Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/May 2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 19 May 2024 [1].

Great cuckoo-dove[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I've nominated at FAC and I am still procrastinating on toco toucan, so we have this pigeon instead. It's somewhat better studied than most island species, but still pretty poorly-known; as always, the article covers pretty much everything ever written about the bird and is probably the most comprehensive resource on or off the web. AryKun (talk) 12:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM[edit]

  • More birds are always welcome! I ran the "expand citations" tool, which only seems to have removed two source links, which I guess were already accessible from their DOIs, just so you know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some context for the illustration, the caption was pretty bare bones, and added a higher res version.
  • No cladograms?
    • No cladograms of Reinwardtoena that I could find, just one or two that include one species from the genus as an outgroup that aren't particularly useful for the species page.
And its position is not just because it's basal to the rest, which would be interesting to show? FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really get what's supposed to mean. AryKun (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do these sources specifically that this species is used as an outgroup, or is it just basal to the other groups shown in the cladograms? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give subspecies for some for the image captions, but can't it be established for the rest? I see the remaining photos have coordinates showing where they were taken, could indicate subspecies?
    • Added ssp for photo of juvenile, didn't add it for the last photo because I don't think it's relevant.
Is it the same subspecies as that in the taxobox? I think it's relevant for comparative purposes, especially since you list it for all the other photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, same ssp, added in the caption now. AryKun (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could give location for photo captions, if that is relevant?
    • I only added the island for the juvenile photo because otherwise the caption sounds a bit brusque, I don't think it's necessary everywhere.
  • Perhaps rename "Status" to "Conservation status", for clarity?
    • Tweaked
  • Redirect all synonyms here.
    • Done.
  • Thanks, see responses above. AryKun (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the basis of a specimen from Ambon Island" Specify this is in Indonesia.
    • Done.
  • I think it would make sense to mention the etymology of the species name already when the naming is first mentioned in the first paragraogh, the reader has noidea you'll return to this latr,and I was puzzledatleast,as that's where you'd look for this information. Then when you mention the genus, you can just say something like "the generic name also referenced Reinwardt" or similar.
    • Most of our bird articles tend to follow the rough order of nomenclatural history→etymology→taxonomic relationships, which is what's followed here.
Hmmm, I'm not sure those are necessarily comparable, because most other recent bird FAs have not been about type species of a genus or monotypic genera. But not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link subspecies.
Seems to have been done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "t is very similar in appearance to the pied cuckoo-dove" Perhaps give its binomial in parenthesis here, considering the possible relation?
    • Done.
  • "The upper back, back" Reads a bit oddly, perhaps second back should be "rest of the back"?
    • Changed "upper back" to mantle.
  • "Its population has not been estimated" Could add "size" after population for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "per square kilometre" Could give a conversion.
    • Discussed in the GA review; this isn't the result of some survey or anything, just a rough estimate. Converting to sq mi gives a decimal that gives a sense of false precision, so I'm against it.
Hmmm, but this is not about giving a precise estimate, but to give readers unfamiliar with the metric system at least some idea of the area. The fact that it has now been brought up twice indicates that it's an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have a solution; any conversion makes the number seem excessively precise. I also think that familiarity doesn't matter because most people don't have a good handle on how big large areas are anyway, I couldn't tell you big a square kilometer or a square mile is if you asked me to mark it out.
A lot more people would know if there was some indication, though. But let's see if more reviewers bring it up; if they do, it's probably time to do something about it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preferring plants in the Araliaceae" Add "family" for clarity.
    • Done.
  • "Its typical courtship display consists of a deeply undulating flight, with the bird flying sharply upwards, spreading its wings and tail or clapping its wings together at the top of the flight, and descending sharply. Another reported display involves the bird flying up obliquely from a perch and then returning after flying in a wide circle, similar to the displays performed by Macropygia cuckoo-doves." Is this done by one sex, or do both do it? Quite unclear now.
    • None of the sources say anything about the sex of the bird doing the display.
  • The Distribution and habitat section could specify what countries the listed areas are located in.
    • Added for the Moluccas, left out for New Guinea because I think it's well-known enough to not need it.
  • "Fledglings begin picking food by" What is meant by "picking food"? Could just say "foraging" for clarity, now it reads as if they "choose" food.
    • Source says "pick on food items". Changed to foraging.
  • "sometimes joining flocks of other frugivores" Could specify these are birds, as you do in the intro.
    • Done.
  • "It is known to defend fruiting shrubs it is feeding on, an uncommon foraging behaviour among frugivorous birds" I don't think the last" frugivorous" is needed, as this is implied by the start of the sentence.
    • Removed.
  • Support - looks good, I added some responses above, but that shouldn't hold it back. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Known parasites of the species include the feather louse Columbicola taschenbergi[16] and Coloceras museihalense. – Since "louse" is singular but two species are mentioned, does this mean that the second is not a louse?
    • The second also is, but we don't have an article on its family, so I miss dit. Now tweaked.
  • Add legend to the range map.
    • Done.
  • R. r. griseotincta Hartert, EJO – We do not provide author initials in species names, or do we? Same for one other subspecies.
    • Just following the IOC; there's one other Hartert who authored three ssp and synonyms, so they added initials for clarity on the more famous Hartert.
  • Looks very comprehensive. More soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the description, you seem to describe bill colour of hatchlings only, but what is the bill colour of adults?
    • I managed to structure this exceptionally poorly; the bill's color is talked about after juvenile plumage, I don't know why I did that. I've moved all the bare parts descriptions together now.
  • I also wonder about structure in that section. The first paragraph is plumage followed by colour of feet; the second paragraph is plumage (again) followed by colour of face and iris. Maybe it makes sense to discuss the bare parts and plumage separately?
    • Done.
  • Its population size has not been estimated, but it is thought to be generally uncommon throughout its range, although it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas. – Here, the "although" somehow bites the "but" (both are referring to the first third of the sentence, but it seems the "although" refers to the second part starting with "but"). Maybe re-formulate as "Its population size has not been estimated; although it is thought to be generally uncommon throughout its range, it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas.". But there are many ways to write this.
    • Replaced with your wording.
  • The link to this FAC somehow disappeared from the article talk page?
    • The bot removed it for some reason, I've added it back.
  • Very sorry for the delay. This is everything I have (I also did the GA review, where my comments have already been addressed). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are free (various CC licenses). The sounds linked to are CC, but NC and/or ND, so can't be hosted on Commons; using an external link in a template for them is fine. Suggest to use "upright" for the portrait format images (why should they be so much larger than the landscape ones?) ALT text has been provided. —Kusma (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, I've altered the image sizes for portrait photos to make them smaller. AryKun (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Image review is passed. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo[edit]

Marking spot, will come back later once others have finished so I don't retread anything. grungaloo (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grungaloo:, FM and Gog are done with their reviews, so courtesy ping. AryKun (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grungaloo, everyone else is done with their reviews, so another ping. AryKun (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry AryKun, I won't be able to review this - I've been really busy off-wiki lately. I'll keep an eye out for future FACs from you though! grungaloo (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. AryKun (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Is there no publisher location for Gibbs et al?
    • Added.
  • Any images of R r brevis?
    • Only one of iNat and it's BY-NC.
  • "The feet are pink to purplish-red in adults." It would make sense to move this to the end of the previous paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "purplish pink". Should this be hyphenated?
    • Added hyphen.
  • 'the "slender-billed cuckoo dove" '. Why the quote marks?
    • It's a species complex that was split up, as mentioned later in the sentence. I thought there should be some difference bw the complex and the "good" species mentioned otherwise.
  • "but is also found in logged forest, secondary growth, and gallery forests on Biak." Is it only found in any of those three when on Biak, or just gallery forests?
    • All three, reworded.
  • "(377–4,593 ft)" seems spuriously accurate. As does "(3.9–16.4 ft)".
    • Rounded the first to three sig figs, the latter is appropriate as the original estimate also seemed to use two sig figs.
  • "115–1,400 m (377–4,590 ft)": The source is to the nearest 5 m; your conversion is to the nearest 0.3 of a metre. This is spuriously accurate.
  • "(3.9–16.4 ft)": Your second conversion is to 3 sig figs. More importantly, the source gives an accuracy to the nearest 100 mm; your conversion is to the nearest 30 mm. This is spuriously accurate.
  • Adjusted the sigfigs; the problem seems to be that the original values don't have a consistent number, so I've changed all the conversions to the lower number; however, afaik the way you handle sigfigs during conversion isn't by calculating whether you're accurate to x quantity, it's simply retaining the same number of sigfigs that the original measurement had.
When converting a sources figures one should rtain, broadly, the sources level of precision, or one is ORing a level of precision for which their is no support.
  • " It flies under the canopy". I am reading this as it only flies when under the canopy. Is that right?
    • Not only, but generally; tweaked the wording.
  • "is rather fast". What does "rather" fast mean?
    • I'm paraphrasing "graceful, slow wing-beats but flight is deceptively fast"; tweaked it slightly to further emphasize the contrast that the source makes, but "deceptively fast" isn't really a measurement of speed either.
Delete "rather".
Done.
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year and varies in different parts of its range." What is it that varies?
    • Season; reworded.
  • "Breeding occurs throughout the year ... On New Guinea, breeding seems to occur throughout the year"?
    • Reworded the first; it seems redundant, but I feel like both should be mentioned since breeding season is year round on both NG and its range as a whole, even though islands other than NG have a variable but not year-round breeding season. I can't really explain it well.
How you have it now seems fine to me.
  • "Nests may sometimes". "may" and "sometimes" seem redundant. Suggest "may" → 'are'.
    • Done.
  • "Young are brooded until 13 days after hatching". While "brooded" is a perfectly accurate word, it is not well known and almost certainly going to be confused with the more common usage meaning incubated.
    • I can't think of another word that has quite the same meaning; something like "cared for" would be inaccurate since parental care still occurs after brooding is over.
Ok. But perhaps add a Wikionary link.
Done.
  • "it can be locally common in hills and mountains." A picky point, but "in" a hill? Perhaps 'it can be locally common in hilly and mountainous areas'?
    • Done.
  • Elsewhere in the last paragraph, I am not convinced that "fairly" and "rather" are either encyclopedic or professional.
    • It's what the source says more or less; "Fairly common to common in hills of Seram" and "fairly common in Papua New Guinea". It's hard to make definitive statements about abundance without any quantitative estimates, so the sources use imprecise terms too.
Suggest deleting "fairly" and "rather".
Removed in one case, changed to "moderately" in another; that sounds more professional to my ears while still retaining the qualification.

That's all from me. A nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied inline. AryKun (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AryKun, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Is there a logic behind which source has an access date and which one doesn't? In particular, #3 and #7 aren't consistent in that regard. Have any other source here been consulted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles and books don't, web sources do. BOW is kind of an edge case, but the species accounts there are updated while retaining the same url, so I've added a date, even though the doi is technically enough to identify which edition of the species account I was citing. I've removed the date for #3. I've gone through all the sources on Google Scholar and BHL, as well any others I could locate; any that aren't cited here just don't have any new information to add. AryKun (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then, unless a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 15 May 2024 [2].

Mount Hudson[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Chile's most active volcanoes. Mount Hudson had several intense eruptions during the Holocene, the latest of which took place in 1991 and had substantial impacts on . A few notes: The table contains only cross-correlatable tephras; not all tephras are present at all sites hence the incompleteness. While the 1991 eruption is the best documented in its history, it isn't actually the most significant either in the volcano's history or its impact on humans in South America, hence why it gets only a little more coverage than the others. That and I think a detailed coverage might overwhelm the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by ZooBlazer[edit]

  • File:Cerro hudson.jpg - Is used in the infobox and has proper licensing, but could use alt text. The source link also appears to be broken/dead.

Two total images in the article, one being the map of Chile to mark the location of Mount Hudson. -- ZooBlazer 18:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT text added and source fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. The image review passes. -- ZooBlazer 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll review this but it'll probably be a few days - I've got a GA review and a FAR review to finish before I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is often erroneously considered the southernmost." - the statement in the source is " including Hudson, the southernmost in the Andean Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ).". This doesn't really support the footnote content here
    This one's a tough one - lots and lots of sources say that Hudson is the southernmost SVZ volcano. They are demonstrably wrong about this because Río Murta (volcano) is farther south still and is considered part of the SVZ, but it is obscure so I guess many sources just don't consider them. I think we need some formulation to point this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's only one or two sources that are clearly wrong, I usually just ignore them. But in this case, it sounds like a lot of sources make this error. Maybe It is sometimes considered the southermost ... [three or four of the higher-quality refs making this statement], but Rio Murta is part of the SVZ and is further source.[supporting reference]" if the references will support this outright? Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During eruptions, pyroclastic material and lava can melt the ice." - is this necessary? It seems, well, obvious
    Sometimes the ice is simply run over instead, so yes. Also, how much of the ice melts is important at times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that AVZ is the Austral Volcanic Zone but this is never explicitly stated
    Buh, not sure how I missed this. Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The composition of Hudson rocks diverges from that of other SVZ volcanoes" - is it known why?
    Probably b/c it lies just east of the triple junction. I am not sure that any of the sources says so explicitly, Weller 2015 and Kilian 1993 might. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we discuss the flora of the volcano, do any of the sources provide detail on the presence or absence of fauna?
    There probably is, but I haven't seen any source discussing any fauna relating to Hudson specifically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now; I'm ready for the eruption history material and will hopefully start back tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The closest tephra record to Hudson is the Laguna Miranda record 50 kilometres (30 mi), which shows on average one tephra layer every 225 years " - this feels like it is missing a word somewhere in the vicinity of the 50 kilometres
    Added word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thicknesses reach 4 to 20 centimetres (2 to 8 in),[110] thicker than deposits closer to the volcano" - do the sources say why? This seems unexpected
    Aye, sometimes ash layers have secondary thickness maxima. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "-21 (1971 AD)" in a Dates Before Present table. Is Present being calibrated at 1950?
    Yes, that's the radiocarbon calibration date.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The H2 eruption occurred about 4,200 years[j] ago." with the footnote stating "Older estimates of its age are 3600[107] or 3920 BP[17]". What does "older estimates" mean here? These estimates are for newer dates than the one given in the main text and of the five sources used for the sentence for the 4,200 bp age, only two are actually newer sources than the footnote sources. I'm not sure what "old estimates" means here
    It means that more recent dating estimates are about 4,200 years ago e.g this one. I don't like spelling out exact values b/c they tend to vary for every site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Not fluorosis, as is commonly reported.[155]" - I'm struggling to find this in the source although admittedly it is hard to look for it as all of the various tab on the page share the same URL
    It's the one at October 1991 (BGVN 16:10) in the "Bulletin Reports" tab. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chile Volcanoes (USGS)" - this external link redirects to a homepage now - can this be pointed to a page more immediately relevant to this volcano or should it be removed?
  • ""Cerro Hudson". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution." - this is used as a source so it should not be listed as an external link as well
  • "Mount Hudson at AGU" - this external link is a 404 deadlink
  • "Mount Hudson at VolcanoWorld" - I struggle to see how this external link clears the WP:ELNO hurdle
    Eh, removed them all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the best title for this article to be at? It looks like a number of the references use names other than Mount Hudson. A google scholar search (which of course has its limitations) has 794 results for "Cerro Hudson", 989 for "Hudson Volcano", and only 313 for "Mount Hudson"
    I have my doubts, a page move might be in order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting with the understanding that the article titling issue will be revisited after the FAC closes, since it is not recommended to move an article during the FAC process. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Mostly just prose. Haven't checked sources.

  • Check for duplicate links throughout.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we using BCE/CE or BC/AD? It doesn't really matter but you should be consistent.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some terms might benefit from an explanatory gloss (eg "lahar")
    Done, but I'm afraid that I am not that great at spotting technical terms that require explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is technically the correct name of the volcano as "Hudson" is the name of a different mountain. Huh? That caught me by surprise a bit. I feel some elaboration is needed.
    I have moved it down to a footnote. I don't know of any map of local toponyms from that time and it's just one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how its volcanicness if that's not a word it should be! was discovered? Your footnote says there was an unpublished report in 1970 but doesn't mention the method of discovery.
    Sans access to the unpublished report, we can't. I figure that geologists went there and noted that the structure was a caldera, one year before the eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With more than 55 eruptions during the past 22,000 years,[40] Mount Hudson is the most active volcano in Patagonia I don't think that's a strictly grammatical use of "with"
    Is the reformulation better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise The tephra was emplaced northeastward, with thicknesses exceeding 50 centimetres (20 in) which is what Tony calls Noun plus -ing.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and was preceded by increasing hydrothermal activity.[174] It was preceded by several days Repetition of "preceded" and generally repetitive sentence structure; can the sentences be merged?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It began on October 26 What did? The eruption or the earthquake activity? Could be read as either.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three vents formed in the southern sector of the caldera, with ash columns rising see above about noun plus-ing
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, as of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities on the Chilean side close to the volcano largely ignores volcanic hazards. "however" is a word to watch because it's often editorialising (as it is here); repetition of "municipal".
    Removed the however, but I am not sure what to replace the first municipal with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there much to say on its proximity to other volcanoes or their relative activity levels in relation to each other?
    Not really much beyond what's currently there - Hudson is the most active volcano in the area, and only Lautaro has unambiguous historical activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm satisfied that my quibbles have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

I assumed so. In which case could we say. Perhaps add 'during the past 100,000 years.'
Don't think that works without OR - it tends to be an unstated assumption. Every mountain in the world was once part of a volcano during the Hadean, and yet we don't call them all "volcanoes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the sources, but currently it is an inaccurate statement. And possibly unsourced(?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Individual Hudson eruptions are often cited among the largest (e.g doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.03.007 for H1 and doi:10.1007/s004450050193 for them in general) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any mentions of specific Hudson eruptions in the first of those. The second has "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" which does not support your claim.
It's in figure 4 of the first source. Also, the claim is cited in the article, to doi:10.1007/s00410-009-0426-1 and is plausible - Cerro Blanco (volcano) is the only confirmed Holocene VEI7 eruption and there aren't that many VEI6 eruptions in Holocene South America - Michinmahuida, Huaynaputina and Quilotoa are the only other volcanoes cited by GVP. I've changed the lead so that it matches the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I requested two weeks ago. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four large eruptions took place 17,300–17,440 (H0), 7,750 BP (H1), 4,200 BP (H2) and in 1991 AD (H3)". Is there a BP missing from after "17,300–17,440"? Add 'in' after "place". Link BP at fist mention. Are "H0" etc the names of the eruptions? If so, say so.
    All done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice phrasing.
  • "The volcano has the form of ..." Name it in full, the last volcano mentioned was "south of Hudson is a smaller volcano".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one image? Are there no other free use images available?
    Not that many, as the volcano is so remote; commons:Category:Cerro Hudson is pretty empty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think File:Map chile volcanoes.gif could be used in this article. Volcanoguy 14:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hudson's GVP entry also has USGS photos that could be uploaded on Commons to use in this article. Volcanoguy 16:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding File:Map chile volcanoes.gif, possibly, but I wonder what the inclusion criteria are. Put one other image in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    File:TOMS SO2 time nov03.png could be used in the 1991 eruption section. The caption could be something like "1991 eruption sulfur dioxide emission levels compared with other volcano eruptions from 1979 to 2003". Volcanoguy 18:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Currently there is not much discussion of sulfur and Hudson in the article. I don't think this volcano is considered a major sulfur source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "accessed either from the sea through the Huemules River". I don't think you mean "through" the river.
  • "or by land through the Blanco River". Likewise.
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi)". Should that be square kilometres?
  • "and covers an area of about 300 kilometres (190 mi) ... and it covers an area of about 300 square kilometres (120 sq mi)." Duplication?
    Merged the previous sentence, as the information was duplicated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Cerros Hudson 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) south of the volcano". I thought Cerros Hudson was another name for Mount Hudson.
  • The top of the infobox has "Cerro Hudson". Is this the same as Cerros Hudson, and why is this name not mentioned in the lead?
    No, Cerros is a plural form of Cerro, not the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. What about the other question. "Cerro Hudson" is at the top of the infobox but not mentioned in the lead.
Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Subduction-en.svg or similar would be helpful at the start of the Geology section.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Tres Montes Fracture Zone to its south that forms the northern boundary of the slab window." This doesn't form a whole sentence. (Or make sense to me.)
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The subducted plate is still young". Is it known how young? Ie, when did it form?
    Pretty unclear from the sources; In agreement with this geometric model of the plates, the subducted segments of the Chile Ridge at about 6 and 3 Ma would be located close to HV and the surrounding monogenetic cone from Gutierrez 2005 isn't clear on whether that's the age of the plate there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may be responsible for its unusually high activity." The activity of Hudson, the triple junction or the plate? Ie, what does "its" refer to?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to have that single sentence paragraph? It looks as if it could run on quite happily from the previous paragraph.
    No, merged it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the late Pleistocene and Holocene ... emplaced during the Cretaceous-Neogene" and any others. Could we be told the age of their ranges at first mention.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Hudson rocks define a potassium-rich" What does "define" mean here? Is there a less specialist way of describing it?
    Went for "are". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity, explaining why the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time". I don't understand: "deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity" means that activity increased, while "the volumes of the intense Hudson eruptions have decreased over time" means it decreased which is it? And why should deglaciation have any effect?
    'cause deglaciation occurred at the beginning of this period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the response. Possibly my queries were unclear. They are:
  • Why should deglaciation have any effect on a volcano's activity.
  • In this case did the deglaciation a) enhance volcanic activity or b) decrease the volumes of intense eruptions? On the face of it, these are opposites. If deglaciation caused both - which is what the article claims - I think some level of explanation is necessary; especially regarding the mechanism.
  • Sorry, I meant that if eruptions are enhanced by deglaciation, it's not a contradiction if they decline after deglaciation. The sentence is just a little unfortunate syntactically; I've rewritten it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearer, if still not actually giving any hypothesis as to why deglaciation may have enhanced volcanic activity, but I guess that's optional.
I've added a source discussing a mechanism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1991 Plinian eruption was larger than the 1971 event". This seems a strange way to introduce H3, when a reader has not been told anything about the 1971 event - and so the 1991 event being larger does not mean anything.
    Recasted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The H3 event should have the date it occurred in the first sentence about it.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 131: should it not be to page 27 as well as 25?
    Cite 131 currently contains page 9, did it shift in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" which is cited to Naranjo et al page 25.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seismic and fumarolic activity continued for the next months" Given "Durante estos meses no se registró actividad eruptiva, aunque continuó una debil actividadfumarólica" couldn't we be a little more specific?
    According to the page, there were also seismic phenomena in the following months. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – and any volcano of the southern Andes". This does not match the lead.
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Naranjo and Stern have "This eruption, which is considered to be the largest for Hudson and possibly for any volcano in the southern Andes during the Holocene" so there would seem to be disagreement among the sources as to whether it is definitively the largest regional Holocene eruption. The article should reflect this.
Hmm. The problem I see is that this source isn't the only one and gives no specific justification for the "possibly". Certainly, most sources discussing the impacts of volcanism in Patagonia say that H1 was the most significant (not necessarily the largest) volcanic event during the Holocene there and the only comparable eruption (MIC1 of Michinmahuida) has smaller volume estimates. I think the problem is that we don't have any sources that are dedicated to volcano to volcano tephra volume comparisons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The lead now reads "the second is among the most intense volcanic eruptions in South America during the Holocene." The article obviously needs to match this, so how about 'The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – which was among the most intense in South America during the Holocene ...' or similar?
Added something like this, but I am not sure that I like the sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "trachydacite/trachyrhyolite". The MoS: "Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash". See MOS:SLASH for more details and suggested alternatives.
    Unfortunately, it is not clear from the sources why sometimes trachydacite and sometimes trachyrhyolite. So we can't do without a slashed word here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to. See MOS:ANDOR. ('which consist mostly of trachydacite, trachyrhyolite or a mixture of the two'?)
No, because the definitions partially overlap and I can't be sure that they aren't referring to the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while (subglacial) lava flows". I suggest removing the parentheses.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 84,000 people live around Hudson." If we also cite page 40, can we be more precise and say 'About 84,000 people live within 50 km of Hudson'?
    We can, I guess. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It appears to consist of two nested calderas." The source says (my translation) "two or even three".
    My impression is that most other sources only credit Hudson with one or two calderas, and the more detailed ones on the local structure prefer two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite "It appears to consist of two nested calderas" to a source which says (my translation) "two or even three caldera ... two or, possibly, three caldera".
Well, that's interesting. doi:10.1007/s00445-014-0815-9 says that there are two calderas, but cites Orihashi which mentions "two or three". Anyhow, it seems like I was mistaken here; so it now says two or three. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Which may be an overestimate." If "yielding more than 20 cubic kilometres (4.8 cu mi)[m] of tephra" is an estimate, could we say so in the text.
    This is another case where sources disagree. My impression is that Bertrand 2014's objection hasn't been picked up widely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources disagree, we need to explicitly say so.
Hence the parenthetical - there is that disagreement, but not enough to put it down as an equal opinion. For example, doi:10.1007/s00445-015-0991-2 knows about Bertrand 2014 and yet uses the Weller estimate. These sources too cite the large estimate despite post-dating Bertrand 2014. I think the objection needs to be mentioned, but it'd be undue weight to say it in text. If there is a better way to present a situation where 1 source has a substantial objection and yet 3-4 keep going with the previous estimate, though, I am listening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Nice work, as always. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The largest Holocene eruption of Hudson – and of any volcano of the southern Andes – took place at Hudson in 7,750". You don't need to say "of Hudson" and "at Hudson". Suggest deleting the latter.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy[edit]

  • The volcano type for Mount Hudson is inconsistent. In the article, Hudson is described as a caldera but in the infobox stratovolcano is given as the volcano type.
    I hate dealing with infoboxes, fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice throughout the article that Mount Hudson is simply referred to as Hudson. Isn't this a bit informal?
    I've seen plenty of academic articles shortening the name. Besides, as you can see a few sections above, the article will be due a rename after the FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction
  • "Hudson has the form of a 10 kilometres (6 mi) wide volcanic caldera filled with ice." 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) wide → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2-mile)
  • "covered a large area in Chile and neighbouring Argentina" - would "in" be better replaced with "of"?
    No, because while the area is large, it is not a large portion of Chile. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
  • "Hudson rises from the Patagonian Batholith, a 1,000-kilometre (600 mi) long formation" - formation (geology) redirects to geological formation which is about stratigraphy rather than intrusions.
    The Patagonian Batholith is also a stratigraphic formation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been able to find any sources describing it as such. Volcanoguy 17:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You also checked Spanish ones? One would expect that these intrusions (which are grouped together as an unit) being called in a certain way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the Liquine-Ofqui Fault Zone (LOFZ) that runs parallel to the volcanic belt" - I think "that" should be "which" here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Composition and magma plumbing system
  • "The cone lavas include MORB and ocean island basalt components" - why not spell out MORB (mid-ocean ridge basalt) since it isn't used elsewhere in the article?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possible along with the assimilation of crustal material" - should "possible" be "possibly" here?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt at about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) depth" - this would read better if it were changed to "Magmas ascending into Hudson halt about 6 to 24 kilometres (4 to 15 mi) underground".
  • "and is then stored at a few kilometres depth" - like above, it would read better if it were "and is then stored a few kilometres underground".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate and vegetation
  • "Winds usually blow from the north or northwest and are strong, easterly winds are rare." Should the comma in this sentence be a semicolon instead?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
  • "has yielded ages of 120,000-100,000 years" - en dash.
  • "from the Pleistocene-Holocene transition time" - en dash.
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holocene
  • "erupted rocks have grown less mafic" - I think you mean the rocks have become less mafic; rocks don't "grow".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having erupted 55 time during the past 22,000 years" - time should be times.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some tephra layers in the table have footnotes while others don't? The dates appear to be missing sources completely.
    'cause some of them are sourced in the column header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H1 eruption
7,750 BP
  • "The tephra deposits have three layers," - I think this comma should be a semicolon.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
H3 eruption
1991 AD
  • "a phreatomagmatic eruption commenced on August 8 at 18:20" - 18:20 UTC?
    Source does not specify; I figure it's Atlantic Time Zone though as that's Chile's timezone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir at 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) depth" - this would read better as "entered a trachyandesitic reservoir 2 to 3 kilometres (1.2 to 1.9 mi) underground".
    Eh, I think in this case the first formulation works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Part of the ice cap melted." - this sentence would be better off as part of the previous sentence using a semicolon.
    Not sure that it is germane to that sentence, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tephra fell along two axes: A narrow northern one" - the "A" doesn't need to be capitalized here does it?
    I think it should, after a colon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the southeastern one by the Plinian one" - I would replace "Plinian one" with "Plinian phase" to avoid repetition.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other historical activity
  • "On the morning of August 12, 1971 tremors" - missing a comma after 1971.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "between 0 to 10 kilometres (0 to 6 mi) depth" - I would use "underground" instead of "depth" here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hazards
  • "the highest hazards exist in the Huemules and Sorpresas valley" - I think valley should be plural.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2023 the municipal planning of the municipalities" - comma after 2023.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've nominated the Big Raven Formation article for FA. Volcanoguy 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • SC - a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 07:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the one comment from me: ”and Holocene[b],”: why is the note before the punctuation? - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'cause it refers only to the word, not the entire sentence. It's a style thing I have invented for when I am using footnotes to explain a word and citations to source content, as a way to distinguish between the two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest it goes after the punctuation, per the MOS? There's no guideline that suggests this is an accepted practice, it's not clear what the intent is from the text, and the day this does up as TFA, it'll be corrected to the more accepted version straight away. - SchroCat (talk) 07:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice piece of work - enjoyable read. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

Will pick this up shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spot checks not done
  • You've got some shouty caps at 67
  • Your capitalisation goes a little awry in places. Most seem to follow the format of Barr et al and are in sentence case, for example, while Garvey, Koffman, Lachowycz (and a few others) all capitalise each first letter
    Mm, not sure what capitalization you are speaking of - the sfn template does truncate long author lists at 3. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I think I must have phrased it clumsily. I'm talking about the capitalisation of the titles. So, for example, most of the journals or papers follow the sentence case format you use with Fernández et al: i.e. "Relationships between terrestrial animal exploitation", but for the following, there is a different form of capitalisation used:
    Garvey et al, the title capitalises each word: "Prehistoric Human Occupation of Southern Andean Forests"
    Ditto for Koffman et al: "Abrupt Changes in Atmospheric Circulation During the..."
    Ditto for Lachowycz et all: "Revision of the Post-Glacial Explosive Eruption History"
    Ditto for Stern
    These should be in the same format as the others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I get it now. That's because the sources themselves use the unusual capitalization - "Prehistoric Human Occupation of Southern Andean Forests: Evidence from Alero Largo, Aysén, Chilean Patagonia" for doi:10.1017/laq.2022.18 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think consistency trumps the original formatting as far as FAC goes, so as we're not changing the meaning to anything, it's best to make the capitalisation consistent. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mm, not sure that changing the capitalization of sources is part of the consistency requirements of FAC, except for fixing allcaps titles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fairly sure it is (I've been picked up on it enough times when I've inadvertently mixed up the style): This guidance says "Sourcing information should be presented in a consistent and uniform style"; that generally means that each type of source must be consistently formatted (ie. all books formatted similarly, all journals formatted similarly, etc). We can always drop a question on FAC talk to get outside input, if you want? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SchroCat: Done Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since most of the comments appear to endorse the changes, I've implemented them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from that, the formatting is consistent
  • Just checking, is the name Mateo, Mateo correct?
    Seems like, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wider searches for additional sources show no missing sources (with the caveat that I am a generalist, with no specialist knowledge of the subject)

That's my lot. – SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Jo-Jo. This is now a pass for the source review (and pinging David Fuchs to confirm this). Thanks to you both. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat is the source review a pass from you? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, not yet. There's the question of the consistency of capitals in the sources. Do you have a view on the point? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat I've always tried to match them personally, and I generally agree with the guidance. WP doesn't care what type of consistency you use with referencing as long as it is consistent. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:59, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that was my impression too. - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 12 May 2024 [3].

Jacques Offenbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Together with marvellous colleagues I've got numerous French composers to FA and I hope the time has come to get Offenbach to join them. He's known to the world at large for the can-can, but is notable for much, much more. As always at FAC, comments, quibbles and recommendations for improvements will be welcomed. Tim riley talk 19:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a placeholder as yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Offenbach quietly shifted the emphasis of his work from being a cellist who also composed to being a composer who played the cello.[43]" I would suggest adding an "also" after the second "who" to increase the parallelism.
  • "The Champs-Élysées in 1855 were not yet the grand avenue laid out by Baron Haussmann in the 1860s, but an unpaved allée" Are we sure on the paving? this, though perhaps not the highest quality source, seems to contradict.
  • Faris is unequivocal: "The site was on the Champs-Elysées (Baron Haussmann had not yet redeveloped Paris, and the present avenue des Champs-Elysées was an allée, planted but unpaved)". Even today you can get your shoes very mucky walking down that part of the Champs-Elysées when going to lunch at e.g. Ledoyen. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Tuileries palace" Even with the decapitalisation craze, this one has survived, at least according to the article title. Perhaps the storming has not yet recurred.
  • "(ostensibly to Roman mythology but in reality to Napoleon and his government, generally seen as the targets of its satire)" This is a rather long parenthetical and perhaps should be put in plain prose. Also, did Janin mistake the target of the work, and was annoyed at how Roman gods were portrayed, or was he outraged because of the irreverence toward the Emperor?
  • Redrawn. It is clear that Janin was genuinely shocked at the treatment of the gods of classical literature. I don't know that he was all that keen on the emperor: his paper had liberal leanings. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward to it. Thanks for the above so far. Tim riley talk 15:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but has not subsequently been revived as often as Offenbach's best-known operettas.[111]" Perhaps simplify to "but has been revived less often than Offenbach's best-known operettas".
  • Should the lyrics for the quintet for the kings be in italics? Also other lyrics.
  • I'm seeking expert advice on this. I think probably not, but shall await further input. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Offenbach often composed amidst noise and distractions." It's unclear what this means as the rest of the paragraph doesn't touch on it. Are these the normal noises and distractions one would expect from family life in a large city? If that's all, is it worth mentioning?
  • Probably not. I suppose the idea was to emphasise that Offenbach was anything but an ivory tower composer, but you're right: it doesn't add much, and I've zapped it. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wagner, ignoring Berlioz, retaliated by writing some unflattering verses about Offenbach" Are we talking about correspondence or something more public?
  • The latter I'm pretty sure – Wagner wasn't one to keep his thoughts private – but the source doesn't actually say. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Largo al factotum" consider a link.
  • Done. (Never crossed my mind that a single number from The Barber might have its own article.) Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most grateful, Wehwalt. Warmest thanks for your input. Tim riley talk 12:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Enjoyable read.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Offenbach-mentors.jpg needs a US tag, as do all of its source files
    • Serves me right for relying on Commons! I should know better by now. All PD old. Replaced image with new one duly tagged (I hope) Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Young_Offenbach.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag
  • Doesn't look like any changes have been made on this one? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some genius has moved the image from Wikipedia to Commons since yesterday, omitting the tag you ask for. It had the wp:old tag when in the former. I do not know how to add a US tag to a Commons file.
  • File:Bouffes-Parisiens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hortense-Schneider-cropped.jpg, File:Offenbach_and_son_Auguste.jpg, File:Offenbach-by-André-Gill.jpg, File:Punch_-_Offenbach_elegy.png
    • Replaced the Bouffes-Parisiens and Schneider image and blitzed the Punch image (as discussed on the article talk page); the others now tagged. Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Halevy-Meilhac-Strauss-Sullivan.jpg: second source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced. Thank you, as ever, Nikkimaria, for your sharp eye. I hope all is now tickety-boo. Tim riley talk 09:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afterthought: Nikkimaria, I have replaced the Punch image with an 1860s photo of Offenbach. Would you mind checking that out as well? Tim riley talk 10:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Contes-d'Hoffmann-1881.jpg is tagged as missing author info.
  • File:Offenbach_and_Strauss.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Talk page discussion favours removal in any case. Tim riley talk 07:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "As he was by then the permanent cantor of the local synagogue, Isaac could". Optional: 'As Isaac was by then the permanent cantor of the local synagogue, he could'.
  • The very last sentence of Early years needs a citation.
  • It has two – in the footnote. Seems OTT to duplicate them in the main text. Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual convention is to cite the text rather than have a reader chase citations in a footnote in the hope that one of them also gives the main article source. (It never occurred to me that that might be the case here.) If this causes a perceived redundancy, so be it. On a similar note "a play on words loosely translated as "I am certainly the Father, but each of them is my Son and Wholly Spirited" " ends with a footnote but neither it nor the main text are cited.
OK. Belt and braces it shall be. As to the explanation of the French pun, it is mine, I think. If you decree that it must be blitzed if uncited I shall comply, but it might leave the non-Francophone reader puzzled. Tim riley talk 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The MoS says "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear with a translation into English, preferably a modern one." It does allow the possibility of "When editors themselves translate foreign text into English" but makes no suggestions as to how to cite this. Lacking a translation in a source(?) I am personally happy to not cite it on a 'sky is blue' basis.
  • "he and the principal cellist played alternate notes of the printed score". Sheer brilliance! :-)
  • Between 1835 and 1844 the narrative is date free. Any chance of inserting one or two? Especially towards the start of the paragraph beginning "Among the salons".
  • Is there a link for "programmed", or could you add a brief explanation. I have no idea what it means, other than that it probably isn't the obvious Programming (music). Program music?
  • This comment surprised me. The first definition of the verb in Chambers is "to include something in a programme; to schedule". I think WP:OVERLINK would prevent our linking such an everyday term to Wiktionary. I've changed to "played", which I'm not wild about, but is the verb used in the source (infelicitously in my view as conductors don't play anything themselves). Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the comtesse de Vaux's 200 guests". Should that be an upper-case C?
  • Not in French usage. French capitalisation is expressly designed to confuse the innocent Anglo-Saxon. Tim riley talk 08:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It succeeds. I am unconvinced of the relevance of French usage in an English-language article, but let it pass.
I suppose we could call her the Countess de Vaux, if you want it in English, but she's comtesse in all the English sources as well as the French ones. Tim riley talk 12:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to be Nelsonian about this case.
  • "which had opened the previous year". The year previous to when?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "shortly after the first performance of the Mozart piece". I am not sure that the last four words are necessary.
  • "gained much popularity where the duet of the two gendarmes became a favourite number in England and France". This doesn't quite work for me grammatically. (I think it is your use of "where" that is throwing me off.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I perpetrated this, though I should have spotted it. Now tweaked. Tim riley talk 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prussia's crushing victory at Sedan (1870)". Perhaps 'at Sedan in September' or 'at Sedan that September'? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from the decade have remained among his best known". Minor suggestion "the" → 'this'?
  • "working on lines agreed with him." Lines as in the words in the script (learning ones lines) or as working under Offenbach's direction (working along the same lines)?
  • Any particular reason for using ; rather than the more usual section headers?
  • Not sure about that. I don't know if it will help more readers than it irritates. They may reasonably expect to be taken to an article on Offenbach's Ave Maria rather than the non-musical RC prayer. Tim riley talk 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the text read 'The Ave Maria', with Ave Maria either in italics or quote marks, I would take your point. Having no idea what an Ave Maria is, or was(?), I typed it into another window out of interest. It would be nice to spare other readers the bother.
Done. Tim riley talk 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magisterial. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog. We had an offline exchange about the "lang" templates, and I'd be glad if you could spare the time to check that they are OK here. Tim riley talk 16:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some. It started to get a bit robotic, so I shall return when I am feeling fresher. You will want to check that I haven't broken or mutilated anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mention this with trepidation, but shouldn't La Vie parisienne have a lower-case v? And its Wikipedia article be retitled? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer to lower case the Vie, but, as I say above, French capitalisation is expressly designed to have Englishmen sticking straws in their hair: if you can spare five minutes, have a gander at this. Tim riley talk 16:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the International Music Score Library Project, whom one might assume know about such things. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now La vie parisienne following the capitalisation in Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Tim riley talk 07:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do née and né need to be in italics? Are they not ordinary English words? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in my opinion, but remove the italics and wait to see how long it is before someone rushes in to put them back. Fowler (current edition) italicises the word; Chambers doesn't and the OED is all over the place about it. Tim riley talk 17:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) It was an open question. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The MoS (at MOS:NEE) says not. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Draken Bowser[edit]

What a lovely read. I'll attempt a source review this weekend, unless someone beats me to it.

In the meantime:

  • Optional: "Offenbach's (or) the his earnings from his orchestral work enabled him" to avoid his .. his .. him
  • "the government lifted the licensing restrictions on the number of performers"
  • Looks a bit odd to me without the definite article. Tim riley talk 11:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the scores usually performed and recorded were not composed by Offenbach, but were arranged by Carl Binder and Eduard Haensch" - Seems to conflate composing and arranging, could it be made more clear?

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start a conflict between reviewers (the process is arduous enough as it is), but I unfortunately can't stomach the rewrite of He thought it politic to revert temporarily to the name Jacob. So I guess I'm gonna have to. :) Draken Bowser (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think is wrong with the revised version? It conforms with the source. Tim riley talk 08:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the new one is ok, I just really liked the phrasing of the old version. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phew! That's a relief. I agree with you, but I think the revised text will do. Thank you for keeping an eye on the continuing review. Tim riley talk 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review[edit]
Spot check

Fotnoote numbers taken from [4] (as of writing equal to current version), source-to-prose comparisons to current version.

  • 8 The move to Cologne is mentioned on p. 13
  • Re-reading my comment I feel like I was trying to be as vague as humanly possible: we need p. 13 to verify the year they moved. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • 66 Check
  • 79 Check
  • 82 Check
  • 98 I think we need p. 39 for Despite problems with the libretto.. For hotchpotch of romantic and mythological themes I'm not sure which page to use. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor I. It isn't my addition and I'll blitz it if you think fit. Tim riley talk 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to axe the second one, which is a shame, it's so nicely put. Let's add p. 39 and keep the part about the libretto. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added citations for both statements (Gammond) Tim riley talk 08:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 117 Check
  • 133 I couldn't find his name in the archived version. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the world's most intuitive website, but he's there if you poke about. I could just quote one of the books, but I think this is more helpful to the reader who wants to follow it up. Tim riley talk 16:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brain catching up with eyes! I've added a book reference to the online one. Tim riley talk 09:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 155 Check - Since footnote 155 cites all three pages, we could remove the second iteration of the note, leaving only the one at the end of the sentence.
  • 157 Check
  • 185 Alter range to 75–77 (includes 1864 and popularity)
  • Done
  • 191 Check
  • 202
    Almeida: the sentence starts with one word on xi, is it customary to include this or not? Debussy is mentioned on page xvii.
  • Faris: I might be confused, but the source does not seem to substantiate the specific claim.
  • Unfortunately Almeida doesn't verify "Bizet", is he mentioned as a fan of Offenbach's in one of the other sources? Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 203 Check
  • 206 "..same kind."
  • Not sure of your meaning. The quote is accurate. Tim riley talk 19:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see - it's incomplete. Now completed. Glad you spotted that: thank you. Tim riley talk 20:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My French liaison is unavailable for the next few days, I might re-roll those. Also, is there a way to read The Times through the Wikipedia library – NewspaperARCHIVE.com omits the last century? Draken Bowser (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. The Times archives are available online to most users in Britain via their local libraries, but one can't put in a url because each local authority library has its own url access address. Tim riley talk 18:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is: you can access through Gale (https://www-galepages-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/wikipedia, if you have access), - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's worth knowing for future reference, thank you SchroCat. Tim riley talk 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great resource, thanks! Added some inquiries regarding 8, 98, 133 and 202. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall

The selection of book sources seems appropriate and include works from reputable publisher. The shortened footnotes are used consistently and all refer to works listed as sources. Newspaper and magazine sources are used sparingly to add spice. The spot-check revealed only minor issues, mostly about citing this or that page. There was no hint of close paraphrasing. I'm gonna call this a pass. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work on the source review and for your support. Tim riley talk 17:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schrocat[edit]

Support. A lovely read that passes all the FA criteria, and then some. Just one rather minor comment from me: you have three montages: in the first you have "Early influences: Luigi Cherubini (l) and Fromental Halévy (top);" in the other two you have "clockwise from top left". Of the two 'clockwise' ones, one is in brackets, the other is not. Is there a rationale behind the three different formats? – SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SchoCat. That's very kind. I agree consistency is wanted, but am not sure which of the three formats to choose. What think you? Tim riley talk 10:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal preference would be for the bracketed "clockwise from top left", but that's just a personal view. I don't think the MOS proscribes any particular version in this case. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me, and done. Thank you. Tim riley talk 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC[edit]

Resolved
  • Can we give a date for the lead image, even if approximate?
  • The Bibliothèque nationale de France, from where the image comes, gives the publication date (well after Offenbach's death) but not the date it was taken. It was uploaded as from the 1860s, but an IP on the article talk page questioned this, and I concurred. I know which decade I think it's from (the 1870s), but I have no proof. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Cologne, Kingdom of Prussia,: something about "Kingdom of Prussia" here reads oddly to me: I think it's that it's the formal/political name rather than the geographic one. Compare "Dublin, Irish Republic": I think we'd more naturally say "Dublin, [then] in the Irish Republic".
  • I think this is all right. We often say things like "Madras, British India". Geographically Cologne is nowhere near Prussia though as a fall-out from the Congress of Vienna (Round 2) Prussia bagged it. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "Cologne, Prussia" would be as wrong as "Mauritius, France". Happy with this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 1835 to 1855 he earned his living as a cellist, achieving international fame, and as a conductor: do I take the correct implication that he was not famous as a conductor?
  • he produced at least 18 full-length operettas, as well as more one-act pieces: MOS:NUM would probably like "eighteen" in words for consistency (plus, most style guides advise writing numbers under twenty-one in words anyway).
  • I'm all for this and will gladly alter forthwith, but my impression is that most guides go for words up to ten and then digits thereafter. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do we give the title of The Tales of Hoffmann in English but most of the others (e.g. Orphée aux enfers) in French?
  • I should gladly give them all in French, but our WP article uses the English title. So, I admit, does our article on Orphée aux enfers, but usage is more finely balanced for that title, whereas in fifty-odd years of opera-going I have never heard any English speaker speak of "Les contes d'Hoffmann". Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His works from this period included: I would use the present tense here, as his works from this period still include these things -- the past tense to me implies that the situation changed.
  • Struck off on the 2 December 1834: presumably, this was written in French, which uses the definite article here: English generally doesn't.
  • Not sure that's entirely true, but we can certainly omit the article if wanted. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of Offenbach's early compositions were played by the fashionable conductor Louis Antoine Jullien.: what does played mean in this context -- I'm not sure that conductors generally play music (rather than, well, conducting it), unless he was doing so in his free time?
  • Ha! How funny you add this. Please see my comments on this very point in answer to Gog the Mild above. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to defer to a WP:HQRS here, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offenbach as a young cello virtuoso, drawing by Alexandre Laemlein from 1850: I would use a colon rather than a comma here, as he isn't drawing in the picture.
  • the work was exceptionally well received: to me, exceptionally sets up a high bar, given that it's taken as read that this is going to be a work from the top tier of its genre: I'm not totally convinced that the body text really indicates that its reception was exceptionally positive (that is, remarkable even by the standards of beloved operas).
  • It would be properly described as a smash-hit, but that's a bit informal for the dignified prose of our encyclopaedia. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree, but I'm still not sure the body text is quite as effusive as the lead. I'd be happier if we had some way of comparing it against other very-well-received shows. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first production ran for 228 performances, at a time when a run of 100 nights was considered a success. Albert Lasalle, in his history of the Bouffes-Parisiens (1860), wrote that the piece closed in June 1859 – although it was still performing strongly at the box-office – "because the actors, who could not tire the public, were themselves exhausted". Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant: that first fact in particular would be an excellent addition to the article body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the article on the opera (I put it there). My feeling is that it's a bit too detailed for the Life-and-Works article, but I am biddable. Tim riley talk 10:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you: my concern here is simply MOS:LEAD, that the phrasing of exceptionally well-received in the lead is not a reflection of what's currently in the body. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well! Done Tim riley talk 13:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:NEE, the word should be linked on at least first use: using the template would help here.
  • Strangely I have had, above, a precisely opposite view, contending, rightly I think, that né and née are now good English words. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might be, but we often explain or link terms that might be unknown to some readers, even if familiar to most. The MoS is pretty clear here: for name changes due to marriage, they may also use née (feminine) and né (masculine) followed by the surname, provided the term is linked at first occurrence. (emphasis mine). I'm not sure I can wear an IAR argument here that's simply "we don't like what the MoS says": as far as I can see, there's no consideration at work here that wouldn't apply to all articles using the term. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isaac ... needed all his eloquence to persuade Cherubini even to give Jacob an audition: this is nicely written, but feels a bit flowery for me in an encyclopaedia.
  • I'd gladly consider an alternative phrasing if you suggest one. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd go for something really boring like "Isaac persuaded Cherubini to give Jacob an audition", and then explain, as we have here, why he took persuading. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The boy's age and nationality were both obstacles to admission: I'm not sure I quite understand the significance of the nationality here, given the footnote that immediately follows, and the fact that Cherubini was quite clearly not French.
  • I don't know if Cherubini himself had French nationality, but the question was whether aspirants who were foreign and under age could be admitted. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we immediately follow with a footnote saying Yon notes that ... foreign nationality ... was not such an obstacle to enrolment as a student. Either the body text or the footnote seems to be overstating the degree to which nationality was or wasn't a problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the comtesse de Vaux: should she have a link (perhaps an ILL), and even a name?
I was hoping you or your sources would know who she was (beyond the title), but perhaps not. French Wikipedia (whose article on Offenbach seems to be simply a translation of this one) doesn't seem to know or have much for us to work with. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How very flattering if the French WP article is just ours translated! Faris and Harding both mention the comtesse's salons and her support of Offenbach (Harding hints, without substantiating, that her interest in her protégé may have been thought by some to be more than musical) but that's all they say about her. Yon says that she was the sister of one of France's leading notaries, Edme Ernest Foucher, but that's all I can find. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah: that would make her this lady (Sophie née Foucher), who was indeed comtesse de Vaux. If you can read German, there's a bit on her on p45 here. I think at least getting her actual name in would be useful, as many people have held that title and none of them are particularly famous by it (as opposed to, say, Lord Byron -- in most normal cases we'd name e.g. the Prince of Wales in addition to the title). UndercoverClassicist T·C
Read German? Up to a point, Lord Copper. Frightful language, did it up to O-level and vowed never to tangle with it again. But you're right and I'll add her given name to the text. Done, and Schwarz added to sources. Tim riley talk 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Hérminie d'Alcain (1827–1887): per MOS:BIRTHDATE, we shouldn't use people's dates like this in body text: if her age is important, give it and explain. On which -- we haven't been specific on the date of their meeting: it sounds like she might have been twelve, which makes "they fell in love" a little suspect/sanitising to me: a relationship between a twelve-year-old child and a twenty-year-old cannot be simply written up as mutual romance.
  • Another MoS diktat I was unaware of. I'll remove the dates. We don't know when they met, but no source suggests she was as young as you suppose. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've implied at least the possibility, through having this sentence immediately follow Among the salons at which Offenbach most frequently appeared, from 1839,, and precede one about the "early 1840s": it sounds as if he met her circa 1839, when she was circa 12. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a further trawl through the sources I find that Yon says she was fifteen when they first met. Added. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Mendelssohn get a first name?
  • I'd say no, any more than Mozart does. Some top creative artists need no full-naming (cf Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni and Dante Alighieri et al.) Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm: I see the case here, where the person is overwhelmingly known only by the single name (Michelangelo being an excellent example), and a longer name would be less recognisable. I'm less happy when they're simply so famous that most people can recognise them by surname (Einstein, Kennedy, Churchill...) To me, "Felix Mendelssohn" is just as recognisable, if not more so, than "Mendelssohn" (in a way that Michelangelo's full name isn't, or a longer title for Muhammad, Augustus, Madonna etc), and using just the surname on first mention feels as though we're reminding the reader of a mutual friend: in other words, assuming that they have a certain degree/set of prior knowledge, which goes against the general principle of writing for the enthusiastic layperson. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would put this article at odds with the already featured articles on other French composers – Hector Berlioz, Pierre Boulez, Gabriel Fauré, Jules Massenet, André Messager, Francis Poulenc, Maurice Ravel, Camille Saint-Saëns – in which when referring to well-known composers' music the surname alone is generally used. (When the composer as a person is mentioned we usually give the forename, as in the second para of the lead chez Gabriel Fauré.) It is perhaps worth noting that the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica, written presumably for enthusiastic laypersons, do much the same as we do in the above articles. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm: I am not entirely happy here, but willing to defer to established practice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rereading the article I have spotted a few places where it's the chap and not his music we're talking about, and I have added their forenames. Tim riley talk 10:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that the approach to linking here is generally to err on the side of sparseness, but I would certainly link at least Victoria and Albert, and consider linking the titles of the Tsar and the King to the articles on those respective people.
  • Done. We used to have a rule forbidding links from within quotations and the habit has stayed with me. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "Herr" rather than "Monsieur", : suggest cutting rather than Monsieur, as we don't actually know that this was the (only) other option considered: the paper could just as well have written "Mr.". Perhaps clarify "the German Herr for readers who don't know it as such.
  • Removed Monsieur. As to "Herr" I don't think anyone will need that explaining. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've quoted it a lot, but a much-cited essay advises us to assume almost nothing about readers' prior knowledge. Certainly, I find it hard to believe that there will be nobody (thinking here of children, or people from non-European parts of the world) reading this article who doesn't know that Herr is German: the cost of catering to them seems extremely small. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essay flies in the face of the MoS. I have pointed out above how it urges us to link what the MoS forbids us to link. I hope other editors who happen to see this will comment. As always I'll willingly go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 09:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Later: on reflection I think we can accommodate you without mucking up the prose. Done. Tim riley talk 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ambiguity of his nationality sometimes caused him difficulty in later life.: I'd like some brief explanation here of the sort of difficulty we mean, or perhaps for this to be delayed until it does cause him some problems.
  • despite some extramarital dalliances on Offenbach's part: Dalliances reads as slightly exculpatory to me.
  • Well, he was a French composer. As far as I can see Bizet was about the only one faithful to his wife. But redrawn. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC) Later: Oh, and Massenet I think, despite gossip. Tim riley talk 10:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 43 (De Joncières): why is quoted in italics?
  • This seems to be a convention, and I've always followed it, but I don't mind either way and would be happy with romic if you prefer. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem if deliberate and consistent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paris was convulsed by the 1848 revolution: the prose throughout is sparkly; there have been a few points where I've considered ringing the MOS:IDIOM bell, and this one to me is just on the wrong side of the line (to a second-language reader not familiar with the term, there's a real chance of confusion here). Suggest "the 1848 revolution broke out in Paris".
  • We can. Done. I didn't add the date because by 1858 Offenbach was better known as a composer than as a cellist (the drawing accompanied a potted and somewhat facetious biography of him, and evidently relates to him in the 1840s rather than at the time of publication.) Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The composer Debussy: similar to Mendelssohn above: we've acknowledged that not everyone will know his profession, so we should take that to its logical conclusion and assume that not everyone will know him at all, and therefore give his first name.
  • As above. As we are talking of his corporeal self rather than his music I think it is all right to give him his forename. Done Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question. I'm working my way through the text converting numbers from digits to words as you suggest for those up to twenty-one, but I'm not sure what to do with this sentence: "the bride was 17 years old, and the bridegroom was 25". What think you? Tim riley talk 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:NUM says to use the same for both, whatever we choose: I'd be happy with either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's helpful. Thank you. Words, I think. Tim riley talk 11:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could wikilink "satiric" to satire, as the idea is important in the next paragraph?
It's reasonably everyday, but not all of our readers have an "everyday" standard of education or English. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty muddle-headed article, and completely contradicts our MoS policy at MOS:OL. Linking Paris and France, forsooth! Tim riley talk 09:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps other editors would like to comment on this: I'll gladly go with the consensus. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at MOS:LE (part of MOS:OL), the defining considerations there seem to be twofold:
1) is the term likely to be known by most/all readers in context? The MoS says that the answer is no for "microeconomics" and "general equilibrium theory" in an economics article, and I can't see that readers of a music article are more likely to know about satire than readers of an economics article are to know about macroeconomics.
2) Is it important that readers understand the term in context: see Consider linking "price" and "goods" only if these common words have technical dimensions that are specifically relevant to the topic. Again, here, I think the answer is fairly resolutely "yes": satire does have specific dimensions that are relevant to this topic.
Likewise happy to defer to any consensus that evolves here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a linked [[satire]] here and then ran the OVERLINK script here: it removed the link. It may not be the perfect way to decide the issue, but it may help in breaking the deadlock... Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! I'd no idea about such a resource. Thank you, SchroCat. I shall make a note of that script for future reference. Tim riley talk 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The script is something of a blunt instrument: from what I can gather, it delinks satire and its forms in all articles, which is explicitly not the point of WP:OL -- the latter is clear that whether a term should be linked depends on the context and article that it's in. I think I've said my piece on this one: it's very far from an opposing matter, and like all things at FAC fundamentally a suggestion. You have often been kind enough with my articles to end on "I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you", and I'm more than happy to do the same here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it is very clearly MOS:OVERLINKing. I agree that "The Pope is Catholic" essay is very wrongheaded. All English speakers know generally what France and Paris are. Satire is a common English word, especially for anyone reading a biography in the arts. You don't have to be an expert on the intricacies of satire to have a general sense of the word, and linking to it does not shed any light at all on how Offenbach's pieces used satire, as opposed to, say Mark Twain or George Orwell did. That is really the main question for a blue-link: does it shed useful light on the topic, or is it actually a distraction from it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that the 1848 uprisings all over Europe were the reason for his reverting to his original given name. It may have been simply a matter of fitting in. The sources don't say. Tim riley talk 08:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily mean that we should be so specific: only that it's relevant that the Cologne to which he escaped revolutionary Paris was itself a place undergoing upheaval at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right enough. This is from Gammond: "Finding Cologne very little less inflamed by revolutionary passions than Paris, though not so violently manifested, Offenbach changed his christian name back to Jakob and tried to behave like a good Colognial German. He composed some patriotic German songs, of very little artistic value, for use at various political occasions and he played the cello ... at a concert given in celebration of Cologne Cathedral's six-hundredth anniversary." But I'm not sure it is within the scope of this article to mention the political conditions in Cologne as there is no proof that they were why he changed his name. Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but Gammond at least has made an explicit link between the conditions in Cologne (not just Paris) and the name change; we've only linked it to what happened in Paris, so I think we should follow suit for WP:TSI. I also think the turn towards patriotic German music is very relevant in the context of an ongoing nationalist revolution, and both of those parts should be briefly mentioned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Perhaps you'd suggest some wording that would satisfy you. Tim riley talk 14:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a lot for me to suggest, and please do take your scalpel to it: your prose is far more elegant than mine. But perhaps something like Cologne was also experiencing its own nationalistic revolutionary upheaval; Offenbach changed his name back to the German "Jakob" [I would use the German spelling here, rather than "Jacob", as Gammond does]. He also composed German patriotic songs, which were sung at political events. Whether you include Gammond's negative judgement on those songs is a matter of taste, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a go. Tricky to get the flavour right. See what you think. Tim riley talk 19:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ludovic was a respectable civil servant: the word respectable makes me think WP:PUFFERY and worry about editorialising: on what are we basing it?
  • As the retired Librarian of the Crown Estate I contend that all civil servants are respectable. But seriously, I think the point is made by the noted fact that Halévy discreetly used pseudonyms from time to time. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly my point: what I think we're saying is that civil servants, by nature, were not generally to be seen writing light opera. Using the adjective, however, implies that Ludovic was a respectable civil servant in contrast to the disreputable ones, and that this distinction was the important thing. Does the source say something to the effect of "as a civil servant, Ludovic did not want to be identified?" UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halévy wrote the libretto for one of the pieces in the opening programme: do we know its name?
  • I could find out, but I don't think it notable. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aged 22, when she auditioned for him, she was engaged on the spot: perhaps consider hired or similar: I briefly thought that someone proposed to her!
  • Oh dear! A generational difference. I hate "hired" but will replace the - to me - natural "engaged" if you insist. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big problem, but is there an alternative that's both accurate and palatable? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...given the part on the spot"? I don't think "engaged" is confusing here, though, and to my ear "hired" seems a little more appropriate for a salesperson than an artiste.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That suggestion sounds good to me. UndercoverClassicist T·C 05:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been a long while since we mentioned Flotow; I'd give his first name again, and perhaps reintroduce his connection with Offenbach.
  • Do you mean in the Orphée section? I don't think so. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was granted French citizenship by the personal command of Napoleon: the Napoleon is so famous mononymously that I'd give the numeral here.
  • Now given his III throughout. Tim riley talk 10:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Tangentially, as a collector of tongue twisters I am grateful for "mononymously", which gives "sphygmomanometer" a run for its money. Tim riley talk 10:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur: I know it's the "proper" title, but as this is the English Wikipedia, any reason not to use the standard translation of "knight"?
  • I don't think chevalier and knight are exact synonyms. In English, knight sounds rather posh but in French it is the lowest order of the Légion d'honneur.
I personally know a chevalier of the Légion d'Honneur, and he most certainly would not want us to translate it in his article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this appointment scandalised those haughty and exclusive members of the musical establishment who resented such an honour for a composer of popular light opera: is haughty quite NPOV? Presumably these people had what felt to them legitimate reasons for their resentment. We can always say "those whom Faris has called..." if we want to report the opinion without throwing the authority of Wikivoice behind it.
  • Caught red handed! I hoped to get away with this, which is a quotation of Pooh-Bah in The Mikado. Trying my luck, truth to tell. I'll redraw. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It needed no inadvertent boost from Janin: I would cut this: I feel the authorial voice is becoming a little too personal/essayistic rather than encyclopaedic here. On the other hand, if Janin pointedly refused to review it, that's interesting and another matter.
  • I don't agree. It seems to me reasonable to mention that after two Janin pannings a third wasn't needed for success. Tim riley talk 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously suggesting that the first two both needed a Janin panning to be successful? I can wear it for Orpheus, but we've presented it as the icing on the cake with Helene rather than the critical ingredient. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have said so in the preceding paragraph. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • included the King of Prussia: as with our French countess earlier, I'd give his name, and perhaps introduce him as "the future German emperor Wilhelm I", given that he's quite famous under that title. Mousing over the link was something of an "Easter Egg" for me.
  • his home in Étretat: I'd clarify that this was in Normandy (and therefore reasonably far from the likely lines of German advance).
OK.
  • The idiom "did good/better business" seems to be coming up a lot: perhaps look to vary it a little?
Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • and, exceptionally, Keck records, an ophicleide : I think the hierarchy here is clearer if we put dashes after and and records instead of commas. What does Keck mean by "exceptionally": for Offenbach, or for everyone else?
The former, I think. Happy for you to repunctuate if you wish. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 17:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that the only comment on compositional method comes from a set of CD notes: has anyone else talked about this? More generally, it's a very short section: I wonder if it could be combined with "Texts and word setting", perhaps under the "Compositional methods" heading.
The CD notes are by Keck, who is generally seen as the greatest present-day authority on Offenbach. I'm happy with the paragraphing. I hate cramming two different topics into one for the sake of bulk. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a "Litanie",: I don't think we generally use italics within quote marks, though these are scare quotes, on which the MoS is frustratingly silent (except to discourage them under MOS:"). Could simply translate -- I don't think too much is gained by using the French here?
  • I disagree. The French was being used in the hope of bamboozling the local authorities. The inverted commas are not there to scare anyone, merely to indicate that the term was bogus. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's fair enough. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done but with reservations. People may click on it expecting a link to a vocal piece by Offenbach rather than to the RC prayer the Hail Mary. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 25 seems quite interesting and relevant to Offenbach's biography -- the immediate reaction of his family to his death and the fate of his works are both germane here. I'd be inclined to promote it, especially as the paragraph it ends is currently pretty skinny.
  • Done.
  • as a homage: an homage, surely, as it's pronounced without the h (like an hour)?
  • I didn't write this bit, and like you I'd have used "an", but I've checked with the OED and the English pronunciation gets the thumbs-up and so "a" is OK. Tim riley talk 09:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well! UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be a bit inconsistent in the footnotes as to whether the titles of web pages (and possibly other types of source) are captialised.
I think web pages should be italicised. If you spot any that aren't I'll do the necessary. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - misread your comment. On the whole we should follow the ulc of the page, I think. Tim riley talk 09:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CONFORMTITLE advises the opposite: that we pick a consistent style for e.g. website articles, books, periodicals and so forth, and then render all such sources in that style. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you spot any inconsistencies in the ulc of websites in the references, pray mention them. Tim riley talk 11:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might want to introduce Nietzsche and Zola, as they're notable but not as authorities on opera.
  • Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)talk:UndercoverClassicist|T]]·C 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is Orpheus in the Underworld and Belle Hélène.: did he reflect in English? If not, suggest using the French title for Orpheus, as we've done so throughout.
  • Impossible to answer, I fear. In Conversations with Klemperer by Peter Heyworth some of the interviews were in English and some in German, translated into English by Heyworth for the book. We are not told the language in which Alan Blyth interviewed Klemperer. I think we must treat the English version as the ipsissima verba. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the content of note 29 (the critical reception of The Tales of Hoffmann) is important and deserves to be in the body text of a Reception section.
OK. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's quite a lot of the F-P war section riding on a Guardian article. I don't necessarily have a problem with it, but is there no more academic source we can use here, perhaps in addition?
I'm happy with the source. So is the source reviewer. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • of the Gaiety Theatre: perhaps clarify that this was in the West End, as Offenbach has been there previously?
West End added. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the Royalty Theatre: similarly, it might be worth clarifying that this was in Soho, and so wasn't in the West End (and so was it perhaps less fashionable/more seedy?)
It would not be true. The West End was just as seedy for the most part. It is arguably pushing it to mention the West End at all. The term wasn't generally used for London's theatre district in Offenbach's day. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough (no objection to pushing it that far, personally). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Vienna, too, Offenbach works: Offenbach's?
Looks all right to me. One talks of Beethoven Symphonies, Verdi operas etc. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should italicise The Beautiful Galatea, as the title of an opera.
So do I. It may be the lang template buggering it up. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what you meant. I don't think we usually ulc or italicise translations of titles. Not sure why not, but the format here is pretty standard as far as I know. Tim riley talk 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • both Gilbert and Sullivan follow the lead of Les brigands (1869) in their treatment of the police, plodding along ineffectually in heavy march-time: I think we mean the police here, but as written it sounds like Gilbert and Sullivan did the plodding. Suggest "who plod..."
Done. Tim riley talk 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • However much the young Sullivan...: one-sentence paragraphs aren't ideal: I think this one could be merged into the paragraph before. Its first clause could be trimmed a little to avoid making an unduly long paragraph in the process, if you like.
  • It isn't a one-sentence paragraph, and as I say above I dislike lumping together sentences that don't belong together for the sake of avoiding short paragraphs. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more human romantic interest: what does more human mean in this context? Perhaps relatedly, I'm not clear whether there was more [human romantic interest], or whether the romantic interest that there was became more human.
Both. It's contrasting with the gods and mythical personages of the earlier works. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • just before the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870: I'd specify that the war broke out in July. Do we know how "just" before his return was?
Not offhand. I might be able to dig it out if I was persuaded it was important. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • as the guest of the Prince of Wales.: you can probably guess my comment here - I'd name him.
A bit unidiomatic. He was, like our present monarch, always known just as the P o W. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but many people are known as e.g. the Pope, the Vicar, the Headmaster, the Chef, etc etc, in contexts where it's perfectly obvious to everyone around which one of those is meant. However, it's not obvious here that the PoW is Edward except to readers who happen to know the dates of British monarchs, which isn't all of them. As with all of these things, a matter of taste, but I think a guest of Edward, Prince of Wales is completely idiomatic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick check I think I am right in saying that he's just "the Prince of Wales" (or the "prince de Galles") in all the main sources. Tim riley talk 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • His spectacular revival: what about it, exactly, was spectacular? There's an ambiguity here between "really lavish" and "really good": I suspect the former is the main intention even if the latter may not be untrue.
  • For the 1874 production Offenbach substantially expanded the piece, doubling the length of the score and turning the intimate opéra bouffon of 1858 into a four-act opéra féerie extravaganza, with substantial ballet sequences. This version opened at the Théâtre de la Gaîté on 7 February 1874, ran for 290 performances, and broke box-office records for that theatre. During the first run of the revised version Offenbach expanded it even further, adding ballets illustrating the kingdom of Neptune in Act 3 and bringing the total number of scenes in the four acts to twenty-two. I don't understand your mention of "really lavish" and "really good" as neither of those terms is used in the text. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was querying the specific meaning of spectacular here: does it mean "that opera was very expensive!" or "that opera was very good!". As we're clearly going for both, I'm not sure there's a problem here: whatever the reader concludes, they're right. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The local authorities were not deceived, and the concert did not take place: do we know if they explicitly stopped it, or if Offenbach simply thought better of his plans?
Not really. The source says "But the Philadelphians were very strict about Sunday observance and severely censored his intentions. Although handbills had been printed the Sacred Concert never took place—much to Offenbach’s regret" Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Later: found one! The authorities stopped it. Now added. Tim riley talk 09:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He returned to France in July 1876, with profits that were handsome but not spectacular: any idea of roughly how much money we're talking about here?
  • (l. to r.) : in all the other captions, we've spelt out: if brevity is felt to be essential here, you could use the abbreviation template, even though it is fairly obvious in context.
Could you be a little more explicit about what you're talking about? Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the penny's dropped. No, I think it's all right as it is. Consistency is admirable but not when it gets in the way of clarity or economy of words. Tim riley talk 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Votre habit a craqué dans le dos" ["Your coat has split down the back"]. Did Lubbock give that translation? It's a little surprising that this is one of very few offered either in the quote or the article.
  • divides the one-act pieces into five categories: "(i) country idylls; (ii) urban operettas; (iii) military operettas; (iv) farces; and (v) burlesques or parodies.": MOS:SOMETHINGOROTHER advises that when a quote gets really torturous, we should stop trying to make it work as one: here we can just drop the quote marks, I think, and therefore also drop the bracketed numbers.
Not sure what you mean. I've looked up "torturous", a word new to me, in the OED: "Full of, involving, or causing torture; tormenting, excruciating ... given to inflicting torture". Seems a bit OTT to say that of my prose here. But if you want to repunctuate it, please feel free. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting divides the one-act pieces into five categories: country idylls, urban operettas, military operettas, farces, and burlesques or parodies. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I don't suppose I shall be accused of plagiarism for omitting the quotation marks. Tim riley talk 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hence 'Donnez-vous la peine de vous asseoir' (chanson du pal) : quote marks are awry here. Is chanson du pal (lc?) the title of an opera? Some more context to this work would be helpful. Is it the song/aria we're talking about here or the lyric?
  • Quotes tweaked. I'm not going to speculate on what Poulenc had in mind. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, although we did translate it a little while ago, I'd re-translate Votre habit a craqué dans le dos.
A bit excessive in my view, but done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah! Que j'aime les militaires: If I've got this right, the joke here (if it's indeed a parody) is that the grandeur of a Beethoven symphony is incongruous with a lady singing about how attractive soldiers are: I think a quick explanation of the subject matter of the aria would help clarify this and reassure readers that they have indeed got the right end of the stick (an unfortunate idiom here...).
I think the prose stands on its own feet, and I don't feel justified in imposing my own interpretation. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In passing, I knew this opera for fifty years or so without spotting the parallel with Beethoven's Seventh in the Grand Duchess's rollicking number until I started swotting up for this FAC and if Offenbach was indulging in parody it passed me by completely. Tim riley talk 17:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a simpler, more romantic style: does "romantic" here mean "like Wordsworth and Wagner" or "with lots of kissing"?
The former would have a capital letter, surely? Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually but not always, I think. Happy given that it's falling that way. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • often employing a codified system: what does this mean?
I don't know. I didn't put it there and would gladly zap it if asked. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a bow at a venture and changed it to "employing a form of shorthand", which I think is what it means. Happy to zap altogether if you think I should. Tim riley talk 16:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that's a reasonable inference from at least one source (I think you're almost certainly right, by the by), I'm happy here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then lapsed into what Gammond calls "Victorian sanctimoniousness" by taking it for granted that the opera "will uphold Offenbach's fame long after his lighter compositions have passed out of memory.: I think we need to lose the it in "taking it for granted" (it was taking the following fact for granted). I think it would also be worth spelling out more clearly exactly what Gammond finds sanctimonious here (the disdain for lighter opera?)
  • Looks very odd to me without the "it". And I'm not up for telling readers what I think a quoted author means. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critic Sacheverell Sitwell compared Offenbach's lyrical and comic gifts to those of Mozart and Rossini: roughly when? We've jumped quite suddenly out of contemporary reception, but haven't actually warned the reader that we've done so.
  • I've rejigged to maintain chronological sequence. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Grand opera" seems to be the only operatic sub-genre we've named in English: as its French equivalent is so similar, I think there's a good case for consistency here.
  • Ah, now this gets technical. Grand Opéra is grand opera, but not all grand opera is Grand Opéra. In English usage the term generally applies, as here, to any serious opera without spoken dialogue, whereas the French term is generally reserved for pieces in four or more usually five acts with plots set in medieval or modern times (rather than taken from classical history and mythology) often with major characters from the lower or otherwise disadvantaged classes, portraying them in a heroic light (hitherto a treatment reserved for gods, kings and aristocrats); and typically presenting controversial themes – religious intolerance or rebellion against oppression, for instance. Offenbach's fairy tale opera was not one such.
  • Poulenc traces the influence through Chabrier and André Messager to his own Les mamelles de Tirésias, in which Wilfrid Mellers finds music modelled on Offenbach's: a little confused about what Mellers is doing here: haven't we just said that Poulenc acknowledged the debt, so there was nothing hidden for Mellers to find?
Rejigged. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • his French colleague: this bit of elegant variation jarred a little, given that we've said a great deal about how complicated Offenbach's nationality was. We've also got an awkward repetition of established with two slightly different meanings here: the sentence could probably be reworked to solve both problems at once.
Done. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any idea why the French government restricted the number of performers in an opera?
I have always assumed that is is akin to the patent theatres thing in London -- the established opera houses didn't want the competition, so their friends in the government restricted the competition in ways intended to extend the old boys' monopoly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Halévy, with his experience as a senior civil servant, saw more clearly than most the looming threat from Prussia: a little uncomfortable here with more clearly than most: I'm not sure that a musical biographer is really a WP:HQRS when it comes to judging the broad French evaluation of the likelihood of war with Prussia, though he can certainly speak with authority on Halévy's own views and perhaps his views of his countrymen. Suggest something like "expected war to break out with Prussia", or a better-worded equivalent.
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In his early pieces for the Bouffes-Parisiens, the size of the orchestra pit had restricted Offenbach to an orchestra of 16 players. He composed for flute, oboe, clarinet, bassoon, two horns, piston, trombone, timpani and percussion and a small string section of seven players.: as before with MOS:NUM and consistency (here, advise figures).
Sixteen it is. Well spotted! Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the bye, is the arithmetic clear to the casual reader? The timpanist would play all the percussion instruments such as the triangle and cymbals – I well remember such an arrangement from the D'Oyly Carte touring orchestras of my youth – and the figure of 16 is correct, but is it clear? I could make it "timpani/percussion" or even leave out the timpani, which is usually given its own mention in lists of orchestration, but is after all a percussion instrument. Thoughts welcome. Tim riley talk 11:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I wouldn't have twigged that the timpani and percussion were the same player. As you say, it's a percussion instrument, so I think it would be arguably more accurate to include it under "percussion". On the other hand, if it's usually mentioned separately, we could just EFN that the timpanist and the percussionist were the same person? Equally, I'm not sure that many people will notice the illusory discrepancy, if I'm being honest. I certainly didn't until you pointed it out. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've tweaked a bit. I'm pleased with the phrase "illusory discrepancy", which I've noted down for use if I'm ever in a tight corner. Tim riley talk 12:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Enjoying it so far: the prose is particularly attractive throughout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a nice thing to read – thank you. Looking forward to round two. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bracketed dates with the "modest successes" are a bit unclear to me: it's not really clear that those are supposed to have a higher place in the hierarchy than those with e.g. "revised edition". Suggest putting the dates into prose: "in 1867, he released ...., and in 1868, ..." or something like that.
I don't understand what you mean here. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting it might be clearer to go with modest successes. In 1867, he produced Robinson Crusoé and a revised version of Geneviève de Brabant; in 1868, Le château à Toto, a revised version of Le pont des soupirs and L'île de Tulipatan. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Doll Song: per MOS:MINORWORKS, should this have quote marks? Where's it from?
Ah I see why you're confused. I've rejigged the sentence. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opéra bouffon",: here I would simply lose the quote marks.
  • un vil séducteur' to a waltz tempo that is itself unsuitably seductive ... the potty-sounding phrase 'L'homme à la pomme' becomes the absurd nucleus of a big cod-ensemble.: I think we need some explanations here: a translation of the first (OK pretty much everyone will see that there's a connection between séducteur and seductive, but we should be clear on exactly what and who it is), and some better explanation of the second (I must admit I'm struggling to see it, and I like to think I'm pretty good on French vulgarity).
I think it's more dotty than vulgar, but I don't think I can or should try to explain someone else's prose. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd misunderstood "potty" as "potty-mouthed" rather than "silly" -- now makes sense. Would still translate the "vile seducer", though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Der Kuhhandel (cattle trading): similarly, except here I think we should translate the title as a title: Cattle Trading. Looking into it, it seems to have a different English title ("Arms and the Cow"), so one option would be something like literally Cattle Trading, known in English as Arms and the Cow) I'm a fan of giving translations, but would suggest doing it throughout the article: the inconsistency of starting to do so here isn't ideal.
Known in English would be something of an overstatement. It bombed at the Savoy in the 1930s and was not seen again for decades. Opera North (I think) gave it a rare outing in about 2000 with a different English title. I think it would unduly complicate this section to go into such detail. Tim riley talk 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the general point about translations, it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to get the mix right. On the one hand one doesn't want the prose to be submerged by an avalanche of translations, nor to patronise the reader by offering unnecessary translations, but on the other one doesn't want to leave people in the dark about less obvious foreign phrases or titles. Here I have added English translations where I thought they'd be helpful and not where they wouldn't, but I may have got it wrong in places, and will gladly entertain suggestions about adding or removing any. Tim riley talk 10:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No disagreement there. Shouldn't we capitalise "Cow Trading", though, as it's a title? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Note 194 is doubled: we could cut the first use, though I don't think the MoS strictly requires us to do so.
  • Not sure what you mean. Note 194 isn't doubled as far as I can see. Could you give the first few words of the note you have in mind?
Ah, it's now 195: citing ...that Strauss did so and ...quickly rebuked by the press.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's better now, but done. Tim riley talk 07:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Großer Griechenmarkt" should be in lang tags (with |italic=no) so that screen readers pronounce it correctly. The same is true for other non-English words and titles (e.g. "der Offenbacher"), though I haven't done a full check for them all.
  • I have kind experts on the case with the lang tags. Tim riley talk 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving this up for now to remind me to check back in when the whole lot are done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all we have left: very happy to support at this stage. I've been doing a bit of a shift on the language tags, and will keep doing so -- having dipped my toe into French topics before, I sympathise with the sheer density of them! Very nice work overall and enviably well-written. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support, and bless you for joining the language-tag chain gang! I keep finding titles and phrases I've missed. Tim riley talk 11:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ssilvers[edit]

The article is very good already, so here are some very picky points in the Early Years section.

  • The "alt" descriptions of the photos don't usually say what the sitter is wearing. All of them would be called "well dressed" today, but can you specify "morning coat", "dinner jacket", etc. (at least for the solo sitters), to give some idea to blind readers?
  • "His birthplace in the Großer Griechenmarkt was a short distance from the square that is now named after him, the Offenbachplatz." Would this be better in the Legacy section as: "A square in Cologne, the Offenbachplatz, named after him, is near his birthplace in the Großer Griechenmarkt."? I am not sure it would be better, I just wondered if you might think so, Tim, as that is how we have present such facts in some other articles.
  • I wondered about this: there are any number of thoroughfares named after him in France, but I concluded that they were not really notable or suitable for a "legacy" section. So the mention in the Life section (which is where Grove puts it) seems best to me. Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lessons in ... flute, and guitar" -- Are you using the Oxford comma in this article?
  • Not as a rule but I think it's as well to signify that he didn't have a class in flute and guitar (though in fairness, it would be damn' difficult to play both at once). Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Together with his brother Julius (violin) and sister Isabella (piano), Jacob played in a trio at local dance halls, inns and cafés, performing popular dance music and operatic arrangements." A shorter sentence could be: "Offenbach formed a trio with his brother Julius (violin) and sister Isabella (piano), playing popular dance music and operatic arrangements at local dance halls, inns and cafés."
  • "the two most musically talented of his children" -- shorter: "his two most musically talented children"
  • " had to persuade Cherubini even to give Jacob an audition" -- Do we need "even"? The subsequent sentences, I think, make clear that it was not an easy task.
  • Well, but he might reasonably have expected that his letter of introduction would guarantee an audition. Tim riley talk 16:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, is this level of pickiness helpful, or a waste of time? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't for me to say. If you think your suggestions make a material improvement to the quality of the prose by all means make them. When I'm reviewing I try to distinguish between bad prose and prose that merely differs from how I would write it. – Tim riley talk 16:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

  • "recently born daughter" -- "infant daughter"?
  • Not sure that either is quite right. She was two years old, and I've altered to that. Tim riley talk 08:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Early 1860s
  • "his only stand-alone ballet". I think I know what you mean, but for anyone who does not know anything about ballet or that it can be found within an opera or other piece, perhaps you can clarify. The *compositions* sub-article says "full length", but that doesn't convey what you meant. How about "his only ballet presented as a separate work outside of an operetta"?
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text says: "He continued to write most of his works for the company, with the exception of occasional pieces for the summer season at Bad Ems." From the note, however, it appears that he *did* write those pieces with the intention to play them in the Paris company's season, but merely premiered them at the summer venue. Perhaps: "He continued to write [[]] his works for the company, although he premiered several of them at summer seasons at Bad Ems during the 1860s."  ?
Redrawn. Tim riley talk 18:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last years

There is a note: "Guiraud added recitatives in place of spoken dialogue for the Vienna premiere. According to Keck, the rehearsal on 1 February lasted four and a half hours, and Carvalho decided to cut the Venice act, redistributing some of its music." Except for the first sentence, which is repeated soon afterwards in the text, the note seems to be about the French premiere, not Vienna, so it is confusing. User:Tim riley, would you please compare the note to the rest of the paragraph and clarify?

Entirely concur. The sources differ about when Guiraud changed the dialogue into recitative, and I've pruned accordingly. Tim riley talk 17:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works

In the opening section here, one song title is translated [in brackets], while the others are not. Should they all/none be translated, or is there a reason to translate some but not others? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said above to UndercoverClassicist, on the general point about translations, it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to get the mix right. On the one hand one doesn't want the prose to be submerged by an avalanche of translations, nor to patronise the reader by offering unnecessary translations, but on the other one doesn't want to leave people in the dark about less obvious foreign phrases or titles. Here I have added English translations where I thought they'd be helpful and not where they wouldn't, but I may have got it wrong in places, and will gladly entertain suggestions about adding or removing any. Tim riley talk 17:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arrangements (overtures)

"...the scores usually performed and recorded are not by Offenbach, but were arranged..." Were they arranged from music in the respective operas, or do they contain any original sections unrelated to the opera? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Surely you have heard them? Tim riley talk 19:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've made the clarification. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Influence

We say "Les brigands was presented in London in 1871, 1873 and 1875; for the first of these, Gilbert made an English translation...". However, our article about Les brigands says that, while Gilbert translated the piece in 1871, his version was not performed until 1889 (when it premiered in first the US and then the UK). H. S. Leigh's English translation was performed in London in 1871 and 1875 at least, according to that article (citing Adams). Since this paragraph is about the influence on G&S, perhaps we could say, "A revival ofLes brigands in 1889 used an English translation by Gilbert...." -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a footnote explaining that the 1871 version was not heard then but was given in 1889. It is important to make it clear that Gilbert was familiar with the piece before he wrote the libretto for The Pirates of Penzance in 1879. Tim riley talk 07:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better, Tim, but this implies that Gilbert's version was only used once -- it had runs on Broadway, as well as in the WE, and also toured in Britain (refs in the Les Brigands article). Various later productions have used Gilbert's translation, which is easily accessible here, and Ohio Light Opera both performed and recorded it in 2007].
I don't think that's relevant to this article. The point is that Gilbert knew the work before he wrote the libretto for The Pirates of Penzance. I have changed 1889 to later. Tim riley talk 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Headings

To reduce the number of subheadings under Works, perhaps combine "Compositional method and musical structure" as one subheading? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, I dislike lumping two unrelated subjects together merely to bulk out a paragraph. Tim riley talk 07:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

"His best-known works were continually revived during the 20th century, and many of his operettas continue to be staged in the 21st." We provide little evidence of this in the text. Can you add a similar sentence to the Legacy section somewhere?

Shall do.
And now done. Tim riley talk 07:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate sentence.
  • The sentence about the 1858 Broadway premiere of Les deux aveugles leading to O's continued Broadway success now appears twice in the article: first in the Life and Career section, and again in the Legacy section. This is not about O's legacy, but rather about productions on Broadway during his lifetime, so I think it is better in the Life and Career section. This is true also of the statement by Lamb adjoining it, which might also be better under Life? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I somehow managed to engineer an edit conflict with myself a couple of days ago, and several changes vanished and have had to be restored. Blitzed the first iteration. I think it better in the Influence section. Tim riley talk 12:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the article satisfies the requirements for promotion to FA. It is comprehensive and well-written, and as with everything that Tim riley does, the excellence of the research shines through. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you are eligible to support the promotion of the article as you are its second most frequent editor and have written 6.9% of the current text. The FAC Coordinators may have a view on this. But thank you, in any case, for your kind words. Tim riley talk 07:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I support the other 93.1%. :D -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're now up to 6.7% and I've dropped to 78.6! Quelle chute! Tim riley talk 12:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4[edit]

Here are some suggestions for additional content just from looking at Andrew Lamb's entry in Grove.

  • I think the article could place a stronger emphasis on Offenbach spreading the popularity of operetta on the global stage. In his opening, Lamb writes "It was through the success of Offenbach’s works abroad that operetta became an established international genre, producing outstanding national exponents in Strauss, Sullivan and Lehár and evolving into the 20th-century musical." Musical theatre historians have also written a through line to the musical, with Naden going as far as crediting Offenbach for "popularizing the musical form".
  • I think this aspect is pretty thoroughly covered already in the Legacy and reputation section. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should probably be a mention of Offenbach's score for Pascal et Chambord (1839) which was his first significant commission for the theatre.
  • There should also be a mention of his first public concerts as a cellist (as a soloist, not an ensemble player) which occurred with his brother in January 1839 according to Lamb.
  • According to Lamb, his first operetta L’alcôve was rejected by the Opera Comique and he had to mount his own concerts to get it performed.
  • The article currently doesn't give the specific year he was appointed conductor at the Comédie-Française. It's 1850.
  • There probably should be a mention of Offenbach's other uncompleted work, the operetta Belle Lurette, which was completed after his death by Delibes.

Outside of Grove, I suggest looking at Offenbach's presence on Broadway and the American stage in general. The popularity of Offenbach's work on the American stage in the 19th century was significant for its impact on shaping the development of American musical theatre which deserves coverage in the article. Lamb's book 150 years of popular musical theatre makes this claim in addition to various works written by Gerald Bordman. This source on page 5 highlights an 1858 production of Les deux aveugles in New York which began a period of high popularity for Offenbach on the New York stage which lasted for the remainder of the century. Preston credits a slightly later production of Helene for igniting an American craze for French opera bouffe. IBDB's incomplete list gives a good idea of how popular his works were on the New York Stage. Obviously there will be better reference material than this. Page 24 of The Cambridge Companion to Operetta has some coverage of wide spread pirated versions of Offenbach's works on the American stage during the latter half of the nineteenth century. Bordman covers many of the original Broadway stagings of Offenbach's operettas, and also chronicles a number of original burlesque spoofs of those operetta productions that also appeared on Broadway. Bordman also chronicles Offenbach's appearances as a conductor on Broadway as well. Bordman's earlier book American Operetta: From H.M.S. Pinafore to Sweeney Todd essentially credits Offenbach as one of several major operetta composers whose works were the precursor to the American musical. Basically the American musical evolved from the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan, Offenbach, etc. Other possible sources to explore down this path include: [5], [6], [7], [8] Additionally, there are a few Broadway productions made around Offenbach's music after his death which probably should get a mention in the legacy section. These include the 1944 Broadway play Helen Goes to Troy and the 1961 Broadway musical The Happiest Girl in the World. His music was also used in Maurice Béjart's Ballet of the 20th Century which toured to Broadway in 1979, and in the Broadway musical revue Those Were the Days (1999-1991).

We mention American musicals: Irving Berlin and Rodgers and Hammerstein. I'll have a scout round and see if there's anything I can usefully incorporate about O's influence on the Broadway stage. I don't think we should single out individual one-off adaptations such as the 1944 and 1999 ones, any more than we mention the London adaptations of La belle Hélène by A. P. Herbert in 1932 and Michael Frayn in 1995. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 150 words on the influence of O's operettas on American musical theatre. Tim riley talk 10:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley This is an improvement, but I still don't think the article has covered the meat of the scholarship of this area. Broadway has been entirely ignored (it's not mentioned once by name), with no mention of how Offenbach specifically impacted New York theatre for decades. I'm not seeing mention of the seminal 19th century New York stagings of his works in the 1850s and the 1860s in the body. This is a mistake, because these productions had a tremendous longterm impact on American theatre. Relegating the content to a single paragraph in the legacy section doesn't really do justice to the scope of the material. I notice that you imbedded important European stagings into the body of the article. What the article really could use is a paragraph highlighting the early New York productions while Offenbach was alive and the way those specific productions changed and shaped American tastes through the rest of the 19th century. (see sources linked above; they cover this) It also needs to highlight his subsequent longterm popularity on the Broadway stage through the second half of the 19th century. One doesn't currently get a clear picture that Offenbach was tremendously popular in America as a whole and on Broadway specifically for decades. That's important because it makes the connection to his tremendous impact on the development of the "American musical" specifically understandable. As one writer put it in the sources I provided above, "Offenbach was the wellspring of the American musical".4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! I suspect you may be approaching the topic from an excessively Americocentric angle. I have already incorporated the "wellspring" quote. I wonder what other editors think. Any thoughts on this from Wehwalt, Ssilvers, SchroCat and all comers? Tim riley talk 17:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think asking for a single paragraph on Offenbach’s tremendous impact on a seminal American art form is WP:UNDUE. I would say that without it the topic is too Euro-centric and lacks an appropriate global perspective on the topic which one would expect from an FA class Wikipedia article. 4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have given the article just such a paragraph. It is at the end of the Influence subsection. Tim riley talk 18:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting, I'd like to see your suggested paragraph, User:4meter4, and to know where you think it ought to go. Given that this is already in contention, I would suggest that it be as concise as possible to hit the most WP:Noteworthy facts as presented by the "meat of the scholarship". I note that Tim did add a good deal about Offenbach's impact on the development of musical theatre. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given there already is a paragraph on the point, I wonder what more could or should be added without adding falling foul of UNDUE for giving too much US prominence on the subject. I feel the US angle is covered well in the new paragraph, but I'd be interested in hearing from 4meter4 what more they think appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done a swift word count of the Influences section which weighs in at 85 words on French successors; 123 words on Gilbert and Sullivan (with a 74-word footnote); 201 words on the Viennese school; 86 words on other European composers and 178 words on Americans. I'd like to add more to the first subsection, e.g. including O's influence if any on Lecocq, but I just can't find authoritative material. But I think we now have enough in the last subsection. Tim riley talk 11:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added a bit about O's influence on Lecocq. Tim riley talk 08:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article seems to be pretty thorough. Nice work.4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, thank you very much for these thoughts. Tim riley talk 07:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update on current word count in Influence section: France 113; G&S 121 (plus footnote); Vienna 203; other European 85; America 211. Tim riley talk 12:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a false measure, because the question is not merely about the Influence section, but has to do also with discussions of American productions of Offenbach vs. French, Viennese, European and other productions throughout the article. User:4meter4's comments above also suggest a paucity of discussion of American productions during Offenbach's lifetime in the Life section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your views noted. Tim riley talk 15:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • You do not need to say twice in the lead that Tales of Hoffman has entered the standard repertory.
  • As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the main text, should you give his birth and death dates in the main text?
  • We used not to do so, I think, but I have noticed a trend in that direction. No objection. The date of death is already in the main text and I've added the d.o.b. likewise. Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the two most musically talented of his children, Julius and Jacob". Are you saying that Isabella was less talented, even though she became a professional musician?
  • Redrawn.
  • You are inconsistent whether his brother is Jules or Julius.
  • He was Julius in Cologne but changed to Jules after moving to Paris. I think that's consistently observed in the text, but please tell me if you spot any Juliuses in France or Juleses in Cologne. Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No change needed, but it is interesting that you do not mention any prejudice against him on account of his Jewish heritage.
  • Faris (p. 20) speculates that one reason why Isaac Offenbach chose Paris for his sons rather than other important musical centres such as Vienna or Berlin, is that France, much more secular since the Revolution, was more tolerant of religious minorities than those other two cities. But that is only speculative (though persuasive to my mind) and I think it is straying too far from the core facts for an encyclopaedia article. Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You include Cherubini as an influence in the images but in the text imply not.
  • I think the head of Offenbach's one and only music college, who bent the rules to admit him, must be accounted an influence on him. Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was quickly produced in Europe". Maybe "elsewhere in Europe"
  • "leaned more to romantic comic opera than to opéra bouffe". I think you should explain opéra bouffe and maybe mention it earlier as it was his own genre.
  • I don't want to go into the distinctions between bouffonnerie musicale, comédie à ariettes, légende bretonne, légende napolitaine, opéra bouffe, opéra bouffon, opéra comique, opérette, opérette bouffe and opérette fantastique – all of them his genres – in the life section. I go into some detail in the Works section, where I think it belongs. In the Life section I could expand the text to "... leaned more to romantic comic opera than to the more exuberant [or ebullient/vivacious/effervescent] opéra bouffe" if you wish, though think the difference is implicit and the French term is blue-linked.
  • I think adding "the more exuberant" would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Texts and word setting' section. It may be me, but I am unclear how far the wording of his compositions was from him and how far from his librettists.
  • A bit of both. He came up with the ideas and his librettists elaborated on them. I cannot prove but am perfectly certain that neither Meilhac or Halévy wrote the words "Je suis l'époux de la reine/Poux de la reine/Poux de la reine" and "Le roi barbu qui s'avance/Bu qui s'avance/Bu qui s'avance". Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences in the section imply that he only came up with plots, not words, and the rest of the paragraph that he was writing the words. Maybe spell out before "He took advantage of the rhythmic flexibility of the French language" that librettos were partly written by him. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to it. Thank you meanwhile for the above. Tim riley talk 11:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although he wrote ballet music for many of his operettas". Does this mean for dance sequences or a ballet music style?
  • "It is not clear how directly Offenbach influenced Johann Strauss. He encouraged Strauss to turn to operetta when they met in Vienna in 1864, but it was not until seven years later that Strauss did so. Offenbach's operettas were well established in Vienna, and Strauss worked on the lines developed by his Parisian colleague. In 1870s Vienna, an operetta composer who did not do so was quickly rebuked by the press." This seems contradictory. You say it is unclear how directly Offenbach influenced Strauss and then that Strauss had to work on his lines. "who did not do so" is vague. Presumably it means work on Offenbach's lines, but in what respect?
  • JO certainly influenced Strauss, but probably only by example, it seems, rather than by tutelage. Gammond writes, "Offenbach gave shape and direction to the Viennese school", and quotes a Viennese critic demanding that composers "remain within the realm of pure operetta, a rule strictly observed by Offenbach". It is pure WP:OR on my part, but in Strauss's Die Fledermaus there are, it seems to me, Offenbachian elements - individual numbers, ensembles, choruses, spoken dialogue, and a happy ending after complications of plot - that follow O's lead, but in Strauss's work there is a more gemütlich atmosphere rather than O's more hard-edged gaiety. I can't think of anything in Offenbach that resembles the gentle, almost benedictory, "Brüderlein und Schwesterlein" in Fledermaus. But them's just my views, of course. Tim riley talk 17:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not clear what you mean by saying that he influenced Strauss by example rather than tutelage. Would not that apply to almost all composers he influenced? The wording of the article seems to imply that the devotion of critics to Offenbach's genre limited what Strauss was able to do rather than Strauss choosing to be influenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Lamb's phrase, "there can never be a definitive score of a work that Offenbach never quite completed"". I hesitate to question your grammar, but "phrase"?
  • Well, 'phrase' has various meanings. You are thinking of the grammatical term, defined by the OED as 'A small, unified group of words (in a sentence) that does not include both a subject and a predicate or finite verb', but the OED also defines the word as 'A particular choice or combination of words used to express an idea, sentiment, etc., in an effective manner; a striking or pithy expression.' I use the term in the latter sense here. Tim riley talk 17:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IBDB database. I think you should spell out IBDB (as you do in external links). And I get an error message when I click the link.
  • The link doesn't work for me, either. I've replaced it with a book reference. Tim riley talk
  • Thank you, Dudley, for your helpful comments and your support. Tim riley talk 08:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: it's been deathly quiet here for a fortnight or so. Is there anything I ought to be doing? Tim riley talk 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim, I should be able to have a look soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Ian! No rush whatever! I was just checking if you and your fellow coordinators were waiting for some action from me. Tim riley talk 16:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2024 [9].

1914 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was the first final to be attended by a reigning monarch. Although both teams struggled with the heat and nerves, the King was treated with a worldie. I've used contemporary and modern sources, and am curious what you think of it. All comments are appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • I don't think "of which six Lancastrians" works grammatically. I think it should be "of whom six were Lancastrians" (in two places)
    • Done
  • "Watched by a crowd of 72,778, although attendance figures ranged between 72,000 and 100,000" - this reads oddly - if wildly varying figures were given, a reader may wonder how you settled on the figure of 72,778? I think you need to clarify that this was the official attendance figure
    • Removed the latter part (but retained it in the body of the article)
  • "became the first footballer to receive the trophy from a reigning monarch" - is this not a bit redundant to the mention just a few sentences earlier that it was the first final attended by a monarch?
    • True, reworded
  • "Burnley began its campaign" => "Burnley began their campaign" would be by far the more common way to express this
    • Done
  • Boo hiss to Liverpool for beating Gillingham!
    • This made me chuckle, thanks.
  • You mention that West Ham and QPR played in the Southern League but not the Gills?
    • Added
  • "Villa won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie" => "Villa had won 12 of their last 13 matches before the semi-final tie"
    • Done
  • "It was the first meeting between both clubs" => "It was the first meeting between the clubs"
    • Done
  • "The Birmingham Daily Post stated the majority expected" => "The Birmingham Daily Post stated that the majority expected"
    • Done
  • "Although improvements were since made to the ground" => "Although improvements had since been made to the ground"
    • Done
  • "Miller scored for Liverpool but he was ruled offside by the referee" - in that case he didn't score, is there a way to reword this?
    • Reworded
  • "and made slow progression" => "and made slow progress"
    • Done
  • That's what I got - great article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support.

  • "One of the people in attendance was Freeman's father, who travelled 13,000 miles (21,000 km) from Australia to see his son play": this seems unlikely as he would have to have left before the semifinals given sailing times.

That's the only thing I can find to complain about, and it doesn't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

  • Hi Mike, thank you very much! Hmm good point about the travelling. It might be possible he was staying in the UK for a few weeks/months, not just for the final, but the reports only mention him having travelled many miles and being present at the final. Do you think the sentence should be deleted or retained? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the sources actually they he came specially to see his son, or just for the final? I think it's worth mentioning whatever the sources can support (so long it's not illogical per the travel time). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The (book) references just stated the fact without further context. However, I found a reference (by the Burnley Express) that did provide some further info; Freeman sr. was visiting family! I've corrected it in the article and added the ref. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

I'd probably put a "PD-published too long ago" template on File:1914 fa cup final programme.jpg just to be safe - while I don't think it's copyrightable, it's also quite long and "selection and arrangement" copyright might be close. That image also needs ALT text. Regarding File:The King George V presents the FA Cup 1914.jpg do we know when it was published? What is "Football Post"? Is historicalkits a reliable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review. I added that template, and added ALT text. Looking in the British Newspaper Archive, the second picture was already published two days after the final (in the Sheffield Daily Telegraph; added the info on Commons). Football Post was part of Nottingham Post; added wikilinks in the article. Historicalkits is a site used on many FACs, the authors/historians/experts make use of books and newspapers (as can e.g., be seen at the bottom of the Burnley entry). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon @Jo-Jo Eumerus: have I addressed your concerns? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Did check some sources for reliability indicators and it seems they are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Nice piece of work. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, and am happy that this article satisfies the FA criteria. - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.

  • The leagues that the teams were playing in should be mentioned, probably in both the lead and the body.
    • Done
  • I think that the second paragraph of the lead focuses excessively on the presence of the monarch, as "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" (WP:LEAD); instead of the rose-in-buttonhole and crest details, it could mention who the favourites were, the teams' styles of play, or how they prepared.
    • On the subject of favourites, the corresponding paragraph in the body seems slightly confused: should "Liverpool were the favourites" be "Liverpool were the bookies' favourites" or similar, considering the subsequnt references to those who felt Burnley were the favourites?
      • Addressed both comments
  • "In the 58th minute, Teddy Hodgson headed the ball to Bert Freeman, who put Burnley 1–0 ahead with a powerful half-volley from around 15 yards (14 m)." Personally, I don't think the references to Teddy Hodgson, heading, or the distance are necessary: I would just say "Bert Freeman put Burnley in front with a powerful half-volley in the 58th minute."
    • Reworded
  • "Liverpool could not find an equaliser in the remaining minutes and the match ended 1–0." Perhaps just "Liverpool could not find an equaliser before the match ended", otherwise there's a repeat of the scoreline within a sentence.
    • Done

It turns out that that I have absolutely no problems with the rest of the article, just the lead, so I think I can support this article even without waiting on the actioning of the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, thank you for the review! I've addressed your comments. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 10 May 2024 [10].

Etika[edit]

Nominator(s): PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Amofah, better known as Etika, rose to popularity through his gaming videos, reactions, and spirited personality. However, his life took a tragic turn when he publicly underwent numerous incidents due to his struggles with mental health, leading to his suicide in June 2019. I nominated this article for three reasons.

  1. Etika was the reason I created my Wikipedia account. When I first heard of his passing, an overwhelming mix of emotions whirled in the pool of my mind, with regret leaping for air the most. As someone who saw his unraveling in real time, all I wanted to do was change the past, but was powerless to do so – instead I focused on the future. In 2023, I brought the page to GA status as a healing process of coping with tragedy through copy-editing and typing. This year I continued my journey in hopes to bring it to FA.
  2. If everything goes well, Etika would become the very first article of a YouTuber, and perhaps an Internet personality, to reach the coveted title. This is quite unprecedented territory in several ways, and I feel that in those same ways there couldn't be a more fitting person to wear that crown, because
  3. His story is a compelling yet tragic tale about one's journey through fame and battles with social media and mental health. Although dealing with troubling subject material, Etika's life is one future generations deserve to know about. I wanted to do my part in honoring his life and legacy.

I'd like to thank @HappyBoi3892, Vaticidalprophet, Masem, and VARNAMi: and every other contributor to the article. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

I only have time to look at the lead right this minute, but I picked up these points:

  • "He became known online for his enthusiastic reactions to Super Smash Bros. character trailers"......"He garnered popularity following the release of Super Smash Bros. 4, primarily stemming from his videos discussing news related to the game" - "enthusiastic reactions to trailers" and "discussing news" don't really sound like the same thing. Can you clarify?
    • It was meant to convey that he uploaded both news and reaction videos to the game. I'll rewrite to "...from his reaction videos of news surrounding the game" for now.
  • There are three refs against the penultimate sentence. Refs should only be in the lead in exceptional circumstances. Are the observers who commented also mentioned in the body? If so, just have the refs there....
    • I mentioned this in the GA review, and admittedly this is a bit unorthodox. But the reason why I kept those was because I felt they were the three best and most pertinent sources discussing him. I intended it so that if an interested reader had little time to read all the sources, they could at least check those articles. If anyone disagrees however, I'd be more than open to refactor them.

I'll look at the body later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Amofah had stated that he was distant from his father" => "he stated that he was distant from his father" ("Ambofah" is ambiguous as you have just talked about multiple people with that surname)
  • "Amofah had an older brother" => "He had an older brother" (same reason)
  • "He would be pulled out" => "He was pulled out"
  • "He had also stated in a livestream" => "He also stated in a livestream"
  • "Within months after creating" => "Within months of creating"
  • "screams "Mewtwo!" with other profanities" - Mewtwo is not a profanity, so saying "other profanities" doesn't work. Try "screams "Mewtwo!" with several profanities"
    • I also added specific profanities he exclaimed per sources.
  • "Despite his earnings, Amofah had revealed in a June 2017 video" => "Despite his earnings, Amofah revealed in a June 2017 video"
  • "Amofah continued to evince erratic behavior" - "evidence" is a pretty obscure word, I think. Maybe "display" would be better?
  • "where he was subsequently taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance" => "after which he was taken to a Brooklyn hospital in an ambulance"
  • " and as part of this, sends information" => " and that as part of this, it sends information"
  • Bridge image caption isn't a full sentence so doesn't require a full stop
  • That's what I got. An excellent (but, of course, sad) read -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from NegativeMP1[edit]

I'll take a look soon. I'll likely do an image review alongside one for prose. λ NegativeMP1 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find any issues with the prose, and all images are free to use. My only comment is requesting the addition of alternative text to all images for accessibility. λ NegativeMP1 23:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for the halt on this, I forgot that I put this down. Since alt text has been added, I'm giving my Support.
Hi NegativeMP1, could I just check which of the following camps you fall into?
  1. A general (prose and MoS) support only.
  2. An image review pass only.
  3. A general support and an image review pass.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk)
The third one, images look fine to me and I didn't see any issues with the prose. λ NegativeMP1 17:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skyshifter[edit]

  • As I said in the peer review (though now I say as a view of mine instead of "what FAC reviewers may say"), I think some sources listed as "primary" can't be used, as they are fan reuploads of the original videos, meaning they could be altered, for example. The sources in question are 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 (from this revision). I'd try to find primary sources from Etika himself or secondary sources to confirm the information instead of fan reuploads.
  • Those primary references also need consistent formatting. Some examples are:
    • You should use {{cite tweet}} for ref 10 as you did with other tweets.
    • Some YouTube sources are lacking author and the |via=YouTube parameter.
    • References 5 and 11 list the author as "Etika @ 999 [@Etika]", while ref 7 lists him as "Amofah, Desmond [@Etika]".

Skyshiftertalk 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter and NegativeMP1: Apologies for the late response - I've been trying to find more suitable substitutes for some of the primary sources the past few days. I replaced some so far, but even the Wayback Machine isn't helping me here - some of the videos aren't even archived properly (like the 200,000 sub video where source 8 comes from). This might be a case where the reuploads either remain as surrogate archives per WP:IAR or rewritten entirely; I'll let other editors weigh in on this. Considering how sparingly they're used however, I don't think it should be too much of a loss if removed. Also, I implemented the Alt Text. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just checking in. Anyone still have more comments for the article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4/19 Reply: Skyshifter Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I fixed the formatting for several of Twitter and YouTube sources. Unfortunately, after searching for several weeks, I was unable to locate other sources that replace 2, 3, 4 and 6. In advance for the source review, I would like to refer to this past discussion, and if the reviewer is okay with it based on said discussion, I'll leave that section intact. Otherwise, if I still don't find any by next week, I'll trim that info. Besides that, any other comments and suggestions? PantheonRadiance (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't think the fact that these were reuploads was made very clear in that discussion. For example, one user referred to "self-published primary sources". However, self-published here would mean published by Etika himself, and that's not the case here: the sources were published by, basically, random Internet users. Again, the problem of reuploads is that the content could be edited or altered in a way not intended by the person themselves (in this case, Etika). I think more opinions are necessary here. Skyshiftertalk 13:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyshifter: As a compromise, I rewrote the Early Life section without the videos because I still haven't located his original clips through the Wayback Machine. I kept two SPSs directly from him - his own tweet and his "25 Things About Me Video": here's the proposed version. Also for the record, I did clarify in the discussion that they were originally self-published videos by Etika, but were deleted as a consequence of his channel terminations, meaning that the reuploads are literally the only remaining sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! Skyshiftertalk 21:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Skyshiftertalk 23:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Skyshifter, could I just check which of the following camps you fall into?
  1. A general (prose and MoS) support only.
  2. An source review pass only.
  3. A general support and an source review pass.

And if you have passed the sources, do you consider that you have also done a first-timer's source to text fidelity spotcheck and/or a first-timer's plagiarism check? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is only a general support. Skyshiftertalk 13:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from DecafPotato[edit]

Just a drive-by comment: In the second paragraph of the "Origins and popularity" section, the article states that he was earning over $300,000 a year through stream donations. The New York Times article to which this quote is attributed says that When the sessions got frank, or the high jinks got crazy [...], viewers would shower the chat with donations. At one point Etika claimed he was making over $300,000 per year. That source, to me, doesn't attribute the income directly to stream donations (although donations are mentioned in the previous sentence so it does carry that implication). Would it be better to rephrase that sentence to "he was earning over $300,000 a year through streaming" (or some other variant that doesn't explicitly mention donations)? DecafPotato (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense; how about "$300,000 a year through his internet career"? PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. DecafPotato (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Elli[edit]

  • "and he stated that he was distant from his father because of his political occupation" this is a bit of a nitpick, but this could technically be read ambiguously (the "he" could refer to either his father or himself). Maybe could rephrase with a bit of expansion on why his father was in NYC at the time, and clarify when exactly he went back to Ghana (to get an idea of when the two had time together).
  • Expanded based on suggestions, but the GhanaWeb source notes that their relationship was unclear (a clip where he talks about his father was used as a SPS, but it's a reupload so it may not be permissible).
    • Looks good.
  • "During that time" is kinda redundant to "in 2007"; maybe do "Under that name"?
  • The previous sentence already has "under the name," so I'll just omit "during that time."
  • The comicbook.com source doesn't appear to be relevant to the sentence about Model Mayhem (it says less on the topic than the other sources do and as far as I can tell doesn't link the profile either).
  • That was meant to be for the claim that he modeled during his early 20s - swapped the sources around.
  • The first paragraph in the "Origins and popularity (2012–2018)" covers content from the following section as well. Kinda breaks the sequence here. If the info on subscriber counts is meant to be a summary, I'd pull it out to the "YouTube career" section and also integrate the information on subscriber counts to the particular sections where it's sequentially relevant.
  • Pulled to YT career section, but I couldn't find a way to integrate the subscriber info without it feeling awkward. I think it'd make a good summary as is.
    • That's fair.
  • Is there more coverage of his personal life? He was in a relationship with Cardona for six years but she, nor his other potential relationships, aren't mentioned anywhere outside the context of his YouTube career. Understandable if the sources don't exist, though (and it's not our job to try to dig up that sorta stuff from his YouTube videos).
  • AFAICT, his relationship with Cardona was his only verifiable one. Besides that, outside of SPSs and secondary sources already in the article, there isn't much I could find of his personal life anymore. Also, the only info of his mother I could find is in relation to the aftermath of his passing, which is why details of her are included later in the article.
  • "he blocked close friends of his and other YouTubers" not sure this is supported entirely by the sources? Kotaku: "Sky Williams, who apparently considers himself a friend of Amofah’s, realized he was blocked by the YouTuber today" and Shacknews doesn't say anything about Slasher being a friend with Etika at all.
  • 4Gamer translation says this: "Amofah began sending direct messages to his friends and famous YouTubers one after another, and blocking them if they did not receive a sincere response". Appended ref there and readjusted accordingly.
  • "which he also posted to Twitter repeatedly" can't find this in the sources? All they say is that he posted it -- not repeatedly.
  • Decided to remove.
  • "he assaulted the police officer in self-defense" - assault is a crime, not an action. The Power Unlimited source says "hit" (at least, with Google translate as I can't read Dutch), and the People source doesn't mention self-defense at all. Would figure out a different phrase to use here (it's fine to use "assault" generally, but it doesn't make sense to say someone "assaulted in self-defense").
  • Agreed and changed; it has more source integrity (plus every other translator I used says hit). Also added his claim the officer hit him first based on both sources.
  • "A tweet Amofah posted" saying "had posted" would probably be clearer.
  • Agreed and changed.
  • "both from his fans and from mental health facilities" maybe better to say "by both his fans and mental health facilities" or similar.
    Agreed and changed too.
  • "After raising money for charity, Abe Hunter and Double A worked with mural artist BK Foxx and graffiti artists Kestaadm and JMZWalls to create a 40-feet-long mural completed by November 2019 dedicated to Amofah in Bushwick, Brooklyn." would it be possible to add a picture of this? (think it would be considered non-free copyrighted artwork, but there's a good case for including it here).
  • I'd include one but I'm admittedly unfamiliar with uploading images, especially non-free ones. I'd leave this to anyone with expertise in this.

Overall, this is quite good. These are just some minor nitpicks and shouldn't be too difficult to deal with (also if you disagree with me on some of them, that's fine, just let me know what your thoughts are). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elli: I think I addressed them all, and also added and revised some statements too. Please let me know if you have any other concerns or comments. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me! Happy to support now :) Elli (talk | contribs) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5/1/24: Just wanted to let you all know that as of now, I'm finished with editing the article for the time being. Most of the new additions from the past few days were basic copy edits and small but pertinent details, in line with the comprehensiveness criteria. At this point I'll continue editing after more feedback arises. Also pinging @Skyshifter and DecafPotato: any more comments, or do you offer support for the article now? Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No other comments, I'm glad to offer my support for the article. DecafPotato (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source rev/spot check[edit]

In progress; this version reviewed. ——Serial Number 54129 14:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Not worrying too much about identifiers or archives, but there's a couple of sources using only surnames, one of which sounds like a forename...?
  • IIRC, several Asian and European journalists typically write with pseudonyms or pen names. I can't pinpoint where I read this at the moment, so I just used the name listed on the articles.
  • Not sure of the necessity of using a typographical mark to identify primary sources. It's very cute. But we generally do not.
  • I based it off of other YouTuber articles like PewDiePie, Ludwig Ahgren and Drew Gooden. But would a simple {{reflist|group=PS}} suffice? PS for primary source? Open to any ideas here.
Quality

As expected in a topic such as this, most of the sources are devoted to popular culture. And why not. I don't suppose it's much within the purview of The Times features editor. Several papers are of record, and there's an academic text also. Must AGF on foreign language sources, likewise pay-per-view sources. Hey WaPo, democracy dies behind a fucking paywall, pal.

  • LMAO yeah, had to climb so many walls working on this. As a general note, I tried my hardest to make sure all the sources were fully reliable per RSPSS and/or WP:VG/S and used marginally reliable ones for more basic claims where appropriate.
Spot check
  • 1b "the East River from where Amofah's belongings were recovered, and reported to the NYPD"—check.
  • 3b doesn't back anything; but everything seems supported by 48.
  • Sorry, did you mean 3b and source 4 for the "exaggerated style" statement? Or were you referring to the police officer incident for 48?
  • 3k Keem quote—check.
  • 6 Owuraku Amofah—check.
  • 10a "Jerry Rawlings, he moved to the United States to become a Magistrate Judge"—check.
  • 13b Article says: His last videos included reactions to the Sonic the Hedgehog film and Black Mirror along with Nintendo Direct presentations". Source says "he posted videos on Nintendo Direct presentations, the Sonic the Hedgehog movie, and Black Mirror". Pretty close, but as a list of facts probably OK.
  • Yeah, I tried to avoid close paraphrasing a bit here so I listed it chronologically from his first to his last upload.
  • 17a Article says: "Amofah started modeling in his early twenties and continued until 2015". Source says: "Etika modeled for a bit in his early 20s". (2015 backed by following source) Self quotes—check.
  • 24 —check.
  • 26 Sandqvist, fakery etc—check.
  • 30 Doki Doki—check.
  • 34d photoshop, gun, Alice Pika—check.
  • 40d No "simulation" quote; if it's in WaPo, then the telegraph is surely unnecessary.
  • Fair enough, decided to omit.
  • 41 Alice/Cardona—check.
  • 43 Article: "including homophobic and ethnic slurs". Source: "An anti-Semitic slur that has since been deleted... began using homophobic slurs". Check, although I suggest naming "anti-semitism" rather than the vaguer "ethnic".
  • 47c publicity stunt/mental breakdown—check.
  • 51 —check.
  • 53 Supports the claim of Wednesday's disappearance/belongings discovery. 19 June was a Wednesday in 2019—check.
  • 54 Supports other date—check.
  • 58 Quote—check.
  • 60 Confirms SonicFox; not "esports".
  • Trimmed esports.
  • 63b That Keem "end[ed] his sponsorship" is self-sourced; the source actually says "with Keem saying that he "walked away".
  • Persona Studies also said "…resulted in Keemstar terminating his contract with G Fuel (he claims)".
  • 67a Quote—check.
  • 70 Only verifies 270,000.
  • Fixed, but it actually says it reached 370,000.
  • 73 "tribute" / "homage"—check.
  • 77 Source="posthumously awarded “Best Reaction” at the Smashies". Article=Posthumously, he was awarded the "Best Reaction" award at the 3rd Annual Smashies". Check.
  • 67a Both figures—check.
  • 82 No mention of Niantic.
  • 84 Indiegogo, Jed Foundation, shells, Etikons, cease and desist, trademark, criticism—check.
  • 85 September, $10,000—check.
There's a few things to be clarified.
I adjusted the curious Wikidata link per WP:REDYES. If there's a real need for the WD link—I can't remember ever seeing it before on a FA—then a {{efn}} is probably the place for it, rather than in the middle of (per WP:FA?#1) otherwise "engaging" prose. ——Serial Number 54129 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 Fair enough. I added it based on Vaticidalprophet's suggestion in the GA review (he worked on Marie Sophie Hingst which has them), but I appreciate your adjustment. As for everything else, besides the one question I had, I think I more or less addressed your comments. But please let me know if you have any more feedback or concerns. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've answered only where absolutely necessary, PantheonRadiance; my silence=acquiescence. Your reasons are acceptable and within the parameters. The sourced review is passed. It's a powerful article, a brutal exposé of the dark underbelly of what gets bundled into a lightweight, easy-listening culture... an effervescent but transistory "pop" culture with the eternal inner turmoil of human beings at its heart. ——Serial Number 54129 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thank you so much for reviewing it! And I agree, Etika's story is like a portal to the ever-expanding dark side of internet culture.
One last thing though: on the "Reactions and analysis" section, I just added one more statement from The Verge about doctor and then-Panda Global CEO Alan Bunney's thoughts on the situation as well (he was CEO at the time, but left in late 2022, so I omitted because I wasn't sure how to include this without another source). PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2024 [11].

Edmund Ætheling[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little is known about Edmund Ætheling, who is probably the only son of a king to have died in exile in Hungary. It was a GA when a Japanese editor asked for help getting it to a GA on Japanese Wikipedia. I saw that the article was mainly based on an unreliable source and I advised the Japanese editor not to proceed and got it delisted as a GA. After that I thought I ought to bring the article up to scratch and I think that it now covers everything said about Edmund in RSs. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

I remember the GA delisting. Interesting times! Can you clarify the first sentence of the Background? It says that England experienced (suffered?) Viking attacks from 793 (for example), but they stopped for 25 years from 950. That's a very long stretch of time. Suggest linking calendar of saints' feast days as pretty specialist to all but practising Catholics. The good thing about using {{lang}} is not so much cosmetic byt that screen readers use it to identify a foreign title, so it is in accordance with MOS:ACCESS. Interesting article, nice and tight, Dudley Miles, and thanks for it. Will you be translating it to Japanese for Yon Feller?  :) ——Serial Number 54129 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Serial. I am not clear about your first point. The first recorded Viking raid was in 789 but there is evidence that there were earlier unrecorded ones. I have linked calendar of saints and added the lang template. I am afraid my Japanese is non-existent so I will leave the translation to you! Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Banzai! is about all I've got Dudley  :) happy to support this article's promotion. ——Serial Number 54129 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Never thought I'd get to review Ealdgyth's spouse !

Anyway the images are just fine :) (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe. Actually, it is Ealdgyth's son. Does that make it even better or a disappointment? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recuse to review.

  • "(born 1016-17)" Perhaps '(born 1016 or 1017)'? As it is written I have an image of his mother going into labour late on New Year's Eve.
  • "briefly ruled as King of England". Lower-case k as it is being used here as a job title.
  • "fought the invasion of the Danish Vikings". "the invasion"?
  • This is a difficult one. "an" invasion would be wrong as it was a series of incursions over several years aiming to conquer England. "invasions" seems wrong as it was all part of one process. I think "the invasion" sounds right. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that makes it sound like the one and only time Danish vikings invaded England. Why not give full information, as you did to me? 'Edmund Ironside fought a series of attacks [or 'incursions'] by the Danish Vikings'?
  • How about "Æthelred had spent most of his reign unsuccessfully resisting incursions by Danish vikings, and as king Edmund Ironside put up a strong fight until his death in November 1016, when the Viking leader Cnut became the undisputed king of all England." Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.
  • Several page ranges use hyphens rather than en dashes.
  • I have never understood hyphens, en dashes and em-dashes, and scripts seem erratic, changing some but not others. Is there a script which deals with this reliably?
I have a "Fix dashes" in my side bar, although I can't remember where it came from, and it stopped working for me about a year ago.
LOL.
  • "the king of Sweden". Upper-case K, as it refers to a specific person.
  • "Yaroslav I, prince of Kiev". Upper-case P. :-)
  • "as early sources which says that they first went to Russia." Should that be 'say'?
  • "A claimant to the Hungarian throne, Andrew, fled to Russia after being expelled from his home country, and in 1046 he returned and seized the Hungarian throne." A minor point, but "... the Hungarian throne ... the Hungarian throne."
  • Foreign language words, other than proper nouns, should be in lang templates. Eg "Clitus is the Latin for ætheling."
  • "and certainly by 1057, when Edward died a few days after his return." Why does this follow?
  • This is never spelled out by historians, but it is assumed that if he had been alive when his brother died then he would have been mentioned as a claimant to the English throne. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there isn't a source which spells it out for you to refer to. Bleh! Most unsatisfactory, but I suppose it can't be helped.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments, and one ongoing issue, above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 750h[edit]

The only issue I have is with a paragraph consisting of just one sentence. But I understand its why it's there, so I support this article's promotion.  750h+ | Talk  05:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

An interesting quick read on a topic I knew nothing about. A few small comments, below:

  • "a few days before his death in 957" - is this supposed to be 1057, or am I confused?4
  • "He is commonly known as 'Edward the Exile'." seems unnecessary after we were already introduced to him in the lead, but I won't demand its removal.
  • The repetition is necessary because the lead should be a summary of the full details in the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A late eleventh-century entry in manuscript D of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that Cnut sent Edward to Hungary 'to betray'." Do we have any context for what "to betray" would mean here?
  • The implication is that they were sent to Hungary to be murdered, but I cannot find any historian specifically discussing the wording in the Chronicle. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any easy way to reword "Sweden until 1028, when they went to Kiev with King Olaf of Norway, who fled to Sweden and then Kiev"? I had to read it a few times to understand. I think "Sweden... Kiev... Sweden... Kiev" in one sentence made my head spin.
  • How about "De Vajay suggests that the brothers stayed in Sweden until 1028. In that year King Olaf of Norway fled to Sweden and then Kiev after being defeated by Cnut and losing his kingdom, and de Vajay thinks that Edmund and Edward accompanied him." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Ajpolino (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "daughter of the king of Hungary, and Aelred is a credible" a bit of a run-on sentence. Can we split it here or rearrange a bit? Reads as if "According to Aelred... Aelred is a credible source"
Great, with that I'm happy to support. Thanks again for the read Dudley Miles. Ajpolino (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from UC[edit]

Short but well-crafted: a few comments below.

  • Is this the same person sometimes (perhaps in older sources?) referred to as "Edmund the Ætheling"? If so, perhaps an "also known as..." or a footnote to explain the difference would help.
  • I have not come across this usage. Can you give examples? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking around, it seems to be minority, but see e.g. here (1939), here (1998) and (not such an authoritative source) here (2014). Whether it's a mistake or a variation, I think it might be worth a footnote. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these examples refer to the subject of this article. The first is Edmund Ironside before he became king, the second a brother of Æthelred who died young, the third uncertain but probably also the brother who died young. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! In that case, suggest a hatnote to disambiguate: "not to be confused with Edmund Ironside, known as "Edmund the Atheling" before he became king". Is the other Edmund the Atheling notable enough to include there as well? UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is too complicated for a hatnote so I have added a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they ceased for twenty-five years from the mid-950s: we've got a curious balance here of quite a precise date (twenty-five years) with quite a vague one (mid-950s). Can we be more exact about when the last one was?
  • The exact date is not certain. Changed to "some twenty-five years". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advise "around twenty-five years": I don't think "some" means "roughly" outside BrE, and only weakly in that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æthelred's favourite, Eadric Streona, the ealdorman of Mercia, murdered two leading thegns of the northern Danelaw, Morcar and his brother Sigeferth: lots of technical terms here. There's always a balance to be struck between flow and clarity: here I would at least try to explain what the Danelaw is, perhaps in a sentence before this one that could go into when and how it came about.
  • How about a footnote explaining thegn and Danelaw to avoid breaking up the flow? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • marrying Ealdgyth in defiance of his father's will: suggest clarifying whether will here means "wishes" or "testament".
  • "Wishes" is too weak. Changed to "in defiance of his father".
  • Edmund and his brother Edward were the sons of Edmund Ironside, almost certainly by Ealdgyth: as written, it sounds as though this is the same Ealdgyth who had previously married Sigeferth.
  • Ah! In that case, I'm a little confused. In the lead, we had Edmund Ironside and his wife, probably called Ealdgyth, which says that we're unsure of whether it was Ealdgyth, but that we're certain it was Ironside's wife -- the only confusion is what her name was. Now we've got Edmund Ironside, almost certainly by Ealdgyth, where it's almost certain that it was this exact woman. The sources cited in the footnote seem to be supporting whether the wife's name was Ealdgyth, but I don't see anything written there as to whether she was actually the same woman, as opposed to someone of the same name. As you note there, it wasn't an unusual one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I have been over-cautious as most historians state without qualification that Ealdgyth was Edmund's mother, so I have removed "probably" from the lead, Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my only remaining confusion is Most historians give the name of Edmund Ironside's wife as Ealdgyth: do some historians thinks that Ironside married someone else? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Edmund Ironside's wife is almost always named by historians as Ealdgyth." It is accepted that Edmund married Sigeferth's widow and that she was the mother of his children. The possible doubt is her name. It is first recorded in the 1140s, and Williams suggests that it might be wrong, as I explain in the footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK: I'd suggest making that absolutely explicit, then: something like "Ironside's wife, Sigeferth's widow, is almost always named...". As written, it's still not totally unambiguous that they're the same person, but it sounds as though that fact is not in dispute. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a footnote at the first mention of their marriage. Does this work for you? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It works, but wouldn't it be better on "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth" slightly further up, as it explains the slightly unusual hedge? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it there because at first mention I have not yet said that she married Ironside, so it is not clear why her name is relevant. I am happy to go with your advice if you think this does not matter and I should move it up. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I read the article in its current form, what the footnote is currently clarifying is that we're slightly uncertain about Ealdgyth's name, but not the rest of her identity. That would be best placed after "who was almost certainly called Ealdgyth": as the footnote is written, I think it would fit well (and perhaps even better) there with no change, but you could rejig it a little if you feel that a different set of context would be helpful there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either the boys were twins or one of them was born posthumously: I assume there's some reason for this intriguing either-or: do we know what it is?
  • Changed to "As the marriage lasted no more then fifteen months, either the boys were twins or one of them was born after his father's death." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think so. If one of them had been born as a result of an affair when Ealdgyth was married to another man, he would not have been regarded as an ætheling. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough: do we have a source that explicitly shuts down that possibility (e.g. by saying that there are only two possible explanations), and if so, is it already cited? UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I cite a source which says that they were twins or one was posthumous. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were æthelings, an Old English word meaning "king's son" or "prince",: it sounds as though someone/some source gave them that epithet: do we know who?
  • Fine, but why then do we need the or of an Old English word meaning "king's son" or "prince"? It suggests that there's some ambiguity as to which sense of it is meant here. Suggest As a king's sons, they were known as æthelings. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were not just called æthelings. In Old English they were æthelings. The addition of "or prince" in the source is probably because there is some argument as to whether kings' grandsons qualified. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think getting into that particular set of linguistic weeds here is more confusing than helpful, if I'm honest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not gone into it in the article, but I have to add "or prince" in the definition as otherwise I would misrepresent the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure: if we say that someone was made captain of a football team, we don't need to add a note that the same word can mean somebody in charge of a boat, or be a general term for someone pre-eminent in their field. Similarly, if the word aetheling here unambiguously means "king's son", I don't think we need to confuse readers by saying that it could also have a wider meaning. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ætheling unambiguously means the male descendant of a king in the male line who is eligible for the throne. In early Wessex, the designation was passed down through several generations and son rarely followed father to the throne. From the mid-ninth century, only kings' sons were æthelings and all kings were sons of kings. This system finally broke down in 1066 when for the first time in over two centuries there was no living king's son when the king died. Edward the Exile's son is described in some sources as Edgar Ætheling even though he was only the grandson of a king. Historians disagree whether this was because grandsons could be æthelings or because there was no living ætheling in the strict sense of the term. All this is too complicated to go into, so I just quoted the definition in the most authorative source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one, I think, where I'll agree to differ -- I would do this differently, but it's only to be expected that two editors will sometimes have different approaches to a problem, and there's no issue here for FAC. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the twelfth-century chronicler, John of Worcester, : lose the commas, unless John of Worcester is the only chronicler who existed in the twelfth century (MOS:COMMA).
  • would in now wise comply with his entreaties: in no wise, surely? Similarly, with the passage to time: of time?
  • The historian and genealogist Szabolcs de Vajay argues that writers such as John of Worcester ... are late and wrong.: I'd give this another look: the single verb argues is tricky here because there's no argument about John's date, so he doesn't argue that he's late, but it is very much a matter of argument whether he was also wrong.
  • Removed argument by saying "later writers such as John". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He cites the Leges Edwardi Confessoris, which states: as leges is plural, I'd use a plural verb, but this may be a matter of taste. However, I'd definitely put that Latin title into a Latin language tag.
  • As it is the title of a work, I think singular is correct. I have added the Latin tag.
  • However, the Leges dates to the 1140s, contemporary with John of Worcester's Chronicle: I'm not sure I quite understand the significance of the however here.
  • Clarified as "However, the Leges is not an early source; it dates to the 1140s, contemporary with John of Worcester's Chronicle". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lestoire des Engleis: likewise, language tag here (do we have an Old French one?)
  • There does not appear to be an Old French tag so I have used the standard one. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keynes concludes "by the admittedly dangerous process of conflation", : comma needed after concludes, and I'd suggest something like "in his words" to be absolutely crystal as to whose quote this is.
  • and Aelred is a credible source as he spent several years at the court of King David I of Scotland, who was a grandson of Edward the Exile: "Aelred is a credible source as he was there" is quite unsophisticated source analysis. Plenty of eyewitnesses write things that are misinformed, forgetful or outright fraudulent. Suggest simply cutting the "and", starting a new sentence, and then cutting everything between "Aelred" and "spent".
  • This is a comment by Keynes and cited to him. It is not saying that Aelred is correct, only that he is credible. I have already made it two sentences in response to a comment by another reviewer. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Credible" is a value judgement: at minimum, I'd say "Keynes judges Aelred to be credible on the grounds that...". Describing sources in a binary way as credible/non-credible is simplistic, but at the very least shouldn't be presented as a statement of fact in Wikivoice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "Keynes comments that Aelred is a credible source". Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to keep picking this nit, but per MOS:SAID, we shouldn't use "comments that" (which should introduce a statement of objective fact) for a judgement/opinion. Advise "writes that", "judges that", "considers that" or similar. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read MOS as saying the opposite: "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough; I wouldn't personally include "commented" in a list like that, but the MoS does and we should defer to that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a difference about judgement rather than grammar. Keynes's comment seems to me a fair deduction, whereas you see it as simplistic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not wild about calling any source "credible" in such black-and-white terms, but that may be a reflection of coming from an ancient-history background, where we take as read that all of our sources are more or less always lying to us somehow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the difference is the significance attached to "credible". I take Keynes to mean that Aelred should be taken seriously as he was in a position to know, not that he is definitely correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps: I take "this source is credible" as "we should trust this source"; I would use something softer for "this source deserves to be taken seriously". However, another one where I think the current solution is perfectly satisfactory, even if I might have done it differently. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodleian MS Douce 296 provides further information.: I know what MS stands for, but most readers won't, so I'd introduce this as something like "the manuscript known to scholarship as..."
  • Bodleian MS Douce 296 provides further information. It is a psalter which dates to the middle of the eleventh century. It includes a calendar of saints' feast days, and later in the century four obits were added to the calendar. Two are of unidentified people and the other two are of Edmund and Edward.: this seems like a very long-winded way of saying "late in the eleventh-century, obits of Edmund and Edward were added to a psalter known as Bodleian MS Douce 296, giving Edmund's death as 10 January."
  • I think it is worth giving full details of such a crucial source. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I'm not totally convinced that (for instance) the fact that two unidentified people are listed alongside the two we care about is WP:DUE in a biography of Edmund (as opposed to an article on the psalter). UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We might wish to translate the whole obit (including the word obiit), though I would hope that most readers will be able to figure that bit out.
  • Clarified above with "obits (death dates)"
  • and certainly by 1057, when Edward died a few days after his return: how do we know? Incidentally, Edward's return, or Edmund's? It's clear from the article but not, grammatically, in this sentence.
  • This was raised by another reviewer. Edmund would have been a candidate for the throne if he had still been alive when Edward died, but this is not spelled out by historians so there is no source I could cite for explaining the date. It seems clear to me gramatically. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't give the full bibliography of Ronay's book in a footnote: instead, you could give the title, add it to the bibliography, and provide a SFN to direct readers there. At the moment, we break the reader's flow for information that very few will honestly care about (the ISBN, publisher and place).
  • This is difficult point. I originally gave details of Ronay's book in the bibliography and changed it as a result of an argument when reviewing another article. I suggested listing a book which was criticised but not cited, and the nominator argued that only books cited should be in the bibliography. I think he has a point, but full details should be given of any book discussed, so the best solution seemed to put them in a footnote. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a major problem: I'd do it differently, but I didn't write the article, and the solution here is entirely reasonable. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I'm sure it was difficult gathering the information for the present revision of the article – not even an ODNB article on the subject! – but one would not guess it from the prose, which flows splendidly. I was surprised to see a book from Boydell and Brewer in the line of fire, but no doubt those sniping at it know of what they speak. I can well believe the article is as comprehensive as we're likely to get, and knowing Dudley's previous work I take it for granted that the exiguous illustration is all that's to be had. I've corrected a couple of typos, but please check my changes are OK.

A couple of minor drafting points, which don't affect my support:

  • "...the English wanted them as rulers, so Emma urged Cnut..." – I shall maintain even in articulo mortis that "so" is not a conjunction (or not in formal English anyway) but the current edition of Fowler reckons that it is widely accepted as such these days. I must leave it to you to decide.
  • I have no strong feelings either way. What do you suggest? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should write "and so" or even just "and", but I most certainly don't press the point, and if you want a naked "so" I shall not complain. Tim riley talk 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little uneasy about "Gaimar claims that Emma urged Cnut..." – "claims" may be thought to suggest that the assertion is questionable, and is not, I think, a neutral word, but I don't press the point. "She claimed", two sentences later, seems to me a more appropriate use of the verb.
  • I think "claims" is the right word as it is made clear below that Gaimar is not regarded as a reliable source. It is because a biography relying on Gaimar was published by B&B that historians criticise it. If it had come from a less prestigious publisher they would not have bothered, Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 11:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim. One query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

The article relies on 20 sources, nearly all by prominent historians with relevant expertise, and published by reputable organizations. Ronay appears to be a "freelance historian", but since his work is used only in a footnote to interpret Gardimbre I didn't bother digging into this. Reference formatting looks consistent. A quick search for overlooked sources reveals the somewhat-obvious: that this is a poorly covered topic, and Dudley Miles has done a top notch job putting together an interesting and informative article from sparse material. Bravo, and source review pass. Ajpolino (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2024 [12].

Empire of the Sultans[edit]

Nominator(s): MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful FAC last year for an article about an art exhibition, I invite review of this article about another exhibition: one that visited sixteen venues. As with Hajj: Journey to the Heart of Islam, this article results from my role as Wikimedian In Residence at the Khalili Collections. I make extensive use of paywalled news archives, so of course I am happy to answer any requests for detailed quotes from those sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ghosts of Europa[edit]

Hello! I don't have much feedback for the Venues or Reception sections. However, I think the Background and Content sections are under-developed and would benefit from expansion. I also think the focus of the Background section is unclear; it doesn't seem to properly set up the rest of the article.

For the Background section:

  • You cite four sources to cover the history of the Ottoman Empire: Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Deseret News, BYU, and the Salt Lake Tribune. The Encyclopedia makes sense, but otherwise this seems like a strange choice of sources. Is Deseret News really the best source for what the Ottomans did in 1516? Why cite newspapers at all instead of peer reviewed history books?
    • Can't do this straight away, but I'll find better sources. The newspaper sources are already used in the article and were written specifically to give context to the exhibition, but their statements can indeed be backed up by scholarly sources. Done: newspaper sources removed, academic books used instead, paragraph re-worded to fit those sources.
  • I think you should explain Islam's views on idolatry and its preference for non-representational art. Without that context, it's surprising that an exhibition covering 600 years of art is so focused on calligraphy and doesn't include e.g. sculptures.
    • This is a good idea; as with the above, I'll have to dig into scholarly sources.
  • In 1516, the empire took over the holy places of Islam in Arabia - What were these places? Everything on this list?
    • Yes, the part of that list that relates to Arabia. I could insert "Mecca and Medina" to make it explicit? Sentence now replaced based on academic source.
  • Although officially an Islamic state, the empire promoted a religious tolerance that was unusual for medieval Europe - Is this relevant to the exhibition? It sounds like it specifically focused on Islamic art.
    • I think this is useful context because the sultans did not fully embrace the restrictions of Islam, for instance commissioning portrait paintings. The exhibition combined Islamic art with art made for people who were unbelievably wealthy — maybe the richest family in the world at that time — and liked to show off their wealth.
  • The empire's rulers, the sultans, were keen patrons of the arts, especially calligraphy - This feels overly simplified. Was every single sultan for 600 years a "keen patron"?
    • I don't think "every single sultan" is implied. Sources use "the sultans" as the subject of the statement. I agree it's a breezy generalisation but not sure more is needed to explain why someone would be interested in the sultans' art.
FAC doesn't do "breezy generalistion[s]". Perhaps "Many of the empire's rulers, the sultans, were ..."? Assuming that the sources will support this. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion: now done. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suleiman and the later sultans used this wealth to build large, domed mosque complexes that included schools and hospitals - It's not clear how this connects to the article. Did some of the art in this exhibit come from those mosques?
    • This was included just to underline that the sultans were very rich, but you're right that it doesn't illuminate the exhibition. Now removed. Removed mention of schools and hospitals, and added clause about inscriptions.
  • other objects with secular or religious purposes - This is pretty vague (isn't everything either secular or religious?). I don't have a clear sense of what's in this collection. More detail or examples would be helpful.
    • Many objects were religious in purpose but many were not. Rephrased to make this more clear. The scope of the collection is art from Islamic countries, whether or not that art has a religious purpose or function.
Then why does this, not relevant, split need mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: It's mentioned to head off the misconception that the a collection named "... Collection of Islamic Art" is exclusively of art with a religious purpose/ origin. This exhibition combines art from a religious tradition with luxury items whose purpose was to show off the wealth of a ruling family. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fair enough then. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Content:

  • The exhibition's curators were J. M. Rogers, the collection's honorary curator; and Nahla Nassar, its acting curator and registrar - This wording is awkward. Its curators were curators?
    • The curators of the exhibition were the curators of the collection, which isn't always true of exhibitions. I agree the repetition of "curator" is jarring. How about "The exhibition was assembled by..."?
  • More than 200 objects were on display, covering 600 years of the Ottoman Empire - This is also a bit awkward. The article on the Ottoman Empire says it lasted from 1299 to 1922, or 623 years. Were 23 of those years not covered by the exhibition?
    • 600 years is the number used by sources, but it's almost certainly false precision. Changed to "six centuries".
  • These exhibits fell into four sections. "In the service of God" displayed texts including the Quran as well as furniture and ornaments for decorating mosques. - The subsection about this exhibit doesn't mention furniture, which makes it feel incomplete after this overview.
    • Well spotted. I've added a sentence under "In the service of God" about mosque furniture.
  • Architectural inscriptions were a feature of Ottoman mosque interiors - This seems like it belongs in the Background section.
    • Seems like I need a new background sentence combining the fact that the sultans built mosques and they decorated them in a particular way. I'll think more about this. Rephrased and moved to background section.
  • The armour, forged from iron or steel, included helmets, chain mail shirts, and a 15th century war mask - This is an abrupt start to this subsection; I needed to reread the overview to orient myself. Consider re-introducing the topic: "This exhibit featured armour, which..."
    • You're right; I got sick of repeating "The exhibition included...". Now rephrased.
  • Other pottery on display came from Syria, among which were a set of twelve fritware bowls from 1860, each inscribed in Arabic with "Imperial Chamber" and "a gift for his excellency Abraham Lincoln". - I feel like I'm missing huge chunks of this story. Why was a gift for Abraham Lincoln in Syria? Did they never send it? Did Lincoln give it back?
    • I have the same feeling, and frustratingly the questions are not answered by the sources! So it's known that they bear Lincoln's name but I don't think anybody knows why these gifts were made for him but did not end up in the USA. I've added a sentence to explain that the curators don't know.
  • In the 19th century it was routine for sultans to be trained in calligraphy - This also feels like it belongs in the background.
    • Moved.

Ghosts of Europa (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Very grateful for your feedback and happy to give the article more useful context. I've made some changes straight away; others require more thought and poring through sources. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to apologise for delay with the last remaining point. I've had a celebratory last few days. Also, my search for references about Aniconism in Islam led to discovering problems with the sourcing of that article and Muslim world that I have spent some time digging into. I will come back to the background section of this article this week. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think I understand the FA standards well enough to have an opinion. This is my first time participating in the process. I’ll defer to you and SchroCat. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ghosts of Europa are you satisfied with my responses to the points you've raised in your review? I think the last one that needs work is the use of newspaper sources in the Background section. I have spent some time on this and you'll see that I have provided some scholarly sources, but there are still a couple of newspaper sources supporting general statements about Ottoman art. I've had less time than anticipated for wiki editing over the last week but I still intend to improve the Background section. If, looking at what I've done since your review, you feel any suggestion has not been answered satisfactorily, I can work on that too. The article is much better thanks to your involvement, so thanks. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghosts of Europa (and anyone else who wants to review) I've now made substantial changes to the Background section to remove a couple of inadequate sources and to make some points about Islamic art in general. I've had to change and rearrange some statements, but this let me wiki-link a few relevant articles. Is that section now good enough for its role giving context to the exhibition? All feedback welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current version looks great! It provides good context for the prominence of calligraphy, and the wikilinks make it easy to learn more. I haven't checked source-text integrity, but the general quality of the sources looks good. Two somewhat nitpicky things:
  • Referring to "Istanbul" seems anachronistic, especially underneath a map that calls the city Constantinople.
  • The New York Times seems like a weird source for Calligraphy was as central to Ottoman culture as painting was to Europe during the Renaissance. I wouldn't expect NYT journalists to be experts in comparative art history. Is there a more academic source we can use?
Ghosts of Europa (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin, have you addressed these last two comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ghosts of Europa for the feedback and @Gog the Mild for the nudge. That damn catchy song had me reflexively avoiding "Constantinople" even when it is the historically correct name. Now I have replaced the two references to Istanbul. I've also deleted the sentence sourced to the NY Times and instead used a statement sourced to an encyclopaedia article by Fikret Sarıcaoğlu, a professor of Ottoman history. I hope this makes the Background section fit for purpose. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Ghosts of Europa, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

  • I thoroughly enjoyed your Hajj article, so I'm looking forward to this one too. Comments to follow shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "from 2000 to 2004: a period" A colon is wrong here – a comma would suffice
Content
  • Image caption: link horse chestnut? (Only a mild suggestion – your call entirely)
Venues
  • Image caption: "c. 1560-80" should be "c. 1560–1580", per the MOS
Books, paintings
  • "some following a standard pattern": is it possible to explain what the "standard pattern" is, or is that too complex to achieve in a few words?
Venues
  • I'm not sure we need a whole subsection for the US tour, do we? Just making it part of the wider section would be better (and doesn't give excess weight to one of the four countries)

That's my lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat Thanks for your suggestions, all of which I've implemented. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since the additions suggested by Ghosts of Europa, this article is now much stronger than it was and up to FAC standards. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I saw this FAC posted in WP:Museums and came to take a look since I've been meaning to get more familiar with the FAC process. I've read the article carefully and I think my only contribution is to wonder whether the lead should be a bit further expanded to perhaps say what objects some of the critics praised were? I really enjoyed reading the comments above too Lajmmoore (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice surprise to see one of my wiki-heroes at FAC. Thanks for the support! Looking again at the summary of reviews, three of them specifically praise the calligraphy. So I've added a clause in the lead to reflect this. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by a455bcd9[edit]

File:OttomanEmpire1566.png is unsourced. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing: that'll teach me that I've focused too much on what I've written/added rather than others' work! I've removed the image and replaced it with commons:File:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png which does cite sources. Are you happy with this substitution? I also note that there is commons:File:OttomanEmpire1590.png which is extensively sourced, but may not be ideal because the text labels are small. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
Thanks. Unfortunately, the new map cite sources but not all of them are RS: "Self drawn, mainly based on Robert Mantran (ed.), Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman, Paris: Fayard (1989), also en:List of Ottoman Empire dominated territories, Image:Ottoman 1683.png, [1], and [2]." 1st (Mantran) is OK, 2nd is Wikipedia => not OK, 3rd is an unsourced image as well, 4th: what's the original source?, same issue with the 5th one.
So I would use File:OttomanEmpire1590.png. If you want to improve it (SVG + larger labels) you can ask the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I've substituted the image in the article. If required by the review, I could paint out the tiny text labels but I agree it would be ideal to have an SVG version of this map, so will make a request. Thanks again, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to reviewers: if we have trouble getting a map of suitable quality, we can swap out that image from the Background section. The information that the Ottoman Empire had territory in three continents is given in the text. Instead of the map, we could have a calligraphic work such as commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art cal 0007.jpg or commons:File:Khalili Collection Islamic Art mss 0239.15.jpg to back up the text's discussion of the importance of calligraphy. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an SVG version of the properly-sourced map, and placed it in the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

More than a month in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I've just put out calls to the article's four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that this morning I put out another round of calls to the four Wikiprojects. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airship[edit]

Just here to note that I think the "reception and legacy" section could use significant improvement: see WP:RECEPTION for the kind of changes I'd like to see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for the input. There are a lot of principles at WP:RECEPTION and they are usually of the form "don't do X too much". Happy to improve the section, but can you be more specific about what changes from that list apply to the current article? One of the principles there is about summary sentences for paragraphs; this is an area where I'm very cautious of summarising what the reviewers said because it's especially important that this section is neutral. All clarification welcome, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course MartinPoulter. From the lead, I can see that you have already identified three prominent themes—the highly positive reception for the calligraphy, the feeling that the exhibition presented a different view of the Middle East, and a general appreciation for the beauty of the exhibits. However, in the reception section itself, these themes are haphazardly scattered through the section: for the calligraphy you have the NYT in the first paragraph, the AP and The Oklahoman in the second, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in the third; while for the "alternative viewpoint" you have the New Statesman in the first paragraph, the Salt Lake Tribune in the second, and both John Edwards (with a perhaps too-lengthy quote?) and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in the third. A similar situation is for the last theme. As you have already identified these areas as worthy of summarizing in the lead, I do not think there is any neutrality-related issue with providing "topic sentences" if so required. Hope that helps. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point that the John Edwards quote isn't needed in its entirety; I've cut an unnecessary clause. I'll work on reorganising the paragraphs thematically rather than chronologically. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's turned out to be really helpful to look at the reviews thematically rather than chronologically! I realise now that the positive reception breaks into two themes: praise of the exhibition as a diverse collection ("wide-ranging", "impressive sweep") and praise of individual art works ("gorgeous", "gems of real art") so I've separated those into two paragraphs (for four paragraphs total) and added a counterpart sentence in the lead. I've also replaced a couple of colourful verbs as WP:RECEPTION recommends. Does the new Reception section meet all your concerns, @AirshipJungleman29 ? MartinPoulter (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. The rest of the article is excellent (aside from Islam being linked twice in the lead). Support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review[edit]

Image placement is somewhat random but not too bad. I am not sure if we are meant to be strict with tagging photos of historical objects with a copyright tag for the historical object. ([[Jo-Jo - we are.) The galleries could also use some ALT text. Spot-check upon request. It seems like there are differences between the various citation informations - I guess because they don't all have the same information available? Although #14 has a link that seems to encompass a lot of information that's not usually in a piped link. What makes Factiva a reliable source, or more generally, what is it being used for? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and thanks for taking an interest in this review. I'll answer in reverse order, if I may. Factiva is not itself claimed here to be a reliable source. Factiva is a subscription database through which one can retrieve old published news stories, similar to Lexis Plus, Westlaw, or Gale OneFile. I've used it to get stories originally published in newspapers and magazines that are too old to be on those publications' websites. The reliable source in each case is the publication in which the news story originally appeared: The Times, The Columbian, The Salt Lake Tribune, and so on.
Ref #14 is a page on the Khalili Collections official site; there isn't a byline or date, so I've used the full title from the web page (same for Refs #66 and #67). Should I be abbreviating the title, or using the exact title given by the web page? I'm not seeing why you mention piped links, so maybe I've misunderstood. Gale Onefile and Factiva give different metadata about the news stories they retrieve, and it's less than what I would get from retrieving an article from the publication's website; that might account for the variation in citations. I've used the same citation templates but not all the citations have the same information.
Apologies about ALT text: I thought I'd sorted that out before nominating the article. I'll fix that now. All the exhibited objects are from before the 20th century, so I'm happy to put the relevant copyright tags on the Commons files (probably tomorrow rather than today). I could put the images in galleries next to the relevant part of the description, but that would leave large stretches of the article without illustrations, so I thought it better to vary the images and dot them throughout the article. I think that's an interesting visual journey for the reader. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT text now added for those images that were missing it, and copyright tags for objects added to all exhibit photographs in Commons. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying about piped links is that the text with the link underneath is a bit too long. "This is a piped link" is more text compared to "This is a piped link". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I see what change you want made, but I'm looking at the documentation for Template:Cite_web and I don't see how to implement it. There doesn't seem to be a way to display "Empire of the Sultans. Ottoman Art from the Collection of Nasser D. Khalili, Musée Rath, Geneva, Switzerland" but not have all of it linked. If I truncate that title, then the link can be confused with other web pages whose title begins the same way, such as refs #66 and #67. Do you want me to do that anyway? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that cite web is the best format here - it's a website, yes, but the citation is a physical collection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm not understanding. The things being cited in refs #14, #66 and #67 are web pages published by the collection, not the physical collection of objects. I'm not sure how a physical collection would work as a citation in Wikipedia. To help me get the concept, can you give me an example of a citation template or citation format that should be used for one of these long-titled web pages? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Actually, upon rethinking, the title does contain the correct information. So nevermind on my link question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the only thing missing are copyright tags for the objects in the images, per Gog's (somewhat misplaced; pings require a signature) comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See my message above, dated 17:08, 9 April 2024. I've just checked again that I didn't miss any objects. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus Are your concerns met? Are you okay to do the source spot-check? Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, spotchecking this version:

  • 14 Source says 15th century, not 700, it doesn't discuss non-Ottoman objects at all.
    • The site says 700-2000 in lots of places, but you're right that the earliest date mentioned on that specific page is the 15th century. That's careless on my part, and I've rectified it by adding two third-party sources to cover those broad statements about the collection.
  • 16 OK with the Webarchive version
  • 21 OK
  • 23 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Of course. I will send a private email with the contents of the requested articles.
  • 24 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 28 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 30 Can I have a copy of this page?
    Looking at this again (second page of the document REFS_28_30_32.pdf), the source on its own isn't quite adequate for the exact statement referring to "textiles made for the holy sites of Mecca and Medina" since we have just one holy site for sure. The Tiraz from the Burqu (right-hand side of the image) is from the cloth decorating the Kaaba in Mecca, but while the cenotaph cover is described as being of a type used at a cenotaph in Medina, it's not stated in that source where that cover is from. A separate, later source (J. M. Rogers, The Arts of Islam. Masterpieces from the Khalili Collection, 2010, pp.344–5.) describes this object as "Section from the Curtain of the Prophet’s Tomb" which implies it is from Medina. Relying on that other source (which isn't about the Empire of the Sultans exhibition) might count as synthesis. Instead, I've rephrased that sentence to remove mention of Medina. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 32 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 35 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • I think this one's a bit too definitive in establishing the purpose of the talismanic shirt based solely on Hürrem Sultan's letter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point. There are more talismanic shirts in this collection and I think they are described as "spiritual armour", and the reason this shirt was included among metal armour in the exhibition was the possibility it was used as "spiritual armour". However, it's not known for sure what this shirt's purpose was. So I've rephrased the sentence to avoid reference to spiritual armour. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 37 Can't see the part about multiple visits.
  • 38 Moot
  • 39 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 44 Can I have a copy of this page?
    • Checks out, save for the 16th-17th century bit where the photo is cut off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the REF_44.pdf file I sent you, the dates on the second and third pages are "16th century". On the fourth page, there are two entries where the date is given as "17th century". So "from the 16th and 17th centuries" is my summary of those pages. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 46 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 48 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 55 I presume that we did check that non-North American parts of the USA weren't visited.
    • Yes (the Khalili Collections publish a list of locations of all past exhibitions), but that could involve a complicated inference, so to make it simpler I've reworded the statement to be more specifically in line with the source.
  • 57 Can I have a copy of this page? Also, don't think that newspapers get ISSNs
  • 63 Can I have a copy of this page?
  • 64 OK
  • 67 If the fourth and fifth editions things are supported by the other source...
    • The fifth edition is described by the other source and, so as not to rely on inference, I've added a similar link for the fourth edition.

One general observation is that a lot of the article relies on Rogers 2000; are there any other sources comprehensively discussing this collection? Like, more academic analyses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciate your quick and thoughtful reply! Yes, I've relied on the published catalogue of the exhibition for the exhibition's content. Some of the individual exhibits are mentioned or photographed in newspaper coverage, but this is redundant to what is in the catalogue. I haven't found academic analyses specifically of this exhibition's content, though the collection from which it is drawn is discussed in a lot of third-party literature. Though it's not unheard of, it's not often that an art exhibition itself gets academic analysis; the third-party coverage is usually the art columns of broadsheet newspapers, which we have a lot of in this case. Scholarly journals have reviewed some of the published catalogues of the collection, but those are not sources which are specific to this particular exhibition. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like stuff mostly checks out - left some comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this spotcheck passes muster. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2024 [13].

John Bullock Clark[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another biography of a Missouri State Guard officer. While the last one, William Y. Slack, was largely a local figure except for his military service, Clark was a prominent Missourian for much of his life. He was an officer in the state militia during the Missouri Mormon War, where he was the recipient of the infamous "Extermination Order". In 1840, he ran for state governor, where he was accused of being complicit in a plot to commit election fraud and almost fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson. Elected to the US House of Representatives in the late 1850s, Clark was expelled from Congress in 1861 for, as a sitting US congressman, leading a body of armed troops into battle against the United States Army in the Battle of Carthage, Missouri. After a few months as a general in the State Guard, Clark became a Confederate senator although he was not nominated for a second term due to behavioral issues (alcoholism, disorderly conduct, womanizing, and mendacity). After the war he fled to Mexico and was arrested upon his return. Hog Farm Talk 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Ceoil[edit]

Reading through and enjoying learning about a perspective I need to read up on. Hope you don't mind some gripes:

  • accusations of his involvement in an alleged plot - seems like a there is triple doubt being layed on the underlaying claim ('accusations, "involvement", alleged)
    • I'm not sure how to rephrase this best, although I agree that this is an issue. I'm just not sure how to phrase this without making it sound like any of this stuff was ever proven
      • "Alleged plot" implies that it was made up to frame certain people; maybe take it from that angle..ie motivation. Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "Clark was accused of conspiring to commit electoral fraud in the election and as a result almot fought a duel with Claiborne Fox Jackson, later a Governor of Missouri." an improvement? Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tense issues was appointed by Jackson to be a brigadier general - "as"
    • Done
  • The prose are excellent, but sometimes old fashioned (eg "upon his return to Texas") - after his return
    • Is this a problem? I personally kind of prefer the older-fashioned prose but I'm open to changing this if you think it's problematic
      • Not a problem if its your preference. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clark was educated in local schools.[2] so what
    • Not sure how best to address this without venturing into SYNTH issues as none of the sources on Clark go into why this is specific - essentially the public school system in the US, especially in rural areas. Most people on the future politics track would have attended a private academy. I can quote Willard Duncan Vandiver as stating that Clark "would have completely spoiled by higher education" if you think that helps make the point
      • Just say something like "in contrast to most other contemporary politicians who attended private academies, Clark was educated in local schools." Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does he was "unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" mean
    • I'm not sure, which is why I didn't try to paraphrase this. Would it be better to drop this and give the Vandiver quote suggested above?
      • I think so Ceoil (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done this - I'll need to try to find a source for the private academies/local schools item above which may be difficult. That'll have to wait until after my work trip in the early part of this coming week though. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote beginning "The Mormons must be treated as enemies" needs a direct cite
    • This is done
  • Looking forward to reading through rest of the article; his demise seems especially interesting. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceoil: - I've replied above - most of these are queries about how best to proceed for now. Hog Farm Talk 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Hog, the above were quibbles; have replied with suggestions as to how to resolve the o/s, in lieu I'm a Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma (support)[edit]

Non-expert review.

  • Lead: just a note to self to look again at the end.
  • Early life and militia service: do we know anything about his parents? I assume they were not poor, but helped him start his career and wealth?
    • Allardice does not say anything on this matter while Warner & Yearns doesn't even name his parents. Vandiver says that he studied law with an older brother and that his father had a "large farm" as well as making the bizarre claim that Clark was held captive by Native Americans as a treaty hostage one winter (Burchett expresses some suprise that "his biographer" apparently believed the claim). I'm hesistant to use Vandiver for anything other than clearing up details about things referred to in other sources but not elaborated on well as the Vandiver source states outright that it is highly dependent on stories told by a septuagenarian Clark to a teenage Vandiver 55 years before the article was written Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. I would expect (perhaps naively) some land ownership records from this time to exist, so it should be possible to find out a little more, but that might be too far on the wrong side of the boundary of original research. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I'd be able to get into anything further on this without veering into original research; it would take a trip into archival material (if it still exists, which I don't know) Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • he married Eleanor Turner: do we know anything about her family? This might be a good spot to mention they had a son in 1831. Any other children?
    • The sources don't mention this, in fact Allardice doesn't provide her name and Warner & Yearns don't mention her at all. I've added a mention of John Jr.'s birth in 1831 to the proper place. None of the sources I've seen mention other children. This is perhaps not as bad as it could be; when I was working on Simpson Harris Morgan I found that none of the secondary sources actually provided the given name of his first wife. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "claims of atrocities" do we know which side was accused of these atrocities and what they were?
    • This is a (still controversial) mess; I've tried to explain this a bit better in a footnote as this is impossible to describe in a manner that would flow well in the main text. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The order instructed Clark to move with a force to troops to Richmond, Missouri" look ungrammatical to me
  • Political career: you have "Democrat candidates" and then "Democratic candidate".
    • Standardized to "Democratic"; that was probably a subconcious thing from spending most of my life hearing family member frequently use Democrat Party (epithet). Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "thinly-pseudonymous" is that a word?
    • Not sure; I've split this into two words. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Jackson's letter claimed to be based on a document sent between Clark and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming that it had been found in a saddlebag and Clark claiming that it had been stolen from his hat after he left it unattended." so the letter was real? what was the content? Was there a false ballot scheme?
    • Well ... here's what I've got. Phillips attributes the original news to a partisan newspaper known as the Boon's Lick Democrat reprinting content from the Ozark Standard and couches the description of this as claims, not facts. You then had Jackson's letter to the editor two weeks later under the name "Anti-Fraud". The most relevant passages in Phillips are Two weeks later, on September 7, a letter to the editor appeared in the Fayette paper signed "Anti-Fraud", which claimed to have intercepted a letter written in July at the height of the campaign from Clark to James H. Birch [... extended content discussing Birch's general sleaziness, the contents of the letter, and Jackson's authorship of it ...] A Clique member, Owen Rawlins, claimed to have found the letter in a set of borrowed saddlebags he had used in the recent election (Clark charged that Rawlins stole the letter from Clark's hatband as it sat on the podium while he delivered a speech), and upon his return to Fayette showed it to Jackson at his office at the bank. Phillips never states outright or not if this was all real, so I think it's best to provide Clark's lame excuse and let the reader judge as they think. I do find it telling that Clark's response questioned how the letter had gotten into Rawlins' possession, not the existence of the letter. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • So Phillips does give some content of a letter that is undisputedly from Clark, just (according to Clark) obtained by illicit means? Perhaps mentioning some of the content could help make this more clear. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not quite - the only letter we have is the one from Jackson, which claimed to reproduce the contents of the alledged Clark letter, but of course there is no proof for that. I've tried to clarify this. Among other things, it apparently included "rascal" spelled as "raskal". Does what I've changed this to in the article help with this any? Kusma Hog Farm Talk 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          OK, that helps. It is still weird, but I think I am no longer confused about the facts. —Kusma (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "owned 160 slaves" do we know what they did? Did Clark have any non-law business or were these slaves who helped with lawyering?
    • Neither of the two primary sources for this article (Allardice and Warner & Yearns) have anything to say on this matter, nor does Vandiver or any other source I've been able to turn up on this. About the only thing I can think of for that area that would make sense was if Clark was dabbling in the large-scale hemp farming that occurred along the Missouri River around that time, but I know of nothing to confirm or deny that. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confederate service: not something I can really ask for, but a map with all these locations would help a lot in understanding.
    • I've actually thrown together one using the location map template
  • "Clark later tried to order the cavalry portion of his division to support his infantry, but the cavalry became greatly disorganized and the few who entered the fighting at this time instead fought with McBride's men." do we know why this disorganisation happened?
    • I've added a bit on this and have also tweaked this a bit for accuracy per another reading of the source
  • "no longer wanted"... "was arrested". looks a bit contradictory.
    • I've adjusted "having learned" to "having heard", as what Clark heard was apparently wrong
  • I don't quite understand when Clark was allowed to practice law. Did he re-start as soon as possible or wait until he had not just the right to practice law, but also the right to hold political office?
    • From the relevant source - Clark returned to his home in Fayette, Missouri, where, after his disabilities had been removed, he practiced law until his death on October 29, 1865. The timing on this isn't exactly clear. Vandiver mentions a court case in 1869 where Clark supposedly opposed a former Union militia officer in court (Odon Guitar) but again the normal caveats about Vandiver apply. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know anything about his whereabouts between 1866 and 1870?
    • Not that I've seen. The returning in 1870 comes from Eicher and Allardice, neither of which provide any detail on this Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Confederate service" section is quite long; would it be possible to subdivide it with subheadings or similar?
    • I've split this into two subsections
  • The "Confederate service" section does contain some content that could also be part of "political career"; the division seems more based on time than on what kind of jobs he did
    • I've renamed the "political career" section

From my very non-expert POV (I know little about the civil war, and have spent less than five days in Missouri) I think the article gives enough context to understand what is going on, but there are a few completeness/clarity issues, especially around his family and business. —Kusma (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: - Thanks for the review comments! I've tried to address things above, but these gaps are for the most part present in the underlying sourcing itself so I'm afraid there's only limited answers I can provide for some of this stuff. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It always amazes me how little is known about fairly recent American history. I still need to review the lead, will do that soon. —Kusma (talk) 10:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually have anything to complain about the lead section at this point. —Kusma (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one more thing (I hope): why is the succession box titled "Party political offices"? These seem to be political offices that are not tied to a specific party; I would prefer "Political offices". —Kusma (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done by switching from {{s-ppo}} to {{s-off}} Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that's all from me, support. —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Thanks for the interesting read. Minor comments below. Will have another readthrough with fresh eyes in the next day or two, then I expect to support. Missouri and I have recently parted ways, but I'm still glad to see another (soon-to-be-)FA in the Hog Farm topical sphere. Ajpolino (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Clark's acquaintance... spoiled by higher education'" - I'm not sure I glean any meaning from this, is there something in particular you're trying to get across?
    • @Ajpolino: - This is one thing I'm having trouble with. Several of the sources all make oblique references to the quality of education Clark received. There's this; Burchett has "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education". Warner and Yearns refer to "such schools as the county afforded". I'm under the impression that the statement of "Before the Civil War, Missouri followed the southern pattern that downplayed public schooling, as well-to-do families patronized local private academies." from History of education in Missouri is probably accurate, but I can't find a straightforward reference for it (McCandless dances around the claim but doesn't make a broad one) and I'm not familiar with the Kentucky stuff at all. I'm pretty much stuck on this issue. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unshackled by the constraints of a formal education" makes me smile. My suggestion would be to remove "Clark's acquaintance... higher education' " since I don't think it makes sense without more context. But it's not much of a bother either way; your call, of course. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've just removed that quote from Vandiver entirely then. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The historian Bruce S. Allardice refers to him as 'a born politician'." - is it possible to give the slightest context here? Is Allardice referring to his innate skills that match the occupation? His family ties that would have given him access to halls of power? Something else?
    • Unfortunately, there isn't really any context here from Allardice - we have from the source Clark studied law in Fayette, Howard County, and became a successful lawyer. A born politician, Clark served as county treasurer (1823 to 1825), clerk of the county courts (1824 to 1834), and state representative (1850 to 1851).
  • Assuming Allardice is referring to Clark's skills/looks/demeanor, it might flow better to move "He was taller... a storyteller." up a sentence to directly follow Allardice's appraisal.
    • I've moved this, and the colorful legal anecdote, up to after this.
  • Several places you use "began [verb]ing" which seems to unnecessarily focus the reader on the beginning of a task, even though the task gets completed without interruption. Would "[verb]ed" suffice? E.g. "Clark began studying law" → "Clark studied law", "Clark began to mobilize..." → "Clark mobilized".
    • I've rephrased most of these instances away
  • "He further warned"
    • Done
  • "speech as being humiliating"
    • Done
  • "the harsher Mormon Extermination Order" - "harsher" feel weak and unnecessary when we're immediately treated to "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State"
    • Removed
  • "the statement that" - this may be a personal preference, but I often feel "that" is a removable filler word. CTRL+F "that" and you'll see a handful that can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentences.
    • I've removed about eight or so uses of "that"
  • "spread claims that the Whigs had spread" spread... spread. Maybe "distributed" for the second?
    • Done
  • "in parts of the state... Democratic candidate" had to read this twice to understand. Would it be accurate if shortened to "in parts of the state that substituted Clark for Thomas Reynolds, the Democratic candidate."?
    • Done
  • "...and James H. Birch, with the Democrats claiming" at first read I was confused and thought "with the Democrats claiming..." was describing the contents of the aforementioned letter (rather that its provenance). Can we split this into two sentences? "Birch. The Democrats claimed..."
    • Done
  • "Jackson's letter claimed to transcribe the contents of a letter... sent" Can we shorten to something like "Jackson transcribed a letter... purportedly sent..." I think "letter... letter..." and "claimed to transcribe" made my brain trip over itself for some reason.
    • Done
  • "a possibility for the Whig" "considered for the Whig" would read more naturally to me.
    • Done
  • "He continued to practice law..." → "He practiced law..."
    • Done

Happy to support. Thanks again for the read. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • The article is largely sourced to 15 books: 11 from major university publishers, one from a major textbook publisher. The other three broken down below. Other sources are used sparingly to add dates or contemporaneous color. All seem uncontroversial.
  • Burchett is not a Civil War historian (I think he's a visual arts professor?), but his book was reviewed positively by one. He's cited for just three things; two add color to Clark's biography, one is a date. Seems fine to me.
    • Consider whether "The historian Kenneth E. Burchett..." is deserved. He wrote a book of history, but his academic discipline isn't history per se. Where is the line for the title "historian"? I've no idea, and I don't feel strongly either way. But flagging it for you to consider.
      • I've gone with "The author Kenneth E. Burchett ..." - is that better? Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hinze and Farnham is written by a high school teacher and published by a company for whom our Wikipedia page gives me pause (haven't looked into it any further than that). But it's only used here thrice to cite minor details, so I'm not worried. A historian calls it "the most comprehensive piece of research written on the Battle of Carthage to date." He has some criticisms, but they're not relevant to the bits cited here.
    • Yes, unfortunately there is a paucity of modern scholarship on Carthage. I found that work conflating William Y. Slack and Mosby Monroe Parsons in one paragraph while working on a different article so I've been using it with caution since then. I keep having a nagging feeling that something isn't quite right with one of the things sourced to this work, so I've removed it for now. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brooksher - According to University of Nebraska Press, the publisher didn't take on the name "Potomac Books" until 2004. The archive.org version is under the imprint Brassey's Washington and lists a location of Dulles, Virginia. Do you have a paper copy that was reprinted later under Potomac? Truly not sure this matters at all, just curious.
    • I have a "First paperback edition" that gives the publishing date as 2000. The publisher given is "Potomac Books An imprint of the University of Nebraska Press"
    • Either way, Potomac is a university publisher; Brassey's is a specialist publisher in the military sphere (I gather). So that all seems fine.

Sourcing seems solid. Happy to pass source review. Left a point above for you to consider. Feel free to educate me on anything I've got wrong. This field is new to me. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: - Many thanks for the revieew! My replies are above - I have removed one brief bit sourced to Hinze & Farnham due to nagging doubts and a bad experience with that source at William Y. Slack. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your replies all look good to me. I gather our University of Nebraska Press article is not quite right then. Perhaps once you get every MO civil war figure and event to FA status, you can start on the academic publisher articles ;) Ajpolino (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: - would I have permission for a second concurrent nomination (Arkansas, not Missouri this time) - for the article in question several major sources need to be back to the library by mid-May so I'd like to get as much of the FAC process done for that one by then to reduce the number of trips to the library. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. FrB.TG (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2024 [14].

The Hunger (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of Alexander McQueen's lesser collections, The Hunger is primarily interesting because it marked the last of McQueen as a scrappy little designer with no money and a "no press is bad press" policy. From this point onward, although still obsessed with sex and death, he began to rely less and less on controversial shock tactics and more on showmanship and artistry. Here, though, he sits on the cusp, with a worm-filled corset and clothing that smacked of the macabre sensuality of vampires. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


SC[edit]

Dipping my toe back into the FAC water to review this (I couldn't resist).

  • Would Look 64 be a better lead image? It's visually much more striking and was the most notable piece in the collection
    • Yeah good plan
  • "film featuring vampires": "Featuring" is a potentially awkward word here, given the film is actually featuring the actors Deneuve, Bowie and Sarandon, who are portraying vampires. "film about vampires", maybe?
    • lol, yes, fair
  • "McQueen's first collection": you can use "his" here without any loss of understanding.
    • Done
  • "the Natural History Museum of London" looks like a formal (and v awkward) title. Maybe "the London's Natural History Museum"?
    • Done, and merged the sentence with the previous one for tidiness
  • "Sexuality was front and centre" A bit of an WP:IDIOM. Maybe "Sexuality was prominent in the collection"?
    • Hm, I had this comment at the GAN as well. OED doesn't actually mark "front and centre" as idiomatic, so I thought it might be okay in BrEng. I'll defer if you think it's better the other way though
  • "Eugene Souleiman and Val Garland returned for hair and makeup, respectively": I think this could be expanded slightly. Although obvious to you (and to me, who has read several of these), I think a first-time reader would struggle to understand what "hair and makeup" may mean in this context (and it should be "make-up" in BrEng).
    • Tweaked, how's that?
  • "Eugene Souleiman styled hair with 1980s throwback styles: mullets and Mohican haircuts.[c][38][55] Makeup by Val Garland": just "Souleiman" and "Garland" will suffice
    • I'm going to remove the names entirely since I now have them earlier, I think this was a leftover. Again I've condensed the sentences
  • "spot in a underwhelming": "an underwhelming"
    • oop, yes
  • "Andrew Wilson, in his biography Blood Beneath the Skin, wrote that the "press were far from kind" about the collection." Would this not be better at the beginning of the Reception section? It doesn't sit well with the retrospective comments (Wilson is talking about the press, not about commenting on the collection itself).
    • I moved this up and actually wound up reworking the whole reception section around it, so you may want to take another look. I never felt the order was right and now I'm more satisfied with it.
  • Just checking that "disgust...bears the imprint" is in line with the WP:ELLIPSIS requirements?
    • Yup, just double checked Evans and she's using the ellipsis in quoting someone

That's my lot. Another excellent and enjoyable article. – SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks as always for your comments, Schro :) All responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good changes there and thanks for following my suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generalissima's review[edit]

Oh yeah, I was gonna source check one of these, huh? Let's go.

2A and 2B: "Ensemble, The Hunger, spring/summer 1996". Metropolitan Museum of Art. Retrieved 5 November 2023.

It indeed calls the weird hip things "antlers", and the quote from McQueen is a direct quote from the page. Good.

3A and 3B: Watt 2012, p. 87.

I can see how you write all these with these books at your disposal. Yes, the skirt things are "wire handcuffs" now, and it does indeed describe the black and white cut thing as yonic. ("pudenda"? seriously?) Good.

5A, B, C, D: Howarth, Dan (7 August 2015). "Shaun Leane speaks about his work with Alexander McQueen". Dezeen.

They really name magazines anything these days. It being named a stag piece by Leane is there, used for both 5A and 5D. Animalistic leopard print, check. And he "...between all the girls" quote is there. Good.

7: Doig, Stephen (30 January 2023). "How Alexander McQueen changed the world of fashion – by the people who knew him best".

Yeah, this gives us some McQueen Lore with him being trained as a tailor at Savile Row. Good.

16: Blow, Detmar (14 February 2010). "Alex McQueen and Isabella Blow". The Daily Telegraph

Mostly checks out. The story of Blow buying his entire graduate collection is included, and her serving as a mentor/muse. But it doesn't actually name Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims as the collection. Figured it'd be pretty easy to just slap an existing cite on this sentence to cover your bases.
  • Sure, threw in a cite to Bethune

26A, B, and C, and D. Watt 2012, p. 85.

Triple cite here! I think 26A is citing that it's funded ultimately by a company called Onward Kashiyama? It does indeed support 26B, C, and D by talking about how expensive these productions were, the collab with Björk, Goldie (plus their relationship status), and Jimmy Pursey of Sham 69. Good.

35A, B, C, and D Gleason 2012, p. 35.

I don't actually have this book, but searching "red, white, black" on Google Books helpfully gives the snippet where Gleason talks about the color scheme, strategically bared skin, and exposed nips of both sexes. Searching "30 percent" checks out cite D. Good.

36A, B, C, D, and E "The London season". Women's Wear Daily. 24 October 1995.

WWD has it all. "Wearable clothes." $1.1 million orders. The fact that London Fashion Week otherwise sucked was right there at the start, complete with the praises of his interestingness. Talks about him moving on from the weirdness of Highland Rape. Good.

39A & B, Loschek 2009, p. 55.

The link is formatted in a way that it opens into page 81 with a search result for Widows of Culloden - might wanna fix that. 55 is disappointingly not actually included in the preview, so AGF.
  • Formatting removed (I can send you the page if you want to check it)

41A, B, C. Veness, Alison (24 October 1995). "Fashion's fascist softens his line". The Evening Standard (West End Final ed.). p 3.

Quite the headline. And it checks out: Bumsters are there. Him getting slightly more normal is there. The "hinted at something nasty" in lieu of blood quote is also there. Good.

58A, B, C. Evans 2003, p. 145.

Like Loschek, this is formatted in a way where it takes you to a search results for the word "birds". I can't see the whole page, but it certainly checks out that he claims a lot of his friends are lesbians. I hope you use the "I'm not going to say my clothes are for lesbians" quote in one of these articles. For 58A, I was able to get the "We need strong, balsy girls" quote to show up. Good.
  • This is definitely one of those cases where I wish McQueen had articulated himself just a touch better so I could expand on his theory of "lesbian models = no misogyny". C'est la vie. I've fixed the formatting again here.

59A & B, Watt 2012, pp. 85–86

V signs and middle fingers abound. And Watt's critique of it well described in the source. Good.

68 A & B, Alexander, Hilary (29 October 1995). "Absolutely brutal". The Sunday Telegraph. p. 47.. 69. Alexander, Hilary (26 October 1995). "Capital gains". The Daily Telegraph. p. 16.

These are mainly used together so I'm reviewing them as one set. Yep, his mooning of the audience is there. Alexander's description of him specifically says he is a "pale, slightly chunky boy", so I'd include the full phrasing there. And Alexander's general apathy towards the whole deal is also there.
  • Oops, slightly-ised the chunkiness.

76, Watt 2012, p. 74.

Do we really need four cites here? I guess it's a kinda controversial claim. I also don't really see what this is supporting here. It talks about The Birds, but doesn't really mention sexualised styling or claims of misogyny at all. Bit confused by this one.
  • My fault, this should've been Watt p. 76 the whole time, which does talk about it. I borrowed it from another of my articles where I'd fucked it up; they've also been fixed.

78, Barajas, Joshua (4 September 2015). "How Alexander McQueen's grotesque creations wrecked the runway". PBS NewsHour

Didn't expect a PBS cite. And yes, here we have a bunch of quotes about misogyny and sexualized designs, which perfectly backs up the source across a range of collections. Good.

89 Mower, Sarah (31 August 2015). "When Fashion Renegades John Galliano and Alexander McQueen Landed at Dior and Givenchy, Paris Fashion Was Forever Changed". Vogue

This indeed mentions how Galliano and McQueen were compared during this time. Good.

97 Conti, Samantha (13 March 2015). "Celebrating the Opening of Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty". Women's Wear Daily

66 items not in the original, all checks out. Good.

Generally, great use of sources: none of them look like they shouldn't be here. They are formatted correctly and regularly. Super pleasing bibliography with the chapters broken out like that, I might have to steal that! It seems like you have exhausted wide swathes of the high quality coverage of McQueen with the books you use. Looks like we just need to fix the couple little irregularities here and there I dug up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Generalissima, thanks for the thorough check. Everything that needed resolving should be sorted now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yep, looks good! Thank you very much for your good work on this topic. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Generalissima and thanks for that. A couple of queries:
  • Is that a pass for a source review as well as a pass for the spot check?
  • Is that a general support for promotion as well as a pass for the spot check? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Llewee[edit]

I'm not sure I know enough about this subject to be hugely helpful but I did notice two little things. In the second paragraph of "Financial backing", you use the term "broke" to refer to not having much money which should probably be changed to something more formal. Also, this phrase "tailored jacket whose shoulders and lapels", in the first paragraph of the "Worm closet" section, strikes me as grammatically odd. I'd consider "whose" to indicate belonging to a person rather than an object.--Llewee (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments, Llewee. Subbed out broke. As for the other thing, apparently the inanimate whose is a long-standing bone of contention in English, but most modern style guides seem to accept it. Personally I can't stand "of which" when I can help it, it sounds stodgy, so I'll keep the "whose" for now unless my friendly neighborhood BrEng people tell me it's wrong. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, that's understandable.--Llewee (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

In the spirit of the topic and celebration of the designer, I will review this covered only in glistening oils and carrying the platters that matter.

    • What an image.
  • Perhaps worth linking muse, as a semi-specialist term.
    • Done
  • Suggest linking 'Runway show' at its first usage out of the lead.
    • It's linked in the first section of background, but I could link it in another section as well if you think it's worth it
  • The small section re. collaborators / short payments etc is interesting; are you allowed to name anyone specifically? Perhaps too much detail for a background section, though.
    • I weighed this and ultimately decided it would be too much detail. I could easily footnote a few examples if you think it's interesting enough to include.
  • Sebastian can be just Pons on subsequent reference.
    • Trimmed
  • The other images are self-explanatory, but do you have any idea of the symbolism of the thorns? I'm guessing Calvary, barbed wire, perhaps, but it would be interesting to know.
    • Probably McQueen's usual quasi-gothy quasi-religious sado-masochistic thing, so very likely Calvary and barbed wire. Sadly nobody specifically gets into the thorns in the sourcing.
  • But not as interesting as knowing which august organs had their journos relegated to the cheap seats!
    • Very sadly, Thomas doesn't get into it, and nobody else seems to dwell on it, not even the usually-gossipy Callahan.
  • No images of the Tusk? In fact, images generally, as it's such a visual article? (I've got no idea how it work's I'm afraid—I guess I assumed that with all the photos getting taken, some would be available.)
    • Unfortunantely there just aren't that many images available of McQueen items, especially his really old stuff. I've scoured Flickr for CC images from the Savage Beauty exhibits but there's very little of The Hunger. I've done NFCC for the worm corset, as for many of the showpiece items in other articles, but I don't think I can justify another NF image. (Maybe WMF will give me a grant to buy a tusk earring - only £525, what a steal)
  • Evening Standard link on first usage.
    • Fixed, I think

That's me. Interesting article, thanks. ——Serial Number 54129 15:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments Serial, all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all traces of oil. Cool article. Clothes more aggressive than a suit of armour! Happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino[edit]

Have missed your McQueen series so far. Better to be late to the party than to miss it entirely. Partway through reading I Googled to find one of the looks and was pleased to find you can watch the whole runway show on Youtube (for better or for worse, the camera is on McQueen's front for the farewell mooning). Highly enjoyable after reading the article. Anyway, some small comments, though this is outside my normal topical realm:

  • Just in case you get a reader as ignorant as me, could we add a line in the Background section about McQueen's rise to prominence with Highland Rape immediately before this (or whatever you think the appropriate framing is)? I was surprised to learn that from the Reception section. Conversely, I didn't need the sentence on his Givenchy run as background. It happened after this show anyway.
    • Good catch about Highland Rape, that's been added. I think Givenchy is relevant as the Legacy section mentions him working there, but I've integrated it into the Highland Rape bit so now it feels more connected
  • "prints.[32] aware that McQueen" I think Pons' name got accidentally chopped all the way out of this sentence.
    • Oops, yes
  • "a love triangle between two vampires and a human doctor, and Cat People" at first read I thought the cat people were the third point of the love triangle (I would watch that movie). You could make it slightly clearer by switching the order of the movies, but I'm not deeply bothered by it either way.
    • I think I'm going to keep it as-is, since Cat People is definitely the lesser inspiration compared to The Hunger; I think the capitals and italics should cover me
  • "30% compared to the precious" a typo for "previous" or am I misunderstanding the sentence more completely?
    • Typo, good catch
  • This could be a me problem, but the tense of "was now being" strikes my ear a bit odd as both past and present. I'd cut it to "was being" or just "was".
    • Reworded a bit as I didn't like the sentence anyway
  • "...for The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995)" you already told us the season of The Birds above. It could be cut here. Ditto "who had worked on Highland Rape (Autumn/Winter 1996)" (or maybe there's an intentional convention I'm not catching?)
    • Nope, I just didn't double check what I'd already mentioned :)
  • "white shift with a print" Consider wikilinking shift (clothing). I had to look it up. Again, it's very possible I'm an uncommonly ignorant reader.
    • No, this is a good link

Thanks for your comments, Ajpolino, really helpful. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super, happy to Support. Looking forward to the next one. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I would recommend adding WP:ALT text to File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg.
    • Alt texted
  • There are a few duplicate links in the article. The ones that I found are the following: Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims, Highland Rape, and Mohican haircuts. I would unlink one for the first two as there are instances of the items being linked in the same section.
    • The MOS for duplicate links allows for duplicated links where they're in separate sections and useful to the reader. I believe the ones I've left in meet that.
      • That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an instance where four citations are used in the "Analysis" section. I would recommend doing something like citation bundling to avoid potential comments about citation overkill.
    • Bundled
  • I have a comment for this part, (with some reviewers finding it a highlight of a dull season, and others denigrating McQueen's perceived immaturity as a designer), from the lead. I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as I have noticed this brought up in several FACs. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way, but I do think it is best avoided.
    • No, you're right, and normally I'm quick to point out when others do it. I've revised
  • There are a few instances where the citations are not in numeric order. That is not a requirement for a FA, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention just in case.
    • Fixed
  • I think I asked you a similar question in a previous McQueen FAC so apologies in advance. This is more a clarification question than a request or recommendation. According to the article, McQueen's mother and his aunt were both present at the show and put in the front row. Was there anything on how that might be potentially awkward or uncomfortable given the show's focus on sexuality? There is likely not anything noteworthy to include, but I did think of the question after reading about the show's focus on sexuality and then reading that his mom and aunt were right there.
    • Nobody discusses it, unfortunately. Although from what I've read of her, McQueen's mum was a tough old London woman, so I'm not sure she would have been uncomfortable at all.
      • That makes sense. He would have known his mom and family best after all and she must have been cool with it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about this part, (fashion philosopher Julia Kristeva). I read Kristeva when I was an English Literature major in graduate school, which feels like a lifetime ago, and I am not sure that "fashion philosopher" is what I would reference her or her work as. Granted, I do understand how it is difficult to come up with the descriptors for this kind of thing. Just seemed off.
    • Swapped for "cultural critic", how's that?
      • I think that is a better fit as it is more general and in my opinion more accurate to her work. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not required for a FAC, but I would recommend archiving your web sources to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot or death.
  • Apologies in advance for this more nitpick-y comment, but are you using title case for the citation titles? I notice that some use it, such as Citation 91, while others do not, such as Citation 42. I do not have strong feelings about it, but I remember getting a note about this in one of my more recent FACs so I am just more aware of it. It is likely about having consistency.
    • Oops, normally I do these as I go but there were a few late-added refs that I forgot. Should be okay now.
      • Thank you for correcting this. I was never good at doing this in the past. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. I believe that should be everything, but I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Great work as always! Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments Aoba! Always delighted to see your name at my FACs :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the kind words. This was a fun read. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Given the existence of File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg, File:The worm corset.jpg needs to explain a bit more why the latter can't be replaced by the former (WP:NFCC#1). Also, "real worms" sounds to me like it means living worms, or does it mean something else? File:Boussu JPG00a.jpg needs a licence for the statue. File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg seems to be in a different section than the only mention of Look 58. ALT text is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because they're different garments, obviously. You might as well ask why a photo of the Mona Lisa can't be replaced with a photo of the statue of David. The worm corset is the showpiece of the collection, the central point of most analysis about it, and it's important for the viewer to be able to visually identify it.
  • It absolutely means living worms, yes. Per the article: "The layers were pre-moulded on a fit model, and McQueen assembled the corset with fresh, live worms two hours before the runway show."
  • PD-old-70 added
  • Yes, I think it's reasonable to place it under "concept and creative process" as an example of a garment from the collection. It displays the sexualised styling and the use of natural materials. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, but the article is about the collection as a whole, not just that specific garment. So we need a bit more explanation in the rationale. If the worms were used for producing the dress, without actually being part of one, we should probably say "made with real, living worms" or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What more rationale do you need? The current one clearly explains that it's a unique item, which has sufficed at every other similar FAC Ive done. As for If the worms were used for producing the dress, without actually being part of one, I honestly have no idea what you mean. I'm sorry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading the rationale at File:The worm corset.jpg it is not clear why it is not replaceable with File:The Hunger bodysuit at Savage Beauty by Alexander McQueen.jpg, seeing as the page is about the collection in general. "with real worms embedded within" sounds like the dress includes living worms, á la Banksy shredder, hence the need for clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe my rationale has sufficiently addressed why the image of the worm corset is not replaceable and why NFCC is met. NFCC rationales don't have to explain away the existence of every other possible image on the broader topic, they have to explain why that particular file is acceptable under NFCC, and I believe mine does so.
    Your argument that the worm corset image could be replaced by the feather dress image is unreasonable. The two garments are not equivalent in any way. They don't look even slightly alike. They are in different styles, silhouettes, and materials. They have differing significance in the collection - the worm corset is the most notable item from the collection and the focal point of the majority of analysis of it; the feather dress doesn't get a tenth of this attention. It's obvious on the face of things that the picture of the feather dress does not in any way serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the picture of the worm corset.
    I still don't understand your objection to the word "real". The worms were living at the time that McQueen put them between the two layers of the corset. Then they died, either from being squished or from starving. The article text explicitly explains this. I don't feel it improves the already-lengthy caption to grind things to a halt and say all that when "real" will suffice until the reader arrives at the full explanation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, how is this one doing? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the stubborn guy who's standing in the way, but I am sure these arguments about File:The worm corset.jpg need to be put on File:The worm corset.jpg too, per Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline which NFC and WIAFA refer to. On the worm caption ... eh, if nobody else sees the problem we can probably leave it as is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, @Jo-Jo Eumerus, does that sufficiently address the rationale? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "with real worms embedded within": I took it to mean real dead worms, probably because of the use of the word "embedded". Personally I would delete "real" - worms without a modifier means just what it says (we don't say it's a real corset or a real red silk skirt) - but I can just about live with the present wording. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to give the incorrect impression that they're artificial, hence "real". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "Look 64, corset made from translucent plastic, shaped around real worms, worn with a red-lined grey jacket and red silk skirt" works better? "shaped" might make it clearer that the worms aren't currently there, and saying that these were real worms makes it a bit more interesting while still being accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos and Jo-Jo Eumerus: As a kind of compromise, how about "living worms"? That clarifies that they are real but not dead, so without losing—in fact, perhaps emphasising—the sense of macabre? ——Serial Number 54129 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I don't understand what you're talking about when you say "the worms aren't currently there". Are we looking at the same image?
The worms were left in the corset. They are still inside it. Do you see the red squiggly bits in the clear plastic corset? Those are the worms. They were alive when McQueen put the corset together. Now they are dead.
SN, I appreciate the suggestion, but "living" isn't quite right, as it's impossible to know whether they died immediately when McQueen assembled the corset or if they lived through the show and died later. (And they're definitely not still alive now). "Real" works for the caption because it doesn't worry about the status of the worms, just that they are not artificial. The article clarifies later when it matters. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just a thought. I agree they were, at some point, definitely Schrodinger's Worms. Pace everyone involved completely, but it's ridiculous that the whole thing is being held up over such a minutiae. Coke is The Real Thing. An erstwhile IRA was the Real thing. So why not the bloody worms, who might be Even Better Than the Real Thing  :) ——Serial Number 54129 18:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reflection, they have a point. I withdraw my objections to this caption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 6 May 2024 [15].

Aston Martin DB9[edit]

Nominator(s):  750h+ | Talk  13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most gorgeous coupes and one of the most contemporary car designs of the early 21st century, and one of the best designs from Ian Callum. Big thanks to SchroCat for his excellent peer review, and Superflat Monogram, who brought this to Good Article status ten years ago. This is my first featured article nomination.  750h+ | Talk  13:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review (passed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Welcome to FAC! I'll start with an image review.

  • Captions need editing for grammar. Is the country in which an image was taken significant, eg due to differences in the model? If so, that should be clarified for all images; if no, suggest omitting country across the board
Removed the countries, yes there's no point of them being there.
  • File:Hexis_DBRS9.JPG: I'm confused by the sourcing here - does "provided by copyright owner" mean the uploader is not that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No clue. I've replaced it by one taken by a confirmed author.  750h+ | Talk  14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: does this constitute a pass?  750h+ | Talk  15:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still some CAPFRAG issues on captions but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.  750h+ | Talk  15:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: is this a pass?  750h+ | Talk  09:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Appreciate this detailed review, Nikkimaria.  750h+ | Talk  07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Reviewing this version:

  • 1 OK
  • 12 Can I have a version of this page? eta: Some of the information is supported.
  • 13 Can I have a version of this page?
  • 33 Can I have a version of this page?
  • 34 Some information is backed, I wonder if this is an op-ed or something else.
  • 35 Not sure that we can drop the "Aston claims" in the source.
  • 57 OK
  • 65 Supports some of the information.
  • 66 I presume you are interpreting the lack of major changes as "subtle"?
  • 70 Where does it say "running strips"? Not sure it says that the interior is the most changed.
  • 77 OK, but I will never cease to wonder why horsepower is a criterium for car use. Acceleration, braking, fuel consumption, endurance, that I can see, but power?
  • 78 I think this says Frankfurt, not Detroit
  • 82 OK
  • 89 OK
  • 90 OK
  • 91 OK
  • 92 Not seeing Twitter here, and I'd use the Twitter page anyway.
  • 103 OK
  • 111 Need someone else to spotcheck this thing.
  • 112 Need someone else to spotcheck this thing.

Looks like we are dealing with lots of magazine and newspaper sources; only the Oxford Mail raises reliability questions but keep in mind that I don't know car magazines very well. Is the link to Adam Phillips (psychologist) correct? Don't know most of the book publishers very well but it seems like the source formatting is fairly consistent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is source 12, Here is source 13, and Here is source 33. Re source 34, there's three sources to support the whole thing. Re source 35, I've replaced that with a newspaper source from The Province, if that's all right (better reliability and more certain), Jo-Jo. Re source 65, there's 3 references in that sentence, so that should be handled. Re 66, I removed that for WP:NPOV reasons. Re source 70, I've moved that reference to the end of the sentence to be next to ref 71, as both sources support what is being said. Ref 78, oh no, haha, that was the coupe's introduction. This one is talking about the Volante. Thanks for the notice though!! Re source 92, I've added the Tweet alongside the Top Gear source. For 111 and 112, these sources were here before I began editing the article, so not even I have access to these. Should I remove them?  750h+ | Talk  18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, strike that last comment, I've found some videos. But they're only watchable in the UK (I can look for more however): S4 E1 and S6 E3.  750h+ | Talk  18:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that the Top Gear references are fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this confirmation, AirshipJungleman29.  750h+ | Talk  19:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Oxford Mail reference. Do you see anymore problems, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:?  750h+ | Talk  19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but #13 and #112 doesn't show for me. Google Books has display limits, evidently. #35 and the Adam Phillips link seem unchanged on my end? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's annoying. For reference 13, could I possibly screenshot this (or possibly replace it)? I'll replace reference 13 with one of a newspaper from the Sunday Telegraph. As for source 35 in this version (the Car and Driver source), I've removed that source as the newspaper, the Province, says that already. AirshipJungleman29 stated that he had already confirmed that the Top Gear references (111 and 112) were fine.  750h+ | Talk  07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phillips was actually in #32. OK on #13 providing that "coupe and convertible known as Volante" is in the other source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Phillips source in 32 with newspaper from "Torquay Herald Express" too (if that's all right). Is there anything else?  750h+ | Talk  08:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: is this a pass?  750h+ | Talk  09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this excellent source review, Jo-Jo.  750h+ | Talk  07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Model years[edit]

It contains many sentences like "In October 2012, in preparation for the 2013 model year". Does this mean that a change was made in Oct 2012, and then more changes were made in calendar year 2013. Or maybe changes were made in Oct 2012 and more changes were made later in 2012 (with late 2012 being the US style 2013 model year) ? Or does it mean that in Oct 2012 changes were made and these count as the US style 2013 model year? For clarity, the US style 2013 model year is the production run that includes 1 Jan 2013 and usually goes form late 2012 to late 2013 calendar years.

Similarly, "Furthermore, the 2009 model" is not clear whether it means the changes introduced in 2009 calendar year (ie mid-2009 to mid-2010) or introduced in 2009 model year (mid-2008 to mid-2009 calendar year).

Be aware that American sources tend to use model years and they just assume that all their readers also think in model years. This is, of course, not true for international readers and can be very confusing to the majority of non-Americans who tend to think in calendar years.  Stepho  talk  23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the model years, Stepho. Is this better?  750h+ | Talk  02:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much better.  Stepho  talk  08:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this output Stepho!!  750h+ | Talk  08:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will look at this shortly. I should note that 750h+ has approached me about this nomination on my talk page, but it will not affect my review of this article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this EpicGenius. Apologies for the approach, hope it didn't bug you.  750h+ | Talk  16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/infobox:
  • Para 1: "produced from 2004 until it was discontinued in 2016" - I'd say "produced from 2004 to 2016", since readers are probably going to assume that the car was discontinued when production ceased.
done
  • Para 2: "Aston Martin produced from 1994 until it was discontinued in 2004" - Similarly, I suggest "from 1994 to 2004".
done
  • Para 2: "made its public debut" - Was there a private debut? If not, I'd change both instances of "made its public debut" to "debuted".
done
  • Para 3: "But the most noteworthy update" - I would eliminate "but" or change this to "however", as this is both awkward and somewhat redundant.
done; changed to however
  • The lead doesn't seem to mention why it was discontinued, or how many vehicles were built (the latter is in the infobox though).
There’s not particularly a lot on the discontinuation, which is why only the first paragraph and infobox say that.
More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Epicgenius.  750h+ | Talk  03:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius:… knock knock :)  750h+ | Talk  16:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, my remaining comments are mostly minor nitpicks. Do you want these anyway (these may take a while), or do you want me to just point out the few substantive comments I had? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whatever works. Most of the important comments have already been addressed.  750h+ | Talk  16:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only have a few non-minor concerns.
Name:
  • "Although it succeeded the DB7, Aston Martin did not name the car DB8 due to fears that the name would suggest that it featured a V8 engine—the DB9 has a V12." - The first part of the sentence is a dangling modifier (Aston Martin did not succeed the DB7; the DB9 did).
whoops, fixed.
Development:
  • Para 2: "But when Aston Martin appointed Henrik Fisker as the lead designer in 2001," - It feels clunky to start a sentence with "but". I would go with "However", or even delete that word altogether if the contrast to the previous sentences is apparent.
done
  • Para 3: "Instead of the Vanquish's red starter button which was often described as "vulgar"," - I would add a comma before "which", as "which was often described as 'vulgar'" appears to be a parenthetical phrase.
done
Design and technology:
  • Para 3: "The Aston Martin DB9 used a 5.9-litre V12 engine.[45][46][47] This generates 570 N⋅m (420 lb⋅ft) of torque at 5,000 rpm and a maximum power output of 456 PS (335 kW; 450 hp) at 6,000 rpm" - This goes from present tense (in para 2) to past tense (the first sentence of para 3) back to present tense again. Should this be "The Aston Martin DB9 uses", unless all copies of the DB9 are destroyed?
makes sense, as the DB9 does still exist
Updates:
  • Para 1: "Although primarily unchanged, the updates included stylistic tweaks" - This is also a dangling modifier. The updates weren't unchanged; the DB9 was.
done
Variants:
  • Do we know how many of the DB9 Volante and DB9 GT were created? You mention how many DB9 LMs were created.
The website “6SpeedOnline” says 6,380 Volantes were made, but its reliability seems questionable? I can’t find anything on the DB9 GT.
DB9 Volante:
  • Para 1: "In the case of a rollover incident," - This should be "in case of".
done
That's basically it from me. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Epicgenius:. I’ve addressed these.  750h+ | Talk  17:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YES! We officially have seven supports.  750h+ | Talk  17:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serial[edit]

I came here to review, having spotted a nice and neutral notice on another page, so I will do so (that was prior to any others I may also have spotted). Everything has been dealt with, however, so—with the exception of, as off this version, a page range error at fn. 109 (requires pp=, not p=)—I'm happy to support. ——Serial Number 54129 10:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SN54129. Addressed the concern.  750h+ | Talk  10:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parsecboy[edit]

  • "The DB9's range includes the coupe..." - when I hear "range", I think of a distance (i.e., how far something can go on a full tank of gas under normal conditions). This might be a US/Europe thing, but it may be simpler to state something like "The DB9 was available as a coupe or the Volante convertible" (which also has the benefit of removing the ambiguity of "includes", which implies the list may not be exhaustive).
done
  • What's the significance of specifying the engine types of the Vantage (especially in the lead section)? (on an unrelated note, gotta love that a DB7 Vantage and the 2005 Vantage are unrelated cars!)
done
  • Might be worth pointing out in the Background section that Ford is the parent company of Aston Martin, and at the time, Jaguar - it'd make the material in the Development section make more sense as well
done
Still need to make clear that Jaguar was also owned by Ford at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done  750h+ | Talk  15:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the model plan was the one established in the late 1990s." - what does this mean? There's no previous discussion of model plans.
I've just removed that. I had another reviewer ask me about that and he didn't know what it meant either. I rephrased that sentence to something more simple.
I don't think that's the right direction - we need more context, not less. Bez obviously had a plan to modernize Aston Martin in the 90s, but instead of explaining that, we jump simply to "..."the V12 Vanquish to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." This relates to my point below, about the lack of context for non-expert readers. You have to remember that 99.99% of the people who will read this article know nothing about Aston Martin, its history, etc. Take a look at Brandenburg-class battleship, particularly the background and design sections - this article doesn't have to be as long as that one, but when I wrote those sections, I kept in mind the fact that readers aren't going to come to the article knowing the geopolitical situation in Europe in the 1880s, the state of naval technology and doctrine, and so forth, so I had to explain all of that. If we're going to provide a section that covers the development of this particular car, we really ought to talk about things like major development plans senior management of the company had, and how this car fit into them. Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy Okay, so I've changed this whole part to "In the latter part of the 1990s, Aston Martin established a model plan where the cars would introduce various new technologies. In July 2000, Ford appointed Dr. Ulrich Bez as chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman of Aston Martin. The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins, and was on the verge of its introduction in 2001." Thoughts?  750h+ | Talk  11:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're nearly there, but I'm still not happy with the two sections. I think part of it is jumping back and forth in time between the Background and Design sections - it might be simplest to move the "In the latter part of the 1990s..." sentence to the second paragraph of the background section, where the V12 Vanquish is introduced (and you could probably eliminate the sentence "The V12 Vanquish was to be the first of the technologically advanced Aston Martins..." as more or less redundant to the introduction you gave it in the previous section).
One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project). Parsecboy (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: So I've put your first suggestions into place. With your final query, where you said One other thing I noticed: I assume the DB9 was the AM305 project (based on Callum's quote), but no explanation is given for how the original 2-seater became a 2+2 (and seemingly superseded the AM802 project), The DB9 was the AM802 project; the 2005 Vantage was the AM305. As stated here "The entry-level DB7 was due to be replaced by a car with the project codename "AM802", slated to be a 2+2 grand touring car." This was referring to the DB9, which replaced the DB7. "During this time, a third project was in development, codenamed the "AM305". It was to be a smaller, two-seater car intended to compete with the Porsche 911 and the Ferrari 360." Talks about the Vantage. But I'll specify that.  750h+ | Talk  03:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Callum makes a big deal about the debate between front- and mid-engine designs, but the article doesn't clearly state what the DB9 uses; lower down, it states that the engine "largely sits behind the front-axle line". You've raised a question with the quote box that requires the reader to already know what differentiates front- and mid-engine designs (this is representative of the general sense I have from reading the article - clearly its been written by someone with extensive knowledge of the topic, but there's a lot of context missing)
In the "Powertrain" section, I've changed that to "Its front-mid-engine engine design improves weight distribution." Is that good?
That's fine for that point, but there are still context issues. It's difficult to sort out the exact relationship between Aston Martin/Jaguar/Ford, TWR, and Lawson/Callum. The article states that Aston Martin commissioned TWR for the design, but then that it was prepared by Callum after Lawson's death; their articles state they worked for Jaguar at the time, not TWR, so which entity is responsible for the design? The TWR article only mentions the DB7 as having been designed by them. If TWR didn't design the car, why are we mentioning them? Parsecboy (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Parsecboy So I've moved some things around. The TWR part has been removed because that was for the DB7 (my bad). Callum and Fisker designed the car  750h+ | Talk  11:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a fair bit of links missing, some of which would be useful for the inherent ENGVAR issues (like bonnet -> Hood (car) or boot -> Trunk (car)). Remember that we're writing for an international audience, and not everyone will be aware of other varieties' of English terms for things or technical terms in general. Others that could be linked include torque, axle, Garmin, etc.
    • Semi-relatedly, there are a fair few duplicate links in the article - if you don't have it already, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is a very useful tool
done, I'll check the duplicate links out soon.
  • A minor niggle, but the line "Despite its chassis modifications aimed at enhancing rigidity, the Volante weighs 1,882 kg (4,150 lb), slightly heavier..." - I'd expect the stronger convertible chassis to be heavier than the coupe, so the "despite" bit reads wrong to me.
done
  • It seems odd to order the DB9 GT before the LM - when readers see that the GT was the last variant of the DB9, but then see that there's another variant after that, it might be confusing, which we should avoid.
done
  • "...directed by Aston Martin's longstanding design chief, Marek Reichman." - we've already been introduced to Reichman, so that should be trimmed to "...directed by Reichman."
done
  • "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin, on Twitter, posted a picture of the final nine DB9s..." -> "On 22 July 2016, Aston Martin posted a picture on Twitter of the final nine DB9s" - cleaner and avoids the multiple commas.
done

That's all from my first reading. Parsecboy (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Parsecboy, I've addressed these ones.  750h+ | Talk  12:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I made one small tweak for clarity, but I'm happy to support now. Nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Thank you for this Parsecboy!  750h+ | Talk  11:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

Incoming. ~ HAL333 18:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "usually known as facelifts" -- "usually" is not needed. I might also suggest the alternative "termed facelifts".
    done
  • The Oxford comma is inconsistently used throughout.
    fixed
  • "the owner of Aston Martin for a significant part of its history" - could you specify the years?
    done
  • "Aston Martin held the belief" --> the more concise "Aston Martin believed". Or considering the context, "Aston Martin worried that..."
    done
  • "Aston Martin, whom" -- Is Astin Martin a 'whom'
    That was dumb of me. fixed
  • "It was the best-selling Aston Martin of its time" --> "at its time" or even be more specific and say something like "until 201X when it was surpassed by the DBX."
    done. I’ve opted for the former because the latter wasn’t in the source
  • "Dr Ulrich Bez" I assumer "Dr" isn't followed by a period in BrEng?
    done
  • "codenamed" could be a single word.
    done
  • I would wikilink Arctic Circle if you do so w/ Death Valley.
    done
  • "Torque" is linked more than once.
    done
  • "Initially intended for a production run of 124 units, each allocated to a different dealer, some dealers opted out of their allocations, leading to 69 cars produced." is a strangely structured sentence.
    done, rephrased.
  • "well-defined Italian automaker Ferrari" - What does "well-defined" mean in this context?
    fixed this, I’ve changed that to “well-known”, more people know what it is
  • None of the notes are complete sentences, but all but one have periods. Either way, it should be consistent.
    done

That's all I got. Solid work. ~ HAL333 18:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, HAL333 :). I’ve addressed these.  750h+ | Talk  02:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016. The DB9 was available" => "The car was produced from 2004 until 2016 and was available" (sounds a bit less "choppy")
    done
  • "It became so popular that it had started" => "It became so popular that it started"
    done
  • "So, again, Aston Martin commissioned" - so when did they do this before?
    done; removed that, I myself don't even know, it said that in the source
  • "while Fisker focus on Aston Martin" => "while Fisker focused on Aston Martin"
    done
  • "In the case of a rollover incidents" => "a incidents".....?
    fixed; whoops lol.
  • "But the presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall and earned " => "The presenters called the DB9 "too cool" for the wall, however, and it earned "
    done
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
    done
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ChrisTheDude, I've addressed these concerns :)  750h+ | Talk  10:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Thanks ChrisTheDude.  750h+ | Talk  17:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query from Wolverine[edit]

Pseud 14[edit]

Placeholder. Going to take a look soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into it Pseud 14 :).  750h+ | Talk  00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on cars, but will be taking a look at prose from the lens of an unfamiliar reader. Seems like most of the reviews before this have polished the article, so I have somewhat little to add.

  • Don't know much about cars, but perhaps worth linking chassis on the lead and the first instance in the body.
done
  • For this part except for a row of five round controls positioned approximately level with the steering wheel. -- is this positioned at the same level as the steering wheel?
yes
  • Unlink in contrast to its predecessor per MOS:DUPLINK. Maybe add DB7 if you want to specify what the predecessor is.
done
  • Adjusted by Reichman, updates involved a refreshed front bumper -- the updates involved..
done
  • That's all I have. Fantastic work on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: thanks Pseud 14, I’ve addressed your concerns :). Feel free to highlight any of my responses if I did something wrong.  750h+ | Talk  14:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Saving a spot, but I'll wait until after Pseud 14 goes so I don't duplicate anything. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for committing to review PCN02WPS :).  750h+ | Talk  00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when PCN02WPS finishes their review and I'll try to take a look. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks Hog Farm :).  750h+ | Talk  00:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: mind reviewing before PCN02WPS does? He stated that his time might be a bit limited. Best,  750h+ | Talk  17:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

  • "The DB9 serves as the successor to the DB7" → I'm not a huge fan of the "serves as" construction; recommend simplifying wording by just saying "is the successor" (see WP:SERVEDAS, one of my favorite essays, for more info)
done
  • Is the use of "examples" in this context standard practice? I've never heard it used this way and it sounds kind of strange; personally, I much prefer "units" which is used several times later in the article
done

Development

  • "In July 2000, Ford appointed Dr. Ulrich Bez as chief executive officer" → remove "Dr." per MOS:DOCTOR
done
  • "would become the V8 Vantage in 2005" → Vantage is already linked in the last sentence of the previous paragraph
done
  • "while Fisker focused on Aston Martin" → seems unnecessary to specify this given the start of the sentence
done
  • "Callum replied, "I would say..." → this quote is not entirely correct; the phrase "including the interior" is excluded (recommend either adding it or signaling that it's been taken out)
done, I didn’t see that part so thanks for the notice
  • I believe that same quote should include the full stop inside the quotation marks per MOS:LQ since it's a complete sentence
done
  • "alongside high-speed testing" → the word "alongside" seems strange here - does this just mean "they also did high-speed testing at..."?
I changed that to “as well as”
  • "appeared in the 2006 film, Casino Royale" → don't believe this comma is necessary
done
  • "though Aston Martin was traditionally a maker of more exclusive automobiles, he believed Aston Martin needed to be" → repetitive (emphasis is mine)
fixed, changed to ”that the company”.

Design and tech

  • "a USB connector" → since iPod is linked, might as well link USB as well
done
  • "Featuring Bridgestone Potenza 235/40ZR19 tyres in the front and 275/35ZR19 in the rear, its braking system" → dangling modifier, sounds like the braking system features those tires rather than the car
done

Updates

  • "Although the car was primarily unchanged" → It sounds like this is meant to mean "the car was largely unchanged" or "mostly unchanged" but "primarily" reads closer to "first" or something similar.
done
  • "The DB9's 5.9-litre V12 receives" → tense change to present, recommend sticking with past
done
  • "31 newton-metres" → unit is abbreviated in the previous section but spelled out fully here
fixed
  • "The car's maximum speed has been raised to" → tense change to present perfect continuous, recommend sticking with past
done
  • "The 2008 facelift received a revised" → As I understand it, the facelift implemented this and the car received it
oops done lol
  • " it is beautiful but subtle—not attention seeking"." → recommend moving full stop inside quotes per MOS:LQ
done
  • "its most prominent changes lie in its exterior" → the two uses of "its" are ambiguous here; it reads as though they both refer to the car, which then introduces a dangling modifier
done

Variants

  • "limitation, starting with the upgraded" → comma not needed
done

Motorsport

  • "several endurance races, and additionally raced" → remove comma

Notes

  • Note 4 isn't a complete sentence and so does not need a full stop
done

Sorry for such a long wait - here's what I found on my read-through. Nice work. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, and the long wait was fine :), @PCN02WPS: I’ve addressed these concerns! 750h+ 00:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the participation you've gotten I know my support isn't needed but you have it anyway. Nice work! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks PCN02WPS! 9 supports! I've try to leave comments on any upcoming FACs you have 750h+ 03:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I can't even change the oil in my car, so this will be a very nonexpert review.

  • The Rapide is mentioned in the infobox as a related thing, but is not mentioned elsewhere in the article
fixed
  • " it was available as a coupe and convertible, the latter known as the Volante" - recommend linking coupe and convertible
done
  • "a grand tourer positioned as an "entry-level" vehicle." - specify that this is an entry-level to luxury vehicles, I assume?
i've explained that via footnote
  • "When asked by the magazine Car and Driver how much he had contributed to the DB9, he stated," - is he Callum or Fisker?
Callum; fixed
  • "Adjusted by Reichman,[65] the updates involved a refreshed front bumper, clear tail-lights and more defined wings" - Reichman hasn't been mentioned in the body of the article to this point, only the lead, so I would recommend giving his full name and linking him here
done
  • What is a tuning mode? Is there a way to link or explain this?
I changed that to "driving modes" which should be a bit more understandable
  • The swan doors and unibody chassis only seem to be directly mentioned in the infobox
I removed the swan doors part because I couldn't find any good sources. I also removed the part about the unibody chassis, as it is a standard feature in most cars.
  • I have not spot-checked any sources and don't feel competent to assess source quality so I will be relying on the passed source review for those elements. Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've addressed your concerns.  750h+ | Talk  01:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting with the caveat that I can't comment on the sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Hog Farm :).  750h+ | Talk  02:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Co-ord query[edit]

@FAC coordinators: could I possibly initiate another nomination? It's been two weeks, and this has seven supports, and the source review and image review have been finished. Best,  750h+ | Talk  13:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, David Fuchs.  750h+ | Talk  14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: apologies for the second ping, but this nomination has eight supports, and the source review and image review have both been done. Are we seeing promotion.. ?  750h+ | Talk  02:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom will be looked at when it gets looked at. A nomination only two weeks in isn't high on the list, and speaking personally, people bugging coords doesn't make me want to bump it up in priority. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, apologies. 750h+ 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • The first three books in the bibliography have no ISBNs.
maybe i'm missing something but all books have ISbNs
  • The titles of articles are usually in title case. If they are in sentence case they need to be so consistently. (How they appear in their original articles is irrelevant. You are inconsistent. (Sorry, I know this is a pain to fix.)
@Gog the Mild: so I assume you're talking about the references? If so I'll get going.
  • "and a convertible, the latter termed the "Volante" ... and its convertible counterpart, the Volante". We don't need to be told this twice in four sentences.
done
  • Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, four paragraphs is too long for the lead. I suggest grouping the same text into two.
done

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all of your concerns addressed Gog the Mild! 750h+ 08:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2024 [16].

Secretum (British Museum)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretum was one of those patriarchal and patronising pieces of Victorian nonsense, where they thought the sight of classical nudity would somehow stir up the base instincts of the lower classes and cause moral damage to women and children. While the museum set up the Private Case for naughty literature, the artwork, artefacts and statuary was stashed in backrooms of the museum and much of it locked away in cupboards so even the staff didn't see it. All comments welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

SchroCat is clearly on a continuing mission to corrupt our morals, a bit late in the day as far as I'm concerned. I reviewed this article at PR in February and my comments were all dealt with thoroughly. Rereading for FAC I spotted nothing else to quibble about except:

  • "timeframe", which is two separate words in the OED.
  • "photostats" – which I am old enough to remember using but could do with a link for anyone under seventy.
  • "This acquisition continued from the nineteenth to the twentieth century" – the meaning is clear, but the phrasing could be more exact. From the 19th to the 20th century was a nanosecond on 31 December 1900. A swift change of prepositions will probably do the job.

Nothing there to prevent my support for this deplorable article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is a cracking read, well and widely referenced, appears balanced, and as to the extensive illustrations words fail me. Tim riley talk 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Tim, your comments at PR and again here are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_British_Museum's_Secretum.jpg: was any attribution provided for this image at the source given?
  • File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG needs a tag for the original work
  • File:Cup_decorated_on_the_interior_with_an_erotic_scene_-_3.jpg: where's that licensing coming from? It doesn't match the source site. Ditto File:Kylix_-_1b.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria.

A thought: if we crop them enough so as to only show the image in the tondo (which is pretty much flat), can we then claim PD-ART? After all, such an image would allow no artistic input by the photographer in choosing an angle, shadows etc, which I gather is the guiding principle behind that licensing claim. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly works for me. Nikkimaria, does that sound ok? The Kylix image is already like that, and a similar crop would work on the other? - SchroCat (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible to get a 2D work out of them, that should work. However the satyr needs a US tag in addition to the one added. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Erotic design in ancient Grecian cup.png
File:Red-figured kylix design in ancient Grecian cup.png
I've also added a US one on File:Sàtir_i_nimfa,_intent_de_violació,_exposició_la_Bellesa_del_Cos.JPG too
Are you happy with the licensing on these? - Cheers SchroCat (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Hello! Comments within the week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I'm calling this still within the week![reply]

  • "The segregation was probably..." I know it's the lead, but I'm not sure we should be using an unattributed "probably" to give an opinion in wikivoice. Maybe "Modern scholars believe the segregation was..." or something similar?
  • Bless George Witt and his collection of 434 penis-based artefacts
    Not something I thought I’d ever read at FAC! SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I like to try to treat the audience to at least one unhinged comment at FAC whenever possible
  • "The Secretum collection began to be gradually broken up in 1912, with the transfer of items into the departments where they sat with other pieces from their own time frame and culture." The latter half of this sentence feels a bit tied up in itself. Maybe "with the transfer of items into departments appropriate for their time frame and culture"?
  • Hm. Grove says that some of the museum's sexual artefacts were never placed in the Secretum. Does anyone get into the reasoning behind this? Or perhaps what the segregation criteria were?
    No, unfortunately not. If the BM ever actually had any specific criteria, it was never written down (or at least, it's not in the archives, as far as the sources cover it). - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The classicist Jen Grove..." speaking of Grove, this bit feels slightly out of place where it is. It's more like analysis than history-of, so I think it might be better placed under the rationale section. She also gets into a bit more about how the museum intentionally acquired these objects (rather than sort of...incidentally receiving them in donations of other stuff), which I don't see touched on in the article
    Let me think on this a bit, as the core part (for me) is the historical approach of still acquiring such items at the point the Secretum was supposed to be hiding them away. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why refer to the Naples Secret Cabinet in Italian the second time?
    It's not - it's on the first mention of the Cabinet (as opposed to the overall museum) - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the Background section you have "in the National Archaeological Museum, Naples...whose Secret Cabinet (Italian: Gabinetto Segreto)" (Secret Cabinet being linked here), and then under Break-up you've got "Unlike the Gabinetto Segreto". I'm not terribly bothered by it, mostly wondering if it was for a specific reason.
    Ah, that one: It made more sense having it that way before the PR, but changes there swapped over the first reference to it. I've tweaked the second one now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Webb considers that" but "Victoria Donnellan considers the collection" - is there a reason for the inconsistent use of "that"?
  • Just a bit of variety in approach. If you think it's distracting, I can tweak if you like? - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I was just wondering if there was a reason.

That's really all I have, it's generally well-written and interesting as always :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC - Done except where commented on - feel free to push back on any of them. There's one I'm still mulling over at the moment as to whether to move, keep or split. - SchroCat (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it won't be a dealbreaker if you leave it where it is. I'm a support, I don't see anything to be hung up on. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, as always, PMC; your thoughts are always welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

Ooh I say! It's (not quite) enough to get one all hot and bothered!

  • The first thing that strikes me is the past tense in the opening paragraph but no dates.
    That's sort of deliberate, given it wasn't clear cut (with the separation starting before it officially started and beginning to end before it ended, so to speak!). It's covered within the (now shortened) lead, so it's all explained at the top of the page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is quite long for a ~2k-word article.
    I've trimmed this down a bit: how does it look now? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The journalist Laura Thomas observes the present tense is a little jarring there and a date might be useful
    Dated and tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I've got. Excellent work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Harry, I've explained one and acted on two. Happy to talk through the first point further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think some sort of date would be helpful earlier in the lead just for context to establish that this was an historical practice, but I'll leave it up to you. Otherwise, support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and your thoughts Harry. In terms of the dates, how does this look? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. It covers the whole time period, while being vague on the specifics, so it covers both our concerns. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

I feel rather guilty about going disappearing on the previous OHMSS FAC. I was completely consumed by a certain professional exam, and did not have all the time in the world. Regardless, here's what I noticed:

  • Of all the possible translations of secretum, why "hidden away"? Why not the marginally more concise "secret"? Is one more dominant in the sources?
    On the advice, at PR, of someone who know better than I! - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To explain myself a little: this is partly a matter of (classical) Latin accuracy, but also of the meaning in practice: the collection wasn't secret in the sense that nobody was allowed to know it existed; it was hidden away in the sense that they didn't talk about it and controlled access to it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a SOB with "antiquarian Sir Robert Cotton", but not sure whether it can be fixed.
    I'm not sure there is either. My preference is to be flexible with the MOS on such stylistic points if the two separate links are likely to point to separate articles, as they do here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Oxford comma is used inconsistently: e.g. lacking with "a statue of Pan having sex with a goat and an erotic frieze from an Indian tantra temple" but present with "photostats, and the arrangements made".
    I've omitted it everywhere, but the one after photostats is in a quotation, I could remove, if you'd prefer, but I'm lean towards a conservative approach to editing quotes and normally leave them be unless it's an outright error. - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formation was possibly as a result of the new legislation" --> "formation was possibly a result of the new legislation" but disregard if it's the perennial AmEng/BrEng issue.
    I think that may be a BrEng thing (or, at least, a formal style thing) - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks great. ~ HAL333 22:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hal. Don't worry about the OHMSS - RL events meant I had to close off the FAC and the PR for this for a short while. Thanks very much for your comments: all addressed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks HAL333, your thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

A marker for now. I reviewed and enjoyed this one at PR< where SC was very patient with my nit-picking: further tests of patience to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
  • the Greco-Roman god of fertility and male genitalia: this is another classicist nit-pick, but "X was the god of Y" doesn't really work well for Greek and Roman religion: there are lots of gods connected to or responsible for fertility. The easy workaround is to call him a god of fertility, rather than the one.
    But wasn't he the one for both fertility and male genitalia? Agree on the fertility point, he was only a minor deity on that score. Happy to be overruled if you think "a" is still the better option. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dionysus/Bacchus would be the obvious alternative: he's closely associated with male fertility and there are stories of him afflicting men's genitalia when they refuse to worship him. Particularly in Greek culture, the phallus is often his symbol. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite article: see Doris, A Goddess of Wind. Authoritative. Tim riley talk 13:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IA it is! - SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The segregation was probably on moral grounds, motivated by a paternalistic stance from the museum to keep what they considered morally dangerous material away from all except scholars.: Suggest cutting as indicated, as I think the second group of clauses covers everything in the cut bit. A slightly different point: didn't they also allow clergy to access it, as well as scholars?
  • I'm not sure about the word "phallocentric": most of the definitions I can find say that this means not just "to do with penises" but as having some kind of ideological statement about the phallus/male dominance being a dominant or desirable part of society. Is that accurate here?
    Yes, I think so (as far as they go down that route); one of the sources describes the collection as being "phallocentric", so I think we're probably OK with it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well -- following HQRS is usually the best way to go about things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A small nitpick, but the Rosetta Stone was neither donated nor sold to the BM: it had been seized by British troops and was placed in the BM on the orders of Lord Hobart.
    Quite right - struck. - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The library holdings of the British Museum—which was separated: holdings is plural, so were separated.
  • Although there is no accurate date when this began: suggest getting the word known or agreed in here: there is an accurate date, we just don't know it.
  • the National Archaeological Museum, Naples—the museum which contained Roman artefacts from the nearby Pompeii, Stabiae and Herculaneum sites—whose Secret Museum, Naples : I would remove the second Naples, especially as it's not really a separate museum: it's a room within the NAM. To that end, might consider using the more literal translation "Secret Cabinet".
  • —the museum which contained Roman artefacts from the nearby Pompeii, Stabiae and Herculaneum sites: contains or containing, is better, as it still does. It includes a lot of other things as well: is there an elegant way to rephrase so that we don't give the impression that it only exists to showcase Vesuvius artefacts?
  • From its early days the British Museum's acquisitions included articles that displayed erotic or sexually graphic images; among Sloane's donations: long sentence: suggest splitting after images.
  • Keeper of the Department of Antiquities: pace the BM themselves, his title is universally given as "Keeper of Antiquities" in contemporary and later sources: I would probably follow suit with them, but not insist on doing so.
    Many thanks. All done, except where explained above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest giving the lead image a caption with its date and what exactly it was (is it Cabinet 54/55?), if known.
    It's not given, unfortunately. The caption in the original reads "Under lock and key: the BM's Secretum cupboard in the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities." - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that dates it at least to post the 1960s, and means that this is indeed either Cabinet 54 or 55? To be specific, the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities was established in 1969 (cite here, p. 130). Per our article: During the 1960s the curatorship of the Secretum was moved to the newly formed Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities, where they were housed in cupboards 55 and 54 of the museum. As the photo is in a 2000 article, would it be ridiculous to say c. 2000? Either way, there's more we can say here about which phase of the Secretum is depicted. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a caption, but I'm not convinced abut it. Partly because we don't know enough about the state of the collection whenever that was taken (was this all that remained, or was this just part of it); we're unsure of the date (between 1969 and 2000 is a wide range to have) and we're not sure of the location (was it cupboard 54 or 55 - or even somewhere else). I've gone for vagueness to fudge over these gaps in the knowledge. - SchroCat (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "after its transfer to the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities"? Agreed that all of these things are tricky considerations. I'd probably be bullish enough to assume that the photograph was taken for the HT article (especially looking at its colour and quality: it looks pretty early-2000s to me), but appreciate that you and others might be more sensible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of dating, isn't that a little more obscure than 'late C20th'? "after its transfer ..." presupposes people know when the transfer was, or even what that means. - SchroCat (talk) 06:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "After its 1969 transfer", then? I'm not suggesting binning the date we already have: instead something like The Secretum in the latter part of the 20th century, after its transfer to the Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities. The second part is about where the collection was as well as when, though you're right that readers will have to read the article to fully understand that. If that's totally unacceptable, a footnote could be used. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the collection of the Robert Harley: surely not famous enough to be the Robert Harley?
  • These items were separated from the rest of the donations and stored apart from the museum's public displays: I'm not sure I see the significance of separated from the rest of the donations, given stored apart from the museum's public displays. What does the first add to the second?
    Because the separation was both from the rest of the donations in storage (ie. in the non-public areas) and in the public displays. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course: very sensibly framed, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • the profane material it possessed: profane is potentially ambiguous (do we mean "rude" or "non-sacred"?) and, more seriously, I think possibly non-NPOV: an ancient Roman would have seen nothing obscene about an amulet with a phallus, nor would a Hindu worshipper consider a frieze from a temple to be disreputable or morally tainted. Suggest something like "material considered obscene".
  • In 1865 the collector of antiquities George Witt: a false title, which sounds like it could be analogous with "the Keeper of Antiquities" (which it isn't): suggest George Witt, a collector of antiquities...
    No false title there, but the point on the BM's position of the same name is taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • shared a common religious heritage in their worship of fertility gods and goddesses: does this really need to be a quote? I can't see that the particular formulation here is important or interesting, beyond the bare facts it conveys, so WP:NONFREE would encourage us to take those facts and put them into our own prose. There's also a tone and readability benefit to not switching the narrative voice when we can help it.
  • Witt's belief was that: the second consecutive sentence to start with Witt's abstract noun: simply Witt believed that...?
  • profane medieval items: see above on profane, except that it's particularly ambiguous here. Given that we've said his whole collection was phallocentric, I think the idea can be taken as read: removing profane here would also avoid the implication that the Greek, Roman etc objects were not-profane.
  • He also donated works of shunga—Japanese erotic art—which was the first of its type held by the museum: plurals are awry here.
  • the journalist Laura Thomas observed that Witt "did not care to place them: them doesn't have a grammatical antecedent: could add [his objects] afterwards, or rework the sentence before the quotation to provide one.
  • did not advertise or promote: a neat hendiadys, but how could they promote it without advertising it?
  • was from an outside scholar: does outside in this context mean "not employed by the BM"? If so, could cut: I'm sure those employed by the BM didn't have to apply to walk down the corridor to see the collection.
    Done down to here, bar one. - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • actively and systematically sought out sexual antiquities, either to add to the Secretum or into their main holdings.: there's a buried lead here, if the phrasing is correct, that some sexual antiquities were not placed into the Secretum. What's the story there? Grove seems to mention it: I get a 503 when I follow the link to her thesis, but maybe there's a bit more detail or bibliography there?
    That's exactly what happened. The museum acquired more pieces, most of which didn't go into the Secretum. The link works OK for me - I've added a link to an archive copy, so you should be able to see it now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting a bit late here, but I want to have a look at that source so that I can (in a break from my usual habits) have some idea what I'm talking about before I chip in again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This acquisition continued from the nineteenth into the twentieth century: they still do acquire sexual antiquities (or at least have no prohibition on doing so), so we need some kind of adjective like "enthusiastic acquisition" to make clear what stopped (the enthusiasm, not the acquisition)
  • the period when the Secretum collection was being broken up: suggest "the period between ..." to remind the reader: I had to scroll back up to remember exactly when this was.
  • although there were still some prints and cartoons locked in cupboard 205 of the Department of Prints and Drawings in 2009: it's not totally clear, at least as written, what the relationship of these prints/cartoons to the Secretum holdings was.
    Done to here - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlike the Gabinetto Segreto, whose exhibits are displayed in a separate room, with warning signs on entry, the former exhibits of the Secretum were integrated into the main displays from the 1970s onwards: is this really a fair comparison? After all, the point is that the Napoli museum essentially still has a Secretum. To me, this paragraph is really saying that, from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room. Happy to suggest an alternate phrasing if you like: I'm chewing on it at the moment, but I'm sure you'll be able to do it more elegantly than I would.
    "from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the NAM, which segregates them into a single room": I think that's what the sources say too. The difference is that their "sectretum" isn't either secret nor hidden away! - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the confusion/awkwardness I'm seeing here is a relic of what we had earlier: the "Secret Cabinet" isn't really a separate museum from the NAM, but our framing only really works if it is. You could go for something like from the 1970s onwards, the BM chose to display sexually-explicit objects integrated into its main displays, in contrast with the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, which segregates them into a single room with warning signs on entry: including that detail was a nice touch. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, reworked. - SchroCat (talk)
  • Some classicists and curators—including Gaimster and the archaeologist and museum curator Catherine Johns: this framing implies that others, beyond G. and J., have: do any of the sources cited support that?
    Yes, at least one other, and I think others too. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could at least one of those be cited for this sentence, then? Or do Gaimster or Johns say "other people have also said that..."? UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on grounds of obscenity is "academically indefensible" because "'obscenity' is not a scholarly classification".: per MOS:QUOTEPOV, I'd lose at least the quote marks on the last part, and make it something like Johns considers that classifying artefacts on grounds of obscenity is "academically indefensible" and that there is no scholarly basis to label any object as obscene.
  • The art curator Marina Wallace also considers the paternalistic approach was behind the decision: doesn't quite read right to me: that a paternalistic approach was...?
  • he sees the collection as "a product of its time, place and culture. It is a historical artefact in its own right, but also serves as a warning to future generations of historians against imposing their own contemporary prejudices on the material culture of the past.": the second sentence of the quote has lost the grammar, because it no longer follows from "he sees the collection as...". Suggest breaking the quote after "culture" and saying something like He writes that the Secretum "is a historical artefact ..."
  • , Edward Hawkins, the Keeper of Antiquities at the British Museum, was disgusted by the book and wrote: following the principle of show, not tell, I'd cut was disgusted by the book: almost any reader will pick up that disgust from the quotation, so we don't need to pre-push them towards what they should think.
    All done, except where commented on. Thanks for these new comments: all very useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi UndercoverClassicist, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - support, hopefully unsurprisingly. Another excellent article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks UC - that’s very kind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

I ordered in some smelling salts before attempting to read this. They've arrived so I'll see if there's anything left to nitpick. JennyOz (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SchroCat, only a few very minor comments from me...

  • Priapus, a Greco-Roman god of fertility - Roman not mentioned in body text? ie "subject of Priapus, a Greek god of fertility"
    • (Unsolicited comment) Greco-Roman is correct: he's quite prominent in Roman culture, and indeed the -us spelling is Latin. Let me know if you need a source for the Roman side. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks UC. Oh, I'm not at all doubting correctness, just suggesting for consistency that Roman be added in body. (Lede being summary of body consideration.) JennyOz (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • covered a wide part of human history - 'period' a better word?

Background

  • practice of locking up such works - locking away?
  • separating works away from public collections had - insert 'access' after public? (possibly hyphenated ie 'public-access' or 'publicly accessible').

Pre-Secretum, 1750s to 1865

  • Sir William Hamilton, who sold his part of his collection - is first "his" needed?
  • statue of a nymph and satyr that depicts - add links (they are only linked in caption)
  • a statue of Pan having - link Pan (god)

Official formation, 1865 onwards

  • Department of British and Mediaeval Antiquities and Ethnography, headed - just checking it was spelt at that time "Mediaeval", ie, as opposed to the later Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities
    Yes, that was the spelling at the time (See https://wellcomecollection.org/works/cgxyvvdq for one of their catalogues) - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • was from an scholar who - a scholar
  • the relevant museum department - (there are 3x "relevant") - mention some examples eg time period, culture, geographic? The only hint of what a "relevant department" might allude to is in lede which has "appropriate for their time frame and culture"

Break-up, 1912 to 2000s

  • Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities - is its proper name 'Department of Greece and Rome'? per BM (though its curator was "Keeper of the Greek and Roman Antiquities") or did the name of the dept change at some stage?
  • some 18th-century condoms being used as bookmarks - "being" sounds contemporary? how about 'which had been used'?
  • they were housed in cupboards - insert 'locked'
  • cupboards 55 and 54 of the museum - swap order ie 54 and 55? (I'm guessing 54 was first then 55 became necessary to house overflow or did one hold eg images and literature and the other curios?)
    I also think it likely that 55 was the first, but the sources are annoyingly silent on the point. It would certainly explain why one of the nicknames was "Cupboard 55", rather than 54. I'll mull on this if I can - the sources tend to have it in this order too (although, again annoyingly), they don't explain why they do. - SchroCat (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neapolitan National Archaeological Museum - in Background section it is formatted "National Archaeological Museum, Naples" - different intended?
    Yes. It's just a bit more cumbersome to read "in contrast with the National Archaeological Museum, Naples, which". I don't have a problem on the first use, but this one just rolls a little more easily - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • chose to display sexually-explicit objects - remove hyphen? there are 5x "sexually graphic" without hyphen

Rationale

  • segregate the sexually graphic items out of the main collection - from the main collection?

Academic discipline

  • writes that the contents of the Secretum were the first steps in the scientific - contents themselves are not steps? Parkinson is saying the eg analysis of, scholarship of, examination of, documentation of the contents? Or 'the contents of the Secretum were helped enable the first steps in the scientific...
  • he wrote that the collection as "a product of its time - not "as"? Should be is or was a product?

Captions

  • interior of a kylix made - italics on kylix?
  • purchased by the British Museum from Pierre Louis Jean Casimir de Blacas in 1867 - he died 1839 and his son Louis, Duke of Blacas died 1866. His article has "After the French government refused to pay for its acquisition, his collection was sold by his heirs to the British Museum in 1867 for 1,200,000 francs.[3]" BM (per link at Commons) has "Purchased from: Louis, Duc de Blacas d'Aulps". Maybe add 'heirs of' or 'estate of'?

Possible categories

  • Category:Erotica
  • Category:Censorship in the United Kingdom
  • Category:Pornography in the United Kingdom
  • Category:1865 establishments in England
  • Category:2005 disestablishments in England

JennyOz (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As always, JennyOz, a huge thanks for these comments - they are on point as usual and I hope I've done them justice with these changes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat (and UC). (The only other comment is re "relevant department", a lede but not body issue, but it is not important to Secretum itself.) I am very happy to s'port promotion. JennyOz (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JennyOz. Sorry - my eye slipped over the "relevant department" comment. I've adjusted the ones in the body to match more closely the lead. The range of goods in the Secretum was broad and covered multiple timeframes and geographies, so it's not possible to adequately cover details of all of them, so leaving it broad and vague is possibly the only solution. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those bonus tweaks! JennyOz (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h+[edit]

  • Hi SC, I've taken a read of the whole article, and I don't see any problems (most of them have been addressed above). So, I support this nomination. Great work as always!  750h+ | Talk  12:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks 750h+, that's very kind of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

On the case. A Private one, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 15:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Formatting spotless.
  • Page range for Wright's contribution.
    Done - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's OK for FAC ("But the author is a renowned academic"), but History Today is not considered a scholarly journal. Academics write in it, but it's what they do when they want to reach a wider audience. It's very rarely cited in academic monographs/journal articles. Sure Gaimster doesn't develop his ideas elsewhere at a later date? It seems odd, all things being equal, that anything he considered important in HT in 2000 didn't make its way into the Bayley chapter the following year.
    Unfortunately there wasn't much more he wrote on the general topic. - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent use Grove's thesis, no shying away with that!
Overall, all the sources are impeccable representations of the field, with one exception perhaps, and there are no immediately apparent gaps in the literature. Books and chapters are all late 20th/21st century studies by the above-noted "renowned academics" and published by reputable academic presses; newspapers are of record; it's a welcome surprise when only one out of so many works is Antiquarian.
Happy to pass the source review. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. Your points addressed or sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • "Items from other cultures covered a wide period of human history, including ancient Egypt, the classical era Greco-Roman world, the ancient Near East, medieval England, Japan and India." I am not sure that "a wide period" really works. It may just be me, or it may be worth tweaking the wording. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked - although it’s definitely just you ;) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-))


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 May 2024 [17].

Wolverton Viaduct[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverton Viaduct is (and this will shock you!) a viaduct. Near (wait for it!) Wolverton. In Buckinghamshire, south-central England. It was built in the 1830s and still carries trains today. Its designer was the famous Robert Stephenson and it is the largest viaduct on his pioneering railway from London to Birmingham (and probably the only one with FA potential). Stephenson was a conservative engineer and Wolverton is not much compared to some that followed, whether by Stephenson or other engineers. These days it would be made with machines and pre-cast concrete but a six-arch, 50ft-high bridge over a major river in what was then open countryside would have been a sight to behold in an era when everything still had to be done by manual labour.

If successful, this will be my fortieth FA, my fourth on a bridge, second on a railway bridge (after Bennerley Viaduct) and first on an operational one! As you'll see from the bibliography, I've scoured every source I can find and I think the article now says just about everything it's possible to say about this viaduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

A marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the IB you have a mix of ft and feet - either are fine, but it should be one of them only
  • "part of the Milton Keynes": the MK?
  • "army of navvies" fails WP:IDIOM
  • "Soil mechanics were not well understood in the 1830s" – would this sentence not be better with the History, where the effect and duration of the slips are better described?
  • A suggestion only, but wouldn't the history section be better a little higher up the article – at least above the Appreciation?

That's my lot, and I hope they help. Nice article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Schro, I think I've got all those. Looking back at Bennerley, I put the history above the appreciation and I think you're right that it works better that way. Thanks very much for taking a look! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - happy to support this, which meets the FA criteria, in my view. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC[edit]

  • . Modern engineers and railway historians observed that Wolverton Viaduct is not as innovative or impressive: per MOS:SAID, I'm uncomfortable with the objective "observed" being used for subjective qualities like "innovative" and "impressive". Suggest "judged", "believed" or indeed "said". On a matter of style/taste, as these are modern (and so the last word in the conversation we've set up, I'd use the perfect tense: have judged etc.
    • Done.
  • Is "blue brick" the same as Staffordshire blue brick?
    • Not necessarily. Staffordshire blue brick is more common in the West Midlands than Buckinghamshire and didn't become popular elsewhere until the railways were more established. If I had to guess, I would say these bricks probably came from London or possibly even up the Ouse. I've heard of viaducts being built from bricks made on-site but none of the sources suggest that happened here.
  • As compound modifiers, hyphenate blue-brick extension and red-brick original.
    • How embarrassing! That's the sort of thing I normally point out in FACs.
  • Masts for overhead electrification were added in the 1950s but otherwise the bridge is little changed since it was built.: amend extended for built? Otherwise, I"m not sure that being wider and with an un-bonded extension in a different colour really counts as "little changed".
    • I think the point is the from the west you wouldn't notice the extension and the only obvious difference is the electrification masts.
  • I don't see a date in the "Background" section: I would at least clarify when the L&BR started construction, planning etc. We might also clarify the hedge of "from the capital" by explaining the very slightly earlier existence of the Liverpool and Manchester railway.
    • I've added the year that construction contracts were let. I 'really don't want to get into the woods with which railway was first with what caveats because that's just inviting endless drive-by edits and it's not really relevant to this one bridge.
  • The link to cutwater is specifically about boats; it advises that the architectural term should link to Starling (structure).
    • Fixed.
  • Suggest amending the abutments link to point to abutment, rather than the redirect abutments.
    • Done.
  • Lots of multi-cites at the end of sentences/paragraphs: any reason not to bundle them for readability?
    Cite bundling is a PITA if you want to use the same ref elsewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that but it's more difficult to maintain and edit. I prefer to keep things simple. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • whose proprietors were unwilling to cooperate with their new competition: we could possibly explain a little about exactly who was competing with them, and exactly how. It wasn't Stephenson, at least not directly.
    • But it was the piece of infrastructure Stephenson was building. It's fairly obvious how a more modern piece of transport infrastructure would be seen as competition by the owners of the old infrastructure and I think going into detail on the GUC-L&BR rivalry is getting away from the subject of this one bridge.
      • That may be true. I suppose it rests on how much prior knowledge we're expecting of the reader: I've got a general contextual picture that in this period there's a lot of coal to be moved from places like Newcastle to places like London, that that was generally done by canals and ships, once upon a time, and that these were later generally out-competed by the railways, which helps me understand all of this -- but not all of our readers will. I don't think there's anything unclear here, though, and erring on a different side of the dilemma is perfectly fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • to prevent the canal company from demolishing a temporary bridge: who had built that bridge?
    • Surely that can be inferred from the fact that it was the railway company who went to court to preserve it? But I've added something anyway.
  • The cost of the works on the viaduct was £28,000: can we inflate that to give readers a sense of scale?
    • I'm not at all convinced that the figures produced by the inflation template are any more meaningful but added anyway (though the 2021 figure seems remarkably low to me).
  • the overrun compares favourably to several of the other major engineering works on the line, especially Kilsby Tunnel: by how much did that one overrun?
    • Added.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall and passengers were forwarded to Rugby by stagecoach to complete their journey: I love that rail replacement buses have been a Thing as long as the rails have.
    • Ha! I nearly spat my drank out when I read this.
  • but did not open as part of the through route until: could cut as part of the through route? Not really seeing what it adds to what is already not the shortest sentence.
    • I can't absolutely refute that trains crossed it before Kilsby Tunnel was finished but I take your point so removed.
  • trains ran as far as Denbigh Hall : can we say how far that was, or how much of a detour, for those who don't have a mental map of the 1830s rail network?
    • Added. I had to look it up, not having such a mental map myself!
  • the viaduct was widened on its western side between 1879 and 1882 in keeping with the original design: there seems to be a buried lead here: did Stephenson originally design it wider, but have to build a narrow version at first? I'm not seeing the "original design" anywhere else.
    Unlikely; Stephenson will have designed it for two tracks. Whilst there have been historical instances of bridges and other structures being designed for two tracks where only one track was initially laid (the line between Oxford and Banbury for instance, see MacDermot 1927, p. 300), I know of none where four tracks were foreseen from the outset yet only two were initially laid. There are other instances of a bridge being widened for four tracks, using the same design as the original - Maidenhead Railway Bridge for instance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah: so does "in keeping with the original design" here mean "in a manner fitting the design of the existing bridge" rather than "as it was originally designed to be"? If so, would clarify. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-worded it slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The route became part of the West Coast Main Line upon nationalisation in the 20th century: this seems pretty vague on the date. Nationalisation happened from 1948; our own article on the WCML is pretty vague on when the name came about, but either c. 1870 or 1923 seem to be the best candidates offered there. Any way to narrow it down from the current "somewhere between 1901 and 1999"?
    • I think this is veering too far off-topic from this bridge. I assumed the term originated with British Rail but I suppose it could date back to the LMS to distinguish it from the Midland line.
  • the appearance of the viaduct has changed little since Bourne's depiction: perhaps due to recent rearrangements, we haven't actually introduced this guy or this drawing yet. However, the photo -- which pretty clearly shows that it's now twice as wide -- would seem to contradict this statement (see above).
    • Moved the blurb on Bourne. The width is obviously different but aside from that the scene is largely the same which is what the article (and the sources it's based on) are getting at.
  • Technically speaking, the cite for the listed building status doesn't support Listed building status provides legal protection from unauthorised demolition or unsympathetic modification and is applied to structures of historical and architectural importance, though it should be trivial to find another citation that does.
    • You're correct. HE have changed their layout. It's almost obvious enough that it can be inferred but I've added a source just to be safe.
  • Nitpick: in the bibliography, second ed. and print ed. are decapitalised but Revised ed. is capitalised. Advise consistency.
    • Consistent-ified.
  • It's unusual under MOS:LAYOUT to place the footnotes after the bibliography, isn't it?
    • Unusual, perhaps, but not prohibited. It's how I've done it in most of my FAs.
  • Suggest adding alt text for the lead image.
    • Good catch. Added.

A nice piece of work and, I'm sure, a considerable feat of research to pull together. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: Appreciate the review! There are a few places where I feel your questions would lead away from the subject at hand but other than that I think I've addressed everything. Happy to talk about anything that's still bothering you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: happy with all this and that the article is in good nick. A really excellent piece of work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

  • Width of 53 feet seems to be found only in the infobox
    • Added to the body.
  • Are you sure that blue-brick and red-brick in the lead should be hyphenated?
    • Absolutely. As UC pointed out above (and as I often point out in FACs!), they're being used as compound adjectives.
  • " but did not open until the September" - is something off here or is this phrasing OK in British English
    • It makes perfect sense to me.
      • It doesn't to me, but I'll chalk that up to an engvar issue. Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead indicates that the widening occurred in the 1880s but the body is not clear on when this happened
    • Added a date. Good catch.
  • The infobox mentions Network Rail but nothing else in the article does?
    • A 20-something-year-old government body is perhaps a bit too ephemeral for a 186-year-old bridge; removed.
  • This article is in two categories for things built in 1837 but the rest of the article would lead me to believe this is an 1838 structure?
    • Fixed.

This looks to be in good shape to me; although I'm not familiar with the relevant corpus of sourcing for this topic. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HF! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support from TR[edit]

A most enjoyable article. The merest quibbles about four points:

  • In the lead you say "Modern engineers and railway historians have suggested that Wolverton Viaduct is not as innovative or impressive as some that followed..." I'm not sure that's quite substantiated in the main text, where the comments are mostly complimentary.
  • You might decide whether the L&BR should be plural or singular: "the L&BR were forced" but "a history of the L&BR for the 150th anniversary of its opening".
  • "the line still required significant civil engineering works" – what did they signify? I think you want "major" or some other synonym of "big". (This is Plain Words on "significant": "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'") The phrase occurs in the lead and again in the main text.
  • "partially dressed in red sandstone" – I should write "partly" here, though "partially" is not wrong and one can lose the will to live wading through the long sections on the two words in the current edition of Fowler. I don't press the point.

I'll look in again in the confident expectation of adding my support. Tim riley talk 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Tim! I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think "not as innovative" is a reasonable reflection of the body—specifically the comparison with Wharncliffe Viaduct. Other than that, I think I've addressed all your quibbles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you say "Modern engineers and railway historians have suggested", which means at least four people – modern engineers plural and railway historians plural – and you only quote two. Or perhaps Jenkinson and Beckett are or were simultaneously engineers and historians, in which case I withdraw my objection. Tim riley talk 12:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think about it, the insertion of "Some" before "modern engineers..." would do the trick. Would you be OK with that? Tim riley talk 12:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. So inserted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article meets the FA criteria in every respect in my opinion. Tim riley talk 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Sources seem to be consistently formatted. Don't know about most of them, is David Jenkinson David Jenkinson? What kind of publisher is Thomas Telford and David & Charles? Spotcheck upon request, but as I don't have any of these books in close range I'll need some photos. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus looks like the same Mr Jenkinson. Thomas Telford is the commercial publishing arm of the Institution of Civil Engineers; David & Charles used to be quite a well renowned publisher of transport titles. Happy to provide photos if you or the coords want a spot check. Most of the books are to hand. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for the coordinators. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, just checking what it is you would like from us. At the moment I am happy with the sourcing, but more importantly - are you? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing is fine, just wondering if a spotcheck is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am content for there not to be one Jo-Jo. But you did the source review, so if you feel that the article needs or would benefit from a spotcheck let us know. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What HJ said - plus, (i) it is definitely the same David Jenkinson; (ii) David & Charles were right up there with Ian Allan as one of the principal publishers of RSs for British railway topics. Since both publishers went out of business, the reliability of subsequently-written books has dropped - some of them even recycle previously-published material, including errors and misconceptions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pen & Sword seem to have taken up the mantle to some extent but yes, the demise of those two is to be lamented. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • "to the designs of Robert Stephenson". Is the plural designs intended?
  • "The viaduct and embankment feature in drawings by John Cooke Bourne." Are any available to illustrate the article?
  • Link "blue-brick" and "red-brick". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild cit the plural; the drawings are PD but not obviously online (there's one in Thompson but I don't have anything more sophisticated than taking a photo of the page); are you sure about the last? I'd have thought most readers would know what a brick is and red/blue is not much of a leap from there but it's not a hill I'd die on! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't personally start tearing up cobblestones for a barricade over red-brick, but I am willing to bet whatever you want that an average reader wouldn't understand that the colour is the least consequential of a blue brick's - or perhaps blue engineering brick's - differences. I thought I understood them, but the rather fine articles educated me further. Be good and link them before anyone starts thinking that blue bricks' qualities should be explained in line, along with why they were chosen for the extension. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blue bricks are called blue in the same sense that blue cats are called blue - they're both actually grey. Many people with grey eyes will call them blue (but genuine blue eyes do exist). Some people don't understand the term "blue brick", and indeed model manufacturer Peco sell simulated loads for model railway wagons, one of them NR-202B Bricks, Blue is actually something of a Royal blue, not like proper blue brick at all. So I think that the brick term should be linked. Red brick is not as necessary. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I added a link in the lead. It's already linked in the body HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2024 [18].

Alan Wace[edit]

Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a leading light of Mycenaean archaeology, and one whose full story has only relatively recently come to light. Wace has long been known for his excavations at Mycenae, particularly his work on the various fancifully-named tombs like "Atreus", "Aegisthus" and "Clytemnestra", and less widely for his spat with the formidable Arthur Evans. Though labelled as a "heretic" and drummed out of the British School at Athens, Wace's iconoclastic rejection of the idea that Mycenaean Greece was a dependent province of a Minoan thalassocracy was ultimately proven true and, depending on who you ask, may be the conclusive proof that Greek culture can trace an unbroken line back to the Bronze Age. Less well known until recently was his wartime espionage work: he worked in British intelligence during both World Wars and was a major link in the chain of monitoring and concealing secret agents in the Eastern Mediterranean. The article underwent a GA review by Ealdgyth earlier this year, for which I am much indebted: the inevitable mistakes and infelicities remain entirely my own. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "in Thessaly, in Laconia and in Egypt." Do we need "in" three times? It flows better for me if the last two are removed.
  • "moving to the British School at Rome, where he participated in the BSA's excavations at Sparta and in the region of Laconia in southern Greece." Moving to Rome where he participated in digs in Laconia reads oddly.
  • " He worked for the British intelligence services during the war, and excavated with his long-term collaborator Carl Blegen at the prehistoric site of Korakou." He excavated during the war?
    • Yes (1915 and 1916). It wasn't (yet) wartime for Blegen's American employers. I've stuck "During the war" at the start of the sentence to be clear that it governs both clauses. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1909, he was considered as a possible successor to Ashby". Why was that? Did Ashby leave the position, or was it just contingency planning?
    • Added the key detail: Ashby's contract was due to expire in 1911. As it happened, they reappointed him until 1925. Ashby's own ODNB entry says that he was on the rocks in 1909, but the appointment of Eugénie Sellers Strong as his assistant helped him to hold on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortlisted for the position". I think it would be worth reminding readers what "the position" was.
  • "Wace was ultimately rejected in favour of Dawkins, who toured with Wace following his appointment through the Dodecanese in the summer of 1906 and in 1907, recording inscriptions, collecting embroidered artwork and pursuing Dawkins's interest in modern Greek dialects." A sentence so long you may have confused yourself - the second mention of Dawkins should be 'his'; which I don't think is what you want to say.
  • "throughout the early 1900s". I take that to mean c. 1900-1904; is that what you mean? From the MoS: "Avoid forms such as the 1700s that could refer to ten or a hundred years."
    • Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Not sure of a great fix here (I don't have the articles themselves to be overly precise), so have gone with "throughout the first decade of the 1900s". UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then proceeded to conduct field survey in search of prehistoric mounds". Either 'a field survey' or 'field surveys'.
    • Not sure about this one (I was using it as a process rather than an event: like "continued to conduct research into...", "continued to practise archaeology..."), but the plural isn't wrong, so I've gone with that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of the work were published as Prehistoric Thessaly". Were "the results" not the artefacts?
    • Partly, but more precisely, the "results" are what they found and what they thought it meant. Particularly in a field survey, that's much more about the distribution of the (usually individually pretty uninteresting) artefacts and the potential sites that can be inferred from it. On a slightly separate note, I remember another FAC where we pushed back against "the artefact was published" as being archaeologist-ese. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the results of which he published alongside Thompson in 1914". What does "alongside" mean? Co-authored? In the same journal?
  • "in the Corinthia". Link Corinthia. And why "the"?
    • It's standard for most of the traditional regions of Greece (as opposed to the administrative units by the same name), particularly when talking about their boundaries in classical times: in particular, the Peloponnese, the Argolid, the Corinthia, the Piraeus (see Google Books here. Linked. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "troop carrier". Consider substituting 'troop ship'.
  • "which was later referred to as the "difficult times"." Is this relevant?
    • I quite like the British understatement, and it's also somewhat relevant that his colleagues recognised he'd had a rough beat, since a major reason why he was given a second term after the war is that they felt he hadn't really had a chance to have proper go at it the first time. I think it's worth the relatively small indulgence of nine words, personally. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wace installed the first electric lights in the director's house". Again, this seems to be trivia.
  • "In November 1919 ... he left the British legation." Earlier you said "During 1915–1916,[2] Wace was posted to the chancery of the British legation" which I took to mean he left the legation in 1916.
    • Still to do (flagging this for my own benefit): will check the sources to see if I can resolve this one. Not totally clear in the sources, but Gill has him working for the legation after 1916 as well, at least after his return from the troop ship. One assumes he worked for them in the interim as well, just not in the chancery, but given that the whole thing was almost certainly little more than a cover for his espionage work, I'd suggest the fine details are somewhat moot. Added what I can from the sources. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also assisted ..." Of the four people mentioned in the previous sentence, grammar would suggest that "He" is Gill. Whether Gill or - more likely - Wace, perhaps swap He for their name? (Then the next sentence can start with 'He'.)
  • "As a result of political rioting, which took place in Athens at the end of July 1920, Wace opened the hostel of the BSA to women". There were riots - of a political nature, whatever that is - over the BSA's policy towards women? And what does "opened the hostel of the BSA" mean? That they were allowed to stay overnight, as in a modern hostel? If so, perhaps add the link?
    • More or less: in this context, the hostel is more like a student dorm, except that the BSA's students generally stay only for a short period of time. It's not a youth hostel (as in a cheap hotel). The connection between the riots and the women is that previously the BSA had been a male-only place, but Wace successfully made the argument that Athens was a dangerous place to be a female scholar, and so that the BSA should accommodate them as a means of ensuring their safety. With that said, I've found another source that tells the story slightly differently, so this will change. Still to do again. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. The sources don't quite tell the same story: Hood says that Wace drove the decision and writes of having seen his letter to Thompson on the matter (complaining about the other committee members); Ashmole, as Gill quotes him, says that it was the British Minister, who gave the order in November while Wace was away (at Mycenae?). I don't think there's a contradiction here: to me, the most likely narrative is that the riots kicked off at the end of July, Wace began lobbying the committee to let the women in, but the matter was only finally forced by the minister's intervention in November. Both sources are clear that the rioting was the proximate cause of the change: Ashmole goes into a bit more detail and says that the Minister wanted all UK students in one place in case an evacuation became necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who held the necessary permit, to permit them to excavate". Is it possible to avoid using "permit" twice in two words?
    • Certainly: now allow second time.
  • "He also donated £100 (equivalent to £4,273 in 2021) towards the project, to be used for the excavation of the monument known as the Tomb of Aegisthus." How is this relevant to an article on Wace?
    • This is the moment where Wace and Evans break: the excavation is what drives the wedge between them and turns Evans from Wace's supporter to his (really quite bitter) opponent. It's significant that Evans had quite a lot of skin in the game: he expected this excavation to be the slam-dunk that proved his "invasion" theory correct, and was willing to pay generously towards it on that basis, and he ended up badly burned when Wace and Lamb came home having used that money to prove him wrong. It was specifically the excavation of Aegisthus on which the whole issue turned. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but as you don't provide this detail to a reader it comes across as trivia. I think you need to either explain its relevance in the article or take it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased to "He also supported the excavation financially, donating £100 towards the excavation of the monument known as the Tomb of Aegisthus". I think that gets across the importance of the detail without going into excess: the following paragraph really sets out why Evans wanted to put his money towards the project. I did start writing "Evans believed that the Aegisthus tomb would prove later than Atreus", but I can't find that detail actually written down anywhere: it's inferable from his statements in his 1929 book that Atreus and Clytemnestra are the oldest, but he doesn't actually try to give a specific date for Aegisthus, probably because there was no good counter-argument to Wace's dating of it). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had maintained fundamentally autochthonous". I am not sure that is grammatical. Perhaps 'had been maintained fundamentally autochthonous'? Or 'had remained fundamentally autochthonous'?
  • "Shaft Graves period". Why the upper-case initials?
  • "when the School's committee ... influential members of the Committee". Perhaps standardise the case of the initial lettr of C/committee.
  • "managing committee ... management committee". Similar.
  • "when the School's committee". Is this the managing/ management committee? If so, it may be worth saying so at first mention in the section.
  • "the School's committee ... the BSA's London committee". Is there any way of succinctly indicating what level of authority, if any, either of these committee's had over the other?
    • I'm not sure it worked like that: at any rate, I haven't ever seen anyone set out the "paper" relationship between the two. However, archaeology is a small world and, particularly in those days, personal relationships and authority counted for a lot (as Evans attests throughout his own career), so getting too legalistic about it might be missing the point. One assumes that the London committee were somehow "above" the Athens one, but whether they actually had the power/inclination to overturn the latter's appointments, I don't know. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but needed to remain in Britain following the death of his brother-in-law". Why?
    • Presumably Wace was the executor of the estate (acting for his wife?), or else giving practical and/or emotional support to his relatives. Death creates a lot of admin, after all. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't know why it is relevant, I am not sure that it is. Personally I would take it out. But perhaps 'but wished to remain in Britain for personal reasons'> (I am gritting my teeth here. :-) )
I'm afraid I must dissent here: it's relevant because it narrows down the options as to why Wace didn't get the job. In particular, it shows us that Wace, not the museum, made the decision: I've amended slightly to but refused it to take care of family commitments in Britain, following the death of his brother-in-law (this does share "family commitments" with the source, but I don't think we can rephrase that without breaking WP:TSI). It would be nice if we knew more, but we don't, and shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good. Compare "he declined it due to poor health": even if we don't know exactly what the health condition was, it's still worth saying that there was one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collection of these objects". Does this refer to "Greek embroideries" or textiles in general? I assume that the former is a subset of the latter.
    • The latter: I read "the Greek embroideries" as the logical antecedent here, but is there a clearer phrasing you can think of? UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wace's interest in and collection of embroidery, were these contemporary?
  • "the book was still considered a standard work". "was" or is?
    • Boldly gone for "is" (strictly speaking, that information is only up to date as of 2015, but that seems clunky to stick in body text on such a small point). UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a visiting appointment at the University of Toronto." Are the dates of this known?
  • "He also conducted undercover work based at the British Embassy." I don't see support for this in the source given. I think you may be misreading it.
    • I'm going with Alan Wace, a leading classical archaeologist who had for some years been excavating the Bronze Age palace at Mycenae, where he was refining Schliemann’s earlier work, asked for Martin’s presence in Cairo where he was attached to the British Embassy as an undercover agent. His arrival there followed soon after.... As I read it, the bolded he can only refer to Wace: otherwise, Wace was asking for Robertson to be present in Cairo while Robertson was already present in Cairo. Hm... actually, the tenses are difficult here, aren't they: could be "he [Robertson] was [after Wace's request] attached...". Gone with something a bit vaguer ("to assist with his espionage work"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was seeing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wace was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey in 1948". Just in 1948, or from 1948?
    • Gill only has As a member of the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton in 1948. Doing a bit of digging, it turns out that it was just 1948: added the specific dates. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His excavations in 1952 discovered the first Linear B tablets". Could we have a brief in line explanation of what Linear B is? And possibly of "tablets" in this case.
    • We now have one; I hope it makes "tablets" close enough to self-explanatory. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps link to clay tablet? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During this period". Which period?
  • "Wace experienced poor cardiovascular health over a period of several years." Is it known which ones they were?
    • Gill just has "a heart condition": I thought that Rachel Hood might have known, as she clearly leant on Wace's daughter Lisa when writing her bit of the book, but she doesn't mention anything about it. Nobody else seems to know anything about it, though all the obits know about the final heart attack. Going to have to draw a blank here, I think. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "died of another on 9 November 1957, at his home in Athens". At last mention he had moved to Cyprus.
    • Yes, he had, hadn't he? His PBA obituary says that he "later" moved to a flat in Athens, so added that in, though it's pretty unhelpful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was also the honorand of a special edition of the Annual of the British School at Athens to commemorate his fifty years in archaeology." Perhaps give the year of publication?

That's it from me. Classy stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks as ever, Gog. Mostly sorted without a hitch, but one or two bits above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Two come backs of substance and a suggestion. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I’m somewhat indisposed at the moment but will be able to get to them after this next week. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back to you now -- thanks as ever. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Prehistoric_Thessaly;_being_some_account_of_recent_excavations_and_explorations_in_north-eastern_Greece_from_Lake_Kopais_to_the_borders_of_Macedonia_(1912)_(14595001048).jpg: is a more specific tag available?
  • File:Mycenaean_figurine_of_female_deities_and_child_at_the_National_Archaeological_Museum_of_Athens_on_October_6,_2021.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks as ever: done on the figurine. Pace Flickr, I'm not sure the Sesklo image is PD, looking again. It's a 1912 publication, so fine for the US, but the UK rule is 70 years PMA: I can't find Thompson's date of death, but Wace died in 1957, so by my reckoning that makes it technically copyrighted in the UK until 2027. I think that means we need to replace it? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's fine in the US, at worst it could be uploaded locally? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea -- I've done that. I remember having a hard time finding good images to illustrate this section. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choliamb[edit]

  • Re the Sesklo image discussed above: the plan published by Wace and Thomas is just a simplied verion of the plan in Tsountas's Αι προϊστορικαί ακροπόλεις Διμηνίου και Σέσκλου, so if all you want is a plan of Sesklo, you could use Tsountas's original plan without any copyright worries. But I'm not sure why you want a plan of Sesklo in this article at all. Wace didn't work there, and the information about Sesklo in Prehistoric Thessaly is essentially just a summary of Tsountas's detailed excavation report. If you want an image from the book to illustrate Wace's work in Thessaly, a better choice might be one of the brightly colored plates of Neolithic pottery from sites like Tsangli and Rakhmani. I'm thinking in particular of this one: File:Prehistoric Thessaly; being some account of recent excavations and explorations in north-eastern Greece from Lake Kopais to the borders of Macedonia (1912) (14778615801).jpg. It has three advantages, I think: (1) more visual interest than the plan of Sesklo; (2) shows material from sites where Wace actually excavated; and (3) specifically illustrates a sentence already in the article: "The archaeologist Helen Waterhouse attributes Wace's later specialism in prehistory to the enthusiasm for Neolithic pottery he developed in Thessaly." This image gives readers a chance to understand the attraction. (Whatever image you choose, you will want to correct the book title in the image caption.)
  • You mentioned that you had trouble finding images for the early career section of the article. If you don't like my suggestion regarding the pottery plate above, or you want another image to supplement it, perhaps consider a photo of the Menelaion near Sparta (c:Category:Menelaion)? It's a picturesque site and Wace's many contributions to Laconian archaeology are often overlooked because of the shadow cast by his more famous later work at Mycenae. This was also one of the few times in his career when he was not focused on prehistoric stuff, so it provides a little balance.
    • Some good ones there: personally, I prefer the pottery -- there's something nice about it being as close as it can be to Wace's own hand, though bearing Stubbings' judgement of his artistic skills in mind, I suspect it wasn't actually him holding the paintbrush! I'm not sure there's a particularly good place to put an additional image without crowding things. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently says that Wace "collaborated on studies of the church of Hagia Irene and of the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul." This is a little misleading, I think. Wace did not collaborate on the study of Ayia Irini itself: all of the work on the church proper was done by the architect W. S. George (who also, incidentally, provided drawings and watercolors for some of the illustrations in Prehistoric Thessaly). Wace's only contribution to the volume, co-authored by A. M. Woodward, was an appendix discussing the Early Byzantine statue base of of the charioteer Porphyrios, which at that time was standing in the atrium of the church. So I think this sentence would be more accurate if it said "collaborated on studies of the statue base of the charioteer Porphyrius and the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul." (The Porphyrios base has some iconographical similarities to the obelisk base, so it's no accident that Wace published on both of them.) George's book with the appendix by Wace and Woodward does not seem to be available on line, but you can get the bibliographical details from the most thorough publication of the Porphyrios base, that by the Byzantinist A. A. Vasiliev in DOP 4 (1948) 29–49 (see esp. p. 33 and n. 12), available via JSTOR and IA. Then the appendix by Wace and Woodward could be added to the co-authored section of the list of works.
    • As ever, I am indebted to your research skills and generosity in providing such a good paper trail -- added as suggested. I wonder if George was the one behind the Tsangli potsherds? The book only says the image is after a drawing by him. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • A marker for now, but will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "best known for": this is a phrase that has been questioned on the grounds of POV before (unpleasantly and vehemently in one case). It may be worth tweaking to avoid having to deal with that problem
  • Link (even if it's to Wiktionary) for "schema", given it's not a common word?
  • "He went up to Cambridge": 'went up to' is idiomatic and one that confuses the colonials, so normal, rather than Oxbridgian, language may be better here.

Done down to the Director of the BSA; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off:

  • 'which was later referred to as the "difficult times"': I think it may be best to identify who referred to it as this.
    • Done (Hood isn't too specific, but it's a safe enough bet that the term was used among her husband's contemporaries). UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when the School's managing committee ... preferring the School to focus": these are the only two uses of school with a capital S outside the full formal name. The MOS is largely incoherent on the use of capital letters, but I think consistency means either these or the others are wrong.
  • "Wace spent ten years between 1924 and 1934": Do we need to be told than 1924 to 1934 is ten years?
  • You mention Elizabeth (Lisa) Bayard French is his daughter in the Personal life section, but you don't refer to her accompanying him on excavations, or her doing separate excavations at Mycenae, which is the claim of the last sentence of the lead.

That's my lot. An enjoyable and informative read. - SchroCat (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 750h[edit]

  • Great article, I am in support the nomination. I do have a small concern, though. In reference 107, instead of displaying the name of the website, "search.amphilsoc.org" (the website itself) is shown. It's probably just my personal preference, but I thought I'd mention it.  750h+ | Talk  16:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks -- I've filled out that citation to do as you describe. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma[edit]

Will try to review. Just one remark for now: I did stumble a bit over "British School at Athens", which sounds like a brother of The British School in Tokyo; is it possible to gloss this and British School at Rome also in the lead? —Kusma (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is slightly explained in the body text, but I've now added an EFN to explain what both the BSR and BSA are. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and education: "obtained a First in part one of tripos"/"part two" wouldn't this usually be "Part I"/"Part II"? Also, "obtained a First in part one" is incomprehensible to people unaware of the British undergraduate system
I've expanded to obtained a First, the highest possible grade, in Part I of the tripos examinations: hopefully the right balance of clarity and precision? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early academic career: Link Vlach people
  • Director of the British School at Athens: "six slides they had never previously seen: Georg Karo, the director of the German Archaeological Institute at Athens, attended the meeting in costume as a fräulein" the colon makes me think that the slides contained photographs of Georg Karo in drag.
    • Is that really compatible with attended the meeting? I don't see any way to read that where Karo isn't in the room, and in costume at the time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find the whole anecdote a bit confusing. After reading the source ("scholarly reputations were torn to shreds, and Wace himself gave a brilliant performance") I don't know whether this was just light-hearted fun or whether Wace engineered an opportunity to show off. Back to the colon: I would prefer a full stop, but I can ignore this. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        From other sources, it seems to be purely fun, albeit in a very Oxbridge way -- I think "scholarly reputations were torn to shreds" should be taken with a note of British irony (that is, some eminent scholars flopped tremendously, much to their juniors' amusement, but nobody seriously thought that was a reflection on them as professionals). I'll take a look at this bit and see if I can make it clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added "humorous" and broken the sentence with a full stop instead of the colon: is that any better? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later. —Kusma (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Victoria and Albert Museum: "disagreements with influential members of the committee, who had disagreed" is there a way to phrase this without using "disagree" twice?
  • Only half of this section is about Wace's time at the V&A.
    • I've shunted the first paragraph (his dismissal from the BSA) into the previous section, and promoted that to L2 to break what was already a very long chunk. Everything in the V&A section is now either from his time at the museum or the immediate background to it. It's not the best section title, but I'm not sure I can think of a better one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professorship at Alexandria and retirement: "prehistoric Linear B script" I didn't know that writing could be "prehistoric".
    • Indeed it can (and Linear B is not the oldest Aegean script): Linear B is used only for narrow accounting purposes, and only to write fairly short, simple texts -- while we have writing from the prehistoric Aegean, we don't have history or narrative. You can find the longest continuous narrative in Linear B in the Eritha article -- it's a two-clause sentence. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal life, character and honours: just to confirm, was Elizabeth French the only child?

A nice article overall. If there's anything I'd like to know more about, it is how he became to work for MI6; was it normal for archeologists (or senior leaders of British institutions abroad) at the time to play such dual roles? It is fine if you don't know. —Kusma (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was -- though the full story is only coming out in recent years. During both World Wars, almost all of the belligerent powers leant on their archaeologists in Greece for intelligence work -- these were people enmeshed in a neutral or occupied country, who had connections with the locals, spoke the language and were used to living rough in the countryside, and also generally knew their counterparts on the other side. Wace's good friend Blegen was pretty high up in the OSS during the Second World War, for example, while Karo did quite a lot of murky stuff for Germany during the First. See also people like Stanley Casson, Martin Robertson and Alison Frantz, all of whom were in Wace's orbit and ended up in intelligence. There's a book cited called Classical Spies, which mostly covers the American side, but is available on TWL -- basically every American archaeologist of the period makes their way into it somehow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: I think that's all of these: a few where I'd be grateful for your input on the solution/kludge made so far. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My points were minor and have been addressed. Happy to support. One more thing: I believe Helen Wace should be linked; she seems just about notable enough for a blue link from a glance at her bio, so she could have a red link for the moment. —Kusma (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: she's certainly an interesting character. Hopefully someone (probably yours truly) will be able to pull together enough sources to push the article over the GNG line -- that Cambridge one is certainly a good start. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request. Should't Traquair & Wace 1909, Droop 1926, Wace 1923, Wace 1924, Wace, Megaw & Skeat 1959 and Wace & Thompson 1912 have page numbers? Is there a rule for which articles get ISBN and which OCLC? Are "The Tomb of Agamemnon: Mycenae and the Search for a Hero", "The Salonica Campaign of the First World War from an Archaeologist's Perspective: Alan J. B. Wace's Greece Untrodden (1964)" and "First Athenian Memories" a reliable source? Looks like we are mostly working with journal articles, well-cited books or university books here. "Obituary: Frederick Charles Wace M. A." throws a 403 error. I know some people who are archaeologists who might have something to say here, I'll ask them for a few comments off-wiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks for sounding out some archaeological expertise; looking forward to hearing it. Comments/replies below:

  • Those sources are only cited in their entirety (for instance, note 18, Traquair and Wace 1909, cites Wace also contributed to a survey of Athens's Byzantine churches, collaborated on studies of the statue base of the charioteer Porphyrius and of the base of the Obelisk of Theodosius, both in Istanbul.: Traquair and Wace is the study. Where a specific passage from them is cited, page numbers are given.
  • Articles for which I could find an ISBN have one; where I couldn't find one or none seems to exist, they have OCLC. Where I couldn't find that, they have OL. Journals have ISSN, where it exists.
  • The Tomb of Agamemnon: Mycenae and the Search for a Hero is certainly a reliable source: it's a fairly academic history of the site of Mycenae (despite the slightly pulpy title), and Cathy Gere is a university history professor with university-press books on archaeological history to her name.
  • "The Salonica Campaign of the First World War from an Archaeologist's Perspective: Alan J. B. Wace's Greece Untrodden (1964)" is an academic article published in a peer-reviewed journal. The author, David Wills, has edited for Cambridge University Press on modern Greece, and published fairly widely in academic literature on the topic. The article also isn't holding a whole lot of weight: mostly dates and places that could be worked out by routine inference but need to be cited for our purposes (e.g. the dates of Wace's final exams, or that Camden Place is in Cambridge), or filling out small details of facts established by other sources.
  • First Athenian Memories is only cited for the views of its author, which are subjective (that Wace was A delightful combination of great scholarship and humour, a worldly humour too and not in the least pedagogic ... a tall, slim man full of nervous energy, with a fresh complexion and an extraordinarily merry pair of light blue eyes). These views are of interest because Mackenzie knew Wace, and went on to be a notable person in his own right, and because they give a contemporary impression of his character written in quite an elegant way. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, an author can be taken as reliable as a source for their own opinions, as here.
  • I think I've fixed the URL on the Frederick Wace obit. It's Google Books, so archiving is useless, unfortunately.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that if these are multi-page sources, then it's inconsistent to have them sans page numbers when the rest of such sources has them. The reason I am wondering about Compton Mackenzie is because it's not clear why his opinion would be important to note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that if these are multi-page sources, then it's inconsistent to have them sans page numbers when the rest of such sources has them: I'm not sure it is: all sources are indicated with the degree of precision required or possible. If it helps, I could lengthen the footnotes to something like "the study/article/book is Wace 1923"? After all, we're not citing anything in the book, and it would be mildly ridiculous to write something like "Wace 1923, pp. 1–500" when all that's being done is directing readers to the fact of the publication's existence and the means to find it if they wish.
On Mackenzie: it's useful and interesting in a biography to include something about the subject's character, as far as we can. There are very few contemporary accounts of what Wace was like as a man (outside obituaries, which are a little suspect: nil nisi bonum and all that -- Stubbings is interesting in that what we cite from him doesn't entirely follow that "rule".). More significantly, both Gill and Grundon also quote this as a comment on what Wace was like, so I've multi-cited them: we are therefore covered by WP:DUEWEIGHT in any case. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is fine, then. Unfortunately, my relations don't have much to add to this topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Only just spotted this review. Can't think how I've missed it until now. Comments follow a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 10:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A splendid article, and a pleasure to review. Some quibbles:

  • "a prolific collector of Greek embroidery" – unexpected adjective: I associate prolific with abundant productiveness rather than acquisition. So, more to the point, does the OED.
    • Hm: it's fairly widely used on Google Books, and ngrams gives a fairly steep rise in its use since the 1960s. Did you have another adjective in mind? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Prominent" perhaps? But if you're wedded to "prolific" I shall not press the point. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry to drive by, but "known for his extensive collection of" or just "had an extensive collection of"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          Again, basically sound but would also introduce new problems: "known for" has potential NPOV issues (see SC's review above) and "had a large collection" doesn't quite get the same point: it's not that he, at a single moment, had a lot of the stuff (particularly because he so often gave his collection away), but that he went collecting very often. Given the frequency of the term "prolific collector" in good sources on Google Books, I'd like to be descriptivist rather than prescriptivist here and say that it's entered the lexicon, even if it would have been regarded as incorrect at one time. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Educated at Shrewsbury School and Pembroke College, Cambridge, Wace's initial scholarly interests focused" – dangling modifier: Wace's interests were not educated at Shrewsbury and Cambridge.
  • "Thomas Ashby, who was himself acting as director" – do we need "himself" here?
    • I think so: it modifies acting to draw attention to the curious fact that neither man technically held the position in which they were working. Not massively wedded to it, but I think it works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following Dawkins' appointment" – a plain ess-apostrophe looks very odd here. This is what the current edition of Fowler has to say on the point:
"Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.
Yes, missed that one -- I tend to use s' in my own writing, but MOS:' strongly prefers the other way. Changed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. (Possibly you regard the publisher of Fowler as beyond the pale?) Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovering numerous artefacts which they donated to the Fitzwilliam Museum" – did the authorities in Greece allow archaeologists to do what they wished with their finds? It wasn't like that in Egypt for Howard Carter and the other Egyptologists of the period.
    • This is an interesting one -- I've written before about Panagiotis Kavvadias, who closed a legal loophole in 1899 and in theory made all antiquities, no matter where they were found, the sole property of the Greek state. However, archaeologists clearly did go on exporting stuff, as the vast quantities of it in British museums shows. I don't know the details here, and the source doesn't go into them: I assume it was possible to negotiate some kind of deal whereby a proportion of the finds, particularly those considered less important, could be taken to the archaeologist's home country. No source suggests that Wace did anything untoward. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting, and as there's no convenient source to cite, fine as is. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in costume as a fräulein" – if you're using a lang template shouldn't the noun be given its capital letter?
  • "Wace and Karo agreed that the war should suspend contact between them" – this reads rather strangely: it was they, surely, and not the war that suspended contact?
    • I think an event can suspend something, in the sense of forcing it to be suspended, but I've rephrased here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the BSA was forbidden to excavate from 1914, the American School of Classical Studies (ASCSA) continued its excavations" – I'm floundering a bit here. Why were the British forbidden and by whom? And why were the Americans allowed to continue?
    • The British government stopped the BSA from excavating because Britain was at war (and the BSA was being de facto converted into an outpost of the intelligence services). The Americans weren't (yet) at war, and neither were the Greeks (until 1917), and so carried on. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes perfect sense. All the same, a few words of explanation in the text would be helpful, though I don't want to labour the point, and if you don't want to add anything, so be it. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I've added a short note to say that both the US and Greece were officially uninvolved in the war during those two years; it's a fair point that not all of our readers will automatically know who joined the war when. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Percival Droop later called Wace and Blegen's ideas …" – We've already had his full name earlier.
    • Now just "Droop". UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am reminded of Bertie Wooster's comment: "Golly, Jeeves," I said, thinking of old Uncle Tom Portarlington, "there's some raw work pulled at the font from time to time, is there not?"
  • "which was later referred to by Rachel Hood, the wife of the BSA director Sinclair Hood, as the "difficult times"" – the use of the passive makes this a bit convoluted: it might be smoother to use the active: "which Rachel Hood, the wife of the BSA director Sinclair Hood, later referred to as the "difficult times""
    • I don't disagree on the clunkiness, but I think the suggestion makes it sound as if Hood coined the phrase, whereas she says that it "was referred to as..." -- in other words, she's explicitly saying that other people used it long before she did. We did have something like "which was later referred to as...", but another reviewer suggested that we should answer the question of "by whom?" as well as we can. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result of political rioting, which took place in Athens" – do we need "which took place"?
    • I worry that As a result of political rioting in Athens at the end of July 1920, Wace opened would be at least slightly ambiguous as to whether the rioting or the opening took place at the end of July 1920. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wace had all of the tholoi re-examined" – is "of" wanted here?
  • "had to be abandoned due to safety concerns" – "due to" is, I believe, 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, "because of" is safer. (It is only fair to add that the current edition of Fowler stigmatises my contention as "the tut-tutting of last-ditch pedants" (p. 239) and The Guardian's style guide says "The distinction, once routinely taught in primary schools but now assailed on all sides, especially by train and tube announcers, is being lost", and that's true, but it ain't lost yet. The later "suggests that this was due to Wace's disfavour" is wholly blameless, however)
  • "the primary force behind Wace's departure.[69]}}" – some stray characters I didn't dare delete, just in case.
  • "After his dismissal from the BSA" – is being denied a new contract when the old one expires actually "dimissal"?
    • Probably not technically, though the sources present it as a conscious decision to get Wace out and as tantamount to a sacking. Nevertheless, changed to "After leaving the BSA". UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While at the V&A, he published widely on embroidery" – I imagine he published on paper about embroidery.
    • I'm not sure I see a problem here: "he has written an essay on St. Paul's Cathedral" doesn't get anyone accused of graffiti, does it?UndercoverClassicist T·C14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Scottish writer Compton Mackenzie" – is it relevant that Mackenzie was a Scot?
  • "Selected works" – as one of the FAC criteria is comprehensiveness I think "selected works" as a heading is a rather flagrant sign that it isn't comprehensive, as well as inviting the question "selected by whom?" Something like "Major works" would be all right if you are satisfied that it is a correct description.
    • I treat it as a hedge: the criterion for inclusion is "all the works I've been able to find". I worry that "Major works" would be inviting a "who says?" Would a change to "Published works" work? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Published works will do nicely. (In passing, and not for the article, how came it that he wrote the Blenheim book so very posthumously?) Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Done -- pass on the latter; I assume he wrote it beforehand but hadn't published it yet. Perhaps Helen did, as she did for Greece Untrodden? The 1968 edition is definitely the first. There was a review in History Today vol. 18, apparently, by DG Chandler, but I haven't been able to get hold of it to see if he has a comment explaining it. Might stick a request on RX to see if anyone can find it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Tim riley: An RX volunteer very helpfully dug it out -- it was indeed Helen, though Alan wrote most of it during the 1930s. Note and citation added. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'm happy on all points now, and ready to add my support for the elevation of this article. It seems to meet every FAC criterion and I much enjoyed reading it. Tim riley talk 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterthought: I grow old and forgetful, and so please prod me whenever you have an article for review if you'd like me to put an oar in. Tim riley talk 16:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Matarisvan[edit]

Hi UC, some minor comments from me.

  • By "the Sparta museum", do you mean the Archaeological Museum of Sparta?
  • Consider linking to votive?
  • Consider rewording "In April 1905, he made a survey alongside Albert William van Buren [de], of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome, of the Magnesian peninsula in Thessaly." to "In April 1905, he made a survey of the Magnesian peninsula in Thessaly with Albert William van Buren [de] of the American School of Classical Studies in Rome"? The former is a little confusing and disturbs the reading flow a bit.
  • Consider adding the link Varieties of Modern Greek to modern Greek dialects?
  • Is the Tirnavo you mention the same as Tyrnavos?
    • I think so: changed and linked, as the linked Tyrnavos has a large Vlach community. Doing a bit more research (e.g. here), it's definitely the right place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking to "John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough" and "Blenheim Palace"?
  • Do we have an ISBN or OCLC number for the Newnham College Register, vol III? If so, adding it would make accessing the register easier.
  • Consider linking to Richard Clogg?

That's all from my end. Cheers! Matarisvan (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 4 May 2024 [19].

1873 FA Cup final[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article on an early final of the FA Cup, the oldest association football competition in the world. This is the only final in the tournament's 150-year history to kick-off in the morning, because one of the teams involved was Oxford University and the students didn't want to miss the annual Oxford v Cambridge university boat race, which was scheduled for the same day!! One interesting thing I found out while expanding this article - based on one contemporary newspaper report which I found it is possible (not confirmed, but possible) that the attendance figure listed for this match in basically every modern football reference book is wrong by an absolutely massive degree........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • with effect from the following season the holders -- comma after season
    • Changed
  • The match was scheduled for the same day -- should it be on the same day?
    • No, it's correct as is (at least for UK English)
      • I was thinking that was the case, should be good then.
  • scheduled to start at 11.00 am -- would it be worth adding a time zone? or saying local time or something along those lines.
    • I dunno, is that really necessary? Given that we are explicitly talking about something that happened in London, I don't think anyone would read that sentence and think "I wonder if that was 11am Los Angeles time....?"
      • Ideally if we're using time (per MOS:TIMEZONE), it may be warranted for events, or an enclosure i.e. 11:00 a.m. (local time) is more acceptable I think. Although it is the obvious assumption since it happened in London. But then I noticed an event like the 2020 Tokyo Opening Ceremony use (JST) even though we know it happened in Tokyo. Either way, it's very minor and not a major cause of concern with or without it.
  • The Wanderers team included Capt. William Kenyon-Slaney -- I think Wanderers here should be in the possessive form
    • Changed
  • Kinnaird made another strong but Frederick Maddison was able to dispossess him -- I could be wrong, but is strong a sports term? Or is there a missing word here.
    • Changed
  • Oxford decided, with what the reporter for The Sportsman deemed "questionable judgment" to dispense with the use -- I think there should be a comma after the quote
    • Changed
  • That's all from me. Another excellent work from this sports series. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There it is! Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

Support. Nice work. The only remark I have is about the caption under the photo in the infobox. Does the situation in 1878 ("is identical in design to the one awarded in 1878") also apply to 1873? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eem dik doun in toene: - many thanks for your review. I fixed the copy/paste error in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The picture of Arthur Kinnaird needs a full stop at the end, as it is a sentence. Can't find any other issues; other images are appropriately licensed.  750h+ | Talk  12:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @750h+: - done. Can't believe I missed that, that's someone I am always nitpicking on other people's nominations so it came back to bite me LOL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's fine. Passing image review.  750h+ | Talk  00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • It would be helpful if the Background section contained the word "England".
    • Done
  • Might it be worth mentioning where the Wanderers name came from?
    • Done
  • "Queen's, however, decided to withdraw from the competition". Is it known why?
    • Can't find any sources which say. I suspect they decided that in fact the cost of travel to southern England was too much but I can't confirm
  • Perhaps a paragraph break immediately before "The referee was ..."?
    • Done
  • "Both teams were missing key players". Is it known why?
    • Sources just say they were "unavailable". Presumably they had more pressing engagements at a time when football was still to some extent recreational for these toffs :-)
  • "Capt." In full please. And could it be linked.
    • Done
  • "The Wanderers lost the coin toss". Which meant what?
    • Done
  • It could, IMO, do with a bit of an "Aftermath". To mention the Wanderers third win etc and what happened to both clubs.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - thanks for your review, all now addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation needed right at the end. :-)
    • Right at the end of where, sorry? Might be me being dumb but I can't work out where you mean..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno if it is worth mentioning that after their third win the Wanderers had the right to keep the trophy but declined. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I think that might be excessive detail for this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't the very end, sorry; this version didn't have a cite after "... the only time the university team won the FA Cup." You have since added one. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL[edit]

  • "the final kicked-off in the morning, to avoid" -- Is that comma necessary? (As usual, disregard if BrEng/AmEng issue.)
  • "Hon. Arthur Kinnaird (caricature published in 1912)" -- why not just say "(1912 caricature)"? Was the caricature published in 1912 but drawn in a different year? Does it depict Kinnaird in a year other than 1912?
  • The link for Sportsman reference leads to a disambiguation page.

That's all I got. Nice work. ~ HAL333 03:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 13:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: passed and past[edit]

...working...

  • Perfectly formatted.
  • Newspapers are all national papers of record.
  • Headlines should use title case consistently (MOS:CT).
  • Bizarrely, I can't find anything on Upfront Publishing, but Philip Gibbons is respectable enough!
  • Capella... yeah.
  • CollinsWillow, yeah!
  • SOCCERDATA LIMITED seems OK?
Cheers, Chris. ——Serial Number 54129 11:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: - many thanks for the source review. Not 100% sure whether there are any actions on me at this point - all headlines use title case as far as I can see but please let me know if there are any that don't look right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: - can you advise if you need me to do anything else or if the source review is passed? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: - sorry to chase, but can you confirm if this source review is passed or not? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris, I'm so sorry to leave you hanging like that. My only query, about headlines, was why the online ones weren't in title case? It's not a major issue, though; we have some leeway, and although I don't think they could be called chapters or journal articles, that's still leeway. ——Serial Number 54129 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serial Number 54129 - I am reasonably sure that all ref titles are in correct title case. Refs 11 and 15 have capitals on every word of "[Football/The] Association Challenge Cup" because it is the formal title of the competition in question. Same with ref 25 and "The University Boat Race". Hope that helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great stuff, I see what you mean. We're definitely getting somewhere, and I'll bear this in mind for next time. How about 22, 28, 29 and 30? ——Serial Number 54129 13:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Serial Number 54129 - in each of those, only the first word is capitalised (other than where proper names are used). Is that not right........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I admit to... never having heard that before; it also means I've wasted half my time here capitalising titles when I didn't need to. All in the name of consistency! I'm sure you're right. Summoning the Lords of Light from the beatitudes (i.e., @FAC coordinators: ) for their judgment. No problem either way, Chris. Once again, sorry this has taken so long. I missed a trick here; won't happen again. ——Serial Number 54129 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Serial Number 54129 - no need to apologise, I really appreciate the time you have taken to look at this article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lords of Light? Most flattering, I thought it might be Angels of Death...! Anyway my understanding from MOS is that book titles are title case but newspaper article headings (online or not) are generally sentence case. Now I don't recall title case for newspaper headlines being disallowed, so your efforts there might not be in vain, but sentence case is more common... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • See, I guess that's me; if I see evidence for something but not for another, I'll go with the thing there's evidence for, even if it's only adjacent to the next thing. So, in a case like this, I know the title case is codified, but I haven't seen Ian's MOS thing about headlines, etc, so I go with the closest thing to which I have seen something written. See what I mean... anyway, enough of this banter; we've been here long enough and apologies again, Chris, for holding you up over what, in hindsight, has to be some of the most trivial trivia ever *facepalm* All apart from that: another great article in an important series. I mean, what next, metal crates with petroleum engines... who needs em :D Cheers! ——Serial Number 54129 17:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • Which, of course, means that now the criterion for your next nom has been fulfilled, you've got yourself that permission :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Ian Rose and Serial Number 54129: Be not afraid, even though thy edit in the shadow of the valley of death. This is something Mike Christie and I discussed off-Wiki a few weeks ago. We concluded that the MoS pretty much, if unclearly, requires title case for all titles. (Surprise!) With leeway for already established and consistent sentence case. Somehow it ended on my round-to-it to open a discussion to get this clarified in the MoS, but I haven't yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing worse than being right, it's finding out too blooming late. Cheers Gog... and the best of luck with getting anything in the MOS clarified; I'm sure it only exists to obfuscate things further than they generally already are :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of this back-and-forth may have been caused by the fact that (upon checking) I was apparently wrong in my understanding of what title case actually is! Humblest apologies :-S ...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Co-ord query[edit]

@FAC coordinators: - wondering if I can nominate another article at this point? Got one more ready to go and then not really working on anything at the moment so will leave you in peace for a bit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure as soon as SN passes the source review. FrB.TG (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN02WPS[edit]

Comments to follow. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full stop missing at the end of the second paragraph of the lead.
  • "represented the Wanderers in the previous year's final" → link to 1872 FA Cup final would fit in here
  • I suspect there isn't an easily-found reason why Queen's Park withdrew but if one could be found that'd be an excellent addition.
  • "The match was scheduled to start at 11.00 am" → use colon rather than full stop per MOS:TIME
  • Kirke-Smith's article does not have a hyphen in his surname - do contemporary sources include it?
  • "only for the umpires to disallow the goal" → picky, but wouldn't this be "umpire" since only one AR would flag offside?
    • That's not how it worked in 1873. If there was an appeal for a goal, the two umpires would consult with each other before deciding whether there had been any infringement and then either allow or disallow it immediately if they agreed or refer the matter to the referee to make the call if they didn't (which is why a referee is called a referee to this day....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How delightfully tedious. I suppose it was a little naive of me to assume that anything about the sport worked exactly the same then as it does now, so thank you for the clarification. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PCN02WPS: - for an extra level of complication, note that I said "if there was an appeal for a goal". At that time, the players had to appeal for a goal, as they do for a wicket in cricket, and if for some reason the players neglected to appeal, no goal could be given even if the ball crossed the line! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. It's a wonder anybody wanted to referee/umpire those games (granted, it's not like there's any shortage of players appealing for everything in today's game). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the day of the match, but later in the year" → remove comma

Nice work as always - what little I found is above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: - thanks for your review. Actioned other than as noted above! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, support. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2024 [20].

Nasutoceratops[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This aticle is about a ceratopsian dinosaur which is unusual for its large snout and similarity to a Texas Longhorn. This is perhaps also why it has gained a bit of fame recently by being featured in the Jurassic World franchise. Everything published about it should be summarised here, and luckily there are a lot of nice, free images available. Note that a Master's thesis (Ridgwell) that was also used in the FA Kosmoceratops is included here for comprehensiveness, as it does not present controversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will review later this week. Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Specimens were discovered in Utah in the Kaiparowits Formation of the Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) from 2006 onwards," - it seems odd to put this in the past tense, as there's nothing that would prevent new specimens from being collected in the future
Changed to "The first known specimens". FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls. In 2013, the adult was made the holotype of the new genus" - I'm assuming "the adult" is one of the two partial skulls, but it might not hurt to clean up the phrasing here a bit
Well-spotted, it refers to the same subadult as the former sentence, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The holotype specimen UMNH VP 16800 consists of a partial, associated, and nearly complete skull that preserves most of the skull roof. The specimen has been interpreted as being a subadult, based on fusion of skull elements and bone surface texture." - but the lead says the holotype is an adult specimen
Yep, fixed per above. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is an epiparietal a type of epiossification?
Yes, I've now presented the different types of epiossifications by name in the first paragraph under description. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the link for neoceraptosians up to the first mention
Done. Unfortunately it doesn't have a separate article from Ceratopsia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the holotype was not fully grown, it is possible such hooks would have developed as it matured, but this is considered unlikely due to the fusion of its epiparietals on the frill and fusion of other bones related to maturity" - does the descriptions of the adult skulls shed any light on this matter?
Unfortunately they don't preserve that part (what they do preserve is listed under discovery). FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018, Dalman and colleagues found the specimen from New Mexico" - for reader clarity, I would recommend mentioning upfront that this is the Menefeeceratpos specimen
Good idea, I changed to "the specimen that was later named Menefeeceratops" to make clear it wasn't named by the time the statement was made. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 00:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun[edit]

  • "Petri, Alexandra (2 December 2021). "Three-horned poems for the new dinosaur, Nasutoceratops, relative of the triceratops". Washington Post." If you're italicizing and capitalizing Nasutoceratops here, you should also do that for triceratops.
Fixed, but that brings up something I'm uncertain about, the actual source[21] neither capitalises or italicises these names, so should I do that or not? It is of course formally incorrect not to do it, but it doesn't reflect the source to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not wishing to opine on this particular case, what the sources do and what, eg, the MoS requires us to do frequently differ. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll just keep the "corrected" titles for now, then. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Irmis, Randall B. (21 June 2022). "NHMU Dinosaur Stars in Jurassic World Dominion". nhmu.utah.edu" Publisher name should be National History Museum of Utah.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whalen, Andrew (16 September 2019). "All 7 Dinosaurs in 'Battle at Big Rock,' Including Nasutoceratops". Newsweek." Italicize genus.
Done, but note it has the same problem as above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivera-Sylva, Héctor E.; Hedrick, Brandon P.; Dodson, Peter (2016). "A Centrosaurine (Dinosauria: Ceratopsia) from the Aguja Formation (Late Campanian) of Northern Coahuila, Mexico". PLOS ONE." Sentence case.
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dalman, Sebastian G.; Hodnett, John-Paul M.; Lichtig, Asher J.; Lucas, Spencer G. (2018). "A New Ceratopsid Dinosaur (Centrosaurinae: Nasutoceratopsini) From The Fort Crittenden Formation, Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Of Arizona". New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin." Sentence case.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, though these are usually not linked in other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "honors Alan L. Titus" Since we don't have a link here, maybe mention his profession ("honors the paleontologist Alan L. Titus")
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will add some more comments later. AryKun (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AryKun, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but I don't think I've read through it deeply enough to have an opinion either way. AryKun (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "and the collaborative effort has been called the Kaiparowits Basin Project": seems rather hesitant wording; could this be just "and the collaborative effort is known as the Kaiparowits Basin Project"? Or is it the case that this isn't any sort of official name?
Changed, yeah, it's called this in most sources. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the discoveries made were three new ceratopsian (horned dinosaur) taxa": if the project is still going on, I'd make this "that have been made", and shouldn't it be "are", not "were"? They were discovered, but they are taxa.
Took your suggestions. I meant "were" as in they "were among the discoveries", but not sure if that's unclear. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link available for "air scribe"? Or could it be redlinked? Maybe an entry in Glossary of sculpting, if my Googling hasn't led me astray.
Redlinked, but I think it's a more specialized tool:[22] FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on fusion of skull elements": I haven't looked at the source, but would this be better as "based on the degree of fusion of"? I assume it is less completely fused than an adult skull would be.
Yeah, added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "right hindlimb without hand bones": is it customary to use "hand" for a hind limb?
Yikes, no, it should have been forelimb, not sure how that happened, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, which is unique for ceratopsians": perhaps "The external nostril forms 75% of the skull length in front of the eye sockets, more than in any other ceratopsian"?
Went with "more than in other ceratopsians", the source doesn't specifically say it's more than in any other, but I assume that's what's meant. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "snout-region": I don't think this should be hyphenated unless I'm missing some nuance of meaning (or it's hyphenated in the sources).
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nasal bones had well-developed internal cavities behind the horn, which suggests they were hollow": I think it should be "have", not "had", though "were hollow" seems right as I assume we don't have currently existing examples of complete nasal bones.
Right, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The brow horns of Nasutoceratops also differed from those of other ceratopsids": should be "differ"? I assume the rule being followed is to use the past tense when speaking of the ceratopsids as animals, but present tense when speaking of their specific anatomical characteristics as known from fossil evidence.
Yep, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "being convex across from side to side": "across" seems redundant.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting "The scapula" has "typical of ceratopsids" four times in the last four sentences. Would it be possible to replace these with a sentence at the end of the paragraph saying something like "These characteristics of the humerus, ulna, and radius are typical of all ceratopsids"?
As the "typical of" does not necessarily refer to all the features of these bones listed, I've tried by instead using different wording and taking one instance out, if that is any better. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking "narial" to nostril.
Glossed with "(bony nostril)" instead, as nostril is a pretty common term. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking that there is intentionally no mention of MOR 692 (which is in the cladogram) in the body text -- I know nothing about it, but there's considerable discussion of related taxa and specimens so I thought this might be an omission.
I originally went into this, but cut it as maybe unnecessary and confusing because it's only known by specimen number. I've re-added the cut text now now, which also discusses other unnamed specimens, perhaps a bit of a mouthful: "These authors named this new clade Nasutoceratopsini, with Nasutoceratops as the type genus; this group was defined as all centrosaurines more closely related to Nasutoceratops than to Centrosaurus, containing Nasutoceratops, Avaceratops, MOR 692 (previously treated as an adult Avaceratops), CMN 8804, and another undescribed ceratopsian (specimen GPDM 63) from Malta, Montana." FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they only became common in the Early Cretaceous": suggest "angiosperms only became common in the Early Cretaceous".
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which ranges 200–350 m (656.2–1,148.3 ft)": what do these distances refer to?
That should be depth, I've added "relative depth", but perhaps Jens Lallensack can confirm if this is the right terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that should be "in thickness"; you could even link to the article Thickness (geology). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added that instead. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rivers flowed generally west across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway": surely they flowed east, given the geography?
I can see what you're getting at, but this is what the source says: "The Kaiparowits Formation was dominated by an array of continental depositional environments, with large, deep fluvial channels supported by stable banks. Rivers flowed generally west across the alluvial–coastal plain, draining into the retreating Western Interior Seaway. The floodplains to these large channels were dominated by long-lived perennial ponds, wetlands, and lakes. The nearly ubiquitous nature of large aquatic mollusks, coupled with the abundance of aquatic vertebrates (Gates et al., 2010) and plants (Miller et al., this volume) in many overbank units, testifies to the wet nature of this alluvial system and the persistence of standing water deposits." I'm not entirely sure how this adds up, so pinging Jens Lallensack again (an actual palaeontologist). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what Jens says. I'd almost be inclined to drop the reference to the direction as it seems so implausible I wonder if it's a typo. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's just a typo. No way the rivers were flowing west. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I tried with the following by removing reference to direction, if that looks ok: "Rivers flowed across the plains and drained into the Western Interior Seaway". FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. If you contact the authors they might issue an erratum; I've seen that done a couple of times and then you could cite that. But it's fine as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all minor points. I know little about the subject but the article is in excellent shape as far as I can tell, though I'm not competent to review the detailed skeletal discussions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very useful observations, all should now be addressed (but see last uncertain answer). FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Wolverine XI[edit]

Will look more into this. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait; reviewing now. Note the underlined words.

  • In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown, but suggested that the may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians. The sentence seems long, and would benefit from splitting.
Tried with semicolon for better flow: "In 2016, Lund and colleagues stated that the functional adaptations associated with the very short and deep front part of the skull of Nasutoceratops were unknown; they suggested these may have been related to a change toward more derived masticatory functions in basal ceratopsians." FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a 2017 Master's thesis, the paleontologist Nicole Marie Ridgwell Not idiomatic
Different reviewers always have different opinions on this, but the important thing is that an article is internally ocnsistent. In this case, "the" is used throughout, so shouldn't be different in a single instance. Both forms are correct. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also current discussion about this here:[23] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sampson and colleagues stated in 2013 that while various hypotheses about the function of ceratopsid skull ornamentation have been proposed, the consensus at the time was use<--
I'm not sure what this is trying to say. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was pointing at the word use. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 16:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So are you suggesting something like "was as use in" or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, I feel like it should be "its use in" as that makes much more sense. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 15:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a well-written article with a few corrections needed. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. #7 doesn't have a complete date. Regarding #9, theses are seldom good sources but I see that this one's been cited a few time so it might pass. Does the news coverage really require 5 sources? Some sources seem to link to the PMC and DOI links twice. #26 is also a thesis, but not cited anywhere, which makes it a bit iffy as a source. Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For ref 7, I assume you mean that the year isn't in parenthesis like the other citations? I have no idea how that happened, I can't find any difference in the formatting of that and the other citations? Pinging J JMesserly, who has helped with citation formatting before. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That and the article has a day and a month. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ref 8 is the outlier in how the access date is formatted? None of them have other than year as the publication date. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User-duck, who also works on citations, if they know where the parenthesis went. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a very good article at first look. Guidlines:
  1. Use templates and let them do the formatting. Parens only appear if there is an author/editor specified.
  2. News articles and web posts should have the complete publication date. Do not omit authors.
Yes, ref 7 is a little unusual but deserves a better cite. I will do one this evening (about 11 hours). It will be my opinion and feel free to change it.
P.S. Decide on a date format and add {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} template to document it. Thanks for asking, User-duck (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for that, I had no idea the parenthesis wouldn't show up around the date if there was no author field. I've also added full dates for the other news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for 9, all it does it say he used another name for his thesis version of the description, which shouldn't be controversial. Same with the theses used for 26 and 33, they don't provide any controversial information (one just lists fossils from the formation, the other reports on fossil dung).
  • As for all the news sources, I use several because they're used to support a wider statement about how the discovery was reported, which would hardly make sense with fewer citations: "the large nose of the dinosaur was emphasized... This was reflected in news outlets", with the examples cited.

Image review - failpass[edit]

  • File:Nasutoceratops UDL.png: While not wishing to question UnexpectedDinoLesson's credentials, what leads you to believe that they are a HQ RS?
The image has had a very detailed review here[24], where it has been cross-checked with all available sources (cited on Commons). FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaiparowits Formation swamp.jpg and File:Kaiparowits fauna.jpg: Similarly.
These match the inferred environment and published figures of the fossils (as listed in the Commons description). You can see if such images have been listed for WP:dinoart review under their links. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean by "links". If either has been listed, could you give me the links to the discussions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you scroll down on an image page, you can see everywhere it has been used across all Wikipedias. Here's the section where one of the images was reviewed[25], and here's the section with the other.[26] Note I had heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources, and the second one was pretty accurate, so they did not get many comments at the reviews. Reviewers mainly comment when something is wrong, so if they don't, nothing has been identified. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Two follow up queries.
  • If you have "heavily modified the first image to make it more accurate according to the sources" should your name and that of the sources not be in the image Summary?
  • Are all details of Nasutoceratops in the images clearly supported by a consensus of the HQ RSs? I am particularly thinking of the colouration and the false eyes in the upper neck frill, but their may be others. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are listed in the description field, as for crediting myself, I think that would be too much, it's made clear in the upload summary that I've modified them either way, I don't really feel like it warrants listing me as author. As for colouration and markings, we don't know for the species depicted here (we do know from a handful others, though), but it has been generally suggested that the ornamentation of dinosaurs could have been colourful and bold in life, as it is in modern animals. But it's such a general idea and repeated in most sources about that subject that I wonder if it makes sense listing any particular citation for that? Here are two sources mentioning colour in relation to dinosaur display off the top of my head:[27][28] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to colouration and patterning being informed but conjectural. However, there is the risk of a reader taking it at face value. Perhaps the two group images could have 'colouration is conjectural' or similar added to their captions? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is a given, and not really how the sources (or even popular works) would treat such an image, so I'm a bit wary of it (would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long). It is usually the other way around in relevant sources and other articles; if colouration is known, it is noted in the captions (as in for example Microraptor and Tylosaurus). As for those eye spots specifically, ceratopsian dinosaurs are not uncommonly depicted with them, here by Gregory S. Paul[29] and Mark Witton.[30] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really how Wikipedia works. If we say or portray something it is because we have a solid source which states it is a fact and we refer to that source. If no source states something, we don't mention it. I don't see how "Anything you see or read may just be a guess, but we will let you know if there happens to be something we are sure about in there" is compatible with a Wikipedia article, much less one at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it goes both ways; an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources or by other encyclopaedias, not in an original way. And you usually just don't see either with captions like that (saying depicted colouration is conjectural or even addressing colouration if it isn't because it is actually known), so there are no published sources to use as precedent. To take some example, Britannica's article about the related Pachyrhinosaurus:[31] The original Nasutoceratops press release intended for general audiences with a bare-bones image caption:[32] National Geographic'scoverage of the dinosaur:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we do lots of things differently here. Is there any reason in policy or the MoS why we should follow the sources in this? Or policy support for "an article about a subject should cover it in a way similar to how it is covered by the relevant sources"?
I am unconvinced by the "would make a lot of captions unnecessarily long" argument. Currently the article includes captions 178 and 317 characters long (including spaces). Adding the 28 characters of my suggestion would make the two captions affected 126 and 113 characters long. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware this is not the case on any of the other Dinosauria-related FA's with life reconstructions. If necessary, perhaps just adding 'colouration subjective' at the end of the caption could work. If it is a requirement, we should at the very least employ this unilaterally across all dinosaur FA's, maybe even all FA's on extinct animals. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say the overly long captions is the main argument (though I personally find it unappealing), but rather the lack of published precedent in relevant sources. I do think such information could maybe make sense as part of the alt-text, which is concerned about the visual side of an image. Could that be a compromise? But yeah, if this really is an issue, it should be brought up at a more general venue rather than in a specific article, since we literally have thousands of articles with the same issue. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an issue. I am entirely open to being persuaded that we are not telling readers something not supported by HQ RSs - in the two specific cases in this FAC. I don't think that "but it's that way in other articles" is going to convince me. And has this has, to my surprise, become an "issue" I am formally recusing. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about following other Wikipedia articles, but about following the published literature we base our articles on. The reason why I mention other Wikipedia articles is just that if we create a new precedent here, it should be followed everywhere else on Wikipedia, hence it would need a wider discussion to see if there is really support for this. I'm totally open for that if we believe the issue is serious enough for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy. If not, state so in the article and I'm happy. Or come up with a policy based reason why things are fine as they are. Barring any of those I don't see how I can support the use of either of those images in an FAC. Everything else is fine and the closing @FAC coordinators: may disagree with my approach regarding this, narrow issue. I am not over-fussed one way or the other what other editors support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think we have differing interpretations of the rules then (me emphasising that we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject). I'll bring it up at a more general venue at some point, faster if more people find it an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that we do have "differing interpretations". The first thing I wrote in my summary of my position was "If there is a consensus of the HQ RSs on the colouration portrayed in the images and the false eyes then cite it and I'm happy." What do you consider to be the difference between that and "we should follow how the relevant sources cover a subject"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because no sources exist that give such a rationale for depictions of particular species because there is no fossil evidence to base it on, they only give very general pointers, and generally no comment is made on the colouration shown in image captions. Going beyond that isn't possible with existing sources, except for the very rare cases where colouration has been preserved in the fossils, but that is not the case for the animals depicted here. As I mentioned above, some notable palaeontological artists have shown such spots, but entirely without comment, so while there is published visual precedence for it, there is nothing in the captions for these images that can be cited in support. Gregory S. Paul had this general statement, for example: "Archosaurs of all sizes may have used specific color displays for intraspecific communication or for startling predators. Crests, frills, skin folds, and taller neural spines would be natural bases for vivid, even iridescent, display colors, especially in the breeding season." A citation to something like that could be added to the Commons description, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as I mentioned earlier, I'll start a discussion about this at a more general venue, as it's a general issue not restricted to this FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added "hypothetical life restoration" to all restoration captions, per the discussion here:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption "The Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared with the swamplands of Louisiana." Perhaps 'The swamplands of Louisiana, with which the Kaiparowits Formation environment has been compared'?
Why not, changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make File:Ceratopsia skin integument.png larger.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is missing from most but not all images.
Added to rest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should now be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith (comments)[edit]

I don't know if I'll be able to commit to a full review, but I'll make a few suggestions.

I know WP:ALT is not a WP:FACR, and I do appreciate that all the images here do at least have alts, but I can't help feeling some of them could be improved. For example, File:Ceratopsidae Scale.svg. The image itself complies with WP:FIDUCIAL by including the silhouette of a human, but the alt text just teases our screen-reader users by not actaully telling them how that human compares to the dinosaurs. Even adding something as simple as "The tallest, Triceratops prorsus, is about twice as tall and the shortest, Nasutoceratops titusi, is about the same height" would add useful context. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think most people feel particularly comfortable doing these, tried with something along your lines for that image. Anything else? FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Morrison Man - support[edit]

Seeing as this review seems to be missing a third reviewer, I'll provide some comments in a bit. Just marking my spot. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, finally got around to reading through the whole thing. A few notes:

Lead[edit]
  • “including a subadult skull with a partial postcranial skeleton and rare skin impressions and two partial skulls” - maybe clarify that these skulls do not belong to the partial skeleton, something like “two other partial skulls”.
Added "other". FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “and may have formed a distinct clade within this group” - Isn’t Nasutoceratopsini well-established at this point? If so, may have can be removed here.
It has recently been put into question, see latter part of classification section. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I seem to have missed this one when I was looking over my list at the end! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the deep front of skull” - the deep front of the skull.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discovery and naming[edit]
  • “the paleotologist Alan L. Titus” - Fix typo.
Yikes, done. How did no one before spot that? FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “which formed much of the upper jaw” - Would this not fit better in present tense? ‘which form much of the upper jaw’.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Description[edit]
  • “that lined the margins of the neck frill [...] and on the cheeks” - I’d swap lined out for something like were present on, to make sure that first part matches up with the mention of the cheek ossifications.
Went with "on the". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “as is typical of ceratopids” - Fix typo.
Fixed, but note "ceratopid" is a valid alternate form! FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know this, interesting! Though I do believe that using ceratopsid is the right way to go to avoid reader confusion.The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, an article should of course be internally consistent (and ceratopsid is way more common). FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “A maxillary flange at the front” - Considering the extensive explaining of anatomical terms, would an explanation for maxillary flange also be useful here?
Can't really find anything about this other than it's an, uh, flange, but tried to make it clearer that it's on the front of the maxilla: "The maxillary flange at the front of the maxilla". FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “a somewhat raised teardrop-shaped expansion” - Comma in between raised and teardrop-shaped?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “hour-glass shape” - No hyphen needed.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “without torsion. The postorbital bone” - It would make more sense to me structure-wise if this new section starts a line down from the ending of the skull section.
You mean as a new paragraph? FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The Morrison Man (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “trihedral” - Would a link be possible here?
No article to link, but added "(with three plane faces meeting at the same point)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “in for example Avaceratops” - Going a bit off of personal preference, I’d change this to in taxa like Avaceratops.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The epiparietals are low, roughly crescent-shaped, asymmetrical and wedge-shaped” - What is the purpose of naming two types of shape here? 2d/3d?
Removed "wedge-shaped" as crescent-shaped is mainly emphasised by the sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the back if the skull” - Fix typo.
Fixed, dammit... FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “pavement tubercles” - Perhaps this could be explained?
Added explanation taken from a paper on hadrosaurs "(smooth, polygonal scales forming clusters)", but it seems to conflict or overlap with the description that's already there. Pinging Jens Lallensack who wrote about the hadrosaur mummies for advice, he may be more familiar with it. We should really have an article where dinosaur scale terminology is explained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060#Skin; combined with the picture, I hope it makes the meaning of the term clear. The term was, I think, coined by Osborn in 1912; he called them "pavement tubercles" because they are raised above the smaller "ground tubercles" in-between the clusters. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, would "(clusters formed by raised scales)" work? FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, "pavement tubercles" are the individual scales, not the clusters. However, it looks like there is no evidence for such clusters in Nasutoceratops in the first place? As far as I see, Lund and colleagues seem to be the only ones who used "pavement tubercle" outside of the context of hadrosaurs. So I wonder if they had a different meaning in mind, or simply were sloppy with the terminology. Given that we are not sure what they mean here, maybe it would be best to just remove the term (and its explanation)? Maybe simply Patches A and B have variably sized scales that are round to elliptical and are arranged in irregular rows, similar to what is known from other ceratopsians (including Psittacosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and Centrosaurus)? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a solution, but what to do about the following sentence? "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of round, ossicle-like scales surrounded by pavement tubercles, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See this image: [35]. You see the normal, polygonal scales that Lund et al. call "pavement tubercles", as well as large, circular scales in-between. Maybe just write "There is also no evidence in Nasutoceratops of single circular scales much larger than the scales surrounding them, as seen in Chasmosaurus and Centrosaurus"? Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jens Lallensack, implemented your wording now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider this fixed then. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classification[edit]
  • “(including one that was previously considered an adult Avaceratops)” - Is this the same specimen as MOR 692, which you mentioned above? If so this second mention could probably be removed.
Yes, seems this happened when I copied an earlier deleted sentence in again. Removed that part. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Dalman colleagues accompanying” - Should be Dalman and colleagues.
You're noticing a lot of bizarre mistakes everyone else missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly, yeah. Happens to the best of us! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Judith River Formation close to Nasutoceratops” - I’d change this towards ‘to be close to’ or ‘to be closely related to’, just for extra clarity.
Went with the former. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “of north and south of Laramidia” - Change this to either ‘of the north and south of Laramidia’ or ‘of northern and southern Laramidia’.
Took the latter. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “the northern centroaurines” - Fix typo.
Oof, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “north and south Laramidia” (x2) - I’d once again change these to northern and southern. It’s up to preference but I think it reads nicer.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “latitutudinally distributed” - Fix typo.
Ugh, done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “found that this genus and other basal centrosaurines [...] to have lived” - Remove ‘that’ to fix sentence structure.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “fossil evidence indicated” - Should this not be present? ‘fossil evidence indicates’.
Changed, though since it is a past occurrence, I think past tense could work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleobiology[edit]
  • “suggested that the may” - Fix typo.
I'm not seeing this, perhaps sopmething that has been fixed since? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have been fixed in another edit, yeah. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “(rarest of the three groups)” - Should there be an extra ‘the’ in front of rarest?
Added for good measure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paleoenvironment[edit]
  • “were dominated by up to 30 m (98 ft) cypress trees” - Maybe change to ‘were dominated by cypress trees of up to 30 m (98 ft) tall’.
Went with "dominated by cypress trees up to 30 m (98 ft) tall" for this and the below. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine! The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “up to 10–20 m (33–66 ft) dicot trees” - Same as for the above comment. Maybe swap height around to the back and add ‘tall’.
As above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “by conifers up to 30 m (98 ft)” - Again, same as previous two comments.
Added "tall", but the rest of the sentence is what you suggested to change the others to already, no? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “comprising cycads” - Change to ‘comprising of cycads’?
Changed, but note it will probably be changed back by a notorious editor:[36] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh this one's new for me. Of all the crusades to go on... The Morrison Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of sorting the comments per section for ease of navigation. If you have any questions, you know how to find me! The Morrison Man (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing a lot of weird stuff, everything addressed, though I pinged Jens for the scale issue I'm uncertain about... Seems there are a lot of different ways to describe the same things... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to wait for Jens to see if he has any comments on that. If that's addressed, I think everything has been taken care of from my point of view. As an aside, it would probably be good to get some kind of article up about dinosaur scale types, or maybe even include them in the Glossary of dinosaur anatomy. Should probably be discussed at WP:DINO. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been adressed. I will support. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 May 2024 [37].

Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After previously working on a Filipino music BLP of a band, here's my next work on singer and actress Rachelle Ann Go. She began her career in pop music after winning a talent show in the Philippines, before transitioning to musical theatre. Some of her earlier roles on stage include Ariel from The Little Mermaid and Jane Porter from Tarzan. She had her international breakthrough portraying a hardened bargirl in the 2014 West End revival of Miss Saigon, reprising the part on Broadway in 2017. She followed this with more prominent roles on West End, playing Fantine in Les Misérables and Eliza Schuyler in Hamilton. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

Saving a spot. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Go then competed at the 2004 Shanghai Music Festival and the 2005 Astana Song Festival, each winning the Silver Prize and Best Song" --> Needs a little rewording. It doesn't make it sound like she won.
I've tweaked it a bit for clarity. Hopefully that reads better. Happy to change if still ambiguous.
  • "Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and would encourage her to perform in front of a crowd" --> Go's father raised her to pursue musical interests and encouraged her to perform in front of crowds
Done
  • Link bachelor's degree
Done
  • "where she later advanced as one of the ten grand finalists" --> this might just be a personal preference, so feel free to ignore if you disagree, but what about "where she would advance as one of the ten grand finalists"
Done as suggested.
  • 'featured vocals on a cover "Love of My Life"' --> featured vocals on a cover of "Love of My Life"
Thanks for catching this. Done
  • "The track list initially contained songs Go had written, but decided against including it" --> this refers to the unreleased songs, correct? "...songs Go had written, but she decided against including them"
That is right. I've revised per your suggestion.
  • Link DVD
  • "a concert staged at the Music Museum on October 26, 2012" --> The paragraph starts with "Go began 2012", so you could probably just make the date October 26 without the year
Agreed. Done.
  • Link R&B in its first use
If this the R&B singer Alicia Keys (I think), I've linked it now.
  • She also considers Patti LuPone as one" --> Start the sentence with Go to avoid any confusion as the previous sentence was about what Salonga said
Good point. Done
  • "Early in her career, Go's singing style has drawn comparisons to Carey" --> drew comparisons
Done
  • Unlink Celine Dion from the influences section as it is a DUPLINK
Unlinked

That's all from me. Another great article from you. -- ZooBlazer 17:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: thanks very much for your review. All comments actioned and addressed. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Thank you for sparing your time. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Happy to support! Good luck the rest of the way with this nom. -- ZooBlazer 22:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image/media review - passes[edit]

  • Both images are properly licensed, have alt text, and use makes sense in the article.
  • There's one sound sample. It is under 10% of the full song, properly licensed, and its use fits the article.

I'll be back with prose comments later, but I did the image review and found no issues, so it passes. -- ZooBlazer 18:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the image review, and appreciate your time in having a look. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "performed rock-influenced covers in the live album" => "performed rock-influenced covers on the live album"
Done
  • "eponymous brand of bridal line" => "eponymous brand of bridal wear"
Done
  • "were impressed of the overall production" => "were impressed with the overall production"
Done
  • "Described as a "hodgepodge" of wide-ranging global influences, Go again employed" - it (presumably) wasn't Go who was described as a hodgepodge. Presumably it was the album that was described in that way?
Oh right, I see where my error is. Thanks for catching that. I've revised it so that it begins with The album was described as ..., and Go again..
  • "Go recorded "Paano" for the compilation album GV25" - album title should be in italics
Thanks for catching this too. Done
  • "Critics were generally enthusiastic with the depth of her characterization" => "Critics were generally enthusiastic about the depth of her characterization"
Done
  • "While for her cover album Falling in Love" => "For her cover album Falling in Love"
Done
  • "and has sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows" => "and sang "Butterfly" and "Never Too Far" in one of her first headlining shows"
Done
  • "A reviewer from The Philippine Star has characterized her debut album as" => "A reviewer from The Philippine Star characterized her debut album as"
Done
  • "As of 2020, they reside" - 2020 was four years ago, so if no more up-to-date info is available this should be "As of 2020, they resided"
That is correct, they still live here. Done as suggested.
Thank you for your helpful review ChrisTheDude. All comments have been actioned. Let me know if I might have missed anything. And thanks for the edits you did a while back on instances that require BE'ing. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h[edit]

Hi @Pseud 14: I have one minor concern: After Go's musical transition to theater in 2011,[126] reviewers were appreciative of her clear and sweet-sounding vocals… I recommend changing “were appreciative” to “appreciated” for conciseness.  750h+ | Talk  14:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for driving by 750h+. Done as suggested. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I don’t have anything else. Great work, your articles are always nice to read!  750h+ | Talk  15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Averageuntitleduser[edit]

I plan to review this. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Averageuntitleduser, sorry to chase you, just checking in if you're getting around to reviewing? Pseud 14 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes, it is on my roster today! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've only got minor nit-picks so far. The article feels very fluid and addresses thoroughly the recording, style, and reception of her works. I'll be finishing up tomorrow, in the meantime, feel free to revert any of my copy changes.

  • "Pasig, Metro Manila" — as done in the infobox, combine the second unit's link into the first.
Done
  • Perhaps add "contest" before "Birit Baby" for clarity. It is implied, but would still soften the surprise.
Done
  • Perhaps add "her rendition of (Regine Velasquez's)" before "Isang Lahi", this likely doesn't require a source, but it'd be easy nevertheless.
Agreed. I have added as suggested
  • Perhaps expand "OPM" and then bracket it.
Done
  • "wrote that the album is 'another proof..." — a more common phrase would be: "wrote that the album is more 'proof...".
Done
  • "(2009)" — for internal consistency, perhaps move the "2009" before "fifth studio album".
Since the sentence begins with Also that year (which I just realized) referring to 2009, I dropped the enclosure or putting 2009 before it. Hopefully that still works. 2009 nth studio album is not usually a practice I have seen in music articles. I think it's either 2009 studio album or nth studio album.... In this case, I think it would be preferable to go with the chronology.
Silly me, you're right! And yes, I wasn't fully convinced with my suggested formatting.

Comments after the initial review:

This was a butter-smooth read and quite comprehensive. I'm left with only some minor comments. Feel free to revert my copyedits or ask for clarification on my comments! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "including working on creating melodies for certain tracks" — I'm not sure about the emphasis on this, it's sort of implied in nature and by the "writing material" bit. Perhaps incorporate it into the sentence: "she began writing material and contemplating meoldies", feel free to play around with it.
Agree that it is implied, so I drop it altogether and just stuck with "writing material"
  • "In the same year, Go recorded a version of" — what year? Presumably 2015, especially with the sentence afterwards, but it isn't fully clear.
Correct, when we begin with in the same year or that same year, it usually follows a work with a year in brackets - in this case the live action film Cinderella with the release year in the parenthetical, or the 2015 film so and so...
Ah, but in this case, it precedes when the year "2015" is established. Would something like this work: "In the same year, 2015, Go recorded a version of...", or "Later that 2015..."?
@Averageuntitleduser: I'm not a fan of In the same year, 2015, Go recorded.. tbh. I think later that year works, because the paragraph already begins with After her work with Miss Saigon finished in 2015. The film itself is bracketed with the release year of said work ie Cinderella (2015), and the sentence in question is already followed by a statement that indicates year after In March 2016, it is fairly explicit that the recording and release occurred in 2015. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An elegant change!
  • "she resumed her role when the production reopened and had a limited run for the show's concert edition in 2021" — perhaps rework this part. For some reason, I first read it as her having the limited run. I had to rack my brain around it for a while.
I added and also had a limited run, as two things happened; she returned to the role when it re-opened, and participated in the staging of a live concert briefly.
  • As there's already Newsweek, could we replace the Daily Mirror source? This Observer review gets across a similar idea and describes her "full-throttle", empowering belting.
This is a good replacement, thanks for the suggesting. Added.
  • "from maternal experience with her roles on stage" — "with" feels a bit weak here, perhaps something along the lines of: "from her onstage enactments of maternal experiences".
Done
  • "and gaining" — removing this would make the sentence stronger. It currently reads: "She also credits theater work in [...] gaining maturity as a singer", which is a bit clunky.
Done
  • Perhaps swap "took part" and "(returned to) perform" across the two charity event sentences. This would make it more immediate what she did at the first event.
Done

Averageuntitleduser. Your comments have been very helpful. I have provided my responses above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments Averageuntitleduser. All actioned and addressed. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a final look-through, I'm happy to support. Another lovely music bio! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Averageuntitleduser! Really appreciate your time and the thoroughness of your review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I see no major prose issues, so a source review should be your last hurdle! A spotcheck will be necessary since this is a BLP. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 22 has no links- is there a reason for that?
I used the newspaper article as an offline source, as I could not find it archived online. I stumbled upon the full article posted to an online forum for verification, but for some reason it doesn't work anymore when I tried accessing it (at least for me). Alternatively, this link also provides the lists the nominees, but I have reservations if it is high-quality enough to be used. So I stuck with an offline source instead, as that seems to be much more acceptable (hopefully). Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed to find no other problems- well done! Spotcheck coming soon MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the source review MyCatIsAChonk. Provided my response above. Really appreciate your time in doing it. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good on 22. Spotcheck now, choosing randomly, AGF for Tagalog sources:

  • 2: all uses good
  • 3: all uses good
  • 11: good
  • 21: good
  • 36: good
  • 44: good
  • 53: good
  • 70: good
  • 80: good
  • 93: good
  • 106: good
  • 118: good
  • 133: good
  • 145: good

I'm impressed to say that all spotchecks and the source review pass- very well done! Sorry for the delay- I am very impressed by your in-depth work, and hope to see more in the future. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing the spotchecks MyCatIsAChonk. I really appreciate your time and effort. Absolutely no need to apologize. You've taken the time out of your busy schedule to provide your feedback and review, so I'm most grateful for it. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • "Under the record label, she released four more studio albums". What record label?
It should be the same record label, Viva Records, which is mentioned initially in the lead. She signed with Viva Records in 2004
Then how about 'Under the same record label'?
Agreed and revised.
  • "She gained further recognition after originating the role of Eliza Schuyler". What does "originating" mean in this context? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Originating in theatre terminology means, she was the first actress to play the part in the production in West End, when the musical premiered. Some sources online to support that as well, as a broadly used term. Hopefully that provides clarity [38] [39] [40]
I assumed so. I suspect that it will have non-aficionados scratching their heads. Is there a more broadly comprehensible way of expressing it? (Eg '... after being the first actor to play Eliza Schuyler ...' or similar.)
Made some tweaking to work around it. Hopefully this reads better for her portrayal of Eliza Schuyler in the original 2017 West End company of Hamilton.
Thanks for your comments Gog the Mild. Provided my responses above. Let me know if edits need to be made or if they are satisfactory. Thanks. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions Gog. All actioned. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those both look fine. I am researching one other thing, and hope to get back to you on it later today. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, sorry for the ping. Just checking in on the item you were trying to research about. Slightly curious as well :) (or hopefully I could help check too). Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been taking advice re "her portrayal of Eliza Schuyler in the original 2017 West End company of Hamilton" as to whether this use of "company" is acceptable theatrical cant. But! If it doesn't make sense to me then at best it is probably over-specialised and would similarly baffle many readers. So, would you have a problem replacing "company" with 'production', or some similar more generally understood word or phrase? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem at all Gog. If it’s going to make it easier to understand, I have done so and made the change to production. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 May 2024 [41].

Ed Bradley[edit]

Nominator(s): M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about American journalist Ed Bradley, a prominent Black journalist in the latter half of the 20th and early 21st Century. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: three supports, a source review and an image review. are we seeing promotion?  750h+ | Talk  05:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's only the bare minimum, and given that this has been open for only 16 days, we'd like to leave it open for longer to see if it attracts further commentary. FrB.TG (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:60_Minutes_logo.png: source link is dead. Ditto File:Jimmy_Carter_and_Ed_Bradley_1978.gif. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @M4V3R1CK32: Congratulations on taking this from failed-GA status to near-FAC on your own! Best of luck with this nom. ——Serial Number 54129 08:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I will look into the Jimmy Carter link, but the 60 Minutes logo is not used in this article. Can you explain why you want me to look at that link?
@Serial Number 54129 Thanks! Princessa Unicorn also deserves a ton of credit for doing a bunch of the research legwork for the initial GAN. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is used in this article - it appears in one of the navboxes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That image probably shouldn't be used in the navbox regardless, seems like there could be some issues regarding trademark and it isn't that great a representation of the logo. I've replaced it with the Wikipedia-hosted file, which should be usable there under Fair Use, and is still in current use as of March 31. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that won't work - per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Unacceptable_use non-free images shouldn't appear in navigational elements. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Learned something new! Then it probably shouldn't have an image at all. I see a bot has already removed it. That should be good. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also updated the link to the National Archives photo in Commons. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Bradley moved to Washington, D.C., following the wars" - don't think that second comma is needed
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While reporting for CBS News and 60 Minutes, he reported on" - any way to avoid using reporting/ed twice in such close proximity?
Changed to "while working for" M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley's parents divorced when he was young" => "His parents divorced when he was young"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the school's football team" - link football to make it clear what sport it is. To me (in the UK) "football" means a very different sport to what (I presume) is meant here.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he also worked at WDAS as disc jockey" => "he also worked at WDAS as a disc jockey"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working for WCBS. While at WCBS" => "working for WCBS. While there"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well the Republican and Democratic national conventions" => "as well as the Republican and Democratic national conventions"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His interview style has drawn comparisons to Columbo" => "His interview style has drawn comparisons to the TV detective Columbo" (doesn't hurt to add three words to clarify who Columbo is/was for people who may not know)
Done, though spelled out "television" M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He performed with Jimmy Buffett and the Neville Brothers" - do we know what instrument(s) he played? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not totally clear. There are a lot of references to him performing with those groups, but I haven't really seen anything specifying that he was an instrumentalist of any renown or that the groups relied on his playing. In an interview with PBS, he said "I’ve been on stage with some people who have allowed me to bang a tambourine or some other rhythm instrument". His NYT obituary says something similar, "which Mr. Buffett bestowed on him onstage the first time Mr. Bradley played tambourine at his side". It seems like the performances were more ad hoc than anything else. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by 750h[edit]

Excellent article, but here are my minor complaints:

  • "Bradley was born on June 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." It's generally preferable to put his full name (Edward Rudolph Bradley Jr. was born on..)  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think renaming the "Recognition" section to "Awards and recognition" would be more appropriate. Since the article already details how he was recognized, this title would be more specific.  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed as suggested. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 37, 42, 43, 46 and 48 all use the <ref>{{citation|... format, which is not consistent. Use <ref>{{cite web..., <ref>{{cite magazine..., <ref>{{cite newspaper..., etc.  750h+ | Talk  04:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that is weird! Never noticed that. Updated. Thanks for reviewing! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial[edit]

  • "to further his career as a reporter": unnecessary and florid.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While reporting in Cambodia"
Done, though I'd note that he was hit while actively working, noted in his Entertainment Weekly obit "One of Bradley’s most famous dispatches during his three years covering the war was when he was hit by mortar shrapnel in Cambodia. The camera captured him lying on a stretcher wincing, a tear streaming down his cheek." M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After recovering": How long did this take?
It's not really clear. The NYT obit says he was assigned to Saigon in 1972, then "he stayed until 1974, when he moved to its Washington office. Mr. Bradley, who was wounded on assignment in Cambodia, had become a full-fledged correspondent while in Southeast Asia. In 1975, he volunteered to return to the region to cover the fall of Saigon." The AP obit (as published by The Hollywood Reporter) says "While he went to the Washington bureau after recovering, he volunteered in March 1975 to cover the fall of Saigon." His CBS obit says he was "hit by shrapnel in the arm and in his back in 1973". So recovery took some time between 1973 and March 1975, but the specifics aren't clear. I made some tweaks here that remove that phrasing but show the change in assignments that I think makes things more clear. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1976, Bradley was assigned to cover Jimmy Carter's 1976 presidential campaign": lose one of these dates as repetitive.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covering the latter events": "covering them"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth swapping out "network" with CBS, as it's not wholly clear who he's working for at this point.
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bradley disliked the position at the White House and being tied to the movements of the president": suggest the tighter "Bradley disliked the position as it tied him to the movements of the president"
I do like that better. Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "position": "holding the post until 1981"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reporting for the program until 1981": "also leaving in 1981"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. Abbott, I'd probably add "and author", as notoriety for the first led directly to notability for the second.
Good point! Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such people as": such people as what? I might know what you mean—celebrities? historical/cultural icons?—but as it stands, they're two very different people.
Made a change here that hopefully makes things more clear. Let me know what you think! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with (his) boots on": "with [his] boots on"
Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Done M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Muwakkil/Seitzs, quote: WP:LQ
Done. Also caught a minor clarity issue in the Seitz quote that I have fixed. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reviewing! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a few changes, all for the good, M4V3R1CK32, so I'm very pleased to support this article's promotion. ——Serial Number 54129 10:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass[edit]

I'll do the source review. This shouldn't take too long. Reviewing this version. 750h+ | Talk  11:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 OK, supported in each place it is used
  • 2 OK, explained on page 63
  • 3 OK, supported alongside reference 2
  • 9 OK, supported alongside 6 and 10
  • 15 OK
  • 18 OK
  • 19 OK
  • 20 OK
  • 21 OK, supported alongside 22
  • 25 OK, supported alongside 12
  • 32 OK
  • 33 OK
  • 34 OK
  • 40 OK
  • 43 OK
  • 44 OK
  • 49 OK
  • 50 OK
  • 60 OK
  • 65 OK
  • 69 OK
Additional sourcing comments

Consider archiving the sources. You can do this by going to "View history" and in the External tools bar, you can press "Fix dead links", and when you get there, tap "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)", press Analyze, and wait! With the books, change any instances of "Phoenix, Ariz." to "Phoenix, Arizona". With reference 28, link Chicago Tribune for consistency with the other sources. Reference 8 does not have the location, if we could add it that would be good. I would recommend putting books and magazines into a bibliography section, but that's not a requirement.  750h+ | Talk  12:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive links added, Arizona spelled out, Ref 8 location added. I think I will leave the bibliography section out for the time being unless there is strong consensus there should be one. Thanks for looking! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the bibliography section isn’t needed. Thanks for addressing the concerns M4V3R1CK32, this is a source pass.  750h+ | Talk  16:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My thanks very very very much to M4V3R1CK32 (talk · contribs) for doing the legwork after my initial research and expansion of the article. M4V3R1CK32 has done a great job overall, and the article looks great. It's clear, well-written, amply researched and referenced, and a useful addition for the reader. My apologies I haven't been able to be around much, life has taken me in other paths lately. I'm quite pleasantly surprised at all of the subsequent efforts that has gone on into improving this article! Thanks again, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 02:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • The lead has too many paragraphs for a sub-2,000-word article. Could you run them into just two.
  • "He became the first African American White House correspondent for CBS News". The first at all, or the first for CBS?
  • "Bradley also anchored the Sunday night broadcast". Link "anchored".
  • "In 1981, Bradley joined 60 Minutes. While working for CBS News and 60 Minutes, he reported on approximately 500 stories and won numerous Peabody and Emmy awards for his work covering a wide range of topics, including the rescue of Vietnamese refugees, segregation in the United States, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and sexual abuse within the Catholic Church." That's a long sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/May_2024&oldid=1224640497"