjusting tariff rates would not pay down the debt. I didn't do a good job of writing this sentence and changed it to "reduce operations and fulfill..." As far as revenue, Remini does not get into specifics. I consulted four other sources (three secondary and one primary) and they don't seem to either. It may have just been annual taxes. There are other sources such as Schlesinger which I'm not able to consult at present. However, I will examine those in the future and try to see if I can find anything. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the detail is necessary, just that the green excerpted text be re-configured as necessary. Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check 7: pass. Fn 268 (Meacham 279).

Outriggr, thank you for your helpful comments. I have responded above. Display name 99 (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. I inserted two more replies above, one which I believe refutes a point.
To Be Continued... I will do another batch of source checks (with another source or two) as, and if, the FAC progresses. (I don't agree with another reviewer's claim that the article is overly verbose to an extent that is broadly problematic.) Outriggr (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Also [12], you can access the full text of these public domain books on Google? I can't. That's why I changed three of them to Internet Archive resources. In fact, of the 10+ versions of The True Andrew Jackson on google books, not a single one is viewable to me. Outriggr (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I sometimes can't find full versions of books on Google books. For older books, it is often possible. I found what I think are the entire biographies of Jackson by Snelling and Parton on Google books. In general, I find Google books easier to navigate than archive.org. I've also seen it used more widely on other articles without any problems. Display name 99 (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Outriggr, do you have any more comments to make for this review, or is this all? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, when and if the FAC proceeds/there is a need for it. (I'm not sure the exchange with the other reviewer is going to attract participants here.) Outriggr (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Gaulois

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gaulois was a member of the first multi-ship class of pre-dreadnought battleships in the French Navy. Aside from having multiple collisions with other French ships, her peacetime career was fairly uneventful. When WWI began, she and her sisters were relegated to secondary roles as convoy escorts before they were sent to the Dardanelles to prevent the ex-German battlecruiser Yavuz from breaking out and to attack the fortifications defending the Dardanelles. The ship was badly damaged during one such bombardment in 1915 and had to be run aground to prevent her from sinking. Gaulois was repaired and returned to the Dardanelles. After a routine refit in France, she was sunk by a German submarine in late 1916 with the loss of only four crewmen while en route to the Eastern Mediterranean. The article had a MilHist A-class review about six months ago and I've made some minor tweaks since then so I believe that it meets the FA criteria. As usual I'd like reviewers to focus on any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publisher for Caresse should be Conway Publishing, and both WorldCat and GBooks list a second editor
  • Taillemite: suggest translating edition statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Who made her a company or the Army itself? The lead doesn't say that.
  • She was commissioned (armement définitif) on 15 January 1899 I don't think the French term is necessary it's the first time I see this in a French battleship.
  • Comte de Rochambeau in Lafayette Square, Washington, D.C. On 23 May D.C. is too common, we need to unlink it.
  • She made another port visit to Lisbon, Portugal, before arriving Modern-day Portugal didn't exist the link need to be replaced with the Kingdom of Portugal.
  • ship made port visits in Thessaloniki and Athens, Greece I believe Athens needs to be unlinked.
  • survivors of the April 1906 eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Naples Link Naples and explain that it lays in South Italy.
  • Is it possible we can divide the refs in "References" into two lines? Because it doesn't look nice.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by PM

This article is in great shape. I reviewed at Milhist ACR in July, so I don't have much to add here.

  • the aft draught conversion doesn't match between the body and infobox
  • other than Bris, is there any other information available on her captains?
  • there is a big gap between September 1906 and January 1909. Is there anything that can be added during that period? No reviews or notable port visits?
  • "The squadron was transferred to the 2nd Squadron" do you mean the division was transferred? It seems weird that a squadron would be transferred to another squadron
  • suggest "On 19 February, Gaulois supported Suffren as the latter ship bombarded..."
  • is there anything known about her wreck, is it diveable etc?
  • le.fantasque.free.fr doesn't look reliable to me to be an EL

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey

  • In the lead, the French for French Navy should be Marine Nationale, not Maritime Nationale
  • The ship accidentally rammed two other French warships early in her career, although neither was seriously damaged, nor was the ship herself - too many "ships" - change one of them to Gaulois.
  • Link Toulon in Construction and career
  • Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they again bombarded Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March.

Would rewrite as

"Admiral Guépratte and his squadron returned to the Gulf of Saros on 11 March where they resumed the bombardment of Turkish fortifications.[25] They returned again to assist in the major attack on the fortifications planned for 18 March."

That is all I could find that has not been mentioned by others. Llammakey (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few weeks ago and we believe that it meets the FAC criteria. As usual we'd like reviewers to look for any unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

  • Link knots in the body.
    • Done
  • Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • He originally called for a ship armed with twelve 381-millimeter guns Change "he" with "Ferrati" why because the sentences after this also use "he" which would make it 3 hes next to each other. IMO genders, names and the word "it" should be balanced in a paragraph. Of course if someone disagrees I'm happy to listen.
    • Works for me
  • They had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft) --> "The ships had a beam of 29.6 m (97 ft) and a draft of 9.5 m (31 ft)" Same reason as above.
    • Done
  • Metric tons vs tonnes.
    • Fixed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
    • Fixed
  • Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
    • I'm not seeing the difference
  • For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
    • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
  • Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
    • Added
  • Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler

I'm beginning a review here, putting down some quick thoughts:

  • "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
    • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
  • ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
    • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
    • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
  • (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
    • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?

PS, on second thoughts:

    • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
    • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
    • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Cannone da is duplinked.
  • You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
  • The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
  • "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.

"381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?

  • "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
  • The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
  • "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
  • "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
  • "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 January 2020 [13].


Teriitaria II

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FAC review because this is an extremely influential figure in French Polynesian history. She defeated a French invasion force in the Franco-Tahitian War and indirectly secured the independence of the Leeward Islands and the French protectorate of Tahiti (instead of outright annexation) for four decades after her victory. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Векочел

As the reviewer for the GAN of this article, I can say it is a very good article. It is well-sourced and well-written. I am giving my support. Векочел (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Question on sourcing: This is not a full source review but I notice that several of the sources used for this article are VERY old. This always raises a concern in a FAC. Could I ask the nominator why we need to rely on sources from the 19th century, with one as old as 1817? How can we guarantee that such sources meet the standards of modern scholarship? How are they used by modern scholars? I also notice a PhD thesis from 1956; what makes this reliable? Are there no modern sources on Teriitaria? If not, have we consulted any overview sources from this period to ensure that modern scholarly consensus still matches the views held in the old sources? I am not questioning the sourcing as such, but I think reviewers may appreciate some reassurance on these points. Sarastro (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: The 1817 source is a primary source used to cite the term "My wife Tarutaria" by Pomare II not much else. I often cite modern source and primary source side by side like for example Ellis (a good 19th-century source is usually accompanied by a 20th-century source); the primary sources are good places to dig for quotes. Colin Newbury seems to be the English language authority on the subject; his 1956 thesis contains material on the political situation of the islands especially in the 1850s not found in any other sources. Newbury's 1980 Tahiti Nui was the best overview of the period out there. A good chunk of the article is cited to Teissier 1978, Matsuda 2005, Newbury 1980, just some examples, not from 19th-century sources. I don't think that much have come out about Teriitaria besides one or two sentences in sources since the 1980s with Newbury's Tahiti Nui. I don't know what your definition of recent is. But basically if I want to use only recent sources within the last two decades—examples of Kirk 2012 only referring to the Battle of Maeva—this article would be a superficial read. KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll try to have a read through later. Sarastro (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro

Leaning Oppose Comments: I've read the "Birth and Family" section. Sourcing seems fine, but I'm not sure we have quite got this section right. I picked up quite a few little issues and things that require clarification. I would expect these to have been ironed out before FAC and if this section of representative of the whole article, I think I would oppose. I would recommend getting an independent copy-editor to look at this. I'll let the nominator respond first, but I think if I found another section with similar issues, I would switch to a full oppose. Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I did some spot-checks on "Birth and Family", and everything checked out. I will do a few more if I go through, but I don't foresee any issues on this. Further to my comment above, all these sources are very high quality, so I have no further concerns on that.
  • "...while her mother" does not quite work as well as it could. This may be simpler as "and her mother".
  • Changed.
  • I wonder do we have the sequence quite correct here? We talk about her birth and then her family's background. I wonder would it make more sense to give the background to her family losing their power, and then going on to her birth?
  • Changed.
  • It would also be useful at this point to say where she was born.
  • I think this is just a guess on my part. We have no idea where she was born. It could have been Raiatea or Huahine since the Tamatoa dynasty lost secular power between Puni’s conquest and Tamatoa III’s reconquest in the 1800s.
  • "While still retaining their esteem because of their rank..." Could we be more specific about what this means? It is vague to the point of being almost meaningless as it stands.
  • So this comes from James King (Royal Navy officer): "Ooroo, the dethroned monarch of Ulietea, was still alive when we were at Huaheine, where he resides a royal wanderer, furnishing, in his person, an instance of the instability of power ; but what is more remarkable, of the respect paid by these people to particular families, and to the customs which have once conferred sovereign ; for they suffer Ooroo to preserve all the ensigns which they appropriate to majesty, though he has lost his dominions." Would it be beneficial to include it?
  • Yes, I think it would help. Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "she held special status since traditional titles were passed down by the first-born daughters in the Tahitian social organization as a matrilineality": What special status? What traditional titles? Again, this is rather vague. I also wonder should this be "passed down through the first-born daughters"? It also may make the sentence flow a little better if we maybe moved "as a matrilineality"; maybe something like "... special status as Tahitian society was organised as a matrilineality and therefore traditional titles..."
  • Changed.
  • The fourth paragraph, that starts "In the Tahitian language..." is a little strangely constructed. "In the Tahitian language, Teri'i is a contraction of Te Ari'i, meaning the "sovereign" or "chief." looks like it's just tacked onto the front, when it should be in the middle of the paragraph. The next sentence, "Tahitian names were rooted in land and titles" would perhaps make more sense as the opening of the paragraph. It is also unclear why she adopted other names.
  • Changed. She adopted the name and title of Pomare Vahine because of her marriage. Ariipaea Vahine, I'm not sure of why. There is no source to state she married Manaonao or Paiti (the regent before her). Ariipaea or Ariipaea Vahine is also a common title carried by Pomare I's aunt and brother, and then a collateral descendant of Pomare I after Teriitaria II's death into the 1900s. There is probably some territorial association with the northwestern districts of Arue-Pare.
  • "It was connected through marriage and adoption with the hereditary chiefs of the other Society Islands": Doesn't seem quite right. Would it not be better as "...connected by marriage and adoption to the hereditary chiefs"?
  • Changed.
  • Finally, as someone who knows nothing about Tahiti, or this period of history, perhaps a few sentences to set the scene a little more? I've no idea of what a Ariʻi rahi would do, or how far their power or influence went. Perhaps a word or two on this, and a word or two on how long her family had ruled? Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Added "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people." — The more complicated answer is that it varied between who is in charge and who is not in charged, same as the Prince of Salm-Salm may not have the same power as the Prince of Wales. The question of how long her family rule is not one I can answer or is found in the sources. If you based it on Teuira Henry, it would be from time immemorial based on her genealogy of the family.
  • @Sarastro1: Thanks. I will address these comments one by one. I addressed each one. Look over again, please. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, this looks to be an improvement, but now we say that "the islands of Raiatea and Tahaa were conquered by the warrior chief Puni of Faanui on Bora Bora" without saying who they conquered it from. I'm assuming they took over from the Tamatoa family, but we don't say so. I'm also not certain that "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people" is in the right place; would it make more sense at the very beginning? Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: I've looked at the next section, and I'm still seeing issues. These aren't huge issues, but they are not ones I would expect to be seeing at this stage. I believe that a thorough copy-edit may be needed to bring the prose up to scratch (1a). There are also things that I believe require more explanation for this to be comprehensive (1b). If I continue going through the article, I think we'll just end up with a huge laundry list of items, which is wearing for everyone concerned. And I'm not sure I have the time to do the complete copy-edit that I believe this article requires. I've left some comments for the "Marriage to Pōmare II" section, but I'm going to stop there and I'm afraid I'm moving to a full oppose. I like this article, and I think it will make an excellent FA, but I don't think it's there yet. I would recommend that the nominator withdraws this, and works with a good copy-editor away from FAC. I'd be happy to take another look when this has been done and before it is renominated at FAC. Sarastro (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Do we need to say a little more about who Pōmare was? He just appears without much introduction.
  • "His successor Pōmare II saw this legacy unravel because of internal rivalries between the Pōmare regime and other chiefly families and the fear of foreign influence on the traditional Tahitian religion.": What legacy? If he accepted the missionaries, but did not convert, and apparently tolerated rather than supported them, it's not really his legacy. And "unravel" is somewhat vague. Also, "saw" in this sense is usually a bit awkward. Maybe something more along the lines of "Under his successor Pōmare II, the missionaries were evicted by the district chiefs of Tahiti because..."
  • "It is said that the ship bearing Teriitaria landed on Moorea a little after the one bearing Teriʻitoʻoterai Teremoemoe and that Pomare fell in love with Teriitaria's younger sister." Hmm... it's either a fact, in which case we can lose "it is said", or we need to give the source of the story. The transition from his mother deciding that they needed a marriage alliance to Teriitaria arriving by ship is a little abrupt. Is there nothing more to say about how this came about?
  • "Unable to reject the older sister for fear of a casus belli (an act to justify war) with Tamatoa III": Why do we need the Latin?
  • "he married both sisters around 1809": Was this usual/acceptable?
  • "Sometimes the marriage is dated to around 8 November 1811": Why the discrepancy? Is it important? Having "around" with such a specific date reads a little oddly. It needs either "around November 1811" or to remove the equivocation. Also, "sometimes" here does not work. It may be better along the lines "Some historians/sources/authorities date the marriage to 8 November 1811/around November 1811".
  • "Pōmare II preferred her younger sister": Have we not already established this? If we need to spell it out, it should be moved back to the story of her arrival.
  • "and how Teriitaria remained on Huahine and was not brought over to Tahiti and Moorea until 1814–1815": But... haven't we said she arrived with her sister? And how were they married if she wasn't there? And this sentence is once more repeating the fact that he preferred her sister.
  • "During the absence of the miss. who had gone to the Colony king Pomare had been married to Terito second daughter of Tamatoa chief of Raiatea": What is "miss." here? Do we even need the quote as we have summarised it, and it is kind of saying what we've already said. Sarastro (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Given the oppose, I’m not going to continue with improvements for now. I did request copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors but that has not been enough. A lot of these comments are just too nitpicking at the moment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Based on the continuing identification of issues noted above and the recommendation to withdraw the nom, I'm going to archive this and ask that improvements take place outside the FAC process before considering another try after the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a little-known 19th-century Scottish heiress and philanthropist, who inherited a vast fortune from her slave-owning planter uncle, and lived out her life with a female partner in the small town of Aberlour. I was drawn to the story of her life when researching an article about a church she founded - the source of her wealth, her lifestyle (which was very unconventional for the time), and the tragic circumstances surrounding her death at a young age were all very compelling subjects to research, and I think that many of our readers would be similarly interested. I've worked with another editor, SusunW, to find sources and make the article as detailed and reliable as we can, and Gog the Mild has been very helpful with reviews and suggestions for improvements. We'd all be delighted to receive any guidance on how we can take this to FA status - thanks in advance for any suggestions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In general I feel like there's not a lot of detail in this article, particularly detail specific to the subject. Below are some unanswered questions and other concerns.

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
  • How many Proctors were involved?
  • For how long did she attend school?
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
  • How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit (blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):
  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer
I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?
  • When/where was the lead image first published?
I'm looking into that now.
  • How many Proctors were involved?
Three - I've named them in the article now.
  • For how long did she attend school?
The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.
  • When and why did the brother go to India?
Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.
  • What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?
Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).
  • Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce
Good call, I've reworded that sentence.
  • "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?
The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.
  • "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?
1780 - I've added that.
  • What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?
The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.
  • Who ended up with the Grant arms?
I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.
As discussed above.
  • How are you ordering sources without authors?
I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?
I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I've read through this a few times, and it's looking pretty good to me. Here are a few detailed comments on "Early life and family" to be going on with. Just a few things to iron out so far, I think. I hope to return to review the rest of the article. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
  • "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".
SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.
So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.
Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.
  • We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

A little more: Took a look at the "Inheritance" section, and did some light copy-editing rather than making a list here. A couple of little issues, but nothing major. I'm inclined to support this, assuming that the other sections are of a similar quality. But I'll stop here for now until the nominator responds, just in case my changes or suggestions induce angry spluttering! Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.
Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Reworded - is that better?
Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Support: I've done a little more copy-editing, but nothing major. There was one little sourcing issue, which I think I fixed, but please do look at the edit summaries to make sure you're happy with everything. I did a little more source checking as well, and there are no issues. The only thing I wondered was if we know what happened to Charlotte Temple after Grant's death? Nice work overall. Sarastro (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit (blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Despite the level of commentary, we are creeping up on the one-month mark without sufficient levels of review and support. I've added this to the Urgents list but it will have to be archived in the coming days if it doesn't receive more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

  • Marker down for me to comment - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

E; Early life

  • "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
  • Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?
So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?
The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.
Inheritance
  • "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?
Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.
With Charlotte Temple
  • "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")
I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.
  • "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?
I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

That's my lot: all very minor points in an excellent first visit to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I have made some input to the development of this article since I assessed it for GA and so feel reluctant to submit a formal review. However, I have had no input into either the sourcing or the images. I note that reviews of both seem to be taking place above, but if any help is needed, including the first-timer's citation spot check, I would be happy to assist if pinged. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cassianto

  • Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?
Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?
No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?
That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.
I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.
It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?
Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". CassiantoTalk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.
I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.

I'm not entirely sure this meets the criteria at the moment, if I'm honest, as the writing seems a bit shabby and could do with a copy edit. Was this peer reviewed? CassiantoTalk 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. CassiantoTalk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £28,000,000 in 2020 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.
  • "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.
  • "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.
  • "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.
  • Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.
  • "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.
  • "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW
  • "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?
  • "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.
  • "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet? Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.
  • "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.

Comments from Tim riley

The prose has not been as carefully checked as it could have been. I agree with Cassianto that a peer review would have been a good idea. A few points:

  • William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.
  • Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
  • Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing
  • The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.
  • MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.
  • "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.
  • A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)
  • "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".
  • "ball room" – one word, according to the OED
  • "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)
  • Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.
  • Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit (blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.
  • I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".
  • "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?
  • Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?
  • "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.
  • "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.
  • "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.
  • "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".
  • "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.
  • In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
    • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope these comments are of help. Tim riley talk 09:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Babylon Hill

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy.

The article underwent both a GAN and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received. Harrias talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
    • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review; I've gone through this, the only detail that I can see lacking a citation is the Parliamentarian numbers, which I will add in later, was there anything else? Harrias talk 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Casualty counts. Infobox says 3–16 Parliamentarians - I see the 3, where's the 16 from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Of course: both now included in the main text with appropriate citations. Harrias talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only
    • Good point, done. Harrias talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Batten work title is incomplete
  • Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a comma before "Yeovil". Harrias talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Zawed

My comments focus more on prose/narrative rather than on the subject matter itself given my limited knowledge of the period/topic.

  • Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
    • I disagree, that would change the meaning of the sentence completely. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
    • It is unclear from the sources whether all 200 were musketeers. I strongly suspect they were, but it is possible that some were pike men. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
    • Clarified to "Hopton consulted with his commanders". Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
  • Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
    • Yeah, I was avoiding close para-phrasing. I'll need to check the source text before I make a change. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Changed to your second suggestion. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
    • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one too. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Clarified this. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".
    • Yes, I'm pretty haphazard with this, but they should all be fixed now. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Another interesting read about the English Civil War. Hope the feedback helps in making this an FA. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

  • wielding "pitchforks, dungpecks, and suchlike weapons. - can this be rephrased to remove same workds and quote marks?
    • Simplified to "wielding makeshift weapons such as pitchforks." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to observe the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved from the town - would be nice if we could eliminate one use of the word "town" and "observe/unobserved", however an alternative is not sprining to mind....
    • Changed to "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town, due to hedge-lined gullies which allowed his troops to climb the hill unobserved." Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise reads very well - nice clear English, coherent, succinct and easy to follow. Seems to be to be on track comprehensiveness- and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately this has moved well past the two-week mark without any support for promotion or much activity at all. I've placed it on the Urgents list but it will be archived in the coming days if it does not receive significant attention soon. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Will the completion of the standing reviews do? Otherwise I can chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I have done a little copy editing, which you will wish to check. Revert at will.

  • "but they were forced to leave the town on 6 August" Worth, IMO, clarifying that "the town" is Wells, lest readers, not unreasonably, take it to be Marshall's Elm.
  • "Hopton established Babylon Hill as a suitable location to watch the town" Do you mean that 'Hopton established that Babylon Hill was a suitable location from which to watch the town', or that 'Hopton established himself on Babylon Hill, a suitable location to watch the town'?
    • Well, both. Tweaked to hopefully capture both meanings without getting too clunky. Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave this a pretty thorough going over at ACR, but even so, I am surprised that this is all that I can find to pick at. I must be losing my touch! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, oh! I am so wanting to give a "humorous" response, but all of those I can think of are too open to misinterpretation. Seriously, your articles are always well written, and this one especially so. Yeah, IMO that meets all of the FA criteria 1, 2 and 4 bar 1c (sources - signed off above). Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • Inconsistent use of alt text.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
  • "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
  • "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
  • "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
  • "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
  • "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
  • "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
  • "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
  • "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
  • "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
  • Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
  • "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
  • The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [14].


Samuel Mulledy

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Catholic priest who had a less-than-stellar track record as a Jesuit. He became the president of Georgetown University, but was relieved after just a few months and then was booted from the Jesuit order. He drifted around and then was re-admitted on his death bed. Ergo Sum 03:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs

I am not sure if I have the time for a full review but I do want to offer what I can:

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I appreciate whatever comments you can provide. If you're able to do a review of the whole article, that'd be great. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think you have the strong enough sourcing to use the word "severe" in the lead or the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I've removed the word severe. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • there is inconsistent use of "President of Georgetown" and "president of Georgetown". Take a look at MOS:JOBTITLES. If ignoring JOBTITLES, find your own consistent rule.
    • I've made the capitalization consistent. Ergo Sum 17:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This source says that he received a class ("Silver") medal in mathematics as well as rhethoric which you have mentioned. He also received a honorable mention ("The Premium") in French.
  • This source on Project Muse says that he was one of three priests at the dedication mass of St. Peter's Church (Richmond, Virginia) on May 25, 1834. It says Mulledy and Samuel Eccleston gave sermons on the occassion. I can email you the pages if you don't have access.
    • Actually, turns out the source confused the two brothers. Checking the source the author cites (column 5), it was Thomas (then president) that was at the dedication. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This source says that he was appointed president when Ryder was called to Rome. Apparently, Ryder was accused of having an affair. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Added that detail. Ergo Sum 17:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Upon his return to the United States, he was named president of Georgetown" – he returned from Rome in 1941 and was not appointed president until 1945. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I've clarified the timeline. Ergo Sum 06:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you anticipate having any forthcoming comments? Ergo Sum 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read:

  • " but sought to be relieved of the position after just several months." I might conclude (after "position") "after only a few months". Sounds better to me anyway.
    • I like that phrasing too. Ergo Sum 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I might say at first mention in the body how many years older Thomas was.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Near his death, Quarter sent a letter to the vicar general for the Archdiocese of New York " I might say "Shortly before" rather than "Near".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "I would capitalize "day" in "Christmas day" Even my autocorrect said to!
    • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Sources. Should the Gramatowski title be in title case like the others?
  • I'm not following. The title is formatted according to {{Cite book}}. Ergo Sum 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I've just capitalized it the way the source capitalizes it. I think if I were to change it, that would be (minor) modification of the original. Ergo Sum 00:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Given the briefness of the section of president of Georgetown College, it might be worth mentioning (having looked at the source) that while he was president the college attended Polk's inauguration and marched in the procession to honor Andrew Jackson on his death. By the dates, those happened during his tenure.
    • I left those out because I didn't think they were too relevant, but I've added a mention of them. Ergo Sum 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I would think that you could mine Dooley for a few more details, again, given that the article is relatively brief. Father Quarter's opinion of his assistant sounds worth repeating. And it sounds like he overcame his alcoholism there, and possibly details of his funeral.
    • I've scavenged for a few more details from Dooley and incorporated them. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

(I must note that I am planning to claim WikiCup points for these comments.) On first read, this seems to be a decent article, but short. I will leave more detailed comments later. epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • who was a prominent 19th-century Jesuit in the United States and who was also president of Georgetown. - I think you can eliminate both instances of "who was". This makes the sentence unnecessarily wordy.
    • I've removed the second instance. I think it's necessary to keep the first, because otherwise, the sentence could be read as meaning Samuel was the prominent Jesuit. Ergo Sum 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • proved to be a distinguished student - I feel that this may be slightly vague. Did he have good grades?
    • I find no specific grades. But several sources say he was a very good student, which is why he was sent to Rome. Ergo Sum 20:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Then I suggest you can say "was a distinguished student". "Proved to be" is a vague wording, in my view. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He sought to be relieved of the position after only a few months. - Do you know why he decided to quit? I also find the phrase "sought to" slightly offputting. You can probably say, simply, that he quit.
    • I mean, technically, he wasn't allowed to quit; he had to get permission from the Jesuit superior. That's why I phrase it that way. I cannot find a reason why he quit, but I imagine it was probably related to early alcoholism. Ergo Sum 20:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mulledy then became an alcoholic, and was expelled from the Society of Jesus in 1850 - probably an unnecessary comma.
    • Removed. Ergo Sum 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Samuel A. Mulledy[2] was born on March 27, 1811, - Not a problem in itself. Is the reference there to support his full name being "Samuel A. Mulledy"?
    • Yes. Do you think this is necessary? Ergo Sum 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • That's fine. Optionally I think there can be a footnote saying that "A" is part of his full name, not an initial. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • His brother, Thomas F. Mulledy, was 17 years older than him, - He only had one sibling?
    • I cannot tell from the sources. They only mention Thomas, but do not definitively say he had only one. Ergo Sum 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

More to come later. epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • some of his tuition he paid in kind, in the form of two horses - I think this can be rephrased because it is awkward. E.g. "He paid some of his tuition in kind,"... Are the horses the only payment he made in kind?
    • I've split it up into two sentences. It seems that the horses was it. Ergo Sum 22:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He also studied in Nice in 1840, which fell within the Jesuit province of Turin. - Should "in 1840" be at the beginning of the sentence?
    • Either way is grammatically correct, but I've rephrased it. Ergo Sum 22:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Generally you can mention Mulledy's name more often (first or last, either way), rather than beginning sentences with "He". E.g. He then returned from Europe can be replaced with "Mulledy then returned"...
    • Added a few more Mulledys. Ergo Sum 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Speaking of commas, Mulledy then returned from Europe, and was appointed on November 1, 1841 doesn't need a comma, either.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He was young for a holder of the position - Out of interest, any younger people held this position?
    • I'm not sure; that would require going through the 45 different presidents and seeing what age they were when they were appointed. I wouldn't really be sure how to cite that either. Ergo Sum 22:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • From 1847 to 1848, he was a professor dogmatic theology at Georgetown, and taught rhetoric thereafter
    1. it's missing a word - "professor of dogmatic theology"
    • Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    1. this phrasing may make it confusing with regards to when/where he taught rhetoric. Would that be after 1848 at Georgetown? If so you may want to say something like: "At Georgetown, he was a professor of dogmatic theology from 1847 to 1848, and taught rhetoric thereafter".
    • Rephrased. Ergo Sum 22:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • He then was assigned to the Church of Sts. Peter and Paul in South Boston and St. Mary's Church in Yonkers, New York, in 1859 and 1860 - Respectively or concurrently?
    • Respectively. Fixed. Ergo Sum 22:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Mulledy was well liked by the congregation there, "well-liked" is an adverbial form so it can be hyphenated.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • asthma, as well as an enlarged aorta in 1865 - His preexisting asthma, or was he diagnosed with that and the enlarged aorta in 1865?
    • The source doesn't distinguish, but my understanding of asthma is that it generally doesn't arise later in life. Ergo Sum 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Archbishop John McCloskey decided to transfer administration of the parish to the Jesuits,[35] which was done at Mulledy's request - you probably don't need the phrase "which was done".
    • Done. Ergo Sum 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

These are the rest of my comments for now. Otherwise I don't see any obstacle to this page becoming yet another priest-related FA. epicgenius (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • @Epicgenius: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've addressed them all. Ergo Sum 22:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Support. I don't really see any other issues. epicgenius (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber

  • Support - have read this through. It is a small article, but I can't see any prose issues itching to be corrected, nor (judging by this page) fixable gaps in narrative. hence I am tentatively supporting it but am a neophyte in the area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref #5 – You meant page 107
    • Done. Ergo Sum 19:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #6This Irish Times adds nothing crucial and does not even mention Samuel. What you need is a source for his father being "a Catholic" which can be found in Ref #4, Maxwell & Swisher 1897, p. 719.
    • Done. Ergo Sum 19:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #8 does not mention Samuel. Better to use {{sfn|Shea|1891|pp=153, 162}}
    • Done. Ergo Sum 19:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #20 does not mention "Pontifical Gregorian University"
    • I'm pretty sure that the Roman College had ceased to actually be the Roman College in the 16th century, when the Gregorian University was created, but continued to be colloquially referred to as that. However, after doing a bit of research, I've turned up lots of ambiguity and little definitiveness, so I have removed reference to the Gregoriana. Ergo Sum 19:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref #21 says that Thomas was in residence in Nice. No mention of Samuel on page 11. Is this an error in the document? Or maybe Thomas was sent to Nice for punishment for the whole slaves thing. In Thomas Mulledy, you don't say much about the period between his two tenures as president.
After a deeper look, I am almost certain this is about Thomas and you don't have any sources for Samuel going to Nice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
You are right, that was my reading the Latin source too quickly. I've corrected the error. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I will be back to finish up later. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for this thorough source review. It's much appreciated. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "subsequently taught rhetoric there" – needs page 47 of Dooley
    • Done. Ergo Sum 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it for me. You already have my support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Ergo Sum 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Requesting a source and image review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat of a short article. Image-wise it seems like both use and license are OK here. Only one of them has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Both images have alt text. Ergo Sum 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Laser brain: would it be acceptable for me to do a source review as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Absolutely. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [15].


Horologium (constellation)

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a constellation - so far I have been more or less involved in most of the 32 current featured articles on constellations. This one got a good going-over in GAN and I am throwing it up here for reviews. I will respond pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Fowler&fowler

I'm still comatose from the Christmas feast, so I can't vouch I'll be wholly cogent, but I'm troubled by this submission, by its length, or the lack thereof, but more by the lack of narrative, the kind of narrative that transmutes data in the form of lists into heuristic explanations which aid our understanding. I'd like to clarify a few things in the first three sentences of the lead first.

I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs. So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more. My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ... One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive. It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive. Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour<cited to OED>) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand." In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?
Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, adopted. @Fowler&fowler: (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It is: horologe, noun, Oxford English Dictionary, retrieved 26 December 2019 (subscription required). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 :) I know all about the pile of books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    • What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value? If it is the latter, then what psycho-physics experiment measures it?
It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address."Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
    • This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)
The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
    • The southernmost star in the constellation of de Lacaille is β Horologii which is visible below 24 N. So, obviously we are talking here about a polygonal definition of constellations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand. Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Horologium constellation: showing the tangent line, or viewer's horizon, at latitude approx 23 N, which is parallel to the line of -67.04 declension, the lower declension boundary of the constellation.
I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge? This is a tricky call. My own opinion is that it does not. We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality. We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally. "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation. Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude." 22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward. Sorry this is taking time :( If you don't like them, please revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 :) I forgot the cardinal principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too. I will try to make a more accurae diagram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here. I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented. If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've changed my vote to a full Support. I haven't been able to read the later sections, but I managed to learn a thing or two; in particular, the definitions of ascension, which had been bugging me until I realized it is defined with respect to the sun's longitudinal plane, i.e. longitude where the sun is overhead. I've also learned something new about constellations, especially those of the southern celestial hemisphere, and the stars alpha-, beta-, and R-Horologium, and their value for astronomers both professional and amateur. This was fun for me. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

thanks muchly, @Fowler&fowler:, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Coming back home a little while ago, I happened to look up at the night sky, and lo and behold, there was Orion, of old, of my middle-school days, of when our dad and us would lie down on our backs with a fluorescent star atlas and count the constellations, the same Orion of Rigel and Betelguese, of the belt pointing to Sirius. My eyes are weaker, so Rigel was less blue and Betelguese less red, but they are all still there. Maybe I will look at the virtual Rigel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

  • Consider adding alt text.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

SC

Lead
  • "a seconds hand": I was thrown by the s until I checked the OED (it prefers second, but also allows seconds); the OED does, however, hyphenate. I couldn't see what variant of English is used, but it may be worth checking.
Wow, I'd never given that much thought. My natural instinct is to use "seconds hand" rather than "second hand". The latter reminds me of second-hand bookshops. Also, if with 's' then hyphen looks really odd inserted there...? I need to think about this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
I was slightly surprised by the hyphen too, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
History
  • Ditto on the hyphen
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Characteristics
This is tricky - we discussed this at the GAN. It has some rudimentary information so isn't as strictly DAB as some others. There is no way of determining which water snake is meant by the Ancient Greeks as no source discusses it. Only alternative is to leave unlinked (if we think that is an improvement) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
That's OK, if there is some basic information for people, then this should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There is a large area of white space on my monitor. Given the length of the IB there is also some sandwiching, but I'm not sure there is a way round it.
  • Is there a reason 'Hor' is in single quotes, rather than double?
Err, no. And I just realised other people have double quotes and I have perpetuated single quotes through a bunch of constellations, which I am have now fixing fixed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I thought we were supposed to include indications about images in the text "(illustrated in infobox)"? (I can't find the guideline, so I'm not 100% sure if that's still current)
You mean "not include"? Is already in - this was the result of an FAC of another constellation where a reviewer said it'd be helpful (and I agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops - yes, not include. The info is at MOS:SEEIMAGE - it's a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but there is a rationale for not using directions. I'll leave it to your discretion as to what to do, and it won't affect my support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Ok so the guideline says "Don't refer to images as being to the left/right, above/below, etc. because image placement varies with platform (especially mobile platforms) and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers." - this is fair enough. In this case, the text refers to the image in the infobox, which is in a fixed position at the top right of the article regardless of screen size or platform. I think leaving the parenthetical text s more useful in than not in the article as the description is hard to visualise and the image is in a distant part fo the article, hence a pointer is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Stars
  • You have some descriptions that use the definite article, and some without ("English astronomer Francis Baily" and "American astronomer Benjamin Apthorp Gould", but "The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode".
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Refs
  • You have a few page ranges that are in the 343–57 scale; the MoS now suggests the 343–357 format, but I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether to ignore or implement.
I previously used 2-digit spans everywhere but lost where I orignally read that, and someone else told me to use the whole range...fixing in a moment.. tweaked now to all digits Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope these help, Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support The important points in my review have been dealt with; the others are more matters of my personal taste than anything to stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thx ! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Laser brain

  • "He devised fourteen new constellations in previously uncharted regions of the southern celestial hemisphere, which were not visible from Europe." This statement is unclear to me. Is "devising" a constellation the same as naming one? Or do they decide which stars will be grouped into a constellation and thus "devise" it?
the newer ones are pretty obscure and their patterns are probably most diplomatically described as subjective. Hence people like Lacaille did their best to visualise patterns and then set out/demarcate constellations, so is more than just naming if that helps....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Horologium also has several variable stars." I find this needs linking or context here. Even having read the lead, I didn't remember that your link to "Mira variable" means the same thing as here.
A variable star is any star that varies in brightness for any reason. I've linked it now. Tempted to write "stars that vary in brightness" but then we end up with an easter egg link....A Mira variable is a very specific kind of variable star. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

That's it from me. Overall a very good read. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Praemonitus

I made a few small changes, but otherwise it seems up to snuff FA-wise. Praemonitus (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

edits look fine, thx for support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [16].


Battle of Lagos

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A Franco-Anglo naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so greatly expanded this article in October and put it through ACR. I am hoping that it is now ready for FAC, so haul up your jolly rogers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by RetiredDuke

Hello Gog, great to see this article here. For the sake of comprehensiveness, I wonder if the fact that this battle occurred in neutral Portuguese territorial waters had a significant impact on the future course of the Seven Years War and consequences to Portugal, since the article seems a bit brief in that regard. The following sources mention the breach in Portugal's neutrality as a reason that the country became involved in war with Spain and France later on:

  • "The Boscawen incident, which caused so much trouble and eventually in 1762 was to be one of the pretexts used by Spain to declare war on Portugal..."[6]
  • "Britain ultimately had to pay a price for Boscawen again disregarding the rules of neutrality... Portugal became entangled against her wishes in the diplomacy of the Franco-British war and eventually became a reluctant participant in the war itself..."[7]
  • "... in the memorial by which... the crowns of France and Spain ordered Portugal to declare against England. The grounds of that memorial - ... the disregard of Portuguese neutrality..."; "recalling the deliberate violation of her neutrality by the fleet under Boscawen... Portugal would not be allowed to continue a neutrality she could not enforce... The allies declared war and invaded Portugal." - A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783
  1. ^ Cox 2016, pp. 80–81.
  2. ^ Root 2019, 398.
  3. ^ Weir 1994, p. 2.
  4. ^ Root 2019, 420.
  5. ^ "James W Humphreys". Ancestry.
  6. ^ Alan David Francis. Portugal 1715-1808: joanine, pombaline and rococo Portugal as seen by British diplomats and traders – via Google Books.
  7. ^ Jonathan R. Dull. The French Navy and the Seven Years' War – via Google Books.

Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi RetiredDuke, thanks for that insightful comment and the helpful sources. I am away from my paper sources at the moment, so could you give me a couple of days to be reunited with them before I come back to you on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, there's no rush. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi RetiredDuke. Apologies for the prolonged delay in responding - it kept slipping my mind. Researching this a bit, there seems to be agreement that Boscawen's action was not a reason for France and Spain declaring war on Portugal, but was one of the pretexts they cited when they decided to do so. So it does seem reasonable to make some mention of it. How would you feel about 'Three years later, the Spanish and French governments used this breach of neutrality as one of their pretexts for declaring war on and invading Portugal.', immediately after "Boscawen's violation of Portuguese neutrality was fully supported by his government, which placated the Portuguese by persuading them that it was an inadvertent result of Boscawen's general chase order."? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
No worries Gog the Mild, glad you could look into it. I had no great expansion on my mind when I made that query, just curious if a person with all the right sources on hand could point to any kind of scholarly consensus or agreement about that connection, without veering into the realm of WP:OR. Your proposed sentence is clear and concise and ties up that loose end nicely.
Taking now on the article as a whole, I found it to be well-written, engaging and well-researched. The next query comes from someone who does not know much about British military history (or French for that matter), so apologies if I'm being obtuse in any way.
- Could the idea behind this sentence be slightly expanded upon? "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure." - I do not know enough about the Seven Years' War to immediately tell what could be considered a failure to Britain in this context. (Does it mean that Britain was unable to help Prussia during their invasion? Or unable to repel the French offensive?) Whereas the French shortcomings were described in more detail just before.
It's a small point that does not affect my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi RetiredDuke. If you are indicating that you support the article's promotion, I would be grateful if you could clarify that by amending your section header. Regarding the history of Britain's war effort up to early 1756, it is, as is often the case, one of those which is a bit of a slippery slope, with no obvious cut-off point. I could mention: the Braddock Expedition's defeat and the Siege of Fort William Henry in America; Britain's abandonment by her long term ally Austria; Britain's naval defeat at the Battle of Minorca which led to her executing her own losing admiral and the fall of her Mediterranean stronghold, Minorca; the calamitous defeat at the Battle of Hastenbeck in their European possession, Hanover; the British government falling apart after 6 months and it taking three months to patch together a new coalition; the fall of Calcutta in India, followed by the ignominy of the Black Hole of Calcutta; a crippling shortage of sailors; and let's not even consider the economy. You get the idea. I was and am reluctant to cherry pick a couple of these, and even on review prefer a summary-style it "had been a failure". But I'm not wedded to either so short a summary nor those precise words, if you have suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I see. Well I read the article carefully and that was the only instance where I became a bit lost, since I'm not familiar with what Britain had been doing up to that point and what exactly was meant by "failure". I take the point that it would be rather difficult to summarize all of those individual setbacks. Support given above. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@RetiredDuke: Ah, but now you have me thinking. (Always a dangerous thing.) How about if I added 'with setbacks in Europe, North America, India and at sea'? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Sounds good, I think. It gives an idea of the extent of Britain's war effort and that things were not going favourably for them in general. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I enjoyed this article. A splendid read and highly informative. A few minor points on drafting:

  • Lead
  • I wonder if it might be an idea to give a pronunciation guide for "Lagos"? It's something like la-goosh, not what the eye might expect. You can copy and paste from the Lagos, Portugal article if you agree.
Can I ask why we would want to give the Portuguese pronunciation of a battle between the British and the French, neither of whom would pronounce it in the Portuguese fashion? It would be easy enough for me to do, but there is no evidence to suggest that 18th-century Englishmen pronounced it differently than thee or me would. And if they did, I am writing for a 20th-century English speaking audience, who I would hope would pronounce it Lay-goss.
Well, I think a 20th- (or even 21st-) century English speaking audience would simply be wrong to call it Lay-goss, but it's your prose, and I'm not going to make this any sort of sticking point. I'd be interested to see if any other reviewer has views. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Background
  • "Secretary of State for the Navy, Nicolas René Berryer… secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister), William Pitt" – inconsistent capitalisation.
Mea culpa.
  • "significant handicap in a combat situation" – two points here: "significant" and "situation". As to the former, what did it signify? See Plain Words: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable…". And I struggle to see how "in a combat situation" differs from "in combat".
Both changed.
  • "acted as a strong disincentive to service" – just "were" rather than "acted as" perhaps?
Fair point. Done.
  • Prelude
    • "refurbishment was underway" – according to the OED "under way" is two words
Ah. "underway" is a noun. Ah well.
  • Battle
  • "Boscawen ordered that there be no return fire" – have I missed an earlier explanation of why he might have done so? Seems odd, and one wonders why he did.
No, you haven't. Yes, it is. I am pretty sure why he did so, but as the sources simply report the fact I cannot OR in what is almost certainly the explanation. It seems necessary to report the fact, even if it leaves a reader dissatisfied.
Gosh! But fair enough. (You might share your OR thoughts here, though, out of interest.) Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The first broadside, fired as one discharge, from cold guns, double shotted, loaded exactly and at leisure was deadlier than subsequent ones; and captains would attempt to save it for a close range strike against their primary targets. Boscawen seems to have taken this to obsessive lengths. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for that. Well worth knowing, however unprovable. Tim riley talk 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The naval historian Nicholas Tracey claims…" – I'd be cautious with "claims". It carries overtones of disbelief. "Maintains", "suggests", "observes" and many other more neutral options might be safer.
Changed to "suggests". Although the Wiktionary definition seems to fit well "A new statement of something one believes to be the truth, usually when the statement has yet to be verified or without valid evidence provided."
  • Aftermath
  • "The three captured French ships went on to serve in the British navy as HMS Centaur, Modeste and Temeraire." – I did just wonder if that was the Temeraire, the one famously portrayed by Turner. I see from here that it wasn't, and as I imagine the name will ring bells in very many readers' heads it might be wise to add an explanatory footnote to the effect that this Temeraire was followed in the Royal Navy by a second in 1793 which is Turner's one.
Done. (I rarely receive requests to inform readers what is not the case.)
  • Sources
  • "A mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBNs prompts at least one frequent FAC reviewer to demand 13-digits throughout. The necessary gizmo is here, if wanted.
I prefer to adhere to Wikipedia policy and use the ISBN which is actually printed in the volume I consult.
  • "Dull, Jonathan R. (2009). The Age Of The Ship Of The Line" – is this really the capitalisation used in the title?
Oh dear. How tactful. It doesn't matter. All titles should be in Wikipedian title case. Changed
  • Barnsley" – is in South Yorkshire in one source and just Yorkshire in another.
Well spotted. Standardised.

On to FA! Tim riley talk 17:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. That was remarkably swift, and as thorough as usual. Much appreciated. Your points all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article seems to me comprehensive and balanced. It is well and widely referenced and nicely illustrated, and is a cracking read. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim for your kind words, and for the support. By best guess, or a potted version of, as to the withholding of fire is above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Boscawen image
Done.
  • Why use the Namur image for the infobox rather than the complete Battle of Lagos from which it is derived? The article after all is about the battle, not the ship
Because the image of the full battle appeared to me to be an indecipherable mess at infobox image size. However, replaced as suggested.
  • File:Vaisseau_le_Redoutable_74_canons_a_la_bataille_de_Minorque_1756.jpg: when/where was this first published?
According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France sometime before 1825, by an unknown artist. The Bibliothèque nationale de France also states that it is in the public domain.
Hm, I'm looking at the source link provided but don't see 1825 listed - am I missing it, or are you looking at a different link? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Click on the large i in the top left and scroll down to "Relation : Appartient à : [Recueil. Collection Michel Hennin. Estampes relatives à l'Histoire de France. Tome 172, Pièces comprises entre les numéros 331 et 14303, période : 1643-1824]". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for picking up this review so promptly. Your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review by Factotem - Support on sourcing

General

  • The dates are somewhat confusing. The infobox states 18–19 August, but the lead begins the third paragraph with the statement, "The British caught up with the French on the 17th and fierce fighting ensued...". I think you could also usefully restate the date in the first sentence of the Battle section.
For some reason I slipped a day with several dates in the infobox. Many thanks for picking up this embarrassment.
Date restated. But not in the first sentence - this would be clumsy without recasting the paragraph. See what you think.

Unsourced statements:

  • Infobox states 10 British frigates, which is the quantity listed in the OOB, but the article states 12 (Prelude section)
10 took part in the battle, as stated in the infobox and restated and sourced in the OoB. The Prelude states "he also had 12 frigates" in the context of "In May 1759 Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet in the Mediterranean". Ie, two of the frigates in the fleet were not present at the battle. The article states that "He ordered the first two of his frigates to be ready for sea to patrol to the east". La Clue evaded them and was in the Atlantic when spotted by Gibraltar, so I assume that this accounts for the discrepancy. But no source explicitly states this, hence the two unaccounted for.
  • Infobox states 193 British wounded, but article states 196 (Aftermath section)
Apologies. That's me not adequately checking the figure in the infobox when I picked up the article. Corrected.
  • Two of the three footnotes are unsourced. The last one explains only a convention used in the article and is fine. The second footnote, about The Fighting Temeraire painting is, IMO, not necessary.
I added the footnote about the painting at the request of reviewer Tim riley, doing so on my phone over Christmas, and squinting at it I messed up the formatting. The reference was there, but not showing in the text. If you are suggesting that the article would be the better for not having the The Fighting Temeraire footnote I would agree. But Tim is usually a good judge of these things and I don't feel that strongly about it. Perhaps the two of you could reach consensus?
I'm not comfortable with having any unsourced statements of fact, especially at FA. For me, that footnote is an unnecessary detail; removing it does not in any way degrade our understanding of the subject of the article. Anyone who is curious is just a click away from the ship's own article, from which it is just another click to learn that it is not the same ship as featured in the painting. Finally, if we're going to disambiguate this name, why not any of the others that were also used on multiple different ships? I would prefer the footnote to go. Let's see if Tim wishes to defend it. Factotem (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tim riley:? The note is at least sourced now, but I still think it's an unnecessary detail that does not belong. I am, however, reviewing on sourcing only, so it does not affect my opinion on that. Factotem (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Turner's picture was voted Britain's favourite painting in a poll organised by the BBC a few years ago. I think so many readers, in Britain at any rate, will see the name "Temeraire" and wonder if this is the Temeraire that it would be helpful to explain that it isn't. But if there's a consensus agin me I shall withdraw gracefully. Tim riley talk 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Technical checks:

  • Ref #52 (Troude 1867, p. 373, 385.) p->pp
D'oh! Fixed.
  • You use an ISBN10 ref for Kemp's The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea when all other ISBNs in the Sources section are ISBN13. The Worldcat entry for this work gives an ISBN13 of 978-0192820846. This is a nitpick I've seen in previous source reviews. For myself, I'm not fussed.
  • Worldcat's listing of editions of Longmate's Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain, 1603–1945 does not list any as being published by Harper Collins. The ISBN link you provide indicates that the edition you used was published by Grafton. Can you check please?
It is Grafton of course. As there is no source from Harper Collins, so it can't even be a cut and paste error, I am unsure how I messed that up.
  • The ISBN provided for McLynn's 1759: the Year Britain Became Master of the World links to a 2008 edition published by Vantage, according to Worldcat, rather than the 2005 edition published by Pimlico as stated in the Sources section. Can you check please?
This goes from bad to worse. I was actually holding the volume in question as I read that. (I had just checked the number of wounded.) Turning it over, it says "Vintage" (not Vantage) clearly enough on the spine. On the title page, part way down, it states "Pimlico edition 2005" by way of publishing history and I unhappily took that as referring to this edition. Corrected.
  • Mahon's surname is repeated in the Sources section
Corrected.
  • There appears to be two different titles for Kléber's work. You list Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660–1837, but this Worldcat entry indicates that the ISBN ref you provide relates to a work titled Imperial island : a history of Britain and its empire, 1688-1837. Note that Worldcat lists both titles, but does not provide an ISBN ref for the 1660 version that I looked up. Can you check please?
That one drove me half mad. I believe that WorldCat is in error. One can just about make out that the cover illustration states 1660. The WorldCat blurb starts "This is a lively, new textbook for US students on British history from the Stuart Restoration of 1660 ... " And I finally tracked down a Google Books title page with a title and ISBN matching that I have provided - here.
  • A search for ISBN 0713884118, provided for Rodger's The Command of the Ocean gives no results in both Worldcat and Gbooks
My typo - it should be 0713994118. Corrected. (I have previously copied and pasted this into other articles which I shall have to find and change.)
  • The ISSN ref you provide for Willis's The Battle of Lagos, 1759 appears to refer to the journal rather than the specific article. Can you add the DOI ref please (doi=10.1353/jmh.0.0366 should do it)?
Added.
  • The Worldcat listing for Rif's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates indicates Seaforth Publishing to be based in St. Paul, Minnesota, not Barnsley, South Yorkshire, as stated in the Sources section
Yesss. But. I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge, but this title page states that it was published in GB by Seaforth, an imprint of P&S of Barnsley; and is merely distributed in the USA, and that by MBI.

External link checker: no issues reported

More to come Factotem (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Quality of sources:

  • I'm always a little concerned when I see very old sources used. In this case, 10 out of 100 cites are to 19th-century works, but they are all accompanied by another cite or relate to the OOB, so I'm not concerned that such ancient sources are being relied upon to any inappropriate degree;
Me too. But they were the only ones I could find with that sort of detail, and like you I reassured myself that I was only using them unsupported for straight forwardly factual information.
  • Had to research MacDonald and Jane's a little (and can you check the listing in the sourcing section? It appears to be misspelt with an accent on the s rather than the possessive 's' Worldcat and Gbooks list it as), but all publishers appear to be of appropriate quality;
I didn't realise that it was possible to get a French-style accent by mistyping an apostrophe. Well spotted. Corrected.
  • Sixty percent of the cites are to three works focussed on the subject or time period by authors with solid academic credentials, so no issues there, other than to point out that Sam Willis can be linked.
I read his article and thought that I had. I have not done too well with this bibliography.
I was surprised at the lack of other detailed examinations of this battle. One of only three large naval battles in the Seven Years' War. I assume that Byng's disgrace three years earlier and Quiberon Bay three months after Lagos hog the limelight.

In short, no issues with the reliability of the sources used. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Still more to come. Factotem (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comprehensiveness:

  • I searched Google Books for "Battle of Lagos" but found only the sources used in the article, the advice to consult Sam Willis's work for a detailed narrative of the battle, and nothing to suggest the article is not based on a full survey of all relevant sources.
  • A similar search on JSTOR did not reveal anything more concerning than Rémy (according to the article bibliography) Monaque is Rémi (according to the JSTOR listing) Monaque
Yes. It seems clear enough - [file:///C:/Users/Simon/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/naval-leadership-in-the-atlantic-world.%20(1).pdf]. Just me goofing again.

In other words, all good on the comprehensiveness front as far as I can ascertain. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel no need to complete any spot checks against the source. If you address the general, unsourced and technical issues identified above I see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Factotem. I have some idea of the time and effort involved in a thorough review like that and I much appreciate it. All of your points above addressed, at least one with a query. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Wehwalt

Support Interesting account of a battle I had not heard of. A few points:

  • "It left port amidst great confusion, with most ships not having their refurbishments completed, and many delayed and sailing in a second squadron." Possibly "sailed" for "sailing"?
I don't think that this works following "and many delayed". Tim, would you mind offering your Solomonic grammatical judgement on this? (PS Or I could rephrase as 'and many were delayed and sailed in a second squadron'?)
What about "with many delayed and sailing in a second squadron"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Wehwalt: done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns, and both were having serious problems financing the war." I might cut the first comma.
The idea idea is to section out, by a pair of commas, "in either the land or sea campaigns". If you don't think that it works, I could recast the sentence?
Let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
  • " From June 1757 it came under the control of the assertive new secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister)," I realise there is something of a campaign to lower case things, but this seems lower than I'd expect.
I may be missing the point (I often do) but having just checked, the casing seems to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. I would not wish to defend the casing used, other than to note that I understood a compliance with the MOS in this respect to be necessary to pass FAC.
  • "as HMS Centaur,[53] Modeste[54] and Temeraire.[note 2][43]|group=note}}" some formatting issue here.
Whoops. Thank you. Fixed.
Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the support even before I have addressed your comments. All had me thinking, but I am inclined not to go with your first three. See what you think of my reasoning above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by Kablammo

The article is clear and concise, without unnecessary detail.

You may wish to add Mahan's judgment on the action's importance: "The destruction or dispersal of the Toulon fleet stopped the invasion of England", at page 300 of the cited book. Kablammo (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kablammo Thanks for the read through, the copy edit and the support. Re Mahan, I am inclined not to: his opinion is rather dated; and more recent and more specialist treatments explicitly state that La Clue's fleet was not aimed at supporting the invasion and its destruction had little effect one way or another. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by CPA-5

I couldn't find anything eles - all of my comments are addressed in the ARC. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Older nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [17].


Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This article covers a planned class of German battlecruiser that was cancelled late in World War I - they were originally to have been Mackensen-class battlecruisers, but were redesigned in response to the latest British Renown-class battlecruisers. Never built due to Germany's shifting industrial priorities, they nevertheless provided the starting point when the German Navy began work on what became the Scharnhorst class in the mid-1930s. This article was thoroughly overhauled earlier this year and passed a Milhist A-class review in February, so it should be in good shape. Thanks to all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The draft in the infobox doesn't match that in the text
    • Fixed
  • Gröner: is this the revised edition with additional authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, added (and that's a lot of articles I'll need to fix). Parsecboy (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

  • Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • governed the building program of the German navy during World War I Link the German Navy I also believe navy should be capitalised.
    • Done
  • had a displacement of 34,000 to 38,000 metric tons (33,000 to 37,000 long tons) Link tonnes and long tons.
    • Done
  • estimated to have been able to steam for 5,500 nautical miles (10,200 km; 6,300 mi) Link nmi.
    • Done
  • largely been diverted to support the U-boat campaign U-boat campaign is a proper noun.
    • Fixed
  • a concept Wilhlem II had been pushing for years Typo here.
    • Good catch
  • denotes that the gun quick firing Quick firing needs a hyphen.
    • I don't think it does there - you generally only hyphenate when the two words form a compound adjective that directly describes a noun (the same as "X class" vs "X-class ship")
  • in four Drh LC/1913 twin gun turrets; this was identical to the main armament Twin gun needs a hyphen.
    • Fixed
  • Link long tons, tonnes and full load in the infobox.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Support by Llammakey

  • battlecruiser should be linked at its first appearance in the first paragraph of development
    • Good catch
  • The improved field of view statement after the trunked funnels in the first paragraph of the design section is unclear if you mean the conning tower or the mast, especially since you just spoke about the spotting tops.
    • The mast - hopefully clearer now
  • I would hyphenate single ended and double ended boilers
    • Fixed
  • In armor, link Derfflinger-class ships
    • Done. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Changed to support. Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Support by Tirronan

  • No mention of horizontal protection even the lack of such should be mentioned, otherwise I have no issues.
    • It's the last line of the first paragraph in the armor section. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks I missed that. Support confirmed.

Image review

  • All images properly licensed.
  • All drawings based on RS sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

Unfortunately this is nearing the one-month mark and hasn't seen much attention overall. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I left a couple of notes on relevant wikiprojects - hopefully that can drum up a few reviewers. Parsecboy (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Harrias

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup.

  • {{lang}} for Kaiserliche Marine, rather than just italics please. (Check for later examples too, I spotted Reichsmarineamt, Grossadmiral, Vizeadmiral, grosskampfschiff Konteradmiral.)
    • Ugh, I still need to go through and fix a lot of articles with this problem - they should all be fixed here
  • "..the Mackensens, ..." Is it really right to not italicise the plural 's' here? It looks very odd.
    • You can do it either way - I've tended to see the non-italicized variant, so that's what I've used (see for instance here)
  • "..of the three to have construction begin," This sounds a little laboured to me; maybe "..of the three to have begun construction,"?
    • Works for me
  • "..were initially to have been members of the Mackensen class, and initial funding.." close repetition of "initial".
    • The first "initially" can probably just go
  • "..that hewed closer.." "hewed" is quite an AmEng-centric term. While I appreciate that this article is written in AmEng, is there a more accessible word that can be used?
    • Reworded
  • "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along, and that they should be reordered as a completely new design, GK6, which he submitted." This doesn't seem to make grammatical sense to me? Possibly remove "and that they"?
    • Probably something that got rewritten once too many times
  • "Since the ships' propulsion system.." This might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't "propulsion system" be pluralised here?
    • Good catch
  • "After 1917, work on the ship only took place in order to keep dockyard workers occupied.[2] The ships were never built, primarily because the shipyard capacity available that late in the war.." This feels like a contradiction: the first sentence says they worked on it, essentially, because they had nothing better to do, while the second sentence suggest there wasn't enough capacity to work on it?
    • I can see how you got there if you're only considering manpower, but there were a couple of things going on. The shipyard facilities could only build so many vessels at a time, since there were only so many slipways. And completing the hull would allow the yard to launch it, thus clearing the slipway for other projects There were also only so many support structures (which is to say, the subsidiary production organization that included the workshops that assembled ships' engines, armor plate factories, etc.) - so if, for example, Krupp doesn't have the production capacity to complete guns for these ships on top of the colossal demands the German Army at that point in the war, the ship won't be completed, regardless of whether everything else in the logistical chain would support it.
      • That sounds reasonable. Is there a source which would allow us to provide a little bit more clarity on this in the article, to avoid others having the same confusion I did? Harrias talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
        • I reworded it a bit and added a footnote - see if that works. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "GK3021 and GK3022 types" What are these?
    • Other latewar design studies, two of quite a few - I don't know that a separate article is worthwhile on them since they were purely academic, with no realistic proposition of being built.
      • Again, could we at least clarify this in some way in the article? Otherwise it is pretty meaningless to a layperson. Harrias talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
        • It's probably better to just cut the reference to specific types. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "..the design formed the starting point for the design work.." The second "design" probably isn't needed.
    • Agreed
  • One thing I found a bit confusing was that in the Development section, is states "Capelle stated that the last three Mackensens—Ersatz Yorck, Ersatz Scharnhorst, and Ersatz Gneisenau—and Ersatz Friedrich Carl if work had not proceeded too far along". This is the only mention of Ersatz Friedrich Carl, I assume it just never got ordered at all?
    • It's somewhat common to have conflicting names for ships that weren't built - I think Staff is referring to one of the four Mackensens as Ersatz Friedrich Carl, but I don't have the book at hand to confirm. Groner refers to the last Mackensen as "Ersatz A", which doesn't comport with German contract naming practices. I'll check with Staff later today.
      • If there is some information which could go in a clarifying footnote, that would be ideal. Harrias talk 11:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Staff refers to the fourth Mackensen as "A/Ersatz Friedrich Carl", which makes sense to me. The Germans ordered their ships either as replacements for older vessels (so Ersatz [ship name]) or as additions to the fleet's numerical strength (denoted with a single letter) - combining the two as "Ersatz A" doesn't make sense - I can only assume it was a typographical error or something. Parsecboy (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
          • Okay, I see. Reading Mackensen-class battlecruiser (which refers to it as Ersatz A), it makes a bit more sense. Could something be noted that Ersatz Friedrich Carl/Ersatz A/Fürst Bismarck was not modified as an Ersatz Yorck class, and that she was cancelled as a Mackensen-class battlecruiser? Otherwise, people are going to be left wondering. Harrias talk 14:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
            • That's a good idea - and as an aside, I need to go back and update the Mackensen article with Staff and Dodson (but that's a lengthy backlog and there are a lot of older FAs that need more significant work!) Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
              • As another aside I went back and looked at Groner, and on page 57, he refers to the vessel as "Ersatz Friedrich Carl (A)" and then on page 58 as "Ersatz A", which seems to be a mistake. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Generally very interesting, and only really minor fixes: nice work. Harrias talk 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Great work, more than happy to support this. Harrias talk 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

This is my first time participating in FA, so feel free to make liberal use of WP:TROUT if I overstep.

  • Is there a reason why we translate Grossadmiral and Vizeadmiral but not Konteradmiral? I don't know the literal translation but our articles seem to compare it to rear admiral.
    • Nope - an oversight on my part
  • Is the following the correct word usage? I have not had to talk about increasing displacement before but this doesn't parse well to my layman's eyes. the bulk of the displace growth
    • Should have been "displacement"
  • Following changes above, you are now referring to plural ships and plural systems. Should it be "they were" here? Since the ships' propulsion systems had already been ordered, it was kept
    • Good catch
  • In the General characteristics section there is a second reference to metric tons. All other mentions in the article after the first one just use t. I am guessing that it is an oversight but happy to consider if there is a reason for it.
    • They should all be standardized now
  • Again in the General characteristics section, there is a comparison between "standard weight" and "full load." As the previously linked Displacement (ship) gives a definition for full load, there is an implication that we are using "standard" displacement as the comparison. However, the second term wasn't defined until 1922. Is there some other definition for "standard weight"? Either a link or a footnote to clarify whether we are using an anachronistic comparison would be useful.
    • Changed to "designed" to avoid confusion
  • Armament section: The 15 cm and 8.8 cm guns use the conversion template and link to their respective articles. Is there a reason why the 38 cm ones don't have either the link or conversion template? The 38 cm guns are linked in the infobox but I couldn't spot another link in the article.
    • The 38cm figure is converted earlier in the article, so it doesn't need to be repeated. Added a link
  • Armament section: is there a reason why the footnote directly follows the word "guns"? I may be thinking of an old MOS rule I read many years ago but I thought that references and footnotes should follow the next punctuation mark, in this case the semi-colon.
    • Fixed
  • I can't find an article about Drh LC/1913 twin-gun turrets but shouldn't we link to Gun turret? The link is in the infobox but this is the first appearance in the prose and I expect that some readers would want to know more about Drh LC turrets. Alternatively, a redirect from Drh LC/1913 to the Gun turrets article may be preferred. It not only links the unusual term to a more descriptive article but flags up through "what links here" that we need to add some detail on German turrets to the target article.
    • Linked to gun turret - I may at some point get around to developing the related gun articles, which is probably the best place to discuss specific turret types.
  • a common practice for German naval weapons later during the war. This might just be my personal taste, so feel free to disagree, but the use of "later" there doesn't look right. I'd normally use, "during the latter part of the war."
    • That works for me
  • Armament section: the first paragraph makes a comparison to the Bayern-class, making the following sentences a little confusing as to whether we are talking about the intended design of the Ersatz Yorck-class or the practical implementation on the Bayern-class. I suspect that a mixture of the two is used. It may be beneficial to separate out descriptions of the design and descriptions of the implementation into separate paragraphs.
    • They were the same - both classes received (or would have received) the same Drh LC/1913 turrets - I don't really see a benefit to splitting the paragraph, as the performance of the guns and shells wouldn't have changed between the two classes
      • The key problem I have with the paragraph is that we switch from were to be in the first sentence (subjunctive) to were, originally allowed and had (definite) in the rest of the paragraph. It just doesn't flow quite right for me. It isn't clear on reading whether we are referring to the design of the Ersatz Yorck or the implementation on the Bayern. Perhaps instead of The turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. we could say In both designs the turrets were arranged in two superfiring pairs, one forward and the other aft. That should probably correct the flow as it indicates that we are still talking about the subjunctive Ersatz Yorck but also bridges to the definite in relation to Bayern. We then come back to Ersatz Yorck in the discussion of ammunition.
        • That works for me.
  • Armament section: we refer to the H8 torpedo. There doesn't seem to be an article at the moment but there are some specifications for it at List of torpedoes by name. Is it worth adding a link to there?
    • I think a redlink is in order - another editor has been working on a lot of the gun and torpedo articles, and will likely get to it at some point (or I will)
  • This may be a result of my ignorance of FA, but is there a reason why some measurements use the conversion template and others are included with manual conversions? I've not checked any of the manual ones to see if the correct values have been used.
    • Not really - I originally wrote this article more than a decade ago and didn't use the templates - apparently not all of them were redone in the rewrites since then
      • I've gone ahead and implemented the auto-conversion wherever a manual conversion was in the article. I think I caught them all. There were some changes to the converted numbers; some were due to rounding while others were more substantial (possibly indicating an error in the manual calculation). From Hill To Shore (talk)

I've only read up to the Armament section so far but will return to this tomorrow. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Continuing:
  • Armor section: the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in) thick. The rear conning tower was less well armored; its sides were only 200 mm (7.9 in) thick and the roof was covered with 50 mm (2 in) of armor plate. The main battery gun turrets were also heavily armored: the turret sides were 270 mm (11 in) thick and the roofs were 110 mm (4.3 in) thick. The 15 cm guns had 150 mm worth of armor plating in the casemates; the guns themselves had 70 mm (2.8 in) thick shields to protect their crews from shell splinters. - that has quite a large number of repeats of the word thick in a small space. I'd advise dropping a few. For example, you could say the sides were 300 mm thick and the roof was 130 mm (5.1 in). It is clear that both measurements are of thickness but you remove a duplicated word.
    • Trimmed most of these
  • Construction and cancellation section: the the midship section links you to the top of section A of the glossary in reference to "amidships" but there is also the term midships in the same glossary under section M. This could be confusing as readers will pop up at section A looking for a word that appears later in section M. According to the glossary, Amidships is the middle compared to port and starboard, while Midships is the the middle compared to bow and stern. Are we using the right word but linking to the wrong section, or is it the right section but wrong word?
    • It's somewhat complicated - while there is probably a distinction to the saltiest of sea dogs, "admidships" and "midships" are used interchangeably by most people (Dictionary.com provides both definitions for amidships and midships as a variant of the former). There's a way to use an anchor to take readers directly to the word in question, rather than the top of the section - let me fiddle with the glossary and get that to work correctly.
      • I've gone ahead with a temporary fix of having the midship link pointing to midships. That is sufficient for me to give support here but feel free to implement the more advanced anchoring method. From Hill To Shore (talk)
  • Construction and cancellation section: Is footnote c in the right place? It looks like it could relate to either the second or fourth sentence but has little bearing on the fifth or sixth sentences.
    • Good point
  • References: An ISBN check of Grießmer, Axel shows that we are only using a small portion of the title. Is there a reason for this? The full subheading may be a bit big but the primary heading includes the period of coverage.
    • Added - a lot of articles to fix for that ;)
  • References: I would advise applying "origyear=First published 1980" to Herwig, Holger per Template:Cite_book#Date.
    • Added

I have no access to the text of the sources so I will leave it to others to verify the cited text. Other than that my review is complete. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and made a few changes in line with your comments above. I'm now happy to give my support. Well done. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from CaptainEek

Howdy hello! A darn good job for sure, and I always find ships fascinating (they don't call me the captain for naught). With that in mind, some notes:

  • I feel like the fact that they planned but not realized should be baked into the first sentence of the lead. The third paragraph of the lead could then just begin by noting the reasons they weren't completed.
    • Good idea
  • Why is battlecrusier linked in the first development paragraph, but battleship isn't?
    • Fixed
  • "which led to questions in the RMA over the three ships" Why?
    • In a nutshell, Tirpitz exercised a a great degree of control over ship design during his tenure, and with him gone, individuals with different views had more of an ability to influence new ships
  • "GK1, GK2, and GK3" Any particular reason for the naming scheme?
    • GK stood for Grosse Kreuzer (large cruiser), which is what the Germans called their battlecruisers at the time - I didn't include it since I didn't think readers would care about an arcane naming scheme (especially since it would require explaining what "Grosse Kreuzer" means), but I can work something in if you think it's worthwhile.
      • Well, I wondered, I think a quick note could be helpful.
        • Added a note on that
  • You list "General Department", but a few sentences earlier said "General Navy Department". Are they the same or different? If the same, standardize the naming
    • Done
  • Why mention armor in the general characteristics if you have an entire section on armor? On my first read-through, the out of place mention of armor there left me with a lot of questions. Having it in two different places seems disjointed to me.
    • I'm not sure what you're talking about - the general characteristics section only talks about the dimensions and construction of the hull and the projected crew.
      • Going back through, I realized I misread that. Nvm :)
  • "The guns were expected to fire around 1,400 shells before they needed to be replaced." That seems...unusual. Is that typical for medium caliber naval guns of the era? Do any of the sources mention that being unusual, or give commentary on that statistic? Did the whole gun need replacing, or did its barrel simply need to be re-machined?
    • That's fairly standard - most naval guns of the era were built-up guns that had rifled liners that would be replaced periodically (see the "A tube" in this diagram - you can see the same thing in practice here)
      • Ah, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps you should mention in-text that it was a built-up gun, if you have a source to back up the claim? Then you can say something like "Being a built-up gun, it would last 1400 rounds before replacement"
        • On second thought, that sort of information probably belongs more on the gun page than this one. I've removed it. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hexanite" shouldn't be capitalized
    • Fixed
  • Having the battleships portal render above the footnotes section creates some odd looking whitespace. Perhaps that could be moved to under the footnotes section so that it renders still at the top-right but doesn't create odd whitespace? Or perhaps move it down the page further?
    • I think this has been fixed

All in all, a top notch job with just a few nitpicks. Please ping me once you've implemented things or if you have any questions. Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, @CaptainEek:. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: Good fixes! I have replied to a few points above CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [18].


Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford

Nominator(s): ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Another in a series of bold bad barons—yes, I'm typecasting myself!—this time the son of "Butcher Clifford" of Shakespearean fame. This chap was less a butcher and more a shepherd, who went from disgraced son of a traitor to a clapper of cannons, an astrologer and a commander at the Battle of Flodden; in between all this came two wives, many mistresses, mutual accusations of adultery and a lawsuit accusing him of denying his wife her conjugal rights.
Oh yes, and he was a loyal servant of the King occasionally as well.
Any commentary and suggestions welcome for the article's improvement. Cheers. Festive greetings to all who look in! ——SN54129 14:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

There's a lot of this article, and I'll need two or three goes at it. These are my comments down to the end of "Patronage, alliances and local relations"

  • Lead
  • "the King's son, Prince Arthur" – not sure why the blue link takes us not to Arthur but to his younger brother.
Corrected.
  • Background
  • "The Clifford family, who were originally from Normandy …The family was elevated to the peerage" – singular or plural? Either is fine, but on the whole I'd stick to one or the other throughout.
Avoided the first use, with The Clifford family, originally from Normandy...he family was elevated.... Perhaps reads a little better, tightened?
Fine, I'd say. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "This title also held the minor baronies" – do titles hold things? Seems slightly awkward phrasing.
Changed to and also held the minor baronies...
  • "never to receive an earldom" – a nice line, but I don't think the quotation marks are wanted here: nobody is going to accuse you of plagiarism as the authorship is clearly acknowledged.
Right, thanks. Unquoted.
  • "Wars of the Roses——broke" – that's a helluva parenthetic dash
!!! Halved.
  • "Clifford's father John, died" – needs a comma before John as well as after.
Done.
  • Family and early life
  • "Margaret, argues the medievalist A. G. Dickens, as sole heiress to her father Henry, brought Clifford's father a "questionable claim" to the title Lord Vescy, as well as extensive lands in the East Riding." – a rather tortuous sentence. Smoother if you move Dickens to the front: "In the view of the medievalist A. G. Dickens …."
Thanks for the suggestion; I've adopted it.
  • "he was moved to either to Yorkshire, or Cumberland "about Threlkeld, where his father-in-law's estate was, and sometimes in the borders of Scotland"" – this seems an unhappy amalgam of unquoted and quoted. As it stands it seems to say that Threkeld was sometimes in Cumbria and sometimes in the borders of Scotland. (I know Threlkeld well and can (WP:OR) assert that it is on the A66 just before Keswick.)
How about a rewording: Whenever his mother believed him likely to be discovered he would be moved. Precisely where to is unknown, but Yorkshire or Cumberland are possible; for example, Clifford's father-in-law had estates in Threlkeld.
Continuing your WP:OR, do you know if the Shepherd Lord story is reflected there still? Pub, street names, for example?
That seems to me just what is wanted. Nothing leaps to mind from personal observation about pub or street names etc. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Clifford was alleged to have been monikered" – oh, come on! This is an encyclopedia article, not a Wodehouse novel.
Ho ho! Bloody tricky this one. How about cutting the reference to Bosworth etc (which is repeated later in more detail) and going with This supposedly gave Clifford the soubriquet "shepherd lord".?
Better, I think. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Other reviewers may disagree with me, but I gradually got the feeling during this section that you were throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the various takes on Clifford's supposed secret upbringing. This section amounts to more than 10% of the whole article. I wouldn't mind having it boiled down a bit, but am perfectly prepared to be voted down.
I see your point. Although I would phrase it just like that, to some extent, yes, I wanted to thoroughly present the breadth of scholarly argument, so avoiding WP:UNDUE. If you look at the article history prior to my November rewrite, the Shepherd Lord myth was almost the sole focus of other editors' contributions; this way, hopefully, I've not given anyone the chance to complain!
Oh, I see! We've all been there in one way or another when overhauling an old article for FA. It's difficult to judge how much to prune, and one doesn't want to tread on toes. All the same, if other reviewers express views similar to mine you'll have a sort of mandate to wield the pruning shears further. It's your call, in the end, and 10% of the article or not, it isn't something on which I'd oppose promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Inheritance and estates
  • "centred around Cumberland" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get in a right old state about "centred around". Foolishly over-literal, I think, but still it saves grief if one avoids provoking them and writes "centred on" instead.
I'll bear that one in mind for the future too!
  • "both Nevilles were slain at the Battle of Barnet" – how splendidly Old Testament! Very picturesque, but I think a plain "killed" would be preferable.
Done.
  • "at this time, as, on 16 March 1472 Edward granted him a royal pardon" – one comma too many or one too few.
Lost the second comma.
  • "This was despite Clifford's brother Thomas attempting" – there are those (and this time I am one) who would insist on a traditional gerundive construction here – "Thomas's attempting", but I quite see that this could cause a pile-up of possessives. Perhaps "despite the attempt(s) by Clifford's brother Thomas…"
(More or less) done—what d'you think of This was despite an attempt by Clifford's brother Thomas to raise an—albeit unsuccessful—pro-Lancastrian rebellion in Hartlepool?
Ideal, me judice. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "She was buried in Londesborough Church, under what Dickens calls an "attractive brass setting forth her titles"." – I don't doubt it, but is it really relevant to this article?
Unfortunately, probably not; if she ever gets her own article, it can be recycled.
  • Accession of Henry Tudor
  • "the second city of the kingdom" – is that in the sources? I thought Norwich was the second city in those days, but I'm probably wrong.
Struck, "second city": the important point is its regional pre-eminence.
  • Career in the North
  • "This may well have been prescient, suggests Summerson, as in 1513 he attempted to lay claim to the city's troops for his own army." – nobody is really going to misunderstand you but the "he" here is Clifford, not Summerson, and it would be as well to use the name and not the pronoun.
Done.
  • "The medievalist David Grummitt argues" and in the next para "argues Summerson" – a bit too argumentative? (Seven "argues" in the whole article.) Suggesting, commenting, remarking etc are all available.
Reduced to two argues, one of which is an impersonal use.
  • "the Dean of York Minster" – is this the idiomatic form? Of course the Dean was in charge of the Minster, but I think "Dean of York" is the normal form.
Done.

That's all for now. More anon. Tim riley talk 18:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Concluding batch from Tim
  • Later years
  • "wherefrom most of his extant charters and letters are signed" – a touch of the antique about "wherefrom", don't you think? "from where" would do the job more normally.
It must be my inner-Wodehouse attempting to break out again. Done.
  • Personal life
  • "Anne's chaplain began negotiated this" – "negotiating", presumably.
Bloody silly mistake. Thanks!
  • "numerable mistresses – "numerable" is a new one on me, and I suggest a less unexpected adjective such as "many".
I haven't made it up :) but you're correct of course, to keep the language as non-technical as possible. Can we go with "a number of mistresses", as "many" suggests we know a lot of names, whereas actually we don't, if you see what I mean?
No, but let it pass. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Death
  • "His widow Florence later remarried" – non-restrictive clause: needs commas round "Florence" (otherwise it's restrictive and he had more than one widow).
Excellent, thanks very much.
  • "deliberately intended to be as extravagant as possible" – the adverb seems superfluous: can something be undeliberately intended?
Done.
  • Cultural depictions
  • "Wordsworth also envisions" – what a hideous verb! It is admittedly in the OED, but in my opinion should not be allowed out of it.
Ha, I agree. It was a real pain trying to express what Wordsworth thought, exactly; how about "imagines"?
That'll do me. Much less painful, thank you. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "suggests scholar Curtis Bradford" – clunky false title.
Done.
  • "The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised and set to a libretto by Isaac Albéniz for his opera Henry Clifford" – this reads as though Albéniz wrote the words. In fact the libretto was by Francis Burdett Money-Coutts; Albéniz wrote the music.
You can tell I'm out of my comfort zone with this. Does The life and career of Henry Clifford was fictionalised by Isaac Albéniz and Francis Money-Coutts—the former writing the music, the latter the libretto—in their opera Henry Clifford, which premiered in 1895, work? although it's now quite a long sentence, annoyingly.
The work sank without trace after its initial run. You can safely prune the sentence, if you prefer, on the lines of "Isaac Albéniz's opera Henry Clifford (1895) presents a fictionalised version of Clifford's life and career".
  • Afterthought: I'm not sure about this, but should "the life and career" have a plural verb, rather than a singular, as here? (cf "fish and chips is a classic dish" –v– "fish and chips are a classic dish" - when does a double noun become singular?) Tim riley talk 22:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an excellent point; I'm afraid I have no idea. I considered "life and career" to be collective, but have no substantive reasoning behind.
With any luck some other reviewers may express a view. I'll be interested, if so. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Notes
  • Note 3 – "Other examples from therein are" – perhaps just "from there"?
  • Note 10 – "informing him that due to the patronage of a London merchant" – "due to" is accepted in AmE as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, just "because of" is safer
  • Note 12 – "Lander describes the King's treatment of Clifford during this episode "brutal"" – missing an "as"?
All notes agreed and actioned per your suggestions.

That's all from me. I'll look in again when you've had time to consider these points. Tim riley talk 19:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanking you Tim riley, all excellent points, all actioned except a couple of points that might need a little further discussion, if that's OK with you. The bulk of my changes came with this edit, if you'd like to Compare And Contrast. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support. The article seems comprehensive and balanced; it is well structured and in good readable prose, with admirable illustrations. I have suggested a bit of pruning to one section, but whether pruned or not the article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:William_Larkin_Anne_Clifford,_Countess_of_Dorset.jpg: source/photographer link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Updated that source link, Nikkimaria, thanks very much! ——SN54129 13:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "Battle of Bosworth" Is it better termed the Battle of Bosworth Field?
Agreed, done.
Also in body under "Accession of Henry Tudor"
  • "Henry's victory meant that he needed loyal men to control the North of England for him, and Clifford's career as a loyal Tudor servant began. " loyal/loyal. (with another loyal end of paragraph) Some variety?
I dropped the first "loyal", better? I don't think it's lost accuracy. third "loyal becomes "trustworthy".
  • "Clifford was not always successful in this. Nor did his actions always make him popular. " I might merge these.
Good idea, done.
  • You are inconsistent, even in the lede, as to capitalisation of king "the King"
Fixed one.
  • "Although Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, he sent his son to be raised with the King's son, Prince Arthur. However, Clifford later complained that young Henry not only lived above his station but consorted with men of bad influence; Clifford also accused his son of regularly beating up his father's servants on his return to Yorkshire." I'm not sure I see the justification for the "However," to say not9ing of the fact that having "Although" and "However" start successive sentences is something like watching a tennis match, back and forth.
right; how about "Clifford rarely attended the royal court himself, but sent..."?
  • Shouldn't Henry VIII be linked on first use?
Linked in lead.
  • I would rephrase the final lede paragraph to avoid the need to have consecutive sentences start with "Clifford"
Done.
  • "Young Henry son inherited the title as 10th Baron Clifford as well as a large fortune and estate, " Awkward in the first few words.
Bizarre extra word removed! Cheers.
  • "By this period, the King, Henry VI, was politically weak and was occasionally incapacitated and unable to rule effectively." Which period (or reign) was this? When he was a minor? I'd be more specific.
I've tied it to Clifford's birthdate (which, conveniently, it was).
  • " a number of battles were fought over the next few years, in which both Lancastrians and Yorkists won victories.[6]" I don't see the point of the last part of the sentence ("in which" and after) unless it's just a coatrack for the links. Can something a bit more useful be said? In most wars with staying power, both sides win victories.
I found that tricky, as it goes—it was essential to mention the WotR, but too tempting to add lots of—frankly irrelevant—detail from well before Clifford's operative years. How about, By 1461 a number of battles had been fought between nobles loyal to the Lancastrian King and those of the Yorkists, led by Richard, Duke of York, who had claimed the throne in 1460?
  • "and buried in a common burial pit." This makes it sound beneath his rank, or possibly dishonourable. Would the sources support an addition after "buried" of "with his men" or "with fellow soldiers" or similar?
I think you've got it with your first point—Cokayne indeed says "with some of his men", or something, so that can legitimately be clarified.
  • "After what is now considered the biggest and possibly bloodiest battle ever to take place on English soil,[9][10]" what about "believed to be" for the "now considered"? Now considered implies a change and thus is a bit of a distraction.
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for your suggestions Wehwalt, all, I think, adopted in one way or another. Any other criticisms are welcome, in your own time. Have a good holiday! ——SN54129 13:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Anne clearly believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother the Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger." Surplus "the" before "Edmund" .
Removed
  • "and, says Malay, "recalls the romantic tale" of the shepherd's family. " Why of the shepherd's family in particular?
Removed unnecessary duplication and tightened the sentence.
  • "Accession of Henry Tudor" Would it not be better (easier on the reader) to have "Accession of Henry VII"?
Absolutely, done.
  • "As part of his efforts to secure the region, Clifford wrote under his own authority 24 October 1486 to the city of York—at the time, the capital of the north—ordering them not sell arms or armour to non-residents .[47]" Odd place to put the date, note also the rogue space before the full stop.
I've reworded the sentence, and in doind so caught the roge space (On 24 October 1486, Clifford wrote to the city of York)
  • "He was knighted on 9 November the same year.[16]" I would change "the same year" to "1485" as "same" really refers to "during his first parliament" and it is not clear from the text if that was entirely in 1485.
Done.
  • "Summerson suggests that Henry had little choice in restoring Clifford to his traditional regional position, as Northern England had been firmly Yorkist, first under the Nevilles and then under Gloucester, for over 20 years, the latter making Yorkshire his powerbase.[1]" I would move up "for over 20 years" to after "Yorkist" without a comma between them.
Good idea, actioned.
  • "The former had been one Gloucester's most important headquarters.[50] " There's an "of" missing, I suspect. Also, you refer to Gloucester by title thrice in two sentences.
H'mmm, catch. How about he former had been one of Richard of Gloucester's most important headquarters. After Richard took the throne, he granted it...?
  • " Clifford tailed it to Braham" a bit informal?
Perhaps! Plain old "followed", then?
  • "they served "our ful gode and gracious lorde the duc of Gloucestre" under the previous regime.[62]" The Duke of Gloucester was Richard III, if I read my dramatic personae correctly, but he was also the immediately previous regime. I imagine the previous regime spoken of is Edward IV, and I would say so.
Reworded.
  • "successfully besieging and capturing Norham Castle from the Scots.[36]" I would cut "successfully" as redundant. If they've captured it, they were successful.
Indeed! Done.
  • "of the 14-year-old Prince Arthur, and managed by the Archbishop of York, Thomas Savage in the early years of the 16th century.[1]" Arthur did not stay 14, or even alive, through the "early years of the 16th century", other than 15 months of it.
Good point, which I've made now, and also added a short footnote explaining Arthur died soon after.
You didn't do the note properly.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
D'oh! Thanks for that, fixed.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks again Wehwalt! Your comments hopefully addressed here. Cheers! ——SN54129 14:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "and took the opportunity to rebuild and repair castles and other properties as he did so." It may be an Engvar thing, but I would omit "so".
I don't know about Engvar, tbh, but nothing wrong with shortening a sentence.
  • "Quo Warranto" I would lower case.
Done.
  • "Matrimony does not seem to have been peaceful," seems an odd way of putting it, I might say "The relationship" or "Their relationship" instead of "Matrimony".
Yes, good point, "relationship".
  • "Lady Margaret" there are several Margarets mentioned, it is unclear who is being referred to.
Done (the King's ma).
  • "Clifford had a number of illegitimate children by a number of mistresses," too many numbers. Several?
Done.
  • "including at least two sons named Thomas and Anthony.[101]" multiple sons or multiple Thomases? I might cut out the "at least"
Right!
  • "tythes" Should this be "tithes"?
Yes—I was taken in by the redirect!
  • "the north". You are consistent on this phrase, except for one use as a section heading.
Lower-cased the section heading.
  • " Charlotte Mary Yonge compared Clifford in his shepherd hut to the roaming of the deposed King Henry VI" Why is this past tense when you've generally made such descriptions be in the present tense?
Yes, I was deliberately trying to keep all commentary in the present tense! Sorted.
  • Should note 12 end with a full stop?
Indeed it should.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again Wehwalt—your suggestions actioned here. (Incl. that refnote from yeserday). ——SN54129 13:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I apologies for the tardiness of my reply, Wehwalt—many thanks, again, for looking in, and a happy new year to you! Cheers, ——SN54129 14:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Booking a spot. Which I will get around to some time. Feel free to nag. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Nit-picking i: Arnold "pp. 116–138"; Bearne "11–16". Consistency would be preferred.
Indeed it would, but for some reason {{cite book|pages=}} calls pp= and {{cite journal|pages=}} does not.
Does it now? No doubt there is a sound reason for it.
Possibly; but for an alternative view of the citation templates' unofficial guardians, see this mother of all threads at a relatively recent WP:AN...
  • Coleridge: "Or" → 'or'.
Done.
  • Malay 2017, could NE be given in full.
Is this something new, then?
I was unaware that the US Postal Service's codes for states had ever been an acceptable disambiguator; but then, there are many things I am unaware of. Certainly, it seems a stretch to expect a non-US reader to guess what "NE" indicates.
Ah...I think I saw a discussion taking place on it recently, but can't find it now, if you know where I'm talking about. In any case, It's probably a good idea to fill out Nebraska, so I'll do that now.
  • The Political Function of History: The Past and Future of Noble Familes I assume that should be 'Families'? (I realise that it is spelt "Familes" on page v, but see, eg, note 54, page 85; or Google Scholar.)
Shaun Tyas has really gone downhill! Bet he gone raimed on that one.
I have no doubt that he blamed his copy editor.
Touché!

Spot checks to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Why?
Because you can't write things like "Florence sued her husband in ... court for the restitution of conjugal rights" and not expect a source reviewer not to want to find out more! I mean, how did she expect the court to enforce a judgement? Was there a special class of bailiff? When source reviewing I usually, but not always, check some of the sourcing.

PS In the main article, could "fought at Flodden" be linked to Battle of Flodden? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I removed the hatnote as in fact only a section of the section discussed Flodeen, and now linked inline. Many thanks as ever Gog the Mild. Compliments of the season to ye and yours. ——SN54129 14:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them; and provided me with several chortles along the way. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go; and where not, to only be used judiciously to cite straight forward facts. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanking you, Gog the Mild, all the best. ——SN54129 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notes

This hasn't seen any activity in recent weeks and needs more review to push it over. I've added it to the Urgents list but otherwise it will be archived in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Hopefully some recent kind-hearted reviewers and/or commentators have assuaged your concerns :) ——SN54129 18:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

SC

I'll add some comments here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. An excellent piece (on something I had no idea about before, so this is a review on prose rather than anything else). I made a couple of minor changes to caps and spelling, but this was all I would see to change to the article. An excellent article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much for catching those typos, SchroCat, and for looking in. Always appreciated! ——SN54129 11:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

I surrender! ;)

Just flagging up that I am part way through this and should be reporting back shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Despair ye not, I shall attempt to make my list of niggles and trivia shorter than the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have done a little copy editing as I went. Revert at will.

  • "believed that Edward IV sought revenge for the murder of his younger brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland at the Battle of Wakefield in 1460, which placed young Clifford's life in danger" Should Edmund's death not be discussed in the section on Clifford senior? Ie, next to the image depicting it? That would preserve the chronological flow and help explain the degree of danger Clifford junior was supposedly in when the shepherd lord tale is first trotted out, rather than part way through.
    • Excellent point. So I've moved it to his father's section, where I've also expanded—just a little—the circumstances of Rutland's death to indicate to the reader the supposed heinousness to the event.
  • "may well have disappeared from his father's enemies" I am really not sure what this means. 'kept a low profile' or similar'?
    • Well, that's it. It's the kind of thing I was thinkng of, but is "low-profile" encyclopaedic? Anyway, have used it until told otherwise...
  • "and retaining among, the local gentry" What this means could perhaps do with a word or two of explanation for the average reader.
    • Another footnote! Done, plus CGW quote.
  • Note 6 is either incomplete or ungrammatical. (And Earl, not earl.)
    • True dat. Recast completely in an attempt to appear slightly competent.
  • Note 23 doesn't work as it is. (Try reading it without the "priest-secretary to the Earl of Northumberland".)
    • See above!

Apart from this trivia it is in cracking shape. IMO it meets criteria 1, 2 and 4 well. It has a reasonable balance of breadth and focus, and the tale trips along well. Good stuff.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Cheers Grog, much appreciated—I'll be dealing with these tomorrow, touch wood. ——SN54129 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very for the review and the kind words Gog the Mild (not Grog—that must have been anticipation of the Friday night :) apologies), and also thanks for your copyedits yesterday. Your suggestions all implemented fully (I think) here. Cheers! ——SN54129 13:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild you did not flag Wikicup participation for this review, unless I missed it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You are quite right. I forgot to add it. Thank you for picking it up. I have withdrawn this review from my WikiCup contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Why do you have to withdraw it? It's not controversial, you added it here before the FAC closed, and I'm just checking so the Coords know that has been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Did I misunderstand? I am aware that the rule states "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review" which seems to make clear that the mention should be in advance of any claim and which I carelessly overlooked. If you feel that a points claim would be permissible in spite of this oversight then I would, obviously, be happy to reinstate the claim (and note that here) . Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild:, IMO (FWIW), the intent is that the Coords know about your WikiCup participation before making any decision to promote/archive, so they can account for that as needed. In the spirit of the thing, it seems to me that you should be able to claim your points. Especially since there is no controversy here. If the FAC had closed already, it would be a different thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Nb: it is my intention to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I only have a couple minor issues:

  • Popular belief later held that as a boy of seven, - Does the source say that this belief was a popular legend at the time? Genuine question.
My understanding is that the story of the shepherds, etc, itself didn't appear until the 16th C. with Edward Hall, although there was a definite fear of the Yorkst regime at the time. Do I need to tweak somehow? If you are the WP:READER, I need you to understand, not just me :)
No, I understand it now, with your commentary. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some quote inconsistencies: the 'shepherd lord' story vs. the story was "apocryphal"
That's two things: firstly, in Wikipedia's voice, saying that such a story existed, and secondly, that in spite of that, McFarlane calls the story "apocryphal"—hence it's in quotes rather than our voice. Make sense?
Oh, OK. That makes sense, but I was thinking some readers (like me) might not pick up something like that. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: I think this is an extremely good point if you don't mind me saying. I've tweaked the sentence slightly; how do you feel about More recently, the historian K. B. McFarlane has gone further, arguing that it was probably "apocryphal"...? Clearer, hopefully? ——SN54129 12:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Yes, that's much better. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Sunday, 10 June - I'm wondering about the use of the word "Sunday". Is the day of the week important to the story line?
No, not at all, and per consistency, I don't think I do it elsewhere in the article. Basically, Epicg., I have so little detail in articles like this that whenever I come across that level of detail I feel the need to put it in. Showing off that we actually know :) Anyway, removed per your suggestion.
  • Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residences - I might be a clueless American, but aren't Brough Castle and Brougham Castle two different things? This appears to be the first location in the article where Brougham is mentioned.
H'mmm. Well, I'll see your clueless American and bid a clueless Brit, who can't tell the diference between two places though they're 20 miles apart! In my defence, Brougham is mentioned further up, where he encounters rebels; but Brough Castle is where the "great christmas" was held, mentioed in the "Patronage" section. Although to confuse the issue even further, there is also a Brougham Castle, and Clifford seems to have made it his main residence after 1521. I've added this bit to the footnote.
  • I don't think "Personality and interests" belongs under "Death". Shouldn't it be under "Personal life"?
Good point, done.

These are all my comments for now. epicgenius (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking in, epicgenius your suggestions are greatly appreciated. I've queried a couple of them, but only for your second opinion? Cheers! ——SN54129 15:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: No problem. I don't have any other issues with this article. Support since everything above is now resolved, or answered. epicgenius (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes from SandyGeorgia

  • (c. 1454–23 April 1523) when the dates around the dash have spaces, the dash has spaces (MOS:DATERANGE)
  • In her day, Awadewit (FA writer, RIP) would have pitched a fit that File:William Larkin Anne Clifford, Countess of Dorset.jpg has her eyes looking off the page instead of in to the text. I am unsure if we are still enforcing that, but Adrienne would have had you move that image to the right of the page rather than left.
  • MOS:CAPTION full sentences in image captions should end with punctuation. (Sample: Brougham Castle became one of Clifford's favoured residence)

That's all I saw on a very quick glance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SandyGeorgia, I appreciate you bringing your experience to the table. Although it's always a shame to see an RIP :( I never even knew about the spaced-dash-where-spaces-exist rule—so I've learned something there. I've implemented all your advice; Lady Anne now looks inwards (I admit I've seen that mentioned before but I suspect it's one of those things that many overlook!). I think, also, I've caught the captions that are sentences (one other anyway). Thanks again, ——SN54129
Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops, one more I saw when I was looking at the new image placement: WP:ACCESSIBILITY says to never place images at the bottom of a section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops indeed, I think I just did that when I rearranged the images just now! But have put everything inside their sections; can't see any sandwiching problems, but if necessary I could always pull one of the castle images, although of course, I'd rather not have to. ——SN54129 12:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [19].


Cactus wren

Nominator(s): Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The cactus wren is a hardy desert bird of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico, able to live without water and through the hottest of summers. As the state bird of Arizona, it is an icon of the Sonoran Desert. I brought the article up to GA earlier this year, and am excited to present it as my first FAC. FAC recommends a mentor for first time noms, and the illustrious Casliber has been kind enough to fill that role for me. The article has received a thorough peer review, and a copyedit by GOCE. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comment from Tim riley

Just booking my place. The article looks v. impressive and I've read through once without finding anything to grumble about. But as I know nothing about birds beyond tips from Elizabeth David or Julia Child I'd prefer to wait till more expert reviewers have had their say. – Tim riley talk 14:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

After a second read-through of the article and a perusal of the comments below, I am happy to add my support. The only quibble I have been able to come up with after a determined attempt is to question if the blue link for "sidewalk" isn't perhaps a touch of WP:OVERLINK (I speak as an Englishman, who calls the things "pavements", but "sidewalk" is a pretty familiar word). That really is neither here nor there, and the article is a good read (easily understood by a non-expert like me), evidently comprehensive, gorgeously illustrated and impressively referenced. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 15:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

First read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The wren has… They are brown with black and white spots as markings
I see your concern here. However, I am going to opt not to change it at the moment, as I suspect the lead is going to get heavily re-written, thanks to Fowler&Fowler's very in-depth comments on the lead. I may ask for a second read-through of the lead once I have taken F&F's suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The chest is whiter... Their song
I take it you wanted standardization here, thus have opted to change "the" to "their". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • prolate spheroidal isn't exactly reader friendly, pipe it through rugby ball or similar
more to come Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Jimfbleak Thanks for the review! Originally I had it piped to Ball (gridiron football) with the label "American football". That has been a point of some contention, and has been changed around several times. The current wording was created by Gog the Mild during their copyedit, I would be interested on their take on it as well before changing it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 16:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@CaptainEek and Jimfbleak: I chose prolate spheroid as the best of a poor selection. As the Cap'n says, it previously used "American football", which is accurate but would mean nothing to most readers. Similarly "rugby ball" excludes possibly a majority of readers. "Prolate spheroid" is technically correct, and seemed appropriate for a technical article. One downside is that it is equally inaccessible to almost all readers. But then so are many of the terms in this article. I would have no concerns about a switch to either of the other suggestions. Neither would be my first choice, but I don't see this as an issue with a 'right' answer. Happy to address any follow up questions, especially if I have missed the point. Or to contribute further to deciding which choice to go with, if you think that may be useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thinking about it, is Jim suggesting prolate spheroidal? If so, that seems quite clever to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Too clever for me, I'd be happy with anything that was less technical, American football, rugby ball etc Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I have changed it back to American football. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The first cactus wren was described —really? I think you mean the first description of a cactus wren
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes... but they placed it back in Campylorhynchus— repeated placed
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • frequent use of cactus as nesting sites —shouldn't it be cacti?
Ya know, I'm not exactly sure, but I've made the change anyway. They're called cactus wrens, not cacti wrens, but then again I don't really understand octopus/octopi so I'm not the best person to ask :) Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Anders Anderson and Anne AndersonAnders and Anne Anderson seems more natural
Right you are Mr. Anderson. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Guttatus should be italicised as a foreign-language word, similar affinis etc
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • rectrices—link
The first mention is already linked (in the subspecies secton). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • the cactus wren looks similar to other wrens in its genus, their identification
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 1,000 feet (300 m). should be metric to US, add parameter order=flip''
 Done Thats a very clever little technique, thank you! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 1.3 ha (0.013 km2) to 1.9 ha (0.019 km2). should be metric to US, not metric to metric
I have converted to yd2, as converting to feet or miles gave some wacky numbers. If anyone has a better suggestion, lemme know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
{{convert|1.3|ha|acre}} gives 1.3 hectares (3.2 acres) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thats the unit I was thinking of. Thats why I prefer metric :) I have swapped it over. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • link ''Rio Grande ''
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ''3 ft (0.9 m) off the ground,[12] and are usually less than 10 ft (3.0 m) off the ground, but have been recorded as high as 30 ft (9.1 m). '' and back to US to metric again...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • link clutch, brood, termite, nectar
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Parasites and diseases? I found this and BNA mentions feather mites
  • 6 inches (20 cm)... were well over 100 feet (30 m}... sigh...
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ref 9 needs binomial italicised
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • see last para of this
I am in the process of adding a paragraph using this and the above source. It will take me a bit to sift through them. Thanks for finding these! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have written a paragraph about parasites, if you could read it over that would be good. Of the two sources, only the 2012 California one had usable content. The Irish naturalist article was still interesting, and applicable to wrens as a family, and I have added it to the further reading. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Like the parasites, changed to support above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Image review

All images are are correctly licensed and appropriate. The only thing you might consider is perhaps having a habitat shot to show the landscape they are found in, just a suggestion though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have added File:2010 Sonoran Desert 04.jpg to the habitat section. In the process I moved the image of a wren atop a saguaro to the status section. Let me know if thats too many images, or if they should be reordered. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Sainsf

I reviewed this for GA criteria. Glad to see this at FAC, and how much it has improved since then. Here are my comments on this one again, mostly things I may have missed out on earlier, or which matter for an FA but not for a GA:

Thanks for the double review! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from I feel we could just go with "The common name" as we have not mentioned any other names. In fact it may give the impression that there is one apart from "cactus wren". The The bird's common name comes from... used in "Taxonomy and systematics" sounds fine.
  • Agree with Jim about the "prolate spheroidal" term. Can we keep the term but relate it with the rugby ball or something as an example, in brackets next to it? As in the Reproduction section?
I have changed it back to American football at the moment, but would be open to doing other things. I think a discussion on the talk page from reviewers might be useful, as there are several different ideas. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I won't strike this one out as other opinions might help in improving this, but it won't affect my !vote for this nom. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The cactus wren's common name comes from its frequent use ... Their prolate spheroidal-shaped nests Keep it as either singular or plural, or switch to "their" in the first line maybe.
Have fixed the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe "exotic grasses" could be wikilinked? Not sure if it is too a common term.
I can't think of a good thing to wikilink here. There is no exotic grass page, and introduced species is already linked at the start of the sentence. Suggestions welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • ornithologists described the cactus wren multiple times as different species, and as late as 1898. I am a bit confused here. What was as late as 1898? The incorrect descriptions? Or did the others start describing it as late as 1898?
I have changed the wording to hopefully clarify, please take another look. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The cactus wren was placed in the genus Helodytes by the American Ornithologists' Union in 1894, but they returned it to Campylorhynchus in 1947. Do we know why it was placed in the first genus and then shifted to the other?
I'm afraid not, as early taxonomy is often a void. I could guess any number of reasons, but none of the sources I have mention why. Its likely that only the people who changed the taxonomy in the 1800's know, and they are long dead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Could the names in the cladogram not begin with just C. instead of Campylorhynchus repeated everywhere?
 Done Piped a lotta links. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Subspecies are missing from the infobox
 Done Didn't even know you could add them, but now I do! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
You should add the authors and years too, do it like in the synonyms. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
A great suggestion! I have filled in the taxon data, courtesy of ITIS. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thyrothorus guttatus Gould 1836 in synonyms. Comma missing before the year (2 more cases right after that)
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • If possible wikilink the names of those who described the subspecies.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I am sorry I can't find where you've linked them, could you give me the diff maybe? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I had done it in the infobox. I have now also done so in the body, where possible. Some of the more obscure ornithologists don't have articles and probably shouldn't. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

More to come. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe say right before you start the subspecies list that you are enlisting all proposed subspecies? Going straight to the list when we were discussing the dispute about the subspecies seems a bit incomplete to me, personally.
Added Below are all proposed subspecies Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Guttatus is Latin and means "speckled". Maybe sounds more concise if we say "Latin for "speckled"." May be used for affinis and a few other cases later too.
 Done All cases have been dealt with, except for one on C. b. seri, as I thought it flowed better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Affinis "allied" or "related" in Latin Typo? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, good catch. Fixed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The American Ornithological Society classifies all California subspecies Should it be "Californian" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Could use wikilink for "scapulars". "Rump" is actually linked in the next section.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Californian ornithologist Walter Pierce Bryant, (1861–1905) Stray comma?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The exact meaning of the subspecies name is unclear, it may be Should probably be a semicolon and not a comma
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A distinctive white supercilium (eyebrow) run from the bill Runs?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Other distinctive features of juvenile include I think you mean "juveniles"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • the most northern breeding population "northernmost" sounds better to me
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It is found only in the extreme southwestern part of Utah. You mean "in Utah it is found only in the extreme southwest"? Both lines differ in meaning.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Heavy seasonal rainfall can extend breeding: young have been recorded in nests as late as August The cited example probably has the impact it should have on the reader only after he/she learns when eggs are typically laid. Probably shift it to the part where you discuss it?
I have moved the egg info to lower in the section. I have also gone back to Anderson & Anderson, and expanded upon the egg laying season. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A tube like entrance, about 15 cm (6 in) long I guess it should be tubelike, similar to pouchlike
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • with Anderson and Anderson reporting an average time of 2.7 days Maybe "the Andersons" works better. The ornithologists Anderson & Anderson noted a minimum... Here you use a different way to mention them, consistency would be good.
I have standardized it as "Anderson & Anderson", but would be amenable to changing it to "the Andersons" if you feel that is better. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Striking this out; I am fine with any option as long as it is consistent. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more three to survive Did you mean "more than three"?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A link for "microclimate" would be good
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Should the facts on social behavior be included in Feeding? Not exactly where I would search f Probably can be an intro part to the Behavior and ecology section with more info to substantiate? Also I feel a bit of this should be in the lead.
I have moved the social paragraph to the head as a sort of intro. I also added one sentence on living in pairs/family groups into the lead. Let me know if more is needed, or perhaps I should do something different. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Nests built in cactus provide a degree of protection to young, yet even in cactus, young wrens are Could use a semicolon and not a comma before "yet"
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • interspecies nest distances Should it be "interspecific" instead?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I expected "Threats" to describe threats like habitat loss.. maybe it should be named something related to interspecific interactions?
That was based on the WP:BIRD approach to headings. They do give an option between "Threats" or "Survival" however, so I have changed it to "Survival". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at "Status", maybe Californian populations have become increasingly fragmented due to habitat destruction is redundant and not really fitting in "Distribution and habitat".
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Miscellaneous:

  • The article could use an "External links" section at the end containing the links to other wiki sites (like Commons and all) plus useful species accounts elsewhere on the web. Just a feature I've seen in most FAs.
I'll admit I hadn't added one, as I personally do not much like external links. I might need some help doing that, as I'm not sure what I'd add. Most of the websites I thought were quite good are already used as sources. If you could provide an example of a model section from a bird FA, I'd appreciate. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I remember this one. Note that it is optional, just adds good stuff to the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
For the time being, I'm going to opt not to have an EL section. The links to commons/wikispecies are already at the bottom of the article in fancy little boxes. Beyond that, I just couldn't find any super useful EL. I will keep hunting, but there's honestly not tons of great web content on the wren. Most of my best sources were books. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The images are nice but could use more interesting captions. Maybe say which subspecies it is (if we know for sure) in the pic in Subspecies, or use a good pic where the subspecies is known for sure. The image in Description could additionally say "Note the white speckles against the brown background" or in Feeding the caption can be the wren feeds on insects such as what is shown in the pic. It's a general FAC suggestion I have often come across.
I had kept it short because I was under the impression that long captions were much frowned upon. I have jazzed them up a bit. For the one in the taxonomy section, I have used A & A's guide to subspecies, combined with rangemaps, to say that the bird is C.b. couesi. That strikes me as WP:OR however, so may need to be undone. However, not a single image I've seen has been identified down to subspecies, or at least not that could be used on Wikipedia. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I would say it's better to remove the OR part then. And maybe locations can be omitted to shorten things, like in the caption "Near the entrance of a nest in a cholla cactus, at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix, Arizona. Despite the prickly thorns, this wren's plumage remains in good condition." That is if the location is not exactly necessary for the image. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 Done I have reworked the captions again, and re-ordered some images. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure how relevant the nest pic is under Description. One would expect more focus on physical features in pics there, if you have many to choose from.
I have updated caption to discuss feather condition, making it fit better. I have also added another image, so that the first one is just of the bird. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG , if the caption is a sentence fragment it should not end with a period; but if any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful feedback. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Wow, you are really fast in your response :) Great job for someone's first FAC! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: The article meets the FA criteria in my opinion. All concerns raised by me have been duly addressed and I am highly impressed with the work on this one. Best of luck! :) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: I have signed up for WikiCup 2020, and I plan to add this review to my submissions. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

FunkMonk

  • Support - I did the peer review with FAC in mind, and it seems to be holding up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
One adittional comment, there are many very similar images, how about spicing it up a bit by replacing some with more unusual poses, such as:[20][21] FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
The second image is quite exceptional and I have added it. Good find! And thanks again for the peer review. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Fowler&fowler

Welcome to your first FAC! I am trying to experiment with a critique written from the POV of a newcomer and focusing on the lead. For that reason, I have not read the rest of the article. Nor have I read other reviews. There may be existing conventions in WP Ornithology, so feel free to tell me when my suggestions clash with them. There may also be MOS conventions on using wikilinks instead of descriptors, whether single words or phrases, so please tell me.

  • The cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus) is a species of wren that is endemic to parts of the Southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico.
    • Would it make sense not to use endemic at this stage, and prefer instead "that is uniquely indigenous to ...?"
All of the sources I have use endemic, and I would prefer to as well. The indigenous species concept is poorly defined, and open to more interpretation than endemic. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Would it make sense to use a geographical description that is evocative of the bird's name, and in some ways more informative, such as "to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico?"
Good idea! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • So, overall, would, "The cactus wren ... is a species of wren that is uniquely indigenous to the deserts of the southwestern United States and northern Mexico" make the sentence more accessible?
Partially implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are eight generally recognized subspecies.
    • Would it be more accurate to say, "Biologists have thus far identified seven or eight (or eight or nine, as it the case) subspecies of the cactus wren?"
I have moved it to the end of the paragraph per another reviewer, and have generally changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck.
    • I am assuming that by "prominent" you mean "visually prominent." Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren has striking white ...?" ("prominent" in the human context can mean bushy.) If these markings set this wren apart from other birds, you could use "characteristic" or "distinctive."
Have changed to distinctive. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about using "stretch." Would it be better to say, "... has striking white eyebrows that sweep back from above its beak to the nape of its neck?" Is it a closer descriptive fit to the accompanying picture?
Changed to sweep. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "They are brown with black and white spots as markings."
    • "They" here would syntactically apply to the eyebrows, not to the wren, which in any case thus far has been described in the singular. I'm hard-pressed to see brown as the single color in the accompanying picture. Would, "The cactus wren's coloration has different shades of brown speckled with black and white spots." be better?
  • "The tail, as well as certain flight feathers, are also barred in black and white."
    • "Certain" is typically used to individualize but not too precisely. Is it needed? In other words, can we not use it at all (i.e. use the zero article), or use "some" or can we be more precise and say which flight feathers? Is the "also" needed? It suggests that the tail and flight feathers have the black and white spots, and, besides, have black and white bars. Is that true?
I have removed the also, and the certain. Looking back at my sources, all the feathers seem to be barred (although to varying degrees). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The chest is whiter, while the underparts are cinnamon-buff colored.
    • Whiter than what? It is probably better to describe the color. I'm not very good with colors, but is it ivory, or eggshell white? Is there a link for cinnamon-buff? Although "while" is perfectly acceptable usage for expressing contrast, would "whereas" be better?
I have linked Cinnamon and buff. I have changed whiter to simply "white". Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Their song is harsh and raspy; ornithologists have described it as like a car engine that will not start.
    • "raspy" is harsh. Do we need both? Should "song" be wikilinked to Bird vocalization? "it as like a" is a little vague. Isn't their vocalization also loud? Would it be better to write "Its song is a loud raspy chirrup, akin—in the description of some ornithologists—to the sound of a car engine that will not start?"
Good idea. I have wl'd song too. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet – which consists chiefly of insects, supplemented with some plant matter.
    • This sentence is another reason why the mention of "deserts" in the first sentence is helpful. The sentence assumes a previous mention of the desert.
    • "chiefly" and "supplemented," together, are redundant, as one implies the other. Also, "supplement" has the vague implication of supplying a want or need, which has already been stated once, and which might not be a part of the wren's purposefulness, but rather its evolutionary adaptation. Would it be better to say, "Cactus wrens are well-adapted to their native desert environment, and can meet their water needs from their diet which consists chiefly of insects, but also of some plant matter?"
Implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • They are ground feeders and spend much of their time on the ground searching for food, as they are somewhat poor fliers.
    • Isn't a ground feeder a bird that spends much of its time on the ground foraging for food? Would it be better to say, "The cactus wren is a poor flier, and generally forages for food on the ground."
    • Would it make sense here to make a connection with endemism, if there is one?
Can't say that there is a connection? Or not one that could be concisely summarized for the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The common name comes from their frequent use of saguaro and cholla cacti as nesting sites, which provide protection to both young and roosting adults.
    • Their common name, cactus wren, ...
    • What is frequent use? Would "Their common name derives from their frequenting desert cactus plants such as the saguaro and cholla, building nests, roosting, and seeking protection from predators among them." be better?
Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Their American football-shaped nests are constructed first of plant material, then lined with feathers.
    • Their nests don't seem to be of a well-defined geometric shape (such as that of weaver birds). The literature uses "bulky," "large," "globular," as well, in my quick reading.
I have went back through my sources and confirmed that, and changed the wording. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • That reminds me, you have said nothing about the bird's size (in inches and centimeters). A large size would necessitate large nests.
Have added as the second sentence that they are the largest wren in the US. I have opted to not include numbers. If someone wishes numbers, they may read the body. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • You don't need "first" or "then." Lining is necessarily done after building. So, would, "They employ plant material to build large bulky round- or egg shaped nests, and line their interiors with feathers." be better? Egg-shaped is piped to ovoid.
I have opted to not implement that suggestion. I think it is a harder and less accessible read. None of my sources mention egg shaped either, so I would be hestitant to claim as such. I have changed the sentence around however, as you raise good points. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Cactus wrens are non-migratory, and establish and defend territories around their nests.
    • Would it be better to simply say, "Cactus wrens do not migrate, establishing and defending their territories around their nests."
That is better. Have implemented. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Pairs are monogamous, with females incubating eggs while males build new nests; both parents feed chicks.
    • You probably do not need "with" and "new" Also, what are "pairs?" "While" is ambiguous, as it can mean "during," which is not the intended meaning here. Also, nests are built before the incubation of eggs. Would, "Pairing among cactus wrens is monogamous; in each breeding season, the males build nests, the females incubate eggs, and both parents feed the young." be better?
Have implemented, although I'm unsure about it. I added "Cheifly" before males, as the pairs do work together to make some nests. Once a clutch has fledged, females will go back to help continue building nests. Suggestion on how to better tackle that dichotomy is welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 05:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Note: I've written "cactus wren" in each of my sentences; I'm assuming that you will make the necessary stylistic changes for flow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't do much with the last paragraph. It is vague and generic. For example:
"Introduced species, such as exotic grasses and domestic cats, have also hurt populations."
      • Should we say barn cats and feral cats? Should we say why exotic grasses have hurt populations?
Have taken both suggestions. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • There seem to be coherence issues in the paragraph: on the one hand, the cactus wren is slow to disperse into new habitat in response to habitat loss; on the other, it has proved adaptable. How so? You have to tell us. I will leave you to rewrite this paragraph. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I have rewritten the last paragraph, and attempted to improve the coherence. I'm trying to cover a dichotomy: populations are declining but abundant. Hopefully I now do that better. Further advice would be welcome. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback fowler! I have read your comments, but just letting you know that I will probably get to them last. I'm smoothing out sourcing and content in the body, and I want it to be perfect before I polish off the lead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 02:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fowler&fowler: I believe I have implemented most of your feedback. Please look over to see if its up to snuff, or if further changes should be made. Thanks again for the review! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
    • The current version reads much better. You have my support on the basis of reading only the lead, whatever proportion of a support vote it constitutes. All the best! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz

Speciesbox

  • The authority should be in brackets ie (Lafresnaye, 1835) (English wikipedia follows ICZN Article 51.3).
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead

  • "There are eight generally recognized subspecies." The number is disputed - 7 is more common - and the slight regional variation probably shouldn't be the first item mentioned in the lead after the range.
Changed to seven and also moved to end of intro paragraph, instead of start. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The wren has prominent white eyebrows that stretch to the nape of the neck." Better to start the description with more general features such as the size and the overall colour. Also, I don't like the use of "eyebrows" - I would use the technical word supercilium - but as an alternative consider "a prominent white stripe above the eye"
I have changed to supercilium, and started with size and color. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy

  • "A 2007 genetic study by Blackwell-Rago et al. indicated that all three were distinct species.[3][5][6]" The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study was by Keith Barker.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Your reference 7 (Blackwell-Rago et al) has the authors in the wrong order. It should be: Zink, R.M.; Kessen, A.E.; Line, T.V.; Blackwell-Rago, R.C. (2001). "Comparative phylogeography of some aridland bird species". Condor. 103 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1650/0010-5422(2001)103[0001:CPOSAB]2.0.CO;2..
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added a cite to the original description. (BHL is wonderful)
Oooh thank you very much for finding that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "...he procured his specimen from a naval officer who had recently returned from California." This isn't quite correct - only indirectly. Lafresnaye states that he obtained his specimen from Charles Brelay, a collector based in Bordeaux. Brelay had obtained the specimen from a naval officer. This is described in English by Outram Bangs here.
Ah, thanks for finding that. The source I had (A&A's 1973 book primarily) gave only a brief account of Lafresnaye. I have amended the account with the reference from Bangs. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider mentioning that the type locality was defined as the "coastal district of southern Sonora" in 1930 by Outram Bangs based on an examination of the holotype. Ref is (using template): Bangs, Outram (1930). "Types of birds now in the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. 70: 145-426 [313].
  • "The 2007 study by Blackwell-Rago et al. established..." - Barker not Blackwell-Rago - see above. and thus ref 6 not 7.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "...established, using a molecular clock," - a "molecular clock" is not needed for a cladogram - only needed if you want estimate dates for the splits.
 Done} Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider simplifying the cladogram by removing the subspecies - apart from the two C. zonatus subspecies that are not each others closest relative. It would also help the reader if you used the common names with the binomials in brackets.
I have done both. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
A great improvement - but why not link the common names rather than the binomials (with the redirects) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I have linked the common names instead. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Subspecies

  • English wiki uses the taxonomy of the IOC which lists only 7 subspecies (see the Birds Project page based on this discussion). Clements/ebird and H&M4 both only list 7. HBW splits affinis and lists 8 ssp. You should at least mention that the IOC combines purus and affinis. The ioc ref is: Gill, Frank; Donsker, David, eds. (2019). "Dapple-throats, sugarbirds, fairy-bluebirds, kinglets, hyliotas, wrens, gnatcatchers". IOC World Bird List Version 9.2. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 20 December 2019.
Ah, I had no clue! The more you know. I have added the IOC info to the taxonomy section. Should I remove the older taxonomy info (such as A&A, or the American Ornithologists society)? Or should I still discuss it? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "C. b. affinis ... This subspecies is sometimes further divided into C. b. affinis and C. b. purus, but this distinction is not widely recognized.[3]" Perhaps mention this under C. b. purus.
Have moved. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "C. b. seri (van Rossem, 1932) – Found along the coasts of the Gulf of California." This subspecies only occurs on Tiburón Island (see IOC, HBW etc). It is also worth mentioning a molecular genetic study published in 2010 that found that seri could not be differentiated genetically from the subspecies occurring on the mainland: Rojas‐Soto, O.R.; Westberg, M.; Navarro‐Sigüenza, A.G.; Zink, R.M. (2010). "Genetic and ecological differentiation in the endemic avifauna of Tiburón Island". Avian Biology. 41 (4): 398–406. doi:10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.04864.x.
Good find. I have added that, and changed it to note Tiburon island. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Description

  • "It has a thick, heavy bill that is dull black, curves slightly downwards, and is about the same length as the head.[5][15][3][8]:1" Why do you need 4 cites for this apparently uncontentious sentence?
Ah, yes that may seem a bit like overkill. However, that sentence took all four refs to put together. None of the refs alone had all of that information. If you could suggest a better way to deal with the refs, I'm open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps more later. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Perhaps mention in the lead that the sexes are similar in appearance.
Done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 01:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: How do you suggest I deal with disputed taxons in the infobox? Or should I only list the IOC subspecies? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 03:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aa77zz: I believe that I have taken care of all of the issues you have raised, or if not I have asked additional questions. I'd appreciate if you could take a look through your review just to make sure I've done what needs to be done. Thanks again for the feedback! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm happy with the changes. A non-actionable comment. This article relies heavily on web sites. I would prefer to see more use made of journal articles and suspect that the seven open-access journal articles that I've added to the Further reading could be used to support some of the material in the article. Although I have personal subscriptions to HBW and BNA, I still prefer to cite journal articles, especially those that are open access. For much of the information, journal articles are at least as good, if not better sources, than the pay-walled web pages.

Source review by Nikkimaria

- spotchecks not done

  • Page ranges in both reflist and superscripts should use endashes rather than hyphens. Also, is there a reason to manually code superscripts rather than using {{rp}}?
  • I've fixed these, not guaranteeing I've found them all -Jim
To be quite honest, I had no clue there was a template for it; I'd seen it done and kinda just assumed that it had been done manually. Useful to know that template exists, and I will use it going forward. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Should I go through and replace the manual ones with the template? Would be somewhat onerous, but I could. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The one citation template I could find was turned into a cite book template. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how much detail you provide for publication locations
I have fixed the cases I could find. If I have missed any, let me know. I opted to go for "city, region", as some of the cities were somewhat obscure. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Surrey's not a city, and check location for FN18, there seems to be a typo. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether book titles are presented in title or sentence case
I fixed all of the cite book templates. For the one California book, I capitalized the title but opted to not capitalize the subtitle as that seemed excessive. If you think I should captalize the subtitle, let me know. If I missed a book because it wasn't in a cite book template, let me know. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use all-caps for work titles
  • Fn12: not all of that is the title
  • Be consistent in how you format website titles
@Nikkimaria: Could you clarify? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Most use the name alone, but then you've got "www.birdzilla.com" rather than Birdzilla.com. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Fn27 isk missing retrieval date
Fixed Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering Further reading? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Jim has alphabetized it, and I agree with that strat. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for that! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM

  • "The chest is whiter," Whiter than what?
Ah that is supposed to be white, not whiter. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Work on wren taxonomy in the 20th century postulated that the Yucatan, Boucard's, and cactus wrens – along with the spotted wren – might constitute a superspecies. The 2007 study showed this to be unlikely, as the cactus wren was found to be ancestral to the other species." I'm probably just displaying my ignorance here, but why does that show the superspecies possibility to be unlikely?
A superspecies occurs when several organisms have been labeled as separate, but are in fact the same species. But if one of the species evolved before the others (i.e. is ancestral), there's no way they can be the same species. If you have a suggestion on how to clarify that in text, I would be willing to implement it. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether it is worth identifying the subspecies in image captions where known?
I've looked at a lot of images and have yet to find one where the subspecies was clearly identified. While I could probably identify the ss using the ornithology refs I have, that strikes me as OR. If someone finds one that's been identified by an expert, I'm all for adding it tho! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Outer rectrices are white tipped.[3][5] ... Legs are brown to pink-brown.[3]" These aren't really full sentences.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "and has less markings" fewer markings or less marking, surely?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " series of "jar-jar-jar",[3] or "char", notes" Would italics rather than speech marks not be usual for vocalisations? See more in the same section and one in the "survival" section
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You compare the nexts to an American football only in the lead; further down the article, it's a gridiron or rugby ball.
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nests built in urban settings use a much wider variety of materials, including many human made items such as paper, string, lint, and notably: chicken feathers, used as nest lining in great quantities where available" I'm not keen on the colon; I wonder if this couldd be reworked? I also note that chicken feathers are not "human made items". Maybe split the sentence?
 Done Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It's make do rather than make due isn't it? Either way, perhaps a little informal? (Image caption.)
I have reworded the caption. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Similar species (such as the wrentit and Bewick's wren) which nest in coastal sage scrub (the preferred nesting habitat of coastal cactus wrens) have faced high levels of local extinction." People concerned about that/which might twitch at this sentence, but I don't want to make a recommendation as I am not sure precisely what is being claimed. Is it perhaps worth revisiting? (I'm also not a massive fan of the semi-colon in the following sentence, but maybe that's unfair.)
Semicolon in next sentence changed. I have also swapped which to that. I am unsure the correct wording, but "that" sounds better. The sentence aims to show that similar species are at considerable risk of local extinction, but without trying to overgeneralize the statement. Its a common tactic in science writing; when you lack data on one species, you use data for similar species to make an inference, which is exactly what the source I took it from did. If you have suggestions for cleaned up wording, I am open. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what jumps out at me from a first read-through. Very interesting and readable, and great to see a new face (at FAC) producing articles like this; welcome! Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll get to comments as fast as I can, but will be swamped with the holidays for the next few days. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 09:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Josh Milburn: I have gone through and implemented your comments. Please let me know if I've missed anything, or if you think I should do something differently. And I'm glad to be here at FAC, I hope to be back here before long with some other good articles. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Support, as long as source and image checks come back OK. Great work; not a bird I knew before now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record: I am participating in the 2020 WikiCup. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Support Query from WereSpielChequers

  • I have made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.
@WereSpielChequers: Good tweaks. Thanks for taking a look! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Re "As many as three broods may be raised in a single year,[20][24] although one or two is more typical.[14] Up to six broods may be attempted in a year, but it is rare for more than three to survive.[3]" I suggest you combine these, at the moment it is repetitive and a bit contradictory. Especially in light of the next sentence "most egg laying occurring in March" as this implies that most have but one brood a year. ϢereSpielChequers 17:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I have reworked the sentences. I have also changed the next sentence to say that "March being the height of the laying season", to deal with the implication of one brood a year (which is not always true, there is a lot of variation). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that, happy to support this for FA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Coord note

Given this is your first FAC, CaptainEek (a belated welcome BTW!) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the above reviewers might be interested in performing this, or you can leave a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello Ian, and thanks for the welcome. I tried quite hard to avoid plagiarism and paraphrasing (as I had FAC in mind when writing), but welcome a source review. Its possible I missed something. I will ask for one on the talk page, and invite the existing reviewers to help out in that realm. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Some of the sources are paywalled or not available online, reviewers are welcome to ask me for access. I still have Anderson and Anderson's book on me, and can provide copies of pages via email. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Tks, the spotcheck is a hoop we ask all newbies to jump through, as well as the old hands who haven't had one for a while. Even with the best intentions we can read more into a source than is really there, or use too-similar wording to the source in our articles -- I know from my own experiences as a nominator... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Happy to do a spot check on Monday or Tuesday next week when next at the British Library. Tim riley talk 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: See Tim's completed spotcheck below. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Source spot-check

I have been somewhat stymied in doing the books side of the spot check: for the first time in my experience both the books I wanted at the British Library (Anderson & Anderson and Vol 10 of Handbook of the Birds of the World) are reportedly in use by another reader. I find this beyond strange, but never mind! There are plenty of online sources to spot-check. There are just under 150 citations in total; I have spot-checked 45 of them.

  • 14a–h – all fine
  • 14i – the source says 1 metre (3ft), not 0.9m (3 ft). Your arithmetic is better than theirs, but I think you should say 1m (3.3 ft) as the metre is the figure given. Incidentally, though not part of my brief here, it would be better, I think, to stick to a consistent order throughout: either imperial measures with metric in brackets or vice versa.
 Done I changed the math, and also made sure that all converts had metric first. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 14j–m – fine
  • 14n – I don't think this reflects what the quoted source says: our "Almost all water is obtained from food, and free-standing water is rarely used even when found" doesn't seem to square with the source's "Adults begin to drink free water in September, and the rate of consumption apparently increases to high levels in December and January". This makes me want a citation for the next sentence: "The cactus wren can survive as a true xerophile, existing without any free water".
The Xerophile comment comes from Birds of NA online, which says "Cactus Wren's diet does not preclude adaptation for desert environment and species may be considered true xerophile (i.e., surviving without free water; Ricklefs, R. E. and F. R. Hainsworth. (1968a)." Excuse the slightly odd grammar, I only have a digital copy, which is formatted a bit wack. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 14o – fine
  • 16a–f – all fine
  • 20a - fine
  • 20b – fine, but you should perhaps switch the two citations round so that [20] comes before [23]
I have gone through all citations and ensured that all are in numerical order. Let me know if I missed any! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 20c and d - fine
  • 20e – fine, but as at 20b, I'd put the citations in numerical order
  • 22a–h – all fine
  • 23a and b – fine
  • 23c – I can't find anything in this source that refers to egg-smashing or brood parasitism. I can't check the other source, and I take it on trust that this is from it. If so it might be as well to delete the 23c reference.
Removed. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • 23d–h – all fine
  • 25 – fine
  • 32 – fine, but it's an 18-page article, and a specific page number (87, I think) would be helpful.
I have added the specific page number, good spot. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nothing of great moment there, but a couple of points that could do with checking and re-citing if necessary. I found no problems with close paraphrase: the main author of the article has shown great skill in conveying the import of the quoted sources in different words (and very readable prose, let me add). My comments about having citations in numerical order also apply to [5][19][3][10] in "Description". – Tim riley talk 10:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the source review! I've implemented or responded to most comments. Let me know if anything else needs to be done. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Fix ping @Tim riley: Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 00:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Good. I'm now happy to sign off this spot-check as satisfactory, in my judgement. Tim riley talk 08:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack

  • They have a distinctive white supercilium that sweeps to the nape of the neck. – It is important to use as few technical terms in the lead as possible. Can this be replaced with "eyebrows" or "stripe above the eyes" or something similar?
I originally wrote eyebrow, another reviewer asked that I change it. I will change it back to eyebrow however, as that is more accessible. Captain Eek