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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2023 [2].

---

DeLancey W. Gill[edit]

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is DeLancey W. Gill, a D.C. watercolor landscape painter and prolific Smithsonian photographer of Native Americans. His work ties in pretty heavily to how Native Americans were seen in contemporary documentation, especially less savory understandings like phrenology. Generalissima (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC[edit]

Hi Generalissima and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
• Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
• Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from PMC[edit]

Congrats on your first FAC! Putting myself down here for comments. I usually get back to it within a week, but hassle me if I let it slide.

Here we go:

Lead

• Why link drafting and landscape painting but not photography?
• "Characterized as precise and exact in his landscapes" I'm not entirely sure this phrasing works, although I'm not sure how to rephrase it.
• Not sure about "In this duty". "In this role" perhaps
• "As well as in BAE...". This whole sentence is a bit knotted up. You could trim the "as well as in" bit and say "Gill's photography appeared in X, Y, and Z" (or similar)
• "Gill's photographic work" is repeated in the next sentence, it should be revised in one of them
• I might revise or split that final sentence. It's a long one and you've got some passive voice going on. "Contemporary critics regarded Gill's work as strong and pictorialist" might work for the opener. It's also somewhat ambiguous what strong means in this context, paired with pictorialist - a fancy way of saying "good work" or a technical term?

Early life

• Please, god, do sfns or some other thing for sources where you've cited different pages in the same source. Ref 1 needs it especially badly given how reliant you are on it. It is...somewhat unfair to expect people to have to skim or ctrl+F an entire 17 page article to verify source-text integrity.
• Link Washington, D.C. in the body (generally if you mention something in lead and body, you link it the first time in each)
• Nitpick but his dad was a merchant too, that's probably worth mentioning for background
• I find the same thing Vati did wrt the paraphrase about the ironwork. It's not clear that he designed those things, the source says he "rendered" them, as in he drew them in a blueprint. They're not quite the same.
• "especially focused" you can probably ditch "especially" here as redundant to "focused"
• "considerable amount of local acclaim" vs the source saying "established a reputation" - is it clear that the reputation was strictly local? I'm not reading that, especially considering he had exhibited in New York. (By the way - why not mention that in the article? Seems relevant.)
• "a Brooklyn reviewer" do we know who?
• The split between paragraphs 2 and 3 is awkward. I would either merge them into one large para all about painting in general, or take the last sentence in 2 and add it to 3 so you have one para entirely about critical reception.
• When was Gill hired? How was his career in the USGS? The citation implies it was successful - promotions and raises for a few years - but we go right to him getting Holmes's job with no indication of how that happened (and note that Glenn says it's almost all due to Holmes's patronage)
• "Gill was tasked to succeed" - "Gill succeeded". You may want to check out WP:REDEX for some ideas about removing superfluous words/phrases from your writing - the less distance between the reader and the content, the better
• Also, why did Gill get Holmes's job?
• You can also merge this with the next sentence for smoother flow
• "John Wesley Powell, in a dual role as director of the USGS..." I don't think this sentence is quite a correct reading of the source, which says "During those days, when John Wesley Powell was director of both the USGS and the BAE, work for one often meant additional duties with the other. Gill thus became supervisor of illustrations of the BAE, but without additional salary." It's not clear that Powell tasked Gill with this specifically. It reads to me more like, if you were the supervisor of one, you wound up being the supervisor of the other, a condition that would have been true for Holmes as well.
• "lithics" could use explanation in-text. Even substituting "stone tools" would be fine - until I clicked, I assumed it meant some type of photography he had encountered for the first time
  • Fixed things up per your very thorough review of the initial sections. I will try to resolve the citation situation tomorrow - I need to get used to sfns anyhow. -Generalissima (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude[edit]

• Image captions which are not complete sentences (eg the Mouth of James Creek one) should not have full stops
• "William Henry Holmes, a fellow watercolor painter and chief of illustration" => "William Henry Holmes, a fellow watercolor painter and the chief of illustration" (existing wording makes it sounds like he was a "fellow chief of illustration")
• "came to greatly respect Gill's artistic work, who was tasked" - I think "came to greatly respect the artistic work of Gill, who was tasked" reads more smoothly
• "Gill accounted for minutia" => "Gill accounted for minutiae"
• "Government photography of native delegations to Washington, D.C. began in the 1860s and 1870s. The Smithsonian geologist Ferdinand V. Hayden requesting in 1874 for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to send delegations to his office to be photographed." - this doesn't work grammatically as two separate sentences but would if you use a comma to join them together as one
• "measuring greatly disliked by native subjects[1]," - ref should go after comma
• "living in Washington at Beveridge House. Beveridge House served" - any way to avoid this repetition?
• That's what I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Recommended changes implemented per request; thank you very much for your feedback! :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Sammi Brie[edit]

Pulling up a section to take a look myself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• When he was five, his father was killed in action in service of the Confederate Army. When he was fourteen, his mother and stepfather moved to Fort Laramie in the Wyoming Territory. Maybe combine with a semicolon? Right now, two sentences are starting with the same word.
• the ruins of the Ancestral Puebloan Pueblo Bonito Is there a way to phrase this so as to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue as at present? There is one other back-to-back link at "Otoe / breechclout" later.
• sent to Washington, D.C. during Probably can remove the "D.C.", but if it needs to stay, an MOS:GEOCOMMA is missing here.
• (a glyph substituting for signature) maybe "a signature"?
• The lead section and article presently conflict on the date of the postage stamp. 1922 or 1923?
• He later married Katharine Schley Hemmick on January 2, 1905, with whom he had one additional child. Reword, because Gill didn't have a child with January 2, 1905.
• He taught classes at the Corcoran School of Art and the Art Students League of Washington, and collected antique art, including rugs and East Asian porcelain. The first comma is unnecessary as there is only one subject. See WP:CINS.

This is not a source review, but the Clotho's Temple citation should link to https://www.newspapers.com/article/arizona-republic-clothos-temple/134933231/. The citation should read Arizona Days and Ways Magazine, pp. 18–19. The author is not Neal but Kyle Leatham.

• Fixed copy errors per review. Thank you so much for catching all those! - Generalissima (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Copy is looking good, and I am happy to support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Vat[edit]

I came in here with a neutral eye a couple days ago, and have been looking through the article since.

• Prose concerns -- seeking to racially classify indigenous peoples due to their skull and facial proportions ("due to"?), the structuring of Personal life (e.g. with whom he had one additional child, when "additional" isn't used elsewhere and where the word seems superfluous), one incident where (is "incident" the right term here? that has implications of an uproar/reaction, which the article gives no impression of), having one daughter, suffragist and librarian Minna P. Gill (the false title debate is controversial, but here its absence makes the sentence double back, in the same way you see in some Oxford comma jokes).
• Source-text -- cite 13 is supporting a lot of strongly-worded statements, yet the article does not mention Gill. No hits for "Kickapoo" either, and "Dakota"'s two responses are about the state of South Dakota. Cite 1 supports some but not all of what cite 13 is being used for, but substantially downplays Gill's role in this compared to his contemporaries. his specialty was rendering 'ornamental iron, tile floors, and linear perspective' in cite 1 is paraphrased to designing ornamental ironwork and tiles. He was noted for his abilities in capturing linear perspective, which extrapolates both the proportion of his work that was this and the success of it in ways unsupported by the source, and doesn't mention anyone to be "noting" this. Anthropometric measurements, otherwise taken from casts and other physical measuring greatly disliked by native subjects extrapolates this from a mention that some subjects rejected it, later followed up by mentioning that it was fairly common nonetheless, and that the photos were used alongside it rather than the replacement implied here.
• Gaps from sources -- cite 1 engages more with how Gill interacted with the phrenological and ethnological cross-purposes, which the article touches on a lot less despite this being fairly core to the subject. The article gives the impression that he mostly abandoned other artforms after beginning photography, which the source doesn't agree with and indeed talks about works he continued to be commissioned for. There's little talk of Gill's own intent or his influence on how he photographed, which again cite 1 talks more about (e.g. discussing his control over what appeared where, his curatorship, etc) -- the article touches on this with how he edited images, but I was surprised to read the cite and see how much more detail it went to, considering the length of this article.

Oppose at this juncture, unfortunately. The prose concerns are samples; the article could use another look-over prosewise. I'm really concerned by cite 13 -- given some of the information seems to be elsewhere I'm sure it's citable, but there are already significant content concerns with that paragraph, and when I checked it to trace down the correct implication of "incident" I turned up nothing. There are parts of the article that are hard to parse, and comparing them with cite 1 makes me uncertain how representative they are of the subject. Vaticidalprophet 09:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from UC[edit]

Having reviewed this at PR, I feel obliged to reiterate my assessment from there that this does generally read and feel like a good GA: in particular, I don't really have the reassuring sense of comprehensiveness that I'd hope to get from an FA. The prose often reads as if it's skimming quite lightly over material where there might or should be much more to say.

A few more concrete comments:

• The formatting in the references is very inconsistent: almost any system is fine, but it's best to pick one and stick with it.
• "Critique" means "assessment and feedback"; we mean "criticism".
• As noted at PR, I don't really see comprehensiveness here in terms of Gill's place within the broader practice of phrenology, racism and so on: it's mentioned in the lead but not really discussed.
• Agreed with Vati that some points of the prose could do with a look to make sure that they are clear, grammatical and that they really stand up to scrutiny (one that I noticed: the walk downtown was disliked by the delegations, who preferred to stay in the vicinity of the Smithsonian: did someone ask all of those delegations? Greater precision is needed here.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Vaticidalprophet, @UndercoverClassicist - I combed through the article and added a good deal more context (esp. about the motivations of Gill's work and his place in this) and copyedited as per both reviews. UC, I would like clarification on reference formatting - I have been using just the default source editing citation style for these. Generalissima (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm afraid I'm not seeing all that much more context (I note the addition of ~3500 bytes since 7 Nov): in particular, in the critique/criticism section, there's no mention of the idea that photographing people as anthropological specimens is now considered pseudoscientific and racist, and we allow the moniker seeking to capture subjects as "nothing but an Indian" to pass without comment, context or criticism. Why did people like Gill go into this kind of photography, who else was doing it, and what was the place of people like him in the intellectual world? Then, what happened, and when, to change American science's attitude towards race, anthropology and photography?

  On citations, the key issue is capitalisation. Normally, we use title case for headings -- so nouns, pronouns, verbs, first words, last words and words immediately following a colon are capitalised. Take a look, for instance, at the difference currently between ref 8 (Poskett, title case) and ref 5 (Elderidge, sentence case with extra space before colon) or ref 7 (sentence case). Any system is fine, but it does need to be a coherent system. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I standardized the capitalization for the citations. In regards to additional background information — I had considered adding a background subsection on contemporary photography and anthropological practices, but it would break up the standard flow of a biographical article like this and introduce sources that do not mention Gill or indeed the BAE at all. Maybe footnotes could give context in a fitting manner? I am to be honest unsure on how to add context here without exceeding the scope of the article. Generalissima (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's always useful to look at FAs in a similar topic area: taking James B. Longacre and V. Gordon Childe as examples, you can straight away see a difference in the level of coverage and detail. Even where we have someone like John Doubleday (restorer), who in lots of ways is similar to Gill (a museum employee involved in work with objects and people rather than constructing academic theories) and about whom relatively little is known, what we do know is covered in extensive, comprehensive detail. I'm not yet seeing this article as comparable. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero[edit]

• The title of Glenn 1983 is wrong.
• Can we get ISBNs for the books?
• Did Weidman come from Newspapers.com?
• "Such errors were shared by contemporary photographers of Native Americans such as Curtis and Frank Rinehart, seeking to capture subjects as "nothing but an Indian" in order to document what was considered by contemporary anthropologists to be a disappearing race and culture" feels like a COATRACK to me because the source does not mention Gill
• Were there any other obits? The sourcing feels thin and the reliance on one source feels off to me

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Sadly, no other obituaries for Gill exist. I have corrected the title of Glenn 1983, added ISBNs, and gave a link for the Wieidman source. Per the penultimate point, this is a needle I am having to thread between giving as much context to his role and the state of American anthropology as feasible while avoiding a coatrack article! I hope to find a way to make reviewers on both sides of that divide happy. - Generalissima (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Harrias – Oppose[edit]

Unfortunately, this article just suffers from too many little flaws for me at the moment. I haven't looked into the sourcing concerns raised by Vaticidalprophet above, but purely looking at the prose, I agree with their analysis and think it needs a significant copy-edit to approach FA standards. A few general issues:

• Lots of noun plus -ing constructions.
• Parts of the article seems to be excessive detail for a biography of Gill. For example, what does the paragraph starting "Prior to 1904, native delegations were photographed at.." tell us about Gill?
• Some of the prose is excessively clunky and difficult to understand, for example "Anthropometric measurements, otherwise taken from casts and other physical measuring greatly disliked by native subjects.."

Recommend withdrawing for a thorough copy-edit before bringing back to FAC. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment. Due to concerns raised by three reviewers regarding prose, sourcing, and comprehensiveness, I am archiving this nomination. It's recommended to seek mentorship at WP:FAM. Additionally, consider initiating another peer review, given the premature closure of the last one, and collaborate with reviewers to address concerns before reattempting FAC.FrB.TG (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 15:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 December 2023 [3].

---

Benty Grange hanging bowl[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Benty Grange hanging bowl, such that it is, could fit in the palm of your hand. Part of the spoils of an 1848 excavation of a richly furnished barrow—known for the boar-crested Benty Grange helmet found alongside—all that remains are two decorated fragments. But just enough remains to reconstruct their original design, an enigmatic motif of three dolphins (or similar) chasing each others tails.

This article was created in 2018, and brought to GA in 2021, thanks to a review by Simongraham. I've refined it since, and recently given it a close look and revision, making it ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review. Given that I walked by the tumulus last month I really ought to look at this. Nudge me if I haven't started in a few days. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". Actually the A515 only joins the course of the Roman road about 200 yards north west of the site (and leaves it again after 500 yards to parallel it 100 yards to the NE before leaving its course entirely after another 2 miles), so the Roman road passes quite a bit closer to the tumulus that the A515. Do you have access to the relevant OS 1:25,000 map? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gog the Mild. The road (The Street (Derbyshire) it looks like) is plotted on this map. Does that look accurate to you? Assuming it's right, it looks like it would actually be a bit farther away from the barrow than the A515, but not by much—some 300 feet instead of 150 feet. But, as you say, they're different roads at that point. The sources currently used in the article say that (Ozanne 1962–1963) "The continued or revived importance of the Roman road between Derby and Buxton is illustrated by the construction of new barrows and the reuse of prehistoric barrows along its line. Benty Grange is close to the road, Hurdlow on the hills flanking it. Galley Low or Callidge Low near Brassington must have been near it, as also was the Garratt Piece, Middleton Moor, barrow." and that (Brown 2017) "This Anglian burial monument is located c.4.4km to the south-east of the Application Site boundary on a slight eminence immediately adjacent to the presumed course of the Roman road between Buxton (Ague Arnemetiae) to Derby (Derventio) known as The Street', which is followed by the A515 (according to the NRHE entry)." I think the error must have stemmed from me reading "followed" as specific rather than general.

Well, your map and my map diverge about a mile south of Benty Grange. My map has the road passing 25-30 m SW of the tumulus. I know the route of the Roman road pretty well, I walked a couple of miles of it near Minninglow only three weeks ago. I am inclined to slightly prefer the County Council's version, but there are a couple of issues which do not wholly convince me. Bung me a blank email and I'll send you a copy of the relevant bit of the OS map. This is not a section I have walked due to a lack of public footpaths in the area. I assume that the tumulus is the faintly seen circle in this Google map? [4] Or is it one of the two sets of excavations in the same field a little further south? Do you have a precise grid reference or lat & long for the mound?

Sent you an email. That faint circle is what I've been assuming is the barrow. It's almost exactly where the map displayed with the HE list entry says it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much for those maps, Gog the Mild. Interesting stuff. I've added the Derbyshire County Council source, and changed the wording to its barrow, which still survives, is prominently located by a major Roman road, now roughly parallel to the A515 in the area, possibly to display the burial to passing travellers. Incidentally, another map showing both tumulus and road is in Bruce-Mitford 1974 (at p. 224). It recognizes the uncertainty, denoting the road as "Roman Road (course of)". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

(Note that the arrow in the 1974 map is slightly off. Per Bruce-Mitford 2005, p. 119, the mound is at "Map ref. SK149642, near high point 1226 ft, west of the line of the Roman road". He states that "I am grateful to Clive R. Hart of the Sheffield Museum for this adjustment from the position of the discovery apparently incorrectly shown in Bruce-Mitford 1974, 224, fig. 35.")

• Separately, if you're ever back in the area, would you be interested in taking a few photos of the mound? I emailed the owner of the Benty Grange farmhouse a few years back for that very reason, but no luck. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no public access. I will have a go next time I am up that way, but it depends on whether I can find a gate and what is growing in the field. (When I wrote "I walked by the tumulus" I meant, 'within 200 m'!) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Review[edit]

• "with three or four equidistant hooks around the rim for suspension ... The hooks project from escutcheons". I am unsure that "hooks" is the best description. In the bowl pictured for example I see no "hooks", hanging rings, yes. Later you mention "a ring on the back of one fragment" And "from" the escutcheons, really? I don't see this in the bowl pictured and I don't see how it could be the case without a hole being made in either the escutcheons or the bowl.

• The hooks are not the rings, but the things around which the rings loop. See the example here. I've also clarified that the ring is not part of the escutcheon, but a small iron ring stuck to it that may have been part of suspension chains. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Is it known or speculated how the escutcheons were affixed to the bowl?

• Per Bruce-Mitford, "either by riveting or by soldering, any occasionally by both". Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• "and their place of manufacture". Is it agreed that "place" is singular?

• Nope, changed to "places". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Two escutcheons are all that remain of the Benty Grange hanging bowl." "the silver rim and ornaments" have been lost then?

• Those are from the cups that’s were also in the burial. You can see them in the last photo here (above the map at the end). --Usernameunique (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies. I meant to delete that. That was me getting confused. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." Perhaps a semi colon after "1968"?

• I think you missed the first word of the sentence, but I can reword if you think it's confusing: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Each animal has ..." Suggestion: 'creature', to leave open the possibility that they are mythological. (And again at the start of "Parallels".)

• Good point, changed throughout. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Winchester hanging bowl" is red linked, but "Lullingstone hanging bowl" isn't. Is there a reason?

• Probably because I didn't realize how notable the Lullingstone hanging bowl was when I first wrote that part of the article—or even looked at a picture of it, which would undoubtedly have disabused me of that particular form of ignorance. Fixed. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• "is prominently located by a major Roman road, now the A515". I think that the maps, and other sources, all agree that the A515 does not follow the route of the Roman road.

• Changed as noted above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• "under the fold". Should that be 'into the fold'. Or, perhaps, 'under the authority' or similar?

• Went with "into the fold". --Usernameunique (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• If "The seventh-century Peak District was a small buffer state between Mercia and Northumbria, occupied, according to the Tribal Hidage, by the Anglo-Saxon Pecsæte" then do we know why "the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655" matters. I realise that the latter is a quote, but it seems strange.
• "loaned the collection to Sheffield". Is it possible to be more precise? Eg, was it to the town council?

• Also the Corporation, it would seem, at least in the legal sense. Here's what the source says about all this: IN 1876 the Corporation of Sheffield received on loan from Thos. W. Bateman, Esq., of Middleton Hall, Derbyshire, the collection of Antiquities formed by his father and grandfather, and for many years previously arranged in cases in Lomberdale House, near Youlgreave, Derbyshire, where the collection had been open to the inspection of antiquaries and other visitors interested in it. Both the objects and the cases were removed to the Public Museum in Weston Park, Sheffield, where they remained on loan until 1893, when it was arranged by the Bateman family that the collection should be sold. The objects which had been discovered in the process of barrow digging in Yorkshire, Derbyshire, and Staffordshire, under the direction of Mr. Thomas Bateman and his father, Mr. William Bateman, F.S.A., were purchased by the Corporation of Sheffield, and comprise the collection catalogued in the following pages. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The city purchased". Similarly.

• The Corporation of Sheffield, i.e., the town council. Added. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• "they would likely be yellow-on-red." "likely" is American English. Suggest 'probably'.

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A lovely little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Gog the Mild. I think I've now managed to answer everything above—got myself thoroughly confused about hooks vs. rings before figuring that one out. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Take 2[edit]

That all looks good. There have been a few changes since I first looked at this, so I'll give it another skim. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "and that sit outside the rim" sounds odd. Perhaps 'beneath the rim on the outside' or 'externally beneath the rim' or 'externally on the side' or similar?

• Now: bronze frames that are usually circular and elaborately decorated, and that sit along the outside of the rim or at the interior base. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "when one of the escutcheons was analysed in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive." I am not sure that "however" is necessary.

• The however relates back to the first words in the sentence: As sampling of the enamel was not permitted when the Sheffield escutcheon was analysed at the museum in 1968, however, the all-yellow hypothesis is not definitive. Does that make more sense? --Usernameunique (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Bateman astutely remarked on this as early as 1861". While I realise that you are paraphrasing Brice-Mitford & Scott I am a little unhappy that "astutely" is PoV and/or unencyclopedic.

• Removed the word. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "penannular"?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• "entered the extensive collection of Bateman." Perhaps 'entered Bateman's extensive collection'?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "he related his discoveries". In person or in writing?

• At a meeting; clarified. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to add a final sentence to "Excavation" describing the current agricultural use of the field containing the barrow?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is a surprisingly controversial issue: see here. I've gone with The surrounding fields were designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest in 2013, and see agricultural use. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Usernameunique, once you have addressed my last query, could you ping me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again, Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay. I've responded above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

UC[edit]

Saving a spot. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Greatly enjoyed reading this one: the prose is generally a real strength -- skilfully written, clear and authoritative. Most of the below are prose nitpicks, matters of terminology and places where I think the facts are not quite clear. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

UndercoverClassicist, thanks very much for your close and careful read. I think I have finally(!) addressed all of your comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy to support -- thank you for your good humour in handling what has been an intensive and, I'm sure, sometimes frustrating set of comments. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, UndercoverClassicist. And not at all—it's always a pleasure to get a review from people with intelligent things to say. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• How attached are you to the term Anglo-Saxon? Within the field, there's quite a lot of movement against it now -- primarily because it is only very rarely (once?) attested in contemporary sources, whereas English and equivalent were the dominant means by which these people referred to themselves, and partly because of its appropriation by nineteenth- and twentieth-century racists. I believe "English", "Early Medieval" and combinations thereof are generally preferred.

  This is purely in America, because of contemporary political connotations! You believe wrong, and Yankee cultural imperialism should be firmly resisted. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the "purely in America" label is quite fair; true, the debate was precipitated by the renaming of the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists to the International Society for the Study of Early Medieval England in 2019, and that initiative was mostly led (though by no means entirely followed) by the society's North American members, but the ensuing conversation has been international. The Welsh archaeologist John Hines has a good and even-handed article walking through the circumstances of the debate and its fallout, particularly in the UK (there was also a fairly large student petition to rename the eponymous faculty at Cambridge a few years ago, though I'm not sure much came of it). The most consistent and visible voice against the "Anglo-Saxon" term is Mary Rambaran-Olm, who is a Canadian trained largely in the UK: her arguments against it do reference present-day politics, but are based largely in the fact that the term is almost unattested before the sixteenth century, whereas people at the time referred to themselves and were known by others as "English". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  Just about all period terms are later inventions by historians, look at "Celtic" for heaven's sake, not to mention Byzantine, Hellenistic, Gothic, Romanesque, Renaissance.... You rightly seem to to be climbing back from "generally preferred". "English" doesn't help - an American student "boldly" converted one major article here to use "Old English" but that has no usage beyond the language. Johnbod (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  If I read Hines correctly, he doesn't see the term "Anglo-Saxon" as inherently objectionable, and thinks the debate over it both has come at the expense of worthwhile reforms and also counts as its most vocal supporters those who have contributed least to the field. But the more salient point, I think, is that we're in an encyclopedic rather than progressive context; the point is to state the facts as they are, rather than as they ought to be. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Happy with this: the general approach on here when a decision is remotely a matter of taste is to defer to the first person who made the call. I'd do it differently, but I'm me and you're you -- there's nothing here to impede promotion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• but on minimal and possibly incorrect evidence.: Could we have some sense of what that evidence is? Presumably, if it's possibly incorrect, it's also possibly correct, so I'm surprised that we're closing this hypothesis down so firmly.

• Fair point, now clarified. Basically, there's no evidence, other than the fact that red enamel is common, and yellow enamel rare. The "incorrect" part is that one of the yellow-on-red proponents cited Rupert Bruce-Mitford in support of the theory, when he said no such thing. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be worth explaining that one, if only in the footnote on "without evidence": our current framing implies that Henry and Haseloff said something like "I reckon it was yellow and red, but don't have any evidence for that", which they quite clearly didn't: the problem is that their evidence (the fact that B-M allegedly saw or reconstructed that colour scheme) never actually existed. Was that really all of their evidence, though? Often these conjectures are made by comparison with other similar objects, for example. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've changed to "without offering evidence", but is this not already explained in the footnote? The main problem is that they just say it, without saying why. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I've not understood, clearly: from my first reading of your comment, it sounded like they did say why (because Bruce-Mitford said it, and that our priors for all-yellow decoration are pretty low, given that yellow enamel is pretty rare in the period), but that the evidence/argument is generally considered unconvincing. That's not quite the same as offering no evidence, and I think it's a little unfair to accuse Henry and Haseloff of simply making baseless assertions if they did not in fact do so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:34, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Per Henry 1936, At present, out of all that was originally found, there remain only two half escutcheons, one in the Ashmolean Museum, the other one in Sheffield Museum. By combining them it is possible to reconstruct a pattern of three elongated beasts biting each other's tails ... They are enamelled in yellow on a red field, like several of the spiral discs, and the bronze has also been plated with silver. Per Haseloff 1990 (translated), Fragments of an escutcheon from Benty Grange, Derbyshire, show three animals arranged in a circular shape with ribbon-like, tapering bodies that end in a fish tail. These are clearly representations of dolphins, which appear in Irish art, especially book painting (Cathach of St. Columba; gospel fragment, Durham A.I.10. fol. 2r). The colors of the enamel are, in my opinion: yellow for the animal bodies and red for the background. The separating metal bars are tinned. According to R. Bruce-Mitford, there is only one enamel color, namely red. And per Ozanne 1962–1963 (probably taking her lead from Henry, who is cited in the following sentence), The Middleton Moor escutcheon is enamelled in red only, while the second attachment has both yellow and red, like the Benty Grange fragments. Henry possibly analyzed the escutcheons in person, but there is no indication either of the others did. In any event, however, none of the authors present any evidence for their assertions, and Haseloff gets a fact incorrect when he attributes an all-red theory to Bruce-Mitford. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to try to make it more clear: A yellow-creatures-on-red-background colour scheme has alternatively been claimed, but no evidence for such a layout has been presented. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• according to the Tribal Hidage: I would introduce what this was.

• I'm a little bit reluctant here, just because there's so much to say, and so many qualifiers to add; just clicking on the link seems to better way to figure it out. But let me know if you disagree. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NOFORCELINK would always advise some kind of explanation additional to "just click the link", but I'll have a read and a think as to whether I can suggest something that's both brief enough and correct enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright, in that case I've gone with a footnote. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• The nearby farm was renovated between 2012 and 2014; as of 2023 it is rented out as a holiday cottage: I'm not sure how relevant or encyclopaedic this bit is; the last part in particular could be taken as WP:PROMO. Given that none of the sources cited here really pass HQRS muster, would remove.

• As noted below, I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, but the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's thus somewhat interesting to know the status of the farmhouse, just as it's interesting to know the status of the barrow and the surrounding fields. It's not a point I feel particularly strongly about, however. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm with User:SchroCat on this one: the farmhouse itself is interesting, but not the renovation and not the current use as a holiday cottage (it would be interesting if the barrow itself, or something more directly related to the artefact, had some current use, but this cottage is only notable by sheer proximity and the sentence with that citation does read like an advertisement.) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of it being rented out, to make it seem less like an ad. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

caeciliusinhorto[edit]

Some initial thoughts:

• "seems to show that a hook may have been present" – this double-hedging is a pet peeve of mine: what's wrong with "seems to show that a hook was present"?!

• Good point. Now: a contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt suggests that a hook was present at excavation. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of colour is slightly confusing: we are told that the yellow-on-red colour scheme has "also" been suggested before the all-yellow theory which it is additional to is mentioned! Either cut the "also", or mention Bruce-Mitford's all-yellow working hypothesis first.

• The first mention of color is The decomposed enamel background appears uniformly yellow to the eye, as it did when excavated. I've just added the "uniformly" to make this more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the description of the dolphin design seems uncomfortably close to Bruce-Mitford's text to me:
  • "each biting the tail of the animal ahead of it" / "each biting the tail of the one ahead of it"
  • "jaws both long and curved" / "long curved jaws"
  • "where the tails should pass through the jaws of the animals behind" / "where the tail or ribbon body of an animal should logically pass through the mouth of the one behind it"

• Reworded all. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The mass of corroded chainwork discovered six feet away": this is a little jarring on the first mention of this chain; I would say something like "a mass of corroded chainwork was discovered six feet away..."

• Changed "The" to "A". --Usernameunique (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the lateral stroke of the INI monogram that introduces the Gospel of Mark": Bruce-Mitford 1974, cited for this, says that the monogram is IN and the gospel is John; I don't have access to Bruce-Mitford 1987, so I can't see if that supports the claim. (Though I see this fragment of the Durham gospel is in fact Mark and has what looks suspiciously like the monogram described by B-M)

• Well, this one is interesting. Per B-M 1974, "The lateral stroke of the N in the IN monogram from St John in the Durham Gospel fragment MS A II 10 is built of two similar fish motifs. The MS dates from about A.D. 650." Folio 2r of the Gospel Book Fragment (A. II. 10.) shows just this—but, as you say, it is the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. Meanwhile, what does folio 2r of the Durham Gospels (A. II. 17.) depict? The Gospel of John, with a big N-looking thing, decorated with fish- or dolphin-looking things. I think B-M had to have been describing the fragment: it is the only one where there is a "lateral stroke ... built of two similar fish motifs". But the similarity between them is probably the cause of the error. (And as discussed here, there appears to be another, related, error in B-M 2005.) I'll also take a look at B-M 1987 when I have access to it again next week. But for now, I think we can be confident that the article here correctly navigates the intended meaning of the sources. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Update: Bruce-Mitford 1987 does not shed any further light on this issue. It says just that the best analogy for its fish design [is] in the Northumbrian bible fragment MS Durham A.Il. 10, of c. 650. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• "fosse"/"penannular": both uncommon technical terms. Can they be glossed, linked, or replaced with something more understandable?

• fosse and penannular are both disambiguation pages with definitions. The former suggests that ditch is a viable piped link, which I've gone with. I'm not sure what to link penannular to, though. Wiktionary? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given that one of the fragments is (or at least recently was?) on display in Sheffield, I don't suppose there's any way of getting a decent photo of what it looks like now? If I remember next time I'm up there I'll have a go, but that's not going to be until February at the earliest.

• To be honest, I'm not sure where I got the information that it was on display; the link it was sourced to doesn't seem to have that information, and I've now removed it from the article. I've also emailed the museum a couple times about a photo, but no luck so far. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Caeciliusinhorto-public—interesting points. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public, just checking if the above responses are sufficient for your support. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

• "A third disintegrated soon after excavation, and no longer survives. " Well, is it necessary to tell the reader something that disintegrated no longer survives?

• Well, it could have been tucked away in a box full of dust; were the excavation done today, for instance, there would presumably be better records of it. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I also was wondering about a photo of the one on display, either taken by a visitor or if the museum would co-operate with making one of its images available through OTRS. Having taken more than a few photos as a visitor to museums, I suspect the latter would be the preferred option. The Ashmolean might also be queried. Has either a Wikipedian in residence?

• I've sent both museums emails on the subject. The Weston Park Museum was kind enough to send photos of the helmet at one point, so I'm still hopeful they might find time for the escutcheon. I sent one to them recently; I'll try following up with the Ashmolean, too. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Are the objects mentioned in "Parallels" simply of similar design, or do the sources draw the parallels with the escutcheons in question?

• The sources always say either (a) "[object in question] is similar to the Benty Grange escutcheons", or (b) "the Benty Grange escutcheons are similar to [object or objects]". --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "In 1861 Bateman died at 39" age 39?

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "having seen to his father's fortune," perhaps "dissipated" rather than "seen to"?

• Went with "spent." You're now I think the third person who has suggested revising that line; guess it's time to wise up. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I get the same thing with cute idioms that don't work well in all ENGVARs Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• " Rupert Bruce-Mitford revisited the Benty Grange burial in 1974,[100]" Does this mean he went there?

• It wouldn't shock me, but it's now Rupert Bruce-Mitford published a chapter on the Benty Grange burial in 1974, focusing on the helmet. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Wehwalt. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Usernameunique: see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; templates like tq cause template limit problems in the FAC archives, and slow down the load time for the entire FAC page. I have replaced them here as right now, the entire FAC page is not accessible to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SC

Comments to come. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

IB

• The three location links should have some delinking to bring them in line with MOS:GEOLINK

• There are only two links, no? "Benty Grange farm, Monyash, Derbyshire, England". Are you suggesting that Derbyshire doesn't need the link? If anything, I think we could be adding a link, to Benty Grange. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting it, MOS:GEOLINK is. - SchroCat (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  MOS:GEOLINK says For geographic places specified with the name of the larger territorial unit following a comma, generally do not link the larger unit. Here, the "larger unit" is England, which is not linked. This would appear to be consistent with the example (Buffalo, New York, United States), where the city and state are linked, but not the country. (Granted, that example has only one link—"Buffalo, New York" is the full name of the article, whereas "Monyash" and "Derbyshire" are each full article names. Nevertheless, the "larger unit" remains England.) --Usernameunique (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

  I read it differently, but your call. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Excavation

• Is the C21st renovation of the farmhouse important? Or the fact it's now a holiday cottage?

• I don't think the renovation itself is particularly relevant, although the Benty Grange farm (and by extension the farmhouse, which predates the excavation) has been mentioned in pretty much every telling of the excavation since Bateman's. It's somewhat interesting, therefore, to know that the farmhouse is still around and kicking. The article on the helmet also mentions the same facts and went through the same FAC process. With that said, I don't feel too strongly about it (especially, perhaps, because the owners never responded for a photo of the barrow), so won't push back if you think the article better without it. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• OK, I'll accept the first bit about the farmhouse being there (I suppose knowing the environment of the archaeological site is an important point), but not so much the holiday cottage, which seems superfluous. Your call, and it won't affect my support below one bit. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That's my lot. Nicely written - engaging and nice and clear. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey SchroCat, just checking to see if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? (Obviously, neither is obligatory.) Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi David, thanks for the ping. Only one of my two comments has been addressed, so I'm not going to come down off the fence on this one yet - but don't let that hold up the process if you're looking to pass this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

David Fuchs and SchroCat, apologies for the delay—had some computer issues which made editing more difficult. But SchroCat, I've responded to the remaining comment above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm going with a guarded Support for this. On the prose side it is certainly qualifies. Both UndercoverClassicist and Johnbod are eminently more capable than I to judge the content aspect and I hope at least one of them confirms they are happy with that part too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod[edit]

• I've butted-in some above.
• I wonder if you came to regret picking an object that barely exists? You end up doing a lot of "the knee bone was presumably connected to the thigh-bone" stuff, which has perhaps understandably attracted much reviewer excitement.
• "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." See above - B-M does not mean "Early Celtic", before the Romans, but Celtic from the Romano-British, sub-Roman or "Late Celtic" period. Best to expand to clarify this important point. "Still" is misleading - he & others regard most of them as being made "during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times".
• "He suggested that this was the result of "a mixing or tempering with some corrosive liquid; the result of which is the presence of thin ochrey veins in the earth, and the decomposition of nearly the whole of the human remains." Any modern comment of this? Sutton Hoo similarly lacks the human remains, but I think this is just put down to natural soil chemistry.

• B-M 1974 says that "The disappearance of human remains may be due to the soil conditions observed by Bateman. The process of disintegration was no doubt advanced by the robbing of the grave." Given that B-M was very familiar with the conditions at Sutton Hoo by this point (he excavated there from 1965 to 1970), it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't discuss the possibility that it was simply the nature of the soil; it does suggest, however, that he thought Bateman's hypothesis had some potential. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• You list "Bruce-Mitford, Rupert (2005). Taylor, Robin J. (ed.). A Corpus of Late Celtic Hanging-Bowls with an Account of the Bowls Found in Scandinavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-813410-7" As you know, Rupert Bruce-Mitford died in 1994, having started compiling his catalogue in the 1940s. Sheila Raven is credited as author of the Scandi finds section (not relevant here), and the entry authors (end of the pre-numbered pages) are these two and Jane Brenan. I don't see Taylor, Robin J. anywhere on a g-books view. I think a note explaining the situation would be good somewhere.

• That was a mistake. It was caused, most likely, by using as a starting point the citation template for Bruce-Mitford's 1997 posthumous work (on Mawgan Porth Dark Age Village), which was edited by Robin Taylor. Thanks for catching. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's all for now. Nice article, though I wish the subject was more complete. Johnbod (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I notice that the "still" in "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times...", which is still there, and needs to go (and "Celtic" to be further expanded, was added in response to a query by Dudley M in the pre-review on the article talk (not his fault). We have a lot of "tree" detail in the article, but I think the "wood" overall picture needs stating more clearly. If such an experienced and intelligent reviewer as UC was misled, it shows there was a problem, which I don't think has been sufficiently dealt with. The page or so in Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092 (pp. 101-102) might help, if you've not seen it. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a helpful source, thanks. How do you feel about: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Yes - it might be tinkered with, but that does the job. There's sometimes talk of "native" Romano-British populations, at least in the early Roman period. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• If anyone's interested, the conversation higher up moved me to start Dragonesque brooch, an earlier type of British cultural hybrid artefact. Johnbod (talk) 11:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• ok, moving to Support. Johnbod (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, Johnbod. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• You should give the source in the image description of the reconstruction.

• The source is Carlinmack (thanks again), based on published designs. What are you suggesting? Something like "after Bruce-Mitford 2005"? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• It should be a full reference including the page number so that anyone interested can find the source image. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• "What remains of one escutcheon belongs to Museums Sheffield and as of 2023 was in the collection of the Weston Park Museum. The other is held by the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford; as of 2023 it is not on display." You imply that neither is on display but you should state this specifically.

• I'm not sure about the status of the Sheffield escutcheon, whereas the Ashmolean affirmatively states that theirs is not on display. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• The discussion of the date and provenance of the bowl is unclear. In the lead you say "a fragmentary Anglo-Saxon artefact from the seventh century AD". In the main text "it dates from a period subsequent to the official introduction of Christianity into Mercia in 655". This implies late seventh/early eighth rather than straight seventh century. But "They appear to be of Celtic manufacture, with examples still used during Anglo-Saxon and Viking times." This implies that it was not made in 7C Mercia but of ancient Celtic manufacture.

• I've tried to clarify this with the following: They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and continuing until Viking times. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• This still seems vague. Post-Roman Britain redirects to Sub-Roman Britain, which is the fifth and sixth centuries. Is this what you mean? Vikings are irrelevant unless they also used them. The Vikings were active in Britain between the late eighth to the eleventh centuries, which is very broad. Presumably the bowls' dating can be more closely specified than that. (BTW the term "Celtic" is controversial except as applied to the language. An academic historian once objected to it in an article of mine and I replied pointing out that it was in a quote from another academic historian.) How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the [[Sub-Roman Britain|post-Roman period]] (fifth and sixth centuries). Some were acquired by Anglo-Saxons, probably by trade, and used until the ... century." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Driving by - I don't think that is supported by the sources. There are 28 examples from Viking period graves in Scandinavia,(B-M, 41) never mind Britain. B-M is very cautious in giving dates, except for burials when there is other evidence, but supports a much longer range than just the fifth and sixth centuries. Your presumption that "dating can be more closely specified than that" is I think wrong. Another context where "Celtic" is not controversial is artistic style, especially in fact after the end of the "Celtic" Iron Age with the Roman conquest. That is what matters here. Btw, I don't think we should exclude the possibility that, at least after the earliest period, the A-S elite (perhaps later joined by the Vikings) were the main market for hanging bowls, perhaps commissioning them direct from the workshops. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I was trying to clarify the wording, and where I have wrongly interpreted it I think that this shows that the wording is unclear. Your comments help to clarify. From what you, say maybe change "used by Anglo-Saxons until Viking times" to "used by Anglo-Saxons and Vikings." My reference to fifth and sixth centuries was what I assumed was meant in the article by "post Roman period" for manufacture, not usage. You appear to say that both manufacture and usage carried on much longer than what is usually meant by the post-Roman period. If dating cannot be closely specified then I suggest saying so, not giving a vague and apparently irrelevant "into viking times". As to Celtic, I was commenting on "Celtic populations", not Celtic art. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, I've said similar above (in 2 places). But vagueness seems to come with the territory (perhaps partly because B-M was only published 10 yrs after he died ...). I can't today access B-M p. 17 where he summarizes his conclusions on dating, but it covers a long stretch, as I recall. From a google search they "occur mainly in Anglo-Saxon burials of the 6th and 7th centuries AD" but were at least often "antiques" when buried. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• If the Scandinavian examples date to the Viking period, does that mean that they post-date the ones in Anglo-Saxon burials? The Viking Age is usually taken to start in 793, but that seems Anglo-centric and I do not know whether it is taken to start earlier in Scandinavia. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• See B-M p. 43 (part of Raven's bit). C10th and (slightly less common) C9th are the Scandi burial dates, where we know them. Johnbod (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• So Scandi examples are much later, but that might be because by 9C the Anglo-Saxons no longer buried with grave goods, not necessariy because they had stopped using hanging bowls? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that's right. The remarkable (and remarkably lost, after being exhibited in 1868) Witham bowl from the River Witham in Lincs. is dated by B-M to the late 8th or early 9th century. Perhaps significantly, this doesn't seem to come from a burial. B-M pp. 208-212. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Two notes that are relevant to the above discussion. First, Bruce-Mitford's conclusions on dating (2005, p. 40) is as follows: The main conclusions reached in this chapter on the dating of the hanging-bowls are as follows. The origins of the series is firmly placed in the late and early sub-Roman bowl-making industry, and Brenan's proposition that there was no continuity is not accepted. It is maintained that there was no bowl-making industry in Ireland before the eighth century, although the ornamental background of at least one group of bowls, the fine-line group, was well established there during the sixth century. Hanging-bowls were used in late Roman and early sub-Roman contexts, and the Faversham (1) (Corpus no. 37), Finningley (1) and (2) bowls (Corpus nos. 109-10), and the Newham Bog (1) (Corpus no. 71), and Silch-ester (Group 2, no. 5) escutcheons are (or may be) all examples of this. A bowls are by and large confined to the fifth and sixth centuries. The B bowls and the folded rim are a seventh-century development, and the folded rim everywhere supersedes the straight in-bent rim that descended from the late Roman bowls of Irchester type. However, some A bowl traditions continue, in not clearly apparent circumstances, into the seventh and later centuries. With the exception of the Wilton bowl (Corpus no. 97) and any others that may have shared its peculiarity (riveting on of the escutcheons), A bowls and B bowls had soldered escutcheons, following the Roman tradition. Riveting of escutcheons is found later in the C bowls, and becomes thereafter universal. C bowls are dated generally to the seventh/eighth century and D and E bowls are the last in the series and date to the eighth-eleventh centuries and even possibly later. Second, there's a 1999 article (doi:10.1080/00766097.1999.11735623; not cited in B-M 2005, probably because it's posthumous) that expressly argues that hanging bowls—whatever their broader dates of manufacture and use—were only deposited in Anglo-Saxon graves in the 7th and 8th centuries. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the typing. Some of this could go into our main Hanging bowl, by a professional archaeologist, but rather short. For this article, one might simplify by restricting/distinguishing between this type of hanging bowl, and other later ones. Mind you, B-M doesn't seem to commit himself as to which of his letter types the bits come from. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• (Much as I'd love to take credit for the typing, this is a very handy tool.) I've edited the line about use to clarify that Vikings were amongst those who used the bowls, and added some of the above (namely, the article by Helen Geake) about when hanging bowls were included in Anglo-Saxon graves. We could add a discussion of the different bowls types, but I think that would be better placed in the main hanging bowl article, especially because here, the bowl itself (as opposed to the escutcheons) no longer survives—likely why Bruce-Mitford does not discuss what type of bowl the Benty Grange example was. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• "wayside drinking vessels of the sort Edwin of Northumbria is said to have provided travellers". to or for travellers.

• "for" it is. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• "stuck the back of one fragment" "stuck on the back of one fragment"?

• Fixed (went with "stuck to"). --Usernameunique (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 11:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Further comments

• The one outstanding point I see from the discussion above is "Celtic populations". The term "Celtic" is controversial in this context and "British" would be better.

• The problem with British, as a standalone term, is that it seems much more ambiguous than Celtic. The current sentence refers to Celtic populations in Britain, and we'd be changing to British populations in Britain—a phrase that could just as well include Anglo-Saxons in it. Per Johnbod's comment above, we could perhaps go with something along the lines of native Romano-British populations, although it's somewhat clunky. Bruce-Mitford 2005 unabashedly uses the word Celtic: No one doubts that the great majority of the bowls are of Celtic manufacture. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Bruce-Mitford died in 1995 and in his time the term "Celtic" as applied to people was not controversial, which it is now among academic historians. I am now away and do not have access to my books, but in British people see: "In this sub-Roman Britain, as Anglo-Saxon culture spread across southern and eastern Britain and Gaelic through much of the north, the demonym "Briton" became restricted to the Brittonic-speaking inhabitants of what would later be called Wales, Cornwall, North West England (Cumbria), and a southern part of Scotland (Strathclyde).". Changing "They appear to have been manufactured by Celtic populations in Britain in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." to "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." would not be unclear. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Usernameunique that an unexpanded "British" is at least as likely to be misunderstood or mislead as "Celtic". I'm not sure how "controversial" Celtic actually is - everybody agrees it is a weak term, with a lot of baggage, but it is univerally understood. I note that Leslie Webster's 2012 book has "...been argued that in the sixth century the majority of bowls were made by Celtic populations within Britain ..." and later "as the A-S kingdoms extended" the workshops seem to have retreated to modern Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster was an art historian using a term almost always avoided by historians of early medieval Britain. The first volume of the Oxford History of Wales by Thomas Charles-Edwards is called Wales and the Britons, meaning excluding the Anglo-Saxons, and he obviously regards it as an unproblematic usage as he used it in the book title. He writes of central Scotland being disputed between the Britons, Picts, Irish and English. Britons is used in the same sense in Barbara Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages and in the two modern academic histories of the period, The Anglo-Saxon World by Nicholas Higham and Martin Ryan, and the first volume of the Cambridge History of Britain, Early Medieval Britain by Rory Naismith (Professor of Early Medieval English History at Cambridge University, who is the reviewer I referred to above who objected to my use of "Celtic" in an article for the WikiJournal of Humanities, see comment RNN16 in [5]). The only exception I can find is the article on Celts in the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, which described them as various groups of peoples in Europe and Asia Minor, including Britain. We should not use a term in a sense regarded as problematic by almost all specialists on early medieval Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, we know all that! Webster (who is still alive) is a historian too, and a very distinguished one! Art historians, including "specialists on early medieval Britain" (only a couple of whom seem to feature in your impressive library list) are at once perhaps more conscious of the issues around "Celtic" than general/political historians, and less at the same time scared of using the term for this period. You might recall the name of the British Museum exhibition a few years ago. The issue is - what does Randy from Boise" make of a plain "British"? As I've said several times above, unpacking and explaining these terms is best for those readers who haven't read the Oxford History of Wales etc. What that review note actually says is "Commented [RNN16]: Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." which is certainly true. But to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’ here is not an option, as these areas seem to be firmly where hanging bowls were not made at this period. "British" in the A-S period has its own, much less well-rehearsed, issues - when do the "British" in modern England stop being British? Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• My suggestion is: "They appear to have been manufactured by Britons in the post-Roman period, with examples also used by Anglo-Saxons (who likely received bowls via trade) and, later, by Vikings." The meaning of "Britons" here seems to me clear to anyone from the context. However, you raise a point I was not aware of. I assumed that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made. So were they made by native Britons in AS areas? This should be clarified in the article. Of course you raise valid points about "British", but disputing historians' usage and using a term they reject because they have not discussed the issues is OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• You suggested above "How about "They appear to have been manufactured by British craftsmen in the post-Roman period (fifth and sixth centuries)." Just saying. The little we know on locations (essentially find-spots rather than evidence of manufacture) is summarized below. They may have been made in areas the A-S hadn't quite got to at that point - see Webster. Later on they probably were made in Ireland. There is I think nothing in the article to encourage you to assume "that Wales and Ireland was where the bowls were made", except the mention of "Celtic" style, but it might be best to head off that idea somehow. Btw, why not Scotland? The evidence for manufacture there is far stronger than for Wales or Ireland. Since the mere mention of "Celtic" seems to immediately generate different assumptions - Iron Age for Undercover Classicist, & Wales & Ireland for Dudley, I really think as clear as possible a statement of what is meant (and not meant) is needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

• I should have mentioned Dumnonia and Strathclyde as well as Wales and Ireland. I did not include Scotland as it did not exist at that period and I would be interested to know where in Scotland the bowls were made. The south-east is presumably possible before it was anglicised at an early date by the Northumbrians. Strathclyde is likely but it was not yet part of Scotland. Dal Riata covering the western seaboard of Scotland and north-east Ireland is likely. I assume Pictland is unlikely as it was a separate culture in the far north. A discussion of the areas and dates of manufacture would bypass the need to choose between Celtic and British. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Dudley Miles, this is taken from p. 225 of Wales and the Britons by Charles-Edwards: Hanging-bowls, a form of thin copper-alloy bowl designed to be suspended from three or four hooks, provide evidence for a quite different pattern of exchange. They usually have Celtic decoration but are mainly found in Anglo-Saxon graves of the period 550–650. When they have been repaired locally in the area in which they are found, the craftsmanship of the repairs is sufficiently different from that of the original manufacture to show that they were imports from somewhere else. They were not made by Celtic craftsmen working for Anglo-Saxon employers in eastern Britain; and thus the Celtic form of decoration is the best guide to their place of origin. Unfortunately it is not known from where in Celtic Britain or Ireland they were imported into Anglo-Saxon England. This uncertainty is itself, however, a symptom of the shared material culture on either side of the Irish Sea and reaching up into the Hebrides. That shared material culture began to emerge in the fifth century, as shown by the development of one fourth-century British type of Brooch into the standard form, the pennanular brooch, class 1, in both Celtic Britain and Ireland and at very much the same date. And per Youngs 2009 p. 228 (doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264508.003.0009), I suggest that enamelled hanging-bowls were originally made in some of the most prosperous centres of British Britain from the mid-sixth century, from the lower Severn Valley to the Moray Firth, though not in the poorer western areas that were to become bastions of medieval Celtic culture, Cornwall and highland Wales, and that the fashion for such bowls was exported to Ireland much later than the first wave of brooches and pins of c.400. My view (which is a polite term for a guess) is that we should be looking, after the domination of Rheged, the creation of Wessex and fall of Elmet in 617, at the Strathclyde, Scottish Dál Riata and Pictish areas. It is always tempting to look at Scottish Dál Riata as a west-coast gateway for the exchange of goods and ideas with the rest of Ireland, not just in the context of the Columban foundation on Iona. There had been traffic with neighbouring north Britain since prehistoric times. Was the situation in former Roman Britain in the sixth to seventh centuries analogous with the effect of the Roman invasion on the Celtic kingdoms of Britain? The latter is argued to have resulted in an earlier influx of British metalwork into Ireland, particularly the midlands and the north. Did the successful Anglo-Saxon military campaigns of the period lead to a production shift north and west, following established marriage alliances, trading and ecclesiastical connections? The bowls in the Anglo-Saxon territories represent any one or all of the following: loot, tribute, prestige gifts, marriage portions, local trade, originating with British elites. These vessels were often old, mended and frequently incomplete when buried by their finnal owners. Smiths are mobile, but so too are patrons. --03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC) Usernameunique (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've added this line: One possibility is that they were originally made by populations outside the sphere of Anglo-Saxon control, such as in the Severn Valley in southwest England to the Moray Firth in Scotland, and—as the Anglo-Saxons extended their domain—were manufactured in progressively northern places, such as Dál Riata, Strathclyde, and Pictland, with the tradition ultimately taking root in Ireland also. (Fun fact: this FAC is now twice the length of the article.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Let's make it even longer That framing seems imply that "the Anglo-Saxons" were a single political unit (in particular, the phrase extended their domain and perhaps the phrase Anglo-Saxon control). Is that accurate? If not, would suggest something like "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms/polities/realms/similar extended their domains...". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• How about "the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms extended their territories". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, used that wording. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• I think that the reference for the image should be in the image description as well as in the article.

• It's in the footnote: "After Bruce-Mitford & Raven 2005, pl. 3." --Usernameunique (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the article footnote. But the the description in c:File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg is just "Design used on 7th century Bowl." This is too vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Good call. I've expanded both the description and attribution. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "141 were from Britain and Ireland, 26 from Norway, and 7 from elsewhere in Europe." There are several issues. 1. MOS forbids - if I remember correctly - starting a sentence with a number in figures. 2. Is no breakdown of the figure for Britain and Ireland available? Anglo-Saxon areas, Wales, Cornwall, Ireland? 3. Europe should be "mainland Europe".

• (You're correct about the MOS.) I've reworded to Within the British Isles, England accounted for 117, Scotland for 7, and Ireland for 17; elsewhere, Norway accounted for 26, and the remainder of Europe for 7. I don't think Bruce-Mitford gives a more detailed breakdown (although it could be at least partially compiled from the bowl-by-bowl breakdown), though he notes that The bowls have come to light in all parts of the British Isles, from Shetland to the Isle of Wight, except for Wales, and Devon and Cornwall. Of those European (but not Norwegian) 7, meanwhile, I don't think "mainland" works, since Sweden accounts for a bowl. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Webster says, "some 150 bowls or bowl fittings are known from Britain (before 700)... most of them from England". Also 4 from Ireland. But B-M has more on this, maps at least. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• The Continental Europe article says "The Scandinavian Peninsula is sometimes also excluded as, even though it is a part of "mainland Europe"", so it covers Sweden, but this is a minor issue as "Europe" is often used - wrongly in my opinion - to exclude the UK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• "The Benty Grange hanging bowl is typically dated to the second half of the seventh century". "typically" is an odd word in this context. Maybe "dated by most experts" Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I wonder how many experts have actually made their own assessments, rather just following B-M. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dudley Miles. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks very much for all your input, Dudley Miles. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• PS. I see that Charles-Edwards refers to "Celtic craftsmen" and this seems better than "Celtic populations". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  And better than "British Britain", which Youngs uses! Changed to "Celtic makers" so as to not gender it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Image and source review[edit]

Image placement is OKish. File:Benty Grange hanging bowl escutcheon design.svg should probably say that the underlying design is PD. Otherwise it seems like licencing is OK. Personally I tend to think that the ALT text needs to convey the same information on appearance as the image would, not merely say what the image is. Source-wise, spot-check upon request. Why do Liestøl 1953 and the 19th century Bateman sources have no page numbers in the References section? What do "pp. 223, pl. 73.", "pp. 223, 223 n.4." and "pp. 46–47, 47 n.a." stand for? Is Thomas Bateman (antiquary) a high-quality reliable source? Same question for William Henry Goss. I see there is some inconsistency in which information is provided by which sources - some books have ICCNs and/or ISBNs and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a PD template for the design. --Usernameunique (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Added better alt text—have deserved to be called out on that for a while. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bateman works are being cited as a whole (in essence, "he published X book", followed by a cite to the book). For Liestøl, the whole article is about the idea being cited (that hanging bowls may have been vessels for liturgical use). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"pl." stands for "plate". "n." stands for "note" (as in footnote 4 or footnote a). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Bateman and Goss are being cited as contemporaneous sources, not for modern analysis, and are high quality reliable sources in that context. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Added a missing ISBN. The intention, however, is to have book cites include whatever numbers (primarily ISBNs and LCCNs) with which they were printed; depending on age, some have one, both, or neither. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, thanks for the review—particularly appreciate you taking it so quickly after it was posted. Replies above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Be warned that this isn't a field where I can instinctively recognize the relative reliability of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: Just a courtesy ping to let you know that all comments have now been addressed. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2023 [6].

---

Red Clay State Historic Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Bneu2013 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about a state park in southeastern Tennessee that was the site of the last capital of the Cherokee Nation in the eastern United States before the Cherokee removal, without a doubt one of the most tragic and shameful events in American history. Here, from 1832 to 1838, the Cherokee fought to retain their ancestral lands, before they were forcibly removed under the enforcement of the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Arguably the location where the Trail of Tears really began, today Red Clay State Historic Park preserves one of the most historically significant sites in the state of Tennessee and Southeastern United States. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done.

• File:Cherokee-eternal-flame-tn1.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: - I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what the issue is. The photo is the work of the uploader. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• • • The photo is, yes - but what is shown in the photo is not. US copyright law does not include freedom of panorama for 3D works other than buildings, so we need to include some sort of tag indicating the status of that work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Eddie[edit]

Tentative oppose (with sadness), primarily on comprehensiveness. Looking at other FAs on state parks, there is much more detail on climate, geology, the site itself. I think you ought to be able to add information in regards to these factors. For instance, there is only one sentence worth of information about the Blue Hole Spring, which seems significant to the point that you ought to be able to say more. Have you been able to access/find the NRHP nomination form? That may be a valuable source. Has there been anything else scholarly published since 1980? I also have some concerns about the sourcing-- for instance, FN 38 needs a page number, what makes FN 40 (hosted at tnstateparks.com) reliable, FNs 14 and 15 ought to use the same citation style. It's an interesting article, and you've done a really great job bringing this up from where it was, but I think more is needed. Suggest maybe a peer review before nom. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: - this is primarily a historic park, not a park about a natural feature. Other than the Blue Hole Spring, there really aren't any "interesting" features to talk about. There are a few sentences about the geography and physiography of the park (which is in no way unique to the area it is located), as well as endangered species. This is also a relatively small park at just 263 acres. Also, have you read the article thoroughly? There is more than one sentence about the Blue Hole Spring. tnstateparks.com is an official website of the Tennessee State government, and Lillard and Ehle use different citation styles because the latter is only cited twice in the article. The NRHP nomination form should be accessible by following the link. Finally, I have researched this park extensively, and have not found any scholarly studies on the site since 1980 other than the 2019 study that is cited. Bneu2013 (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the Blue Hole Spring, I got distracted in read-through. Apologies on that. My point was more that if you're going to say something is "iconic", I'd expect to see some explanation why, beyond that present in the article. If it is widely represented, what shows that? Do quantifiable numbers of people visit the spring? Is its image widely published? Is it well-known? See MOS:PUFFERY.
Information like climate factors should be accessible, and is, imo, relevant to any park with oudoors recreation activities.
However, are you sure there's nothing else? The first thing I found on a search was this 300+ page 2021 PhD thesis by a seemingly qualified author that could arguably be reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and at the very least probably has some other potential sources. For Lillard and Ehle, you should pick between sfn or harvp. Your link to FN 1 doesn't point to the NRHP form, at least for me. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

this book suggests that Kelton, Cherokee Medicine may also hold more information, and itself includes the quote "Creeks nevertheless suggest that Red Clay is their territory", something I don't see mentioned in the article. What about this guidebook? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Edit: I found the NRHP nomination form. Pitifully under-detailed. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to strike my oppose because there's definitely less written on this park than I thought there was, the nominator is clearly editing in good faith, and peer review would probably have been an exercise in futility based upon how few people head over there to comment. I would still like to hear back about some of these points, however. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If I remember right, Corn's book refers to the spring as "iconic", but I'll have to find my copy. If I had to guess why, it's because the blue hue of the spring is a rarity in this area. I believe there's also something in there about the mineralogical explanation for the blue hue; I'll try to add a sentence about that. The thesis, which I must admit I have not read, is by the same person who authored the study that is cited in the article, but I'll take a look at it. With regards to whether there are "other sources" about this park, there are a lot of books and scholarly works that briefly mention it, such as books about the history of Native Americans or Tennessee for example. But I know of no other books, studies, etc., that extensively go into depth about the history of this site, other than the ones that are with cited in this article, or are the partial sources for sources in the article. Also, with regards to the "Creeks nevertheless suggest that Red Clay is their territory", this may refer to the state of Georgia (or another location), which is known for its red clay soils. It certainly does not refer to the council grounds. I the meantime, I will take a look later today at the dissertation and see if I can find any other sources about the history of this place, as well as make the changes you suggested. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Update - actually, I had totally forgot about this, but there was a minor controversy related to the establishment of the state park where the Creeks were critical of the park because they had inhabitated the area prior to the Cherokee. I don't remember any thing about the council grounds being an important site to them, however; I think it was just the area. But I will take a look at this. On a related note, I have actually wondered about the history of the site prior to the relocation of the Cherokee Nation (i.e., when did Red Clay become an important site to the Cherokee). As far as I have been able to find, information about this is scant, so it's likely that we really don't know. But I haven't seen any sources that explicitly say this. Maybe the thesis also has some information about this too. Bneu2013 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want me to check out what Kelton has to say on it, I would be happy to. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

re "other sources", I just think it kinda odd we don't have a single book source (to my eyes, on a skim) from the past 20 years, especially for citing history of a Native American tribe, the studies of which have been greatly improved in recent decades. Can you replace any of the sources on those topics with more modern book sources, even if they aren't as in depth? For instance, a 40-year old source is probably not the most recent scholarship we can use to cite Before the arrival of the first European settlers, the area was inhabited by the Cherokees, an Iroquoian-speaking people believed to have migrated south from the Great Lakes area, where other Iroquoian tribes arose. Their territory encompassed parts of present-day western North Carolina, western South Carolina, East Tennessee, northern Georgia, and northern Alabama.. I'd want to see the most up-to date stuff as possible where we can. If you're having trouble getting access to more recent publications, WP:REX is a great place to ask. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You can look it up if you'd like. With regards to the books that are 40+ years old, those were both written by local historians, and are primarily about the area, not the history of the Cherokee. I can definitely find more up-to-date sources for the latter, even though generic facts like the one above have been known for a very long time. I shouldn't have trouble finding any of this. Bneu2013 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that local historians are good sources for the local history, just think the Cherokee history can be replaced with more up-to-date sourcing, especially because it likely shouldn't be too hard to do. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to have to wait until this weekend to do any work on this article. 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC) Bneu2013 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Update - Eddie891 - just to let you know, I am currently reading Shelton's thesis, and as such will have my changes made in the next few hours. I'll let you know when I'm done. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence and the updates. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero[edit]

Thoughts

• others= isn't doing what I think you are trying to.
  • Actually it is what I am trying to do because Lillard is the primary author. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • I didn't see that they were editors at first glance. I made the change to make the template mirror the credits given by the publisher. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• I continue my objection to google maps as a high-quality reliable source. There should be a map published by the federal, state, county, or local government that shows the same thing.
  • I'm sorry, but I don't agree with you. If you object to Google Maps as a "high-quality reliable source", then I wouldn't expect you to use it to navigate. But I will replace with a USGS topo map. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Update - I've replaced the GM with USGS, using it to cite forest cover. Shelton is now used to cite the boundaries and roads in the park. I do agree that USGS is a far superior source than GM for physical features, but I do maintain that the latter should be allowed to cite things like roads. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Why is Minges 1998 a high-quality reliable source? us-data.org looks like his personal website to me
  • I don't think this is his personal website, but this wasn't my addition. I will take a look. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Update - replaced with a source from the National Park Service. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe it is because I am in the EU, but tnstateparks.com throws a 403 error for me.
  • That's probably why. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Is Hunter 1972 from Newspapers.com?
  • No; no articles from the Cleveland Daily Banner prior to 1998 are not available online. These were accessed on microfilm at a library. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• Same with Rowland 1978
  • See above. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• 33 pages of Ehle 1988 is a big range for one citation
  • Because this is mentioned more than one time in this book. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • To make spotchecks easier, can you provide the pages you used rather than the range? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
• TNGenWeb should be a via=
  • Done. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Treaties and Land Cessions Involving the Cherokee Nation" is notes from a 2016 undergrad class
  • An undergrad class at Vanderbilt University, one of the most prestigious and top-ranked universities in the world. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
    • It is a SPS by an unknown author. We can't just its reliability. The rank of the university is neither here nor there because I would have the same objection to a similar PDF hosted on ox.ac.uk or mit.edu --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I recommend that this gets archived early and is renominated only after a close look at the citations. This is just what I found after a quick review. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I am reviewing the citations now, but I do not agree that all of these are problems or that this should be archived early. I will update when I am finished. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero and Eddie891: - Unfortunately something has come up which is hindering my activity on Wikipedia, but I will try to address your remaining comments over the next few days. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Given the issues on sourcing, can I suggest this is withdrawn and worked on away from FAC before being returned? There is no downside to this step and the article would be in a better shape for a smoother run at FAC? - SchroCat (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. After careful consideration, I would like to withdraw this nomination. While I do think the sourcing issues are a bit overblown, they do need some work. Also it looks like I'm not going to be able to be as active over the next few weeks as I'd hoped, so I should probably wait. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 21 December 2023 [7].

---

Begotten (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is about the 1989 American experimental horror film Begotten, after two failed nominations in regards to sourcing and structure, I have done a complete revision by removing unreliable sources, adding more reliable ones and revising some problematic portions while updating the material when it was necessary.Paleface Jack (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wingwatchers[edit]

Finally a film article at FAC. I will post comments/suggestions shortly. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "According to art historian Scott MacDonald, the film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations." such as what? I wouldn't recommend shoving it to a single art historian because the lead is supposed to be written in a summary style. Rewrite that sentence to reflect the themes of in the body and avoid attributing to any single author. For example just explicitly say that the "The film's allegorical qualities and purposeful ambiguity invite multiple interpretations including XXX.

I am gonna redo that and make a separate paragraph that summarizes the film's themes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest relocating the theme part after the plot in the lead and remove the part about Merhige acknowledging the thematic elements since it doesn't really provide any real content basis. You have already mentioned the "mythic and religious elements" and mentioning it is "intentionally incorporated into the film." is not very important or useful either. In addition, I would also suggest replacing the word argued with critiqued and readjusting it so it transitions well from the plot part wherever you see fit. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Reworded it a little and placed it after the plot section lead as you suggested.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to have it placed after the story in the same paragraph but this also works. Wingwatchers (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I see. my bad. If its fine as how I changed it I will leave it alone. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was shot on location in New York City and New Jersey over a period of three and a half years – although, in an interview, Merhige said filming took only five and a half months." I would think that Merhige's claim is more reliable and accurate since he is directly involved with the film. This sentence is conflicted and I cannot grasp if it is shot over three and a half years or the latter.

I will reword that to reflect the incorrect timespan with Merhige correcting it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Once the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it." -> "After the film was finished, Merhige spent the next two years trying to find a distributor willing to market it."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, with development for the film beginning in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984." -> "Begotten was written, produced, and directed by Merhige, and development began in the mid-to-late 1980s, although some sources list the date as 1984."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Principal photography took place in the mid-to-late 1980s" -> "Principal photography occured in the mid-to-late 1980s"

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the Influences section be part of the production? And we have two sections with confusingly similar names.

That sounds good, I will try to incorporate that into the development sub-section.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Some more comments

• "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." I disliked attributing a director's vision to an interview because it gave the impression that the director's vision was incorrect. I suggest changing it to "Merhige said that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke." to make it more concise and the fact that he stated such things in an interview doesn't necessarily add any context to the sentence.

I agree, did a short rewording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Merhige later stated in an interview that he was drawn by the use of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement to provoke, what Merhige called "an otherworldly response"." "later", as opposed to "early"? To the best of my knowledge, the directors normally revealed a film's development process after that film had been published, so the use of "later" here doesn't make sense. Even if he is stating in retrospect, I would still remove the word "later" because he at the time was indeed drawn by the use of performer.

Redid it a bit to say "Merhige has stated he was drawn to the utilization of performers creating a highly visualized form of storytelling through dramatic movement".--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project," "next project"? What is his first project?

From all my diggin, I have not found the exact productions he directed and have only found sources that have stated that he previously worked on some with Theatreofmaterial.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing his next project, which was initially for the theater." I am sorry if the "next project" is Begotten. This sentence doesn't make any sense since the first paragraph suggests that the film in question is already being developed because you mentioned how he is drawing inspiration from Japanese dance and how he sought to replicate the same group dynamic.

Both Begotten and the start of his interest in film/theatre. The dance troupe planted the seeds for the film and what would become both Begotten and Theatrofmaterial as a background to its maker and what would be the film. Dont know how you feel it could be reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I must have misinterpreted that part as Merhige's general approach to the filmmaking process rather than the film's production itself. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

All is good. I restructured that a little to be more clear.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." I assume that the "next project" is the Begotten but the way it is presented suggests that is another project, which is amplified by the lack of context regarding his "earlier projects". The way I look at it, it can be reworded to "After working on several different experimental theater productions, he began developing the film, which was initially for the theater." although I am still puzzled on how the fact he is intrigued by Japanese dances and sought to replicate Japanese group dynamic is relevant here since he began developing the film "after working on several different experimental theater productions". His Japanese vision based on my understanding is for the theater rather than the film itself.

reworded that starting sentance as the first paragraph is meant as background information leading up to the film's development.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was thought out as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra." -> "As Merhige later recalled, the original concept for the film was conceived as a dance production at the Lincoln Center, which was set in front of a live orchestra."

This has been reworded.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria, Merhige revealed that the film itself had also been an attempt to document many of the thoughts and ideas he was going through at the time, believing that if he did not "get it out there" they would overwhelm him" Remove interviewed in 2013 by horror film magazine Fangoria since it doesn't really add context to the production process. Just Merhige revealed will do.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Still only twenty at the time, he wrote the film's script in six months." Why does his age matter?

I am going off of a couple of FA article's that used the youth of the director as notworthy.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Before working on Begotten, he had previously made several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" -> "Before working on Begotten, he had previously developed several short films such as Implosion (1983), Spring Rain (1984), and A Taste of Youth (1985)" more formal

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "These were well-received, and gave the director the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten" -> "These were well-received, and gave Merhige the experience and insight he needed while working on Begotten"

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Principal photography occurred in the mid-to-late 1980s" most film FA usually use began instead of occurred

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving on to Themes

• How did critics identify so many themes when the film itself received "little to no" critical attention? Do you mean scholars? Kane is not a critic so this should be changed to both critics and scholars.

The few that even bothered to review it pointed these things out. But, you are right most are scholars.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• " who noted the film's intentional grainy and decayed visual style functioned as an allegory of uncertainty to what she referred to as "the hermeneutic of the image" note" is only to be used for facts, whereas this is interpretation.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Alternately, critic David Annwn Jones noted the film's use of certain underminings of 1930s horror films such as Dracula and Frankenstein (both released in 1931)" Same thing

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• You really like using stated and noted as opposed to said, see MOS:SAID. Said is in no way informal and is a very consistent and concise way to express academic interpretations.

Alright, will adjust accordingly.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• Removed all instances like "In her review of Merhige's third film Suspect Zero for the Los Angeles Times," "Author and independent filmmaker", "Film and literary scholar" because it would be very lengthy and dull to address people's journals and professions. See FA The Empire Strikes Back#Thematic analysis as an example.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Instances such as "we are encouraged to mourn the film's characters (father/mother/son) through the agony and torment inflicted upon them." are written in a non-encyclopedic tone.

Any suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Dont know. Just avoid using "we". Wingwatchers (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I will tinker with it a little. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the quote "We would breathe to the point of hysteria and create these moments of panic. Afterwards, we would analyze what the experience was all about. It was an intimate science" is genuine. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

How so?--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Redid the quote to specify the director's intention. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• In retrospect, author and independent filmmaker John Kenneth Muir is not a critic, so the previous statement, "Several critics have noted that Begotten contains an underlying theme of death and rebirth,[1][12][20] recurring throughout most of the director's works. [22]" would be incorrect.

Removed that title to reflect that because his books are partial reviews on horror films and because of the previous problem of extended titles being long and unnecessary.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• Instances such as "Merhige acknowledged" should be converted to "said" because it conveys that the film was indeed "deliberately arranged to appear as part of a mythology" but the statement itself is of his own interpretation.

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Wingwatchers, I think all of your comments have been addressed. Do you have any come backs and/or further comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil[edit]

Still reading through, but just to note the quality of sources has improved significantly since the last FAC. Am a major fan of this style of horror. Placeholder. Ceoil (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it took a while and some suggestions/digging to find satisfactory, High quality sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can this be held open for a week please, would like to review but life events have happened. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing Paleface Jack (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Ceoil was probably addressing the coordinators :-) . Sure Ceoil, in anticipation of one of your thorough reviews, we can hold it for a week. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Sound Gog, and to hold myself to that deadline, have always though your innovation of reminding reviewers is most helpful. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Leaning support and trilled to see this at FAC - feel free to revert any edits made during my re-read...

lead:

• Link motifs. Also motifs are not so much "explored" as placed or employed.

altered in the body and lead.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• conquer the earth through various means - last bit is redundant. Also the claim is vague, would be good to expand here.

Reworked.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• were major influences on Begotten, as Merhige believed their ideas and theories had not been explored in film to their full extent

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• As the first part of a trilogy would drop this as the next two claims say the same thing

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Plot:

• Rephrase barren landscape", which is used three times in this sect

Changed to desolate.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Good choice. Ceoil (talk)

General

• would put the cast section much lower in the TOC. Also, the Brian Salzberg and Donna Dempsey entries here are uncited. And do we need "which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen"...which seems to credit extras

The Son of Earth credit is cited due to the actor reappearing in Merhige's later works. The extras cast listing is there in fitting with other Featured articles that list extras if they are significant.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Principal photography lasted from a period of "three and five-and-a-half months". Guessing that it lasted three months, with some additional shots after 5 and a half months.

Unknown, most information I found only listed as this and not describing the half month period.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is a real mouthful and diffucult to parse - can you break down pls - While comparing Begotten's opening sequence to the eye slicing scene in Buñuel's Un Chien Andalou (1929), Film Comment's Robert DiMatteo stated Dimitri Kirsanoff's Ménilmontant (1926), tribal art, ethnographic studies, Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), as well as the paintings of Piero della Francesca as possible influences on the film.[12]

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• Have concerns over the reliability of SplicedWire, FilmThreat.com & WorldScreen (the last of which gives a lot of pop up ads). Given the film's art house origin and appeal, would have expected more academic analysis.

I did too, I checked out the reliability of all three and they appear to be reliable and sound enough for inclusion as per Wikipiedia guidelines.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• The usual test is editorial oversight; if you can prove this then great, but it needs to be demonstrated with links. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  I will see what I can do. Might do that tomorrow or the day after cause I have work. How do you suggest I go about doing it? Paleface Jack (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

  Removed the questionable sources. Will add more reliable ones when I find them. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

• more to follow Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Just to note, given all the improvements, since the last nom, and during this one, esp wrt to sourcing, am leaning support here. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Nitpicks:

• You revered me on changing who sets out on a journey of death and rebirth through a barren landscape - which is totally fine, but still don't like "barren landscape" as it seems vague and lacking

Redid.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• twenty of her closest friends? (re Sontag) Maybe just 20 people

Would seem a bit more specific and better flowing for the overall structure if it remained as it is.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Eh, dunno. Most people have 3 to 4 close friends, maybe just loose the word "closest" as it seems a bit swoony and pretentious. Ceoil (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• The word "disturbing" is used 13 times. It is certainly that, but can you reduce, especially in the legacy sect, where we have hough initially mixed in his response to the film, Muir has since called Begotten "one of the most disturbing films ever made".[108] Natalia Keogan of Paste described the film as one of the best and the most disturbing avante-garde films.[24] Several publications selected it as one of the most disturbing films, including Highsnobiety (2016),[109] Entertainment Weekly (2017),[94] Screen Rant (2019),[110] NME (2023),[111] Similarly, Begotten has appeared on several lists of the top all-time disturbing...

Redid it to cut down on some of that wording.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• 'Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s - surely it began only once, do you know the actual year?

All sources use this wording so it is hard to tell withough asking the director himself.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometime in mid-to-late 1980s. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Done.Paleface Jack (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

"Development commenced sometime in the mid-to-late 1980s" is in this style, but it still says "Principal photography began in the mid-to-late 1980s". Gog the Mild (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• Film scholars have identified several major themes in Begotten. Merhige has said that he incorporated these themes into the film' - No mention of what those themes are. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  He was referring to the mythological and alchemical themes. Will reword that sentence. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  Worded it so it just says "certain themes", because he wanted to invite audience interpretation. The section elaborates these themes within the subsections. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  reworded to "Merhige has said that he incorporated certain mystic and existential themes into the film" Paleface Jack (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Members of Merhige's theater company Theatreofmaterial – which included Adolpho Vargas, Arthur Streeter, Daniel Harkins, Erik Slavin, James Gandia, Michael Phillips, and Terry Andersen – provided credits for other characters in the film such as the Nomads and Robed Figures - dont get provided credits for - 'are credited as, or played? Ceoil (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

  reworded for clarity. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paleface Jack, have you addressed all of the comments in this review? If so, could you ping the reviewer. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have. And i messaged them on their page and they have not replied yet. I still need to message the first reviewer which I will do later today. I am confident this will pass as all the issues have been addressed so we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for tardy response, will sign-off in next few days. A spot-check on source is needed, will action. Ceoil (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good mate. Any problematic sources shall he removed accordingly. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Paleface, you shouldn't count on my support just yet; the interpretation sections are very muddled and not well done. Very repetitive and vague; mentioning again and again an archetypal figure - without going into examples of who that might point to. Will clarify this complaint in a few days, but for now, the article seems confused in what specific sources it draws from, and how it interprets them Ceoil (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I will get working on that and complete it as soon as possible. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking over the themes section there are pieces that I am gonna try to reword a little, starting with renaming the section as "Analysis", the suggestions and complaints to that section that you will explain once you get back shall be adressed once that is done. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Great. Look forward. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

For coords, myself and Jack are going to move this discussion to article talk, and report back in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination has not shown signs of moving towards a consensus to promote. Unless this changes over the next day or two, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I will get in touch with the reviewer and see where to go from there. Hopefully there shall be a consensus soon as possible, we shall see. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As there's still no substantial movement towards support, I'm archiving the nomination. I encourage you to continue working on the prose issues with reviewers and see about getting them to sign off on the article before resubmission. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by source comments[edit]

• BroadwayWorld.com (ref #143) is listed on WP:RS/P as "generally unreliable", so shouldn't be used in a Featured article without significant justification.

Removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• There is a fair bit of inconsistency in how sources are presented. For a glaring example, see refs #3 and #128. More generally, some websites/publications are italicised while others aren't. Some list a website and publisher, while others don't. Some give the website address, some give the website name. A quick glance suggests that these issues were raised at the last nom, so should have been resolved prior to this nomination. I would echo some of the queries raised there about whether some of the sources used qualify as "high-quality" per the FA criteria, but I'm not well enough versed in the subject area to be able to offer any real expertise on this.

Yeah, I removed a lot of unreliable and questionable ones while rewriting the entire citation style, so some of that stuff sifted through the cracks in those edits. I will work on that today and get that all sorted out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In terms of listing a website for some of the sources, some of those sources did not come from a website or the "Website" was also the publisher. In some of those cases the publisher was not originally a website so just the publisher is listed. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• There are a few CS1 maintenance errors in the references, it looks like you've got some |ref= tags just duplicating what the reference would naturally be called anyway.

Yeah that might have been the ones that sifted through the cracks of my reference revamp.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Found and fixed the errored citations. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This could really do with a source reviewer who knows the field, if possible. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I tried reaching out to some when editing the article before the nomination this time but no response.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A number of reviews in this and earlier noms wen through the reliability of sources, and from what I can see, all non-formatting issues have now been resolved. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

• Unlinked non-book/journal sources -

1. WorldScreen - ok, "30-year-old publication covering the international media business", publishes in print and online.
2. JoBlo, ie JoBlo.com - seems dodgy - is this not just a very popular/insiderish blog?

   Not to my knowledge. Some major publishers have used it as a source and has been listed as reliable by Rotten Tomatoes.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Fine as listed on the RT Critics List as a "JOBLO - Tomatometer-approved critic"

   Keep, modify or remove? Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Keep as used Ceoil (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

3. shortfilms.org.uk - ok, is the London Short Film Festival[8]
4. World Artists Home Video - Small distribution company, but they are used only to cited that they did actually release the movie on VHS.

   Searching, see that the release is on WorldCat[9]. Maybe use that ref also

   Looking over that, they imply that it was released on VHS in 1989 but there was no such release from newspaper reports, or any other outlet so I am not sure if this would be reliable enough to use as a source. Paleface Jack (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

5. RevistaCinefagia.com - dodgy Ceoil

   See its removed Ceoil (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

6. HorrorNews - dodgy

   That was my original assessment, however, I have seen some literary sources that use that interview as a source. I have also seen some FA horror articles that have that as a source.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   If its an interview and is used for direct quotes only, then am fine with it. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Removed and will find a new review to replace later.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Do you need to though? The article is already quite long. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   True, then again so are many other FA Film articles I have seen. I will not add a review. But later if this nomination passes or not I have found some sources to add (We Got This Covered, is one of them) Paleface Jack (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Review sections can bloat easily with quotes, and as indicated on the talk, I would be more concerned with expanding on the film's visual style and its sources, rather "I liked" "I didn't like" back and forth. Ceoil (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

7. Forum des Images - Fine, well established in the industry, high quality contributors
8. Not sure what to make of "Merhige 2016", which seem's fine it's ex an instagram post by the director. The claim is "On July 29, 2016, Merhige announced via Instagram that the film was to be released for the first time on Blu-ray in the fall of that year" - can we source this from elsewhere. (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Looking over everything and how far down the rabbit hole I went, I could not find an alternate source for that and it does have some reliability if the filmmaker is making that statement.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, was highlighting only to make the point that Instagram< is used only to source that the director made claims on instagram Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

   Ah, alr. Paleface Jack (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

9. The Film Stage - site has editorial oversite, professional RT approved writers who are regularly invited to major film festivals

Spot-checks to follow this evening. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Serial[edit]

Placeholder until tomorrow UTC. ——Serial 19:27, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Realmaxxver[edit]

I will try to get comments by Thursday. Realmaxxver (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• "Its plot draws from various creation myths", "The film is based on various creation myths, including Christian, Celtic mythology, and Slavic paganism." I would suggest removing the first instance of this in the lead, as it it kind of repetitive.

Rewrote that based on your comment.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Begotten was conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, but was switched to film after..." --> "Conceived as an experimental theatre piece with dance and live musical accompaniment, Begotten was switched to film after..."

Done.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

I'd really like to see this article hit FA status, and it's clear how much work has gone into it (and how improved it is compared to when I last looked).

• Opening paragraph requires work. Repetition of word 'violence', creation myths mentioned twice, and the sentence about 'narrative motifs' (without details of those motifs) is pretty useless. I worry that the second paragraph then returns to issues around silent films and influences; the structure of the lead could be a little better, I think.

Done

• "Mother Earth and her son appear in a flashback" Do we know it's a flashback?

I think that was added in a copyedit by another user, while the scene is reminiscent of the beginning where Mother Earth and her son walk through a dead forest. Some reviews suggest this is a flashback so I will reword it a little for context.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "consisted of a handful of core members highly in tune with one another, knowing each other completely on both a professional and personal level" This doesn't come across as that neutral

Did a little tinkering with the sentence.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• " producing several theater productions" Repetition

removed.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Be consistent in your use (or non-use) of the Oxford comma

I will try my best.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• You discuss the writing of the script after mentioning the start of production; is script writing part of the production, or did it come prior to the production? You mention his earlier films after that; I wonder if this section would benefit from being a little more chronological?

Did a little resituating of things.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• "the group followed up by discussing these experiences, filtering the and emotions into something he could replicate for the film" Incomplete

Incomplete in what way?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Final sentence of the development section could be much smoother.

Redid it a little.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• " it was intended that the visuals had a decayed look" Beware of passive voice. Who intended this?

reworked to reflect Merhige's intention

• "through analog format, with the development of Begotten realizing the filmmaker's ideas through this format" Repetition

removed--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Repetiton in discusion of Robert DiMatteo

Where at?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Reached the end of the production section. I think the prose probably needs a bit more work before this is FA-ready. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, prose needs work and I am still trying to learn how best to do that. Any Suggestions?--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2023 [10].

---

Parliament Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Parliament Hill is home to Canada's government. It contains the Houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, the Library of Parliament, and other important buildings. Thanks to Reidgreg for his detailed GAN review more than 2 years ago (crazy how time flies, eh?) — Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 18:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC[edit]

Hi Aknell4 and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

• As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
• You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

• Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
• Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
• Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
• Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

• Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
• Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Don't use fixed px size
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Hill-old.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:Hill-old.jpg is missing a US tag. Ditto File:Construction_of_central_parliament_building.jpg, File:Cartier-sm.jpg, File:Victoria-sm.jpg, File:Mackenzie-sm.jpg, File:Harper-sm.jpg, File:Brown-sm.jpg, File:McGee-sm.jpg, File:Baldwin-sm.jpg, File:Lafontaine-sm.jpg, File:The_Honourable_Sir_Wilfrid_Laurier_Photo_C_(HS85-10-16873)_-_medium_crop.jpg, File:Borden-sm.jpg, File:Pearson-sm.jpg, File:Persons-sm.jpg
  • Done. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Some of these will also need publication dates added. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:Feu-de-joie_at_Ottawa,_1868.jpg: when was this first published? Ditto File:Macdonald-sm.jpg
  • Both of these files have publish dates. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
    • Both of the files have dates; how do you know they are publication dates? I don't see that at the given sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• File:S-Macdonald-sm.jpg has contradictory licensing information: the Permission field says its in the public domain, but the tag is CC. Which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. The original photo was taken off of Flickr, so I deleted the field that said in the public domain. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

First comments

• You write in the lead, "It accommodates a suite of Gothic revival buildings whose architectural elements are of national symbolic importance, including the Parliament of Canada."... but I cannot find anywhere else in the body of the text where you use "National" or "symbolic" in this sense.
  • Changed it. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• "The Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) is responsible for law enforcement on Parliament Hill and in the parliamentary precinct" YOu write this in the lead, but don't use the abbreviation in the text and don't state this in the text either, only in the lead
  • Changed it. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

THese are my first thoughts when reading the article! --TheUzbek (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose from Airship[edit]

Welcome to FAC. I'm sorry to say that I don't quite think this article is FA-standard yet. It's hard to define, but after a little bit of thought I think that there is a general pattern of disorganisation, almost certainly because of a reliance on disparate online pages rather than individual high-quality reliable sources. I'll provide a brief outline of my thinking below#.

• The lead section primarily summarizes the history section; per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the Grounds and name section as well. This is a GA requirement.
  • The only part of the lead that does deal with the grounds and name section is the sentence "Parliament Hill attracts approximately three million visitors each year", also featuring prominently in the infobox. The source for this statement dates to 2007.
  • Added summary of Grounds and name. Let me know if I need to add anything else to the lead. Aknell4 (talk · contribs) 03:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
• The "Fire, incidents, and renovations" subsection, sourced to unconnected web pages, feels disjointed. "Incidents" are described in varying detail—one shooting incident names the perpetrator but no-one else, while the other includes significant unnecessary detail, such as the names of everyone but the perpetrator. They are separated by a paragraph on a memorial and commemorating royalty, which feels rather out of place. I would recommend that the "incidents" be separated from information about two reconstructions, and that they be organised thematically.
• The "Parliament Buildings" subsection does not adequately expand on the information already present in the history section.
• There are a fair few occasions where prose is unnecessary or too unclear. E.g. "marking their journeys to the interior of the continent" is unnecessary; "for which 298 drawings were submitted. The number of entries was reduced to three" does not mean what you want it to be.

This article has potential; however the prose and sourcing must be improved from its current state. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything in "Further reading" should probably be used as a source. The lack of books and peer-reviewed articles raises questions about the breath of research done. I recommend that the coords archive this to allow for the the nominator to do more research. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord note

Based on he above I'll be archiving this shortly. I see there was a Peer Review a few months ago but it was pretty brief and another might be warranted. Aknell, you'd also be eligible to try the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [11].

---

Mark Murphy (American football executive)[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Mark Murphy is the current president of the Green Bay Packers, an American football team in the National Football League (NFL). Unlike most NFL teams, the Packers are owned by a publicly-held, non-profit corporation (Green Bay Packers, Inc.) that is led by an elected board of directors. Murphy was elected to the presidency of the organization in 2007, assuming the roles in 2008. Prior to this role, he played for the Washington Redskins for 8 seasons, received his undergrad, masters and JD degrees, served as an athletic director for two colleges and worked for the NFL Players Association.

This will be my third FAC, after Bob Mann and Packers sweep. Thank you for taking the time to review the article. Look forward to resolving any concerns promptly. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

The use of non-independent sources (Commanders.com, Packers.com, ColgateAthletics.com, and NFL.com) and questionable ones (BuffaloSportsHallFame.com) makes me think this article isn't ready for prime time --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, thank you for your input and happy to work with you if there are specific statements that would be better backed up by a different source or removed altogether. That said, context matters; none of the statements supported by the sources you identified are contentious or questionable, nor are any of the sources unduly praiseworthy/harsh. Within the realm of reporting on sports figures, many details just aren't reported on by scholarly sources. That said, I'll take a look and see if some of the existing sources can replace some of the ones you noted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, just as a note of some progress: I replaced or removed all instances of Commanders.com and BuffaloSportsHallFame.com. I also replaced all instances of NFL.com except for one and Packers.com except for two. Still working on ColgateAthletics.com. I'm guessing you have concerns about the American.edu source as well? I'll see what I can do with those. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, more progress: I have removed or replaced American.edu and ColgateAthletics.com. Regarding this NFL.com source, are you opposed to its inclusion in this article. It covers two statements regarding the changes the NFL made due to Covid-19, both of which are not controversial. It is also authored by Judy Battista, a former New York Times journalist with a good reputation. Still looking on the Packers.com sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Guerillero, I removed or replaced the NFL.com source and the Packers.com bio of Murphy. That leaves the press release by the Packers. Are you opposed to this source, considering context and the statements that it supports (which are generally not controversial or overly praiseworthy/critical). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:26, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

• "a position he would hold until 2007" => "a position he held until 2007"
• "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011, made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016 and Rodgers won four MVP awards" => "The Packers won Super Bowl XLV in 2011 and made the playoffs eight straight seasons from 2009 to 2016, and Rodgers won four MVP awards"
• "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three" sports" - that looks weird with the last word outside the quote marks. If the word wasn't in the original quote, I'd be tempted to present it as "to receive a "white letter, as the outstanding performer in his sport, for all three [sports]"."
• "Halfway through his freshmen year" - freshmAn, surely? I'd also link this as it is not a commonly understood word outside the United States
• "During his junior year" - link this term too
• "as the Redskins starting safety" => "as the Redskins' starting safety"
• "17-straight points" - no reason for that hyphen
• "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career though," => "The 1983 NFL season was Murphy's finest of his career, though,"
• "The Redskins would go on to play in" => "The Redskins went on to play in"
• "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the Redskins' representative" => "During his time with the Redskins, Murphy was the team's representative" (less repetitive)
• "his prominent role in the strike shortened led to" - this doesn't seem to make sense, are there words missing?
• "he worked on player counseling program," => either "he worked on a player counseling program," or "he worked on player counseling programs,"
• "Murphy returned to his alma mater in 1992 " - I would re-name the university as it's been a long time since it was mentioned before
• "with two bowl games" - what is a "bowl game"?
• "the Packers announced Murphy as the organization's ele president" - what's an "ele president"?
• "The lock out ended in July 2011" - isn't lockout one word?
• Fort McCoy image caption is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
• "This mixed use development would provide new commercial space" - in the lead "mixed use" had a hyphen....?
• "The 2017 season saw the Packers consecutive playoff appearance streak end" => "The 2017 season saw the Packers' consecutive playoff appearance streak end"
• "to be the Packers 15th head coach" => "to be the Packers' 15th head coach"
• "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers starting quarterback" => "one of his worst statistical seasons as the Packers' starting quarterback"
• "in this case Love, as the Packers new starting quarterback" => "in this case Love, as the Packers' new starting quarterback"
• "The Packers record since he became president" => "The Packers' record since he became president"
• "Murphy noted in his remaining years as president, he would" => "Murphy noted that in his remaining years as president he would"
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, thank you for the review. I believe I addressed all your comments here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
    • You changed "the organization's ele president" to "the organization's elenth president". As "elenth" isn't a word, I presume that's meant to say "eleventh".......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
      • ChrisTheDude, you are correct, and it has been fixed. Thank you for your c/e as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Cheers :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

1. Article — "Murphy worked for a year for the Street Law Clinic after graduating with Juris Doctor in 1988, where he received an award for developing a program educating inmates on the law. He then was hired as a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice from 1989 to 1992."

Where does the source mention that he worked at the Street Law Clinic "for a year"?

Likewise, I don't see the source mentioning that he worked at the Street Law Clinic (SLC) "after" graduating. All it says is that he received that award we mention "during" his time at SLC.

Are we treating "a law degree" (from source) as "Juris Doctor"? (from article). If we have a source that makes it a bit more explicit, it would be better. Else, I'd maybe IAR on this particular one.

2. Article — "... including basketball, volleyball, softball, and hockey."

I can't see the source mentioning "hockey". What is mentions in "ice hockey". Not an expert on sports (have worked on just 2 sporting articles), so I am unaware if treating "ice hockey" as "hockey" is a standard practice or not.

3. Pretty similar, I feel:

Article: On the football side ... with two bowl games under Murphy

Source: On the football field ... in two bowl games during Murphy's tenure

4. Article — "Murphy married his wife Laurie after they met at Colgate University and they have four children together."

The source does not specify the year of their marriage. Neither does the source specify whether that "event" took place before or after their meeting at the Colgate University. All it says is that his wife "is a Colgate graduate".

5. Article — "Murphy also donated $250,000 to 'causes in Wisconsin that support social justice and racial equality' following"

The source just says that he "pledged" to donate. From my reading of the cited source, we are unaware whether he actually donated that amount or now. However, the way we present that in the article, it very clearly says that he has donated. There is a difference in pledging and donating.

Apologies for doing this, but unfortunately (and sadly), I have to oppose this nomination. I have spot checked a total of seven citations, of which, five are problematic. This is a biography of a living person, we need to be extra careful about this, and that can be reflected in my above comments; I have been a bit more nitpicky than I usually am (due to this being a blp), but many of the above mentioned issues should really not have existed. Most of the issues I mention are not difficult to find, any spot-checker with access to the sources can find them; it took me no more than 40 minutes to find and compile these issues. Based on the review and problematic spot checks (5 of 7), I unfortunately do not have confidence in rest 85 citations which I did not check, and therefore did not find any need to check more citations. I am willing to revisit my oppose on the grounds that (1) All the 92 citations in the article be checked by the nominator for source-to-text integrity (2) Some other independent reviewer conducts and passes a spot-check. Since it is really hard to do this top-to-bottom check within the time and boundations of the FA process, I also suggest withdrawal. However, if you are willing to do the same during the FA process, I am willing to strike the "suggesting withdrawal" part. Feel free to ping me for any help, of if you ever need me to do more spot-checks outside of this process. Thanks for all your work on this article and other articles! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, comments #2, #3, #4, and #5 have been addressed. Hockey in the US generally means "ice hockey", but that is a good comment for clarifying. #3 is borderline close paraphrasing (there is no other way to say "two bowl games"). #4 I changed to note that it was just her alma mater (again, a minor word choice clarification, its implied they met at their alma mater, but again, needs to be clarified). #5 is again a minor word choice. Yes there is a big difference between pledging and actually giving, but this was likely more a slip of the tongue ("keyboard") then anything else. #1 is the only one I see that is a definite miss on a spot check, and that came about from the comment above about changing sources from Packers.com to other more independent sources. I just did not do a good enough job of rewording the sentence to better match the new source. Let me take a look at that one and your larger comment about spot checks and get back to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed comment #1. The JD is mentioned in another source, which has been added, and I reworded the offending sense to match the source. Taking a look at the sources now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Gonzo fan2007, how are you getting on with this? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please withdraw this. My elderly mother fell and broke her hip on Friday. Not going to have a lot of editing time for a while. Thanks. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Good grief. Of course. My apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2023 [12].

---

Somerset County Cricket Club in 1891[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully reviewers aren't bored of season review articles for sports clubs, as I present this one for your perusal. Inspired by the excellent work of ChrisTheDude, I've brought this one up to what I believe is FA level. This was Somerset County Cricket Club's first season in the County Championship when they provided a great shock by defeating the all-conquering Surrey side. As always, all feedback will be warmly received. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am touched that you cite me as inspiration :-) I will endeavour to give this a review over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

• "scoring 560 runs at an average of 31.11" - link average
  • Already linked earlier in the sentence. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Meetings were held at Somerset" - not sure "at Somerset" really works - you don't say "at" with a county ("at Lancashire" makes no sense). I'd say "at [specific town]", or if that level of detail isn't known then just say "Meetings were held"
  • Changed to "Meetings were held at the club" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "such as Lionel and Richard Palairet," - I'd be tempted to change that to "such as the brothers Lionel and Richard Palairet," so it doesn't look like they had a player with the mononym Lional
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, including home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties" => "scheduled a twelve-match fixture list, consisting of home-and-away fixtures against six of the eight other first-class counties"
  • Done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "only delivered a hundred overs between them" - link overs
  • Linked. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• " Lionel Palairet was the club's leading run-scorer by over 200 runs" - link runs
  • It's linked in "run-scorer". Can switch it if you think that would be clearer? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "There was no play on the first or last days of the game" => "There was no play on the first and last days of the game"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game is linked twice
  • Removed the second. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "Lionel Palairet scored 100 runs exactly" - I think "Lionel Palairet scored exactly 100 runs" would be slightly better
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• "and finished third in the Championship table with eight wins and five losses, a position they would not equal again until 1958" - this makes it sound like they didn't finish with 8 wins and 5 losses again until 1958. Suggest changing to "and finished the season with eight wins and five losses, placing third in the Championship table, a position they would not equal again until 1958"
  • Changed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Cheers :) Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support - apologies for being a dumb-ass and missing that a couple of things were in fact already linked...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that under recent changes Wikilinking more than once is allowed so long as the second mention is in a different section and is considered helpful to a reader - broadly construed. You may already be aware of this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

• Suggest adding alt text

• File:County_Ground,_Taunton,_1895.jpg is missing author date of death. Ditto File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png
  • I think I've covered both of these now. Found the year of death for the County Ground picture, so that's included. For the Palairet one, I couldn't ascertain which of the Chaffin brothers took the photo, but they all died over 70 years ago, so I've switched it to a PD-unknown with an explanation, is that okay? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• File:HTHewett.jpg is missing a US tag, and the tags that are given are contradictory. If the UK-specific tag is kept, details on research will need to be added. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I switched that image out as I couldn't find any more details, including a date of publication, for it. Added File:Ranji 1897 page 295 H. T. Hewett.jpg instead, which is another with a PD-unknown because only the photography studio information is provided.

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for this, I've made a few changes to licenses and what-not, as detailed above. Please let me know if these are okay. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 08:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

When and where was File:LCH_Palairet,_1892.png first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Not necessarily the first time it was published, but I've found a copy of it in an 1893 book, so added that to the Commons information. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

• Pedant's corner, and I hate myself for doing this. Is the article mistitled? Should it be "Somerset County Cricket Club's 1891 season"? Because that's what it seems to be about. (If you are sticking with the current title, I have several queries about information I would expect to see and don't.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Indeed, the naming of cricket team articles is an anomaly. In other sports we have:
    • 1913–14 Gillingham F.C. season
    • 1974–75 Philadelphia Flyers season
    • 2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
    • 1984 Dallas Cowboys season
  • After the conclusion of this FAC (for simplicity) I would intend to start a discussion in the cricket project about moving all cricket team season articles to a similar format, so this would end up as 1891 Somerset County Cricket Club season. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing seems fine to me --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero, hi is this a pass on sourcing based on formatting, reliability and verifiability or should a request for an "official" source review be placed at WT:FACSR? FrB.TG (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Given Guerillero's lack of response, I have added a request for a full source review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

• "Surrey were undefeated in first-class matches and were champions-elect": does this mean they had already mathematically won the championship, or just that everyone expected them to do so?
  • The second. Changed to "considered champions-elect" for clarity. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
• In Somerset's last match they were three runs short of avoiding the follow-on, at 172; so since Gloucestershire's first innings was 254 apparently the follow-on score for a three day match was then 80 runs. Perhaps a footnote explaining that the rule then was not the same as it is now?
  • I've added a footnote about this on the first mention of the follow-on: do you think it is worth duplicating the footnote for this instance too? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

    I think it would be helpful. Could it perhaps be phrased to make it clear that the follow-on is still a rule of cricket, but the number of runs has changed? As written one could read it as saying that the follow-on is no longer a rule of cricket and that when it was a rule it was 80 runs in all circumstances. I knew what the follow-on was but am not an avid cricket fan, so I actually went to the follow-on article thinking, based on your footnote, that the rule had perhaps been abolished some time in the last few years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And mentioning that following on was compulsory for teams with deficits of 80 runs or more. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just these two minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the review! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Okay, tweaked the wording of the footnote, and duplicated it for the match in question. Let me know what you think. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Reserving a place. Harrias, could you give me a poke once you are in a position to respond to review comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Yeah, I'm here or hereabouts. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

• "against six of the eight other first-class counties". Which two didn't they play and why not?
  • They didn't play Nottinghamshire or Sussex. I can add that, but as for the reason, it is never plainly stated. Reading between the lines, it seems like Somerset couldn't manage a full schedule, either due to player availability or just the financial cost. There is some suggestion that Notts wouldn't agree to play them, but none of this is stated clearly enough for inclusion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Naming the two they didn't play would help. Possibly 'for reasons which are unclear' or similar?

Okay, lots of searching Newspapers.com has come up with something, so have added: "During a subsequent gathering in Taunton, Spencer explained that the decision to restrict their fixture list to twelve matches, which meant they did not face either Nottinghamshire or Sussex, was primarily a financial decision." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• "Slow left-arm orthodox". Perhaps append 'spin'?
  • Unpiped, so it now shows the linked (and clearer) "Left-arm orthodox spin". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "County Championship": the paragraphs are on the long side.
  • I can play around with this if you really feel they are too long to meet the criteria, but realistically, the only other option is each match having its own paragraph, and I prefer long paragraphs over very short. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "a heavily rain-affected match". Optional: 'a match heavily affected by rain'.
  • Yes, done. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "just under five hours on the other." Perhaps "other" → 'third'? Or mention somewhere how long each match was.
  • Changed to "There was no play on the first and last days of the three-day game and just under five hours on the other." The close repetition of "day/days" is slightly irking, but I wasn't keen on your suggestion as "the third" might have drawn readers to think it meant day three of the match. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "As of 2023, the defeat remains Somerset's fourth-largest innings loss." They have lost by more? Three times! Good lord.
  • Indeed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "to score his 41 runs." Suggest deleting "his".
  • Removed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• "Nichols bowled economically and claimed five wickets". You not gonna tell us how many runs he leaked?
  • Added, although without also saying how many overs he bowled, it is half a story. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The joys of summary style.

• "and with eight minutes to go, Woods bowled out Read." Either no comma, or add one after "and". (Guess which I think works best?)
  • Removed all commas. Ever. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

You won't regret it.

• "Woods then collected his fifth wicket of the innings in either the final or penultimate over allowed by the time". You what? I don't think "allowed by the time" does what you want it to.
  • Changed to "in either the final or penultimate over of the day's play", but I'm not sure that solves anything to be honest! Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

That works. It skips over why this was the case, but non-experts won't even realise it's an issue and fans will understand why.

• "while similar sentiments were echoed". I don't think that one can echo a similar sentiment. Maybe 'while these sentiments were echoed'?
  • Changed to "while similar sentiments were expressed". Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Perhaps footnotes to explain "to win by nine wickets" and "Lost by an innings and 375 runs".
  • I linked the latter to Result (cricket)#Statement of result on the first appearance in the body prose. I'm loathe to try and repeat that section for all the result variants in the footnotes of this article. I wouldn't be opposed to linking more of the results to that page, if you think that might help? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I liked your note c, and think an explanation somewhere of, just, the two main, non-obvious, expressions of victory - by x wickets; and by an innings and y runs - would avoid MOS:NOFORCELINK: "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links."

Added a couple of footnotes. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest archiving the links.
  • Do you have a link to the auto archiver you use? Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

No. For me it's in "page/tools" at the top of the page. I must have clicked something in preferences. I have done it, revert if you don't like it.

Great stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Cheers, replies given. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Just two points open I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Further remedial action completed. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 21:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Source review/ passed[edit]

In half a mo. ——Serial 13:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Newspaper sources are mostly local, which in the 19th century were thus papers of local record.
• Primary sources galore, almost solely wrt match stats and other contemporary info.
• Missing idents/archives are irrelevant since the papers are hosted by established archival sites.
• Standardise your 13-digit ISBNs in whatever fashion you choose (I'd suggest XXXX-XXXX as that ties in with your 8s).
  • @Serial Number 54129: There's only one ISBN 13 that I can see. All ISBNs are presented in the format they appear in the source. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Harrias: Bizarre! I must be going blind. You're quite correct, of course, so apologies for holding this up (although FTR, consistency within articles seems generally preferred). Nice article, many thanks! ——Serial 19:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Authors are known authorities. Publishers are respected houses.

The source review is almost passed. ——Serial 17:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [13].

---

Philosophy[edit]

Nominator(s): Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Philosophy is a systematic, rational, and critical inquiry that discusses general and fundamental topics like existence, reason, knowledge, value, and mind. It spans several millennia and historically included the individual sciences. Thanks to PatrickJWelsh for the fruitful collaboration to get this article to GA status, to Thebiguglyalien for their detailed GA review, and to Cerebellum for their recent peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from AK[edit]

• I think this is a bit above my pay grade, but I'll try to review this well. At a first glance, excellent article; the list of references alone made my head spin, must have been a ridiculous amount of effort to write all this. AryKun (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
• "But they...the term" I know this is grammatically correct, but it still reads weird to me. Maybe replace with "However"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Major branches of philosophy" → "The major branches of philosophy"?

  One difficulty here is that not all philosophers produce exactly this list. For example, a few include aesthetics as a major branch. Without the "The", we leave it open whether there are other major branches besides those listed here. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Presocratic philosopher" should be Pre-Socratic and would benefit from a link. Also later in the article.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of duplinks and terms linked at second or third instances; for example, most of the major branches are mentioned but not linked in the first section.

  Done. I'm not 100% clear on how to best handle duplinks that occur in different sections. According to my interpretation the current formulation of WP:DUPLINK, one link per section is acceptable. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "et alia" needs a link; also, isn't the form et al. more common?

  This is discussed in SilverTiger's comments. I think "et al." is used in the short citations but I don't know about cases where it is used in the regular text. I'm not sure that it should have a wikilink since this is not a concept discussed in the article but merely an expression used to discuss other things. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "the sciences" Linked to the wrong term.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "Influential traditions...African philosophy." → "The most influential traditions in the history of philosophy are Western, Arabic-Persian, Indian, and Chinese philosophy. Other philosophical traditions include Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy."?

  I wouldn't object to your suggestion. But this was already discussed in Fritz's comments below. The fear was that this type of expression implies a ranking and should better be avoided. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "shaped by the encounter with Western thought" → "shaped by encounters with Western thought"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "resolve the politically turbulent 6th century BCE" → "resolve political turbulence during the 6th century BCE" Also, the sources seem to place the "political turbulence" in either the 8th or 5th century BCE, depending on whether you're referring to the Spring and Autumn period or just the Warring States.

  Done. The text mentions the 6th century because that is when the Hundred Schools of Thought emerged. I added a source for the date and I reformulated the passage to avoid implying that the date states when the turbulence itself emerged. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• "produced new forms of Buddhism" → bit repetitive, maybe "diversified into new forms"?

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• You use the ", for example," construction frequently; I feel like the first comma should be a colon.

  I reformulated a few. I think starting the expression with a colon would be possible but is not required. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Really nice work, nothing else that I have comments on. This is a really nice overview of the major topics of philosophy; of course, it doesn't go very deep into any topic, but I feel like that's a consequence of the fact that we're trying to fill essentially a library's worth of subject matter into 5,000 or so words. There's nothing factually incorrect that I could see at a first glance, but that's with the caveat that my knowledge of philosophy is limited to the level of an introductory college course. AryKun (talk) 14:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hello AryKun and thanks for taking the time to review the article! I implemented most of your suggestions and left a few comments. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Review by SilverTiger[edit]

I have to concur with AryKun, this article must have required a ludicrous amount of time and effort. It's also outside of my wheelhouse and above my paygrade, so here goes nothing.

• The lede and the first section are fine, though I think you should mention and give a brief explanation of what a school of philosophy is in the lede.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• "et al." should be italicized.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I believe this is mistaken. More to the point, it is standard to use "et al." only when there are more than three authors. (Although not Wikipedia policy, which I cannot find on this question, see here.) If the latter two authors are to be excluded from mention in the body of the article, then I believe it should instead say "and others" per this. Or, if we're going to keep the Latin in the body of the article, it should be spelled out in full (unless it is inside a parenthetical).

  In short, I think the article should either list all three authors or else find some way of avoiding this complicated stylistic issue that has nothing to do with the content or accessibility of the article. I am not sure what the best call is, however, and so I decided against making an edit myself.

  Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  You raise a valid point and I'm not sure which guideline to follow here. The guideline MOS:FOREIGNITALIC you cite states that foreign terms require italics but makes an exception for "phrases that have been assimilated". The alternative would be to spell the three names out. Some style guides recommend using "et al." starting with three authors while others require more than three authors. Maybe someone with a better MOS-knowledge can solve the confusion. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, if we keep the Latin, it should be spelled out as et alia with the italics. Latin abbreviations such as "i.e.", "e.g.", "etc." and so forth do not receive italics and should not normally be used outside of a footnote or parenthetical when there is a perfectly suitable English equivalent. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

  et al. is always abbreviated and italicized in formal usage; I do not think this article should deviate from that. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I asked this question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#"et_al."_or_"et_alia"_with_or_without_italics. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  There seems to be consensus that the short version is more common. Opinions are a little divided concerning italics but it seems there is a slight preference for having no italics. This is recommended by most style guides. I restored the original version. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• You tend to use "like" frequently, to the point that it sometimes feels repetitious.

  I was able to cut down the frequency. There are still quite a few left but I hope it's managable now. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• I see no overt issues in History of philosophy.
• Italicize modus ponens.

  Done. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

My initial, very slow read-through was (a) informative, and (b) revealed no major issues except that you never really explain what a philosophical school is, when schools are mentioned multiple times in different places. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Thanks for the feedback and the actionable recommendations. I hope I was able to implement them. Please let me know if additional points catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I see no further issues. Support. Good luck, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Support[edit]

During the peer review I reviewed this article in accordance with the FA criteria and all of my concerns have been addressed. --Cerebellum (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for taking the time to perform the peer review and for your support! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators[edit]

• Question: I helped Phlsph7 bring this article up to GA status. Am I allowed to weigh in here to support or oppose the FA nomination? My assumption was no, but this suggests it is okay as long as I declare my involvement when I do so. If it is permissible for me to participate in such an official capacity, I will hold off for another week or so to see what other editors have to say—then I will review the FA criteria and read the current article against them in order to weigh in for or against. Otherwise, I am happy to just follow the proceedings and comment as appropriate on what others have to say. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi PatrickJWelsh and thanks for offering to review. As I understand it, just writing your own review comments and improvement suggestions should not be a problem. Maybe one of the @WP:FAC coordinators: could clarify whether, in addition to that, you are also allowed to vote. Your comments would be highly appreciated either way, with or without a vote. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  While you are certainly allowed to vote, it probably won’t be given much weight considering your extensive involvement in the article's development. On the other hand, if you assisted the nominator in elevating it to GA status (as in if you were a co-nominator), the possibility of being a co-nominator here as well could be considered, but that’s obviously for you two to decide. FrB.TG (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @FrB.TG, thanks for clarifying. That makes perfect sense and seems like a good policy. @Phlsph7 did invite me to jointly pursue the FA nomination, but I declined because I was not willing to do my fair share of hunting around for ISBNs and the like. (Another concern was not to sabotage someone else's hard work by taking a hard stand against a reviewer whose requests, in my considered judgment, were misguided—as, for instance, I was basically prepared to do when our GA reviewer seemed to suggest that it was inappropriate for Wikipedia to say that it was wrong to discriminate against women. NPOV, give me a break! I don't want that dude's approval.) Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: I wanted to ask whether I may start another nomination. This nomination was started 25 days ago. It has 4 supports, it has passed the source review, and there are no unaddressed issues at the image review. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Phlsph7 Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Shapeyness[edit]

Wow, this is a great example of a massive topic being successfully compressed into an effective overview article. Here are a few comments, I may come back and add more later too. Shapeyness (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all the detailed and thoughtful observations! I've responded to and implemented a few and I'll get back to you once I've addressed the others. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Etymology: No comments here, this is all interesting and on-topic - I like the depiction of Newton's thought process here :)
• General conceptions: Here I have some worries about due weight. This sub-section seems devoted to particular philosophers' general views on what philosophy is, but I'm not sure how they were chosen. Of course, they are all historical greats, but there are many great historical philosophers and we couldn't give all of their individual views. Do overview sources tend to highlight these particular examples? If not, then I think probably the two subsections here should be merged with some substantial trimming. I'm not sure if there are sources that make these types of links, but perhaps some details on these philosophers' views could be kept to illustrate broader viewpoints. For example, Kant seems to define philosophy in terms of subject matter while Socrates and Russell define it in term of process or an intended outcome. I think framing things in terms of broader trends or ideas and using these as examples is better for due weight, and provides better confidence to the reader that these are examples chosen for a particular reason. Of course, push back if you think there are reasons to keep, or to do things in another way!
  • @Shapeyness, this also came up during the GA review, and I certainly see the point. The problem, to which I could find no better solution than the current section, is that, based on an unscientific survey of popular and textbook introductions to philosophy, authors pretty much just defer the question to the entire book. There is no single definition that adequately captures the practice. Hence my recourse to editorial judgment as to what might best serve the reader.
  • That said, I quite like your distinction between subject matter and process. Anything that counts as philosophy in the sense that is the subject of this article must be a balancing act between the two. (This to exclude, on the one hand, fringe podcasters and lunatics on the subway platform and, on the other, folks engaged in what are now recognized as distinct scientific disciplines.) For FA purposes, though, we would need to find a solid source to back this up.
  • Whatever the solution – if this section is, indeed, agreed to be a problem – I do think it is important to provide a general definition of the subject, distinct from its etymology (love of wisdom is lovely, but uninformative and probably outright misleading) and its various competing academic definitions. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think your concern is valid and I'm not sure how to best address it. As I see it, the basic gist of this subsection is to give the reader a general idea of some accessible aspects of philosophy without providing a precise definition. One minimally invasive solution would be to make this subsection not so much about these individual philosophers but use them instead as examples. Applied to Kant and Russell, this could be:

  Philosophers ask general and fundamental questions. For example, 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant identifies four questions that encompass the task of philosophy: "What can I know?"; "What should I do?"; "What may I hope?"; and "What is the human being?". The active exploration of philosophical questions can help people identify and overcome prejudices. According to Bertrand Russell, "The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the cooperation or consent of his deliberate reason."

  If this type of solution is acceptable then I could see if I can come up with something similar for the paragraph on Socrates. A more invasive solution would be to merge the two subsections, remove the paragraphs on Kant, Socrates, and Russell, and try to reintroduce some of their points as examples in the other paragraphs. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses PatrickJWelsh, Phlsph7! If there are sources that discuss some general aspects of philosophy like this (subject matter vs process was just an example that came to mind, I agree with PatrickJWelsh we need good sources here!) and some you can use to link those to these examples, or perhaps even just discuss them in the context of conceptions of philosophy, then I would be happy with the less invasive approach. Although I think care should be taken here not to overstress particular viewpoints just to fit these philosophers' ideas, other examples could also be used if they better illustrate what RSes tend to focus on. (Btw, I'm not saying using these examples would do that, I haven't really read any general sources on this, just something to consider!) Shapeyness (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I decided to use a different approach since I am not aware of a good overview source that would link these examples. I tried instead to provide a concise summary of the gist of these paragraphs to give a general conception rather than mention the individual philosophers and their examples. I moved Kant's example to the paragraph where the division by content vs method is discussed. The resulting subsection would have been a little too short so I merged the two subsections. Please let me know if some essential parts were removed so we can explore ways to include them in the new setup. I'm also open to restoring the subsection-structure and some of the examples if they can be linked to good overview sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this change.

It makes the article less accessible to readers, especially those with no background knowledge—and it does so for no other reason than to satisfy Wikipedia criteria intended to serve its readers, almost none of whom are at all aware of the distinction between articles with the plus icon and those with the star icon.

For what it's worth, the mentions of Socrates and Russell both cite to introductory texts, and the Kant material is so famous that such a citation could surely be adduced were this actually somehow helpful. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's see if we can find a compromise to have both the concrete examples while not giving undue weight to one particular position. I found a way to include the examples of both Socrates and Russell. I also restored the subdivision between of "General conception" and "Academic definitions". Kant's questions are still there but they were moved to another paragraph. If it's important, there may also be a way to move them back to the subsection "General conception". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems a lot better to me, I prefer this to removing the section altogether. I have no problem with this if it is also ok with PatrickJWelsh. Shapeyness (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the belatedness in my response, but this version is good with me.

(Background: I was once conscripted to oversee the philosophy table at a sort of informational fair where incoming students could learn about different departments and courses of study. A young woman approached and asked, rather tentatively, "What is it?" I started by saying that this itself is a philosophical question. She literally backed away. I don't think she said a word.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Academic definitions: Science-based definitions usually face the problem of explaining why philosophy in its long history has not made the type of progress seen in other sciences This is true, but some philosophers believe that philosophy does make progress, maybe this can be reworded so that it doesn't state this as fact

  I think there is a minimal consensus that philosophical progress is at least different from the typical progress usually seen in the sciences. I reformulated the sentence to emphasize this point without implying that there is no progress. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• There are also some lone sentences and short paragraphs here that could be combined and perhaps reordered

  I merged the last paragraph into an earlier paragraph. Maybe the paragraph on linguistic therapy could also be merged but there are also advantages to keeping it separate as a distinct position. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  • @Shapeyness, this is also mostly my doing. Although I most naturally write in long paragraphs composed of long sentences, I make a conscious effort in the opposite direction for Internet content. Especially considering how many people are reading this stuff on their phones, I think that readers are well-served by shorter paragraphs than would be appropriate for a print publication. If, however, other editors do not find this reasoning compelling, by all means, condense away! Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
• Another definition characterizes philosophy as thinking about thinking. This emphasizes its self-critical, reflective nature. This seems to be a repetition of the point at the beginning of the General conceptions section.

  The general thrust is the same. I had the impression that it makes sense to include it here as a separate conception since the precise formulation of "thinking about thinking" as a definition is often mentioned. The text in the subsection "General conception" is weaker and only characterizes the self-critical attitude as one of the features of philosophy. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• History: this section in particular is one of the best examples of providing a condensed overview. I can't speak to the other traditions, but the Western philosophy section seems all good to me. Any temptation to add more details would probably snowball so I think this is the right level of detail here. One thing I will mention is that Japanese philosophy, Latin American philosophy, and African philosophy are all mentioned but not discussed - would a short discussion of these be worth adding or do you think that would be undue / add too much extra content?

  Condensing the huge traditions down to a few paragraphs was really the main challenge here. I think adding a sentence or so for each of the addition traditions would be defendable but I'm not sure that this would be an overall improvement since their impact is significantly smaller. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: On the section you added in response to #Fritz, I added a little bit of extra detail. Hopefully that is ok with you and not excessive, feel free to revert or alter any of the changes! Shapeyness (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shapeyness: Your addition helps close the temporal gap between the periods. I made slight adjustments to the timeline to reflect how it is presented in the cited sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Branches: This is also a very good section, here are the only nitpicks I could find! This is a very small one but This idea is rejected by foundationalists, is it better to frame this as a response or a proposed solution than a rejection? I'm not sure foundationalists would reject the validity of the problem itself.

  "This idea" was supposed to refer to the idea that all beliefs require justification. But I see now that this is confusing since this idea is mentioned two sentences before. I implemented your suggestion, which avoids this problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

• Virtue theorists judge actions based on the moral character of the agent who performs them - I'm not sure that this is true. Bad people can do good things according to virtue theorists, my understanding is that the morality of an act is judged based on whether it is (a) in alignment with a particular virtue, i.e. it is the type of thing a virtuous person would do, or relatedly (b) it develops virtue within a person, e.g. if you make a habit of sharing, you will become a more generous person by nature. This idea is correctly described in the following sentence.

  I agree that this sentence could be misleading if read without considering the following sentence. I slightly reformulated it. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is the distinction between an inner world of experience of an object and the existence of this object in the outer world. This seems confusingly worded to me - do you think this would be better? An influential intuition in the philosophy of mind is that there is a distinction between our inner experience of objects and their existence in the external world.

  Yes, that expresses it better. I removed the "our" form your suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• Methods: Some of the earlier paragraphs are quite short and could probably be combined. I also think empirical views such as experimental philosophy or naturalism should probably be mentioned here. For reference, 60% of philosophers accept empirical methods in the most recent philpapers survey and 32% accept experimental philosophy (this is more controversial though with 36% rejecting). In general, my impression is that naturalistic and experimental philosophy is covered in most metaphilosophy or philosophical method textbooks/overviews, I can find examples if useful for assessing due weight.
  • @Shapeyness, "naturalism" is an extremely contested term. Even Hegel, arguably the idealist par excellence, has been labeled a naturalist in recent academic literature. I'm also extremely skeptical of "experimental philosophy", most of which in my experience is just sloppy social science that only demonstrates what only a professional philosopher would ever think to question in the first place. If there is good evidence that the field has developed in the past ten years, however, I would be happy to revise my assessment. So, while I do not wish to diminish the significance of these discussions, I am inclined to keep them out of such a high-level article. (Oh, and thanks for sharing that survey!) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

  An earlier version of the article had a short passage on this. It's true that methodological naturalism and experimental philosophy don't reflect a typical approach to philosophizing but for the sake of comprehensiveness, I wouldn't be opposed to include a short mention. What do you think of the following:

  Methodological naturalists place great emphasis on the empirical approach and the resulting theories found in the natural sciences in contrast to methods that focus on pure reasoning and introspection. Experimental philosophy follows methodological naturalism and tries to answer philosophical questions by gathering empirical data in ways similar to psychology and the cognitive sciences.^[1][2][3]

References

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

The article was archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2023 [17].

---

History of military logistics[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I split this article off from Military logistics, which I am still working on. This is one of those high-level articles that a traditional encyclopaedia has, but where the Wikipedia is deficient. I have tried to make a start with this article, which I created by splitting the history section off from the parent article, rewriting, and adding material, mainly to the front and the back. Almost all the article is now my work.

There are good reasons why these sort of top-level articles do not get the attention that many readers would expect, the major one being that they are so hard to write. This article has to cover 2,000 years of military history. Ideally, it would be a summary of its subarticles, but none of them currently exist. The task of this article is therefore to cover important developments without getting into to much detail, and it degenerating into a catalogue of battles and wars. A conscious effort was made to avoid making the article Euro-centric, and to incorporate examples from around the world. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

UC[edit]

Chucking in a few peanuts, mostly on the really old stuff, for now:

• Feudalism in the lead: something of a dirty word among medieval scholars, who haven't really been happy with the idea of "Feudalism" as a single coherent Thing for a few decades now. Certainly, the idea of calling it "a system" (rather than, at the most charitable, a series of slightly-ad-hoc systems with some similarities but also important differences) is really quite dated. Articles and books on big topics like this often end up with blind-spots when it comes to the specifics of individual disciplines: suggest something like "in medieval Europe, responsibility for military logistics was often delegated to the magnates of individual households (and mercenary companies?), who would supply their own troops".

  It comes from a 2021 source. Deleted that from the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• After the fall of the Roman Empire in the fifth century there was the shift from a centrally organised army to a combination of military forces made up of local troops: if we're (admirably and correctly) going to avoid Eurocentricism, we need to put sentences like this into geographic context: I doubt the fall of Rome had much impact in China or North America.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thinking a little on this, I'm not sure the basic point here is valid. Firstly, the Roman empire didn't (all) fall in the fifth century, and the Byzantinists are now getting increasingly comfortable and consistent at calling their subject the "(Eastern) Roman Empire" until the 15th century. Secondly, the Roman army wasn't straightforwardly a single, centralised organisation in the fourth and fifth centuries: units were increasingly tied to the areas in which they served and recruited from those areas, particularly from children of soldiers - in many ways not all that different to your textbook "feudal" model (see lots of work on this at Banna (Birdoswald). Thirdly, I'm not sure what the distinction here is between a "centrally organised army" and one "made up of local troops": isn't everyone local to somewhere? Professional troops were fairly rare after 500 Thinking on it, that's not true either: professional militaries, perhaps, but they were also pretty rare before that, and certainly people serving by obligation were part of the show in the "late Roman" army and indeed very much the norm outside the high Roman professional army and perhaps some of the Hellenistic monarchies. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• On the same note, the lead still reads as pretty Euro-heavy to me, especially in the second paragraph, which is explicitly about Europe only but also the only material on a three-century period.
• Is there anything to add to the lead about logistics post 1948?

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I'd like to see something done about gendered language in the very early sections: for instance, Neolithic armies ... rarely exceeded 20,000 men (given how little we know about Neolithic warfare in general, I don't think we can say that all Neolithic societies had no fighting women, or indeed no alternative gender categories), and A king or warlord might use his army...

  Changed to more gener neutral terms. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I still see rarely exceeded 20,000 men in the lead. More generally, there's a fairly regular use of "men" for "soldiers", "warriors", "troops", "combatants" and so on, which I think should be avoided. Yes, it's a commonplace/cliché in (particularly older) military writing and yes, it's more-or-less accurate for most of our time periods, but we don't do that for other situations where the same is true: nobody would write about the "privileges granted by the Roman senate to its men", for example. Given the general nature of this field I think this is a case where we have to be particularly proactive about systemic bias. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• On which: 20,000 seems very big for the time we're talking about: I'd be interested to know what that's based on. The biggest mass-death sites I've seen from the Neolithic have bodies in the low hundreds, which doesn't really seem to fit with armies that massive wandering around. I'm also curious about where all these people are coming from, and who's feeding them when they're on the move: a really big Neolithic site had a population of a couple of thousand people total.

  I was looking through Prehistoric warfare to see if I could find a better source.

• Roman soldiers are generally called legionaries in English (see Ngrams); legionnaire is best kept for the French.

  Heh. Because I'm reading a French language source and not thinking. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Seems odd to pass over the whole Mycenaean/Classical world until Alexander, and then devote an entire paragraph to the guy. There's also a bit of a buried lead here: if Philip was banning carts, it implies that someone was previously using them. (There's another problem here: we say that Alexander banned carts, but then that he used them to lug his siege engines around: this sounds like the commonplace in classical military historiography where the historian has a virtuous commander force the soldiers to carry their own gear to restore discipline or general manliness) In particular, I'm sure much work has been done on how the Persian armies of Xerxes and Darius I were supplied.

  Do you have a suggested source? I have amassed a library of books and journal articles on logistics but have nothing on the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Those in the field will know better, but some that come up on a quick search:

  • • Quite a few useful things in this big Blackwell companion: Hassan's chapter on the army and logistics would seem the obvious starting point. Henkelmann and Jacobs have a chapter on communication in the empire too. These books normally carry a lot of good bibliography as well.
    • This book is pretty introductory, but does put some numbers on the logistical machinery for both sides in 480.
    • This 2013 article discusses connectivity and logistics within the Achaemenid empire in general
    • This article on logistics in the Ancient Med discusses Persia at some length, and is generally healthily and usefully sceptical about ancient empires acting in all-seeing, board-game-like grand-strategic ways.

      The link here is broken. Looks like part of a doi instead of the jstor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

      Sorry, you're absolutely right - try this? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

    • This one is by the ever-sensible Roel Konijnendijk, whose work is generally a good corrective to outdated views of ancient warfare, and talks about logistics as a major factor in the Persian defeat of 479,
    • This article looks slightly dated to me, but discusses the Persian campaigns of 490 and 480-479 with a lot of focus on their logistical demands and failures.
    • Another useful book might be this Oxford handbook: Engels, whose work from the 80s is cited in the article, has a chapter on logistics there. There's a few other similar companions on the market, either to Greek, Roman or to Ancient warfare, that would be worth a look.

Again, I'm not suggesting putting everything in here, but this article needs to be a judicious summary of that everything, and therefore we need to start from a position of knowing what the whole topic looks like before we can summarise and cut down. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Suggest pointing out that the Romans were by no means the first to construct a network of roads for military and other logistics: the Persians got there a few centuries earlier.

  Added the Persians. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Appreciated, though we now have the weird situation that the Romans get all the focus and the credit, whereas the Persians - who did it first - get relegated to being one of many in a list of "and the rest". I think this is another respect in which taking another swing at this section with the (Graeco-)Persian context in mind would help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Again, on Eurocentrism: we make a brief gesture to China, India and South America about roads, but otherwise our conception of Antiquity basically happens between the Alps and the Euphrates: we did briefly wander into Persia, but only when we had some Macedonian armies to follow there. We've named a whole lot of influential commanders, empires and societies from Greece, Rome and areas often associated with them: what are the equivalents (say) in Egypt, the Far East and the Americas?

  There is a whole paragraph on logistics in medieval America. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  There is, but nothing for the pre-medieval period (the meaning of Antiquity intended in my comment above). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• Moving a bit outside my area, the Medieval section is curiously early Medieval (and quite strongly Carolingian): in particular, it makes a slightly odd move to Crecy, then back to the ninth century, then to the Mongols (though it isn't massively clear on the chronology of the latter two), then out to the wider world (good), then back to Big Charlie. Given that the Early Modern section doesn't pick up until 1530 (a rather late date, in my view: I think most would use 1453 or 1492), it's odd that the High and Late Middle Ages have received so little treatment: there's loads in Anne Curry's recent-ish book on Agincourt, for example, on how the English and French were supplied, and that's very different to the "king calls the lords, lords call their vassals and sort their own provisions" model that we sketched in the lead.

  Do you mean Agincourt (2015) or The Hundred Years War (2023)? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  I've only read Agincourt, but I'm sure her newer book has equally good if not better material. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• I think our sketch of "the Vikings" gives them too much coherency (as if we've written from Alfred's perspective rather than Guthrum's): Viking was something you did, not something you were, and Scandinavians hardly spent the whole period getting along and working together.
• Did anything interesting happen in western Asia and north Africa during the early medieval period?
• I notice at the moment that the "Antiquity" section has six sources cited, only two of which are 21st century: that's a big topic divided between very few voices/perspectives.

Certainly looking at these two sections, I wonder if there's an element of WP:WRITEITFIRST here: there's a difficult balance between summary style and comprehensiveness to be struck, and it might be difficult to establish it without a bigger, more detailed and more global account of military logistics in the ancient and medieval worlds. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Being a top-level article, it calls out for subarticles, but they do not currently exist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, but more importantly, it calls out for being a judicious, well-balanced, (as far as possible) error and systemic-bias-free summary of what those articles would or should say. There's no problem if those articles don't exist (yet), but for an article like this to be FA quality, it does need to be written with a good, up-to-date understanding of what its field is. For this one, as you'll know much better than me, that field is massive and has the problem of being both extremely broad and having depth and details which are extremely important. I'm going to stick down an oppose at the moment, purely because of how long I can see this review is getting already: it isn't fair to turn this into an extended peer review and I do think the sections on Antiquity and the Medieval period need a fairly major rework to make them up to date with current scholarship and representative of the world picture. I don't think that sort of rework is within the scope of a normal FAC; however, I am absolutely open to revisiting that !vote if the situation does change. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no other mechanism for review and comment. Our only options are to provide reviews here or leave the article as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Query Hawkeye7, could you glance over the article Operations Research (particularly the World War II section), and the sources there, and have a look at whether your sources give OR (known as Operational Research in the UK) a due-weight role in the evolution of logistics during WWII and ongoing ? The role of OR in military logistics, particularly in WWII, has always been emphasized in the field, and it has a large place in West Point Military Academy training. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the examples in the article concern operations, but I can add a sentence or two about OR and logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Added a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment. Sorry Hawkeye but this has been open for more than four weeks now and hasn't gained a single support and even has an oppose. I don't think it makes sense to keep this open any longer now. The usual two-week wait before a new nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 9 December 2023 [18].

---

My Little Love[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Adele's song "My Little Love". I know my reputation is spoiled here due to the godawful Meghan Trainor songs, but sometimes I really enjoy great jazz like this one. Don't be fooled by it not getting a commercial single release, this song very much forms the heart of 30 along with tracks like "To Be Loved" and "I Drink Wine". Just trust me on this and do play it once! Also, it features voice notes of Adele's child. (How has Meghan Trainor not done this yet?) I have been very lucky to receive DYK and GA reviews from Aoba47 and Pseud 14, respectively. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 20:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Media review (pass)[edit]

• File:Adele for Vogue in 2021.png - appropriately licensed
• File:Adele - My Little Love.ogg - has appropriate FUR and permissible per WP:SAMPLE.
• Although not raised in the GAN, have you considered perhaps adding a media file? Since I figured one of the highlights of this song are the voice notes/conversations which embellished the song. I think it would be of value IMO. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll get back to you on the sample point.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Pursuant to the discussion with Aoba below, I have added an audio sample to the article.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That completes media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Aoba47[edit]

• I think it may be worthwhile to link steel guitar since items like bass are also linked. Also, does bass in this context refer to a bass guitar? If so, I would clarify that in the prose.

• Information about which bass instrument it is is not available, unfortunately.

• Thank you for the clarification. I know that liner notes can unfortunately be ambiguous at times so I understand this situation. I was just curious since Greg Kurstin is credited as playing the bass guitar for "Easy on Me", but I also see that he is credited as playing just bass for "Oh My God" and "I Drink Wine" so it is likely just a case of inconsistency with the liner notes and credits. At least, there is some information here. I have a physical copy of Bluebird of Happiness, and the only thing in the liner notes are the songwriters, producers, and samples. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• For this part, (at the EastWood Scoring Stage in California), I think it would best to specify the city, especially since earlier in the same section, No Expectations Studios is specified as specifically in Los Angeles.

Great work with the article as always. After reading through the article once, I could only find two three very nitpick-y points (well, technically three since the first point has two comments). Once both points have been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I have not missed anything. Just to be clear, I am only looking at the prose. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. What do you think about the potential inclusion of an audio sample in this article? I was being more conservative after the "Easy on Me" nomination but there might be a stronger case to be made for one here.--NØ 08:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think an audio sample would be justified here as the voice notes are such an integral part to the song, from its creation all the way down to its reception. I believe it would also help some readers better understand what the prose is conveying as some people may not be as familiar with voice notes or would not fully understand how these messages are interwoven into the song itself. Thank you for addressing everything. I will read the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I trust that you will address anything that ChrisTheDude brings up in his review below. Hope you have a happy Halloween! Aoba47 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Chris[edit]

• "Kurstin plays bass, mellotron, piano, and steel guitar; Chris Dave plays drums and percussion; and David Campbell arranged and conducted the strings" - the tense changes from present to past mid-sentence
• Is there an appropriate wikilink for "melisma"? I for one have no idea what it means.......
• "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed they may" => "Writing for The Daily Telegraph, Neil McCormick agreed that they may"
• "In the United Kingdom, "My Little Love" debuted at number five on the Official Audio Streaming Chart" - might be worth clarifying that this is not the main Official UK Singles Chart (the UK's equivalent to the Hot 100). It actually missed the UK Singles Chart completely, although this will almost certainly be down to a bizarre rule that no artist can have more than three songs in the chart in the same week.
• That's what I got. Oh, and don't ever feel the need to categorise songs you like as "godawful". They're not bad songs if you derive enjoyment from them. The other day someone told me that my favourite album of the last six months was "absolute garbage" and I just ignored him because hey- I really like it and that's all that matters :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• All done. Thank you so much for the review! I haven't heard the whole Zach Bryan album but the Kacey Musgraves collab was awesome. You should definitely not pay any mind to anyone criticizing you for enjoying it, lol. Hopefully he'll join Trainor and Miss Adkins next year.--NØ 23:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

• Re: the first one, I can see that you've split it into multiple sentences, but it still reads a little oddly (to me at least) that David Campbell conducted the strings but Kurstin plays bass. I would suggest it should all be in the past tense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• Done!--NØ 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

Take 2[edit]

• Any reason why Adele is described as English instead of British?

• English seems to be consistently preferred on biographies of singers like Amy Winehouse, Ed Sheeran, Ellie Goulding, and Adele's own so I've stuck to that.

Do you mean on Wikipedia biographies?

? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Gog! I mean Wikipedia biographies! As in the wording stably in place on her biography over the past five years (2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018). Would you like me to change this? It would get swiftly reverted without there being some sort of consensus behind it. <3 Also, I really apologize for the joke above. I don't think you liked it.NØ 18:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The joke was great. It gave me a belly laugh.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. What happens in one, or even many, Wikipedia articles sets no precedent for what should happen in any other. I was just asking an open question and was anticipating a policy based response. As I didn't get one I looked it up myself. MOS:NATIONALITY says "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is currently a citizen, national, or permanent resident". I think it is clear that it is looking for the country of which the subject is a citizen or national and one cannot, since 1707, be a citizen or national of England. However, the addition of "region" confuses the issue, as, to a lesser extent, does England being a country, albeit not a sovereign one; I think this adds enough uncertainty for me to let it go, in spite of my personal feeling that it does not comply with the MoS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I share your willingness to have the MoS-based wording in the article. However, I would also like the same correct wording reflected on other articles like Adele, Ed Sheeran, or Amy Winehouse and hence talk pages of those will be the avenue to achieve the change more broadly.--NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Maybe mention the son's age at first mention of him?
• "She recalled that creating it cleared up some of the chaos that was obstructing her ability to express her feelings." perhaps '... emotional chaos that was ...'?
• "Some praised the lyrics". You then go on to only mention positive opinions. Were any less fulsome?

• There were no negative reviews about the lyrics. Removed the "some" wording.

• "The song received a Gold certification in Brazil." Why the upper-case G?

I capitalize the names of these award titles like I would with any other awards like "Grammy Award", "Video of the Year", etc. The official award titles have them in caps and it makes sense imo since "gold" here is not referring to the metal.--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The "official award titles" are proper nouns and so should be capitalised. I am not at all sure that a "certification" is an award or otherwise deserving of upper-case initials. (Eg, if I were a certified MMA instructor, I would not say that I had 'received Instructor certification' with an upper-case I.) What is the full "official award title" for Brazilian gold certification?

Here's the formal discussion about this a few years ago which ended in a sort-of consensus to leave it up to individual editors but encouraged capitalizing when the certification is referring to a single country (Brazil in this instance) and not needing to do it in a sentence combining certifications from several countries, e.g. "the album was certified gold in five countries." I, of course, have capitalized them on all song articles I have worked on and have a preference for that for the sake of consistency.--NØ 13:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing that consensus: I see two against capitalisation, one for and two, including you, offering no opinion on this specific issue. Similarly the 2007 discussion you refer to, which only attracted two contributors, ends with "if you want to say "They received an RIAA Gold plaque" then fine, but normally lower case would be fine". Is there an official title in Brazil that goes along with such certification? Is the gold award certification trademarked? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gold is not trademarked by Promusicae as far as I can tell. They refer to the certification as "Oro" (capitalized) in Portuguese on their website. Even if you are not satisfied with that discussion, I would say there is a soft consensus the caps usage is okay from all of my own song FAs. Taking Blank Space as an example (admittedly, the other 1989 FAs don't seem to follow this), "multi-platinum" is lowercased when referring to multiple countries grouped together: "It received multi-platinum certifications", then capitalized when referring to individual countries: "Australia (8× Platinum), Canada (4× Platinum), New Zealand (4× Platinum), and the UK (2× Platinum)". You're welcome to start a new discussion about this but said discussion would fall out of the scope of this particular FAC considering there are 10+ other FAs utilizing the caps. Best, NØ 14:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Three hours after posting this, you changed your mind and made the change. Which is fine, you are allowed to change your mind. You are even allowed to change the article just to get an irritating reviewer off your back. But could you just confirm that going forward you are committed to this version of the article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On this article, sure.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thankss!--NØ 11:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Why have you collapsed my addressed comments but not those of other reviewers? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Because this is the longest review (mostly because of my replies). I would prefer to collapse my reply about the certification titles too after you agree Take 2 has been satisfactorily addressed.---NØ 18:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Ok. Re take 2, I would prefer you didn't. The closing coordinator may not be as generous as me around MOS:NATIONALITY, so I would like it to be readily see it so they are aware they need to come to a judgement on it. Similarly I would prefer the discussion around G/gold to be easy to spot for the reviewer and for anyone subsequently referring to this discussion. Just one issue above I would like a little more clarity on before supporting. I'm sorry if this FAC has seemed unusually gruelling. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement in that last sentence. Descending into lengthy discussions about larger MoS issues affecting several different articles on an FAC about an extremely short article has been unexpected, to say the least. I'll leave take 2 unhatted.--NØ 19:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Spot-check upon request and cautioning that this isn't a topic I am deeply familiar with. Some dates are in parentheses and others aren't. I don't get the impression Otherwise it seems like the sources are formatted consistently. Everything I see appears to be sourced to typical pop-culture sources that I've seen on other FACses on these topics - magazines, news, typically prominent, from what seem to be professional writers. Note my caveat that I am not deeply familiar with any of them. Is Dutch Single Top 100 an official chart or anything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this one and all of the other source reviews you do, Jo-Jo Eumerus! Similarly to the Mckenna Grace article, dates format outside the parentheses when author names are not available. Unfortunately, this is not something I can fix unless the authors for those articles become known. The Dutch Single Top 100 is indeed an official chart recommended by WP:GOODCHARTS.--NØ 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Pass, then, with the caveat about source unfamiliarity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Source spotcheck[edit]

• 3 I don't see anything about her mending the relationship with her father?

• "Their relationship had long been strained. [...] Adele did go to see Evans before he died. 'I know he loved me, and we actually got our peace before he died.'"

• 4 OK.
• 16 Where is "sentimental"?

• I have now successfully learned that "emotional" can not be swapped out for "sentimental".

• 21 OK
• 24 OK
• 25 OK, but is "low register" a subjective or objective claim?

• Musical register is a technical term so objective. If another journalist said she was singing in a high register they would be objectively wrong.

• 27 Quote's not in the article.

• It is but there are also lyrics in a bracket. Try a search for: "Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child (“Mummy’s been having a lot of big feelings lately”) or blubbering into her phone during bouts of insecurity"

• 30 OK
• 33 OK
• 34 Can I have a quote that supports the sentence?

• "This being an Adele track, Mummy’s a bit blue. 'I don’t really know what I’m doing,' she sighs, to which her nine-year-old squeakily replies: 'At all?'" sort of supports that she feels confused and lost, but the Entertainment Weekly source also cited right after this sentence definitely backs up the whole sentence.

• 40 Can't find the "astonishingly moving" part.

• Switched it out for direct quote "incredibly touching" now

• 44 OK
• 46 OK
• 48 OK
• 49 OK
• 52 OK
• 55 OK
• 57 OK
• 58 OK
• 59 OK

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Much thanks for investing the time for a spotcheck.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Coord comment[edit]

This review has been stable for a while so I had a look with a view to promote but I'm a little curious about some of the language, particularly something like the song being "complimented" for its "sentimentality". First off, unless there's an EngVar thing, I'd expect a person to be complimented, not a thing; secondly, I'm used to sentimentality being viewed as more pejorative than praise (or perhaps I'm just not that into pop music). Normally I'd recuse and review myself but I'm doing that on a couple of other articles so I wonder if I could take Jo-Jo up on the offer of a spotcheck, and after that call on Mike Christie for a review, mainly of the Reception section as that's what sparked my comment. MaranoFan, please don't make any changes based simply on what I've said here, it's really a drive-by -- let's see Jo-Jo's and Mike's takes before anything else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just to be clear, "complimented" was one of only five suggestions made at the GAN, that I probably incorporated on a whim. It should not be indicative of any larger problem with the article. The GA reviewer also did spotchecks in case you find that relevant.--NØ 19:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I should be able to pick up the review; I have a house guest at the moment so it might be three or four days till I can get to it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Tks all, I will aim to take another look at this in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I can nominate another one right?--NØ 06:44, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not yet, I starting going through again last night and still have concerns that might impact future noms as well as this one -- pls be patient. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am quite shocked. The rest of the sections are very recently written and ironclad in my opinion. Curious for you to outline the issues.--NØ 12:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

See below... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Just looking at the reception section.

• "Critics complimented "My Little Love" as one of the most sentimental songs on 30": the sources don't use "sentimental" -- it appears you're using it as a synonym for "emotional", to avoid close paraphrasing concerns. The source phrases appear to be "undoubtedly the record's hardest gut-punch", "one of the most emotional songs on her new album", and one of the two songs described as "its most emotionally wrenching material". I don't think "sentimental" reflects these accurately.
• "considered it even more emotionally wrought than Adele's previous work". This is an odd use of "wrought"; the word's only common figurative use is in the phrase "wrought up", meaning "in an anxious and upset state". The sources have "Adele takes her signature brand of musical heartache to new depths", "Adele gets vulnerable like never before", "Adele has returned with 30, taking bigger risks and revealing enough hard truths to make this her most powerful album yet" (though this is about the album, not this song in particular), and "The song is profoundly vulnerable, and hearing Adele reassure her son that she loves him conveys a truer sense of sadness than any of her past songs about heartbreak." I think vulnerability is the common thread here, rather than a more generic word such as "emotional".
• The rest of the paragraph covers individual comments by reviewers about the emotions and honesty of the song. I think this paragraph (and the whole section, looking further down) has the "A said B" problem. I think you and I have talked about this before in reviews, and if I recall correctly you disagree, but I think keeping the full names of both the journalists and source publications in every case, rather than relegating them to the footnotes, makes it very difficult to write engaging prose. Also, why is Lipshutz's comment here? The source has "never been bolder in her song construction"; I don't understand what he means by that, and rephrasing it as "most intrepid song construction ever" is probably not far enough from the original. I think it's one of those vague phrases that's hard to rephrase because of the vagueness. Similarly, why is Mullin's comment in this paragraph? That comment is about thematic evolution, not emotion and vulnerability.
• I haven't looked at the sources for the second and third paragraphs in as much detail, so I have no comments about the citations to individual reviewers, but the "A said B" problem is definitely there too.

The construction of the section seems sensible to me -- comments about the level of emotion, then the voice notes, then the lyrics. I think if some reviewer and source names were trimmed, and some opinions combined via paraphrase and summarization, it would be shorter, more engaging, and smoother. I am not going to oppose as I have not read the whole article, but I would not be able to support with this section in this form. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, how is this my first time realizing you wrote WP:CRS. Highly impressive. @Ian Rose and Mike Christie: I have now significantly reworked the article / section in line with MC's comments. The opinions expressed in paragraph 3 are too diverse to be merged in any meaningful way but done on the others. Cheers.--NØ 01:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks -- I sometimes think that essay is the most influential thing I've written on Wikipedia; it's nice to see other people refer to it.

Here are two options for improvement. I wrote the first set of notes and then realized it's not what I think is the best choice, so I wrote additional notes. I think if you follow these first suggestions it would help, but what I'd do in your shoes is take the second option.

Option 1

• The changes are a big improvement but there are a couple of vocabulary choices I'd like to suggest changing. Looking at the sources I think what's happening is that you're making word choice changes to avoid close paraphrasing. It's usually better to restructure to avoid having to do that.
  • I think you could cut "immensely" in the first paragraph -- we don't need an adverb there.
  • How about "love for" instead of "adulation to"? "Adulation" has connotations we don't want here.
  • "imperative addition" -- this is an example of what happens when you try to change words to avoid paraphrasing problems. The source has "isn't a necessary addition to the record"; you have "didn't form an imperative addition to 30". The CLOP example talks about this sort of paraphrase. How about giving the McCormick quote first, and then adding Kaplan's take: "...during bouts of insecurity', and Consequence's Ilana Kaplan agreed that they weren't needed, though they gave an insight into Adele's state of mind."
• Suggest combining Mapes' and Swann's reviews with "and", moving Petridis before or after them instead of between. They're two very short comments and it would vary the rhythm a bit.
• I see similarities between the first paragraph and the positive comments in the third paragraph from Sanchez, Murray, and Piatkowski. (In fact Piatkowski's review comments aren't really praise at all.)

Option 2. Here's an alternative to the above comments. I think it would be better to quote a bit less. I can see the attraction of some of the quotes but I think our job in a reception section is to summarize and identify common threads in the review. The topic sentences for the paragraph do that to some degree, and you've also done it in the middle of the paragraphs, but I think more could be done. The third paragraph is almost half quotes, for example, and the second paragraph is about 40% quotes. There's no target number, but given that most of the remaining text is names of reviewers or publications that seems like too much to me. I think the key points from the sources are:

• naked, honest song-writing -- perhaps excessively so but some found it touching
• voice notes and closing voicemail -- tells us about Adele's state of mind but some reviewers thought it was excessive
• another of her trademark heartbreak songs, and an evolution of her previous work
• praised for creativity, skill, honesty
• Adele's loneliness and vulnerability

I think if we built a couple of paragraphs that assembled these points into a summary of what reviewers thought, without any quotes at all, then quotes could be re-added for illustration. I think that would give the reader a more natural flow that didn't feel like a list of bullet point quotes. (There are a couple of bits of information such as the Rolling Stone ranking that would have to go in a separate paragraph.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for boiling it down like that. This has been incredibly helpful. I've incorporated both, options 1 and 2, and arrived at a Critical reception section that should hopefully be acceptable. Please feel free to copyedit. Cheers, NØ 23:20, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a big improvement. I joined two short and somewhat related paragraphs but otherwise didn't touch the prose. Ian, I'm not going to register a full support on prose as I haven't reviewed the rest of the article but I think this section is now fine. Personally I'd trim some of the reviewer and publication names, but I know not every editor likes that approach. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review. Marano, Jo-Jo's and Mike's comments and your willingness to take those on board have eliminated some of the initial concerns I had re. the language, but I think there's still a fair bit of room for improvement to get to FA standard. I see issues re. expression, repetition, and overuse of quotes:

• Critics praised the raw and honest songwriting of "My Little Love" and found it touching. -- "and found it touching" seems tacked on, how about Critics praised "My Little Love" as raw, honest and touching.?
• Critics thought the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" conveyed Adele's state of mind but was excessive. -- Aside from another paragraph starting with "Critics", this is cited to only two sources, so I'd suggest "Some reviewers" is more appropriate. Further, you repeat "Adele's state of mind" in a quote later. Why not just say Some reviewers felt the inclusion of the voice notes on "My Little Love" was excessive." as that appears to be common to both sources?
• The quote from McCormick could use some trimming: instead of wrote that "the weepy voice notes may be a bit too much. Honestly, I question whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child..., consider reducing to wondered "whether we really needed to hear home recordings of Adele laying all her woes on her own child...
• Reviewers also commented on Adele's expression of loneliness and vulnerability in the closing voicemail, which they thought was uncomfortable to listen. -- Do you mean "uncomfortable to listed to"? I think you could lose that last bit entirely and finish the sentence on "voicemail".
• ...and more vulnerable than Adele's previous work -- I don't think a work itself can be vulnerable, but you could say it displayed more vulnerability on Adelle's part...
• They thought it was another one of her trademark heartbreak songs which evolved from her previous work. -- You have stuff on heartbreak songs and her previous work later, you can lose this sentence entirely to avoid the repetition.

I'd have to lean oppose as it reads now, but I can see myself changing that if the above suggestions are acted upon, or if you can convince me it reads better as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

All swiftly acted upon. Thanks for helping to polish the prose more. Did this on mobile because I am outside so apologies for any typos. Will correct any when I get home.—NØ 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, Ian Rose. I think you can go through it now. While initially rewriting this section, I was trying to match the exact wording of Mike's bullet points above. I think all of your suggestions are improvements, and I have incorporated them. Always here to take care of anything else. Cheers, NØ 21:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

• Update: I've also now ran this through repetition-detector.com and it only detects Adele and the song's name as repetition. I believe the Background and Commercial performance sections are free of repetition and mostly free of quotes. In the Composition section, I think losing Aguirre and Chinen's quotes would be detrimental as the adjectives they used seem integral to conveying the comparisons with Gaye and for integrity; other quotes are too small to seem a problem. Reception has already been extensively covered by you and Mike. To my interpretation, all actionable commentary regarding this oppose vote is now exhausted.--NØ 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Tks MF, I expect I'll drop the oppose but let me have another read and perhaps finetune -- I had noticed some of the wording in the lead was identical to parts of the reception section but was going to leave that till reception was attended to; you might have also addressed that now in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
    • I felt the lead and reception could still stand a few tweaks and trims but happy to discuss if it seems too much. Don't have time now to go through in further detail and perhaps support, but striking the oppose. For future reference, I really think it's worth trying PR for music (or other pop culture) articles, given the challenge of creating balanced yet engaging content -- the more eyes before FAC the better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
      • Thanks Ian. Just for clarity, you no longer object to the article's promotion after the last round of copyedits, correct? The last support to this nomination was added one month ago and it should probably be closed now regardless of the outcome. Regards, NØ 05:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
        • No, if I still objected I wouldn't have struck the oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Query for coordinators[edit]

• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: As a smaller article, this has been lucky to get a rigorous go-through by several experts and two recused coords. Can I please go ahead and nominate a Christmas one for December?--NØ 18:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• @FrB.TG and David Fuchs: I was wondering if I could get a status update on this nomination due to the solid amount of feedback and since the last remaining concerns have also been addressed, and I just can't see anything substantially changing with this now remaining open. Apologies for the double ping and hope you both have a great weekend!--NØ 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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