Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Nominations

Bleed American

Nominator(s): MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC); DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. This article is about the fourth album from alt rock act Jimmy Eat World, released in mid 2001. After nearly becoming a casualty of the major label system following their third album, the band bounced back with their most commercially successful release to date. It was certified platinum in the US, gold in Canada and silver in the UK. Sometime before this, the album's title was changed to Jimmy Eat World following the 9/11 attacks. Its second single "The Middle" was a top five hit in the US, becoming a staple of the pop punk genre, and is the band's signature song.

While I initially did some expansion to the article a few years ago, DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) did further work on it and took this to GA status in 2016. After I did some more expansion in 2021, ahead of the album's 20th anniversary, Danny and I talked about bringing this to FA status. In the interim, we brought Tell All Your Friends to FA earlier this year and have decided to do the same for Bleed American. We had previously taken this to FAC, but the nomination stalled after only receiving one support, so this is the second attempt. MusicforthePeople (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Very familiar with the album, one of my favorites.

  • I am somewhat surprised not to see Andy Greenwald's book, Nothing Feels Good: Punk Rock, Teenagers, and Emo, used as a source, since it includes discussion of Jimmy Eat World and Bleed American. You should be able to get the relevant parts from Google Books preview. Sellout: The Major Label Feeding Frenzy That Swept Punk by Dan Ozzi may also have something.
Ping me when you're ready for me to continue.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images given are appropriately licensed, but could a sample be included under a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a building that once contained the United States' most profitable custom house. The magnificent design includes a plethora of sculptures and statues on the exterior. The second floor contains a sprawling rotunda with ceiling murals, as well as other rooms embellished with carved details. It was first proposed in 1889 to replace 55 Wall Street, though various delays and disputes pushed back the opening to 1907. It was to be more expensive than every other public building in New York City except for the notorious Tweed Courthouse. The U.S. Customs Service left the building in 1974, and it fell into disuse for several years. Luckily, the building was restored in the 1980s and the building now contains the George Gustav Heye Center as well as U.S. government offices.

This page was promoted as a Good Article two years ago after a Good Article review by CaroleHenson, for which I am very grateful. In addition, the page received a GOCE copyedit a few months ago from Rublov, whose efforts I also appreciate. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. I nominated this article for FA status back in May, but that nomination was archived due to a lack of feedback. I hope this is more successful the second time around. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "offices for the National Archives" I might say "of" rather than "for".
  • "Gilbert was selected as an architect following a competition." Since no one else is credited, I would strike "an". Which leads to the question, should French be credited as an architect in the infobox?
  • Can anything more in the "site" section be said about the history of the location? I see some scattered info later in the article.
  • "Unlike most custom houses, which face the waterfront, the Alexander Hamilton Custom House faces inland toward Bowling Green.[11][16]" I wonder if it could be stated more clearly that it faces the one direction (north) where there is no nearby water.
  • "Near the building's south end is space formerly used by the United States Postal Service, " if I recall correctly, this was for the Bowling Green Station of the New York post office, which might be worth mentioning.
  • "The new New York Custom House was only the fourth building to be built under the Tarsney Act.[82]" Didn't the competition take place, not under the Tarsney Act, but under Section 3 of the 1899 act? Admittedly, they seem to be more or less the same.
  • "I'd capitalize Platt's and Quigg's titles.
  • " The next February, during the 55th Congress, Platt and Quigg proposed bills to acquire the Bowling Green site, providing $5 million (about $136 million in 2020[a]) for land acquisition and construction." According to Congressional ProQuest, H.R. 9077, which became the authorizing act, was introduced by Rep. Philip Low (R-NY) on 2/14/1898. It came out of the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds on 2/6/1899, entirely rewritten, along with a report by a Congressman Mercer of that committee.
  • The bill passed both houses on February 28, 1899, not during March. McKinley seems to have signed it on March 2.
  • "The selection of Gilbert was controversial, drawing opposition from Platt and several other groups" Platt was not a group. Also, it's worth a mention (see here that Platt's opposition was based in part on Gilbert not being a Republican, that being typical of Platt if you look him up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Gilbert was a "westerner" who had newly arrived to New York City," I'd change "to" to "in". And if he had moved to NYC, should he be referred to, as you do, as "Minnesota architect"?
  • "A branch of the United States Postal Service" the United States Post Office Department, as we are pre-1971. And it was a station. Stations were usually within city limits, branches outside.
  • "From 1974 on, the Custom House was vacant," Wasn't the post office still open?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Branford Steam Railroad

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a short (about 6 miles in length) industrial railroad in Connecticut with a surprisingly long and storied history. The Branford Steam Railroad started operations in 1903 to carry passengers to a trotting park for horses. Within a decade, it transformed into an industrial shortline hauling trap rock from quarries. The company has hauled trap rock from the same quarry since 1914 to today, and plans are that it will continue this task for at least the next 200 years. The "Steam Railroad" has not used steam locomotives since 1960, but the seemingly absurd name is necessary since the Branford Electric Railway also exists to this day as a museum preserving streetcars. I completely rewrote this article in October 2021, and have made a few further improvements since then. Following the promotion of my first FA last month, I would like to see this little known railroad become a featured article as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout (video game)

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.

I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley Rutledge served on the U.S. Supreme Court for only six years, but he still managed to make his mark on history. Known for his stalwart defenses of civil liberties in several landmark cases, he gained a reputation for being not only a staunch liberal but also a genuinely kind and compassionate man. Many thanks are due to TheTechnician27 for a GA review and to Kavyansh.Singh and Tim riley for very helpful suggestions at PR. I look forward to all feedback! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "Wiley Blount Rutledge Jr." does he need to be referred to as Jr. in lead sentence? WP:JUNIOR. He is certainly not notable as Jr. and I don't think he ever went by it in his professional career.
  • "In 1920, Rutledge enrolled at the University of Colorado Law School" For the sake of continuity, it might be worth mentioning this was in Boulder.
    • Done.
  • "to appoint someone from west of the Mississippi – such as Rutledge – to fill the next opening.[8]: 112  Roosevelt selected William O. Douglas instead of Rutledge when that vacancy arose" It might be worth noting that Douglas was from Washington state.
    • Done.
  • "As a judge of that court, therefore, Rutledge had the opportunity to render decisions on a wide variety of topics" I might say "write opinions" rather than "render decisions", since he was usually on a panel.
    • Done.
  • It might be a good idea to put the case citation as a footnote when mentioning a case, especially when there is a red link.
    • I've created a notes section and cited them all with Template:Ussc—does that look alright?
  • It might be worth mentioning that Hand would have been the oldest justice at time of appointment by a good margin over Hughes (second service, as Chief Justice) and Lurton.
    • I haven't been able to find any sources that explicitly make that connection (though you're certainly right), so I think I'll have to leave it out lest I get in trouble for original research. (The "old" Hand outlived the "young" Rutledge by more than a decade, ironically enough.)
  • " Roosevelt's latent desire to appoint a Westerner weighed in Rutledge's favor" I suppose, with Douglas, it might be termed "another Westerner". What is a latent desire?
    • Reworded.
  • "Rebutting each of Stone's contentions point by point," "each of" is redundant to "point by point".
    • Removed.
  • " the strategy pursued by future Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her efforts to challenge laws that discriminated on the basis of gender" presumably while she was with the ACLU, thus before her court tenure.
    • That's what I was trying to imply with "future", but I've clarified it further.
  • " On appeal to the Supreme Court," (UMW v. US) Our article on the case says it was on writ of certiorari. I would say "On review in the Supreme Court" or some such.
    • Good catch; fixed.
  • "but the grave is empty: as of 2008, his physical remains are held at Cedar Hill Cemetery in Suitland, Maryland, pending further instructions from his family.[43]: 25 " It's been over 70 years! Can more be said about the circumstances of this?
    • I wish I could, but all that the source (this article) says is: "Another quick telephone call to Tina Hodge in Suitland, Maryland, confirmed that the ashes of both Justice Rutledge and his wife Annabel are still being held at Cedar Hill Cemetery, still awaiting disposition instructions from the family." There don't seem to be any sources that explain why it could possibly be taking so long.
I doubt anything will ever be forthcoming. Interesting article, Fortas is there too.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Very interesting..--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt; much appreciated. Responses above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Dyer

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel by John Neal (writer), considered by scholars to be his best. Nobody's ever heard of it, but it is the first bound novel about the Salem witch trials and had a clear impact on later works by Longfellow, Hawthorne, Whittier, and Whitman. If you have heard of it, that may be only because of the book's preface, which is somehow more famous than the novel itself. It deals with universal themes like justice, sexual frustration, and cultural pluralism. I've taken a few articles through FAC and one of them was about a novel, so I feel pretty equipped for this nomination. The article just went through GAN review, so it's somewhat polished already. I'm excited to read and respond to whatever comments people have to help me further improve the piece. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

USS Johnston (DD-557)

Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is finally my great pleasure to submit to FAC the fightin'est ship the US Navy ever saw. This article is about the destroyer Johnston, famed for its two-hour brawl with basically the whole Japanese surface fleet in October 1944. If it is not the most famous destroyer to ever sailed, or even the most famous US destroyer, then it is certainly the most famous the 175 Fletcher-class destroyers. Speaking of, I hope this to be the first of a long, long line of submissions to FAC. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link to MILHIST A-class review. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

All of the images have licenses that seem feasible, but all of the source links are currently dead. Not sure if that's a permanent problem, but if it persists in a day or two I would suggest looking at archives or updated links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

I am going to pause here. Vami_IV, this is looking distinctly under-prepared for FAC. While some of the above is minor, some is not, and there are a lot of issues given that I have not yet got into the meat of the article. I am thinking that withdrawal, a visit to PA and possibly GoCE prior to a renomination may be the way to go. Or are you quite confident that things will improve once I move into service history? Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Title (EP)

Nominator(s): NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's debut extended play Title, which was promoted for a very short duration in 2014. It had a modest commercial performance and was the first appearance of Trainor's best-selling single "All About That Bass" on a full-length project. It received mixed reviews from critics who noted its repetitive lyrical themes despite its short duration. You may have heard its title track when it went viral on TikTok last year. I have reworked this article recently and think it is in good shape. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 08:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • Added the positive aspect.
  • Linked.
  • Agreed on both.
  • Done.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks solid to me. These are my comments after reading through the article a few times. Once everything has been addressed, I will look through everything one more time. I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for another very helpful review, Aoba47! These should all be addressed now.--NØ 01:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will look through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds great to me.--NØ 01:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once this last point, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. It's going well. Hope you are having a great week as well!--NØ 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the American teen sitcom Wizards of Waverly Place, which aired on Disney Channel and starred Selena Gomez. This TV series was a hit for Disney and launched the career of Gomez. This article became a Good Article just over a year ago in March 2021 and has since been copy-edited. The article is classed as "High-importance" in the Disney WikiProject. I had a great time researching and writing this, so am keen to revisit with any feedback welcomed. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate any comments, but understand if you are unable to. Thank you all! SatDis (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but IRL issues have been unkind, and I can't keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passed

Almost all of the images look good, but I am concerned about File:Selena Gomez 2009.jpg; the permission field has me confused as it appears to be copyrighted, yet that is contradicted by the section below, which states that it is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. Something doesn't seem right here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons licensed doesn't mean not copyrighted - it means the copyright holder has licensed it to be used under those terms. The permission field you reference confirms this, providing the preferred means of attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying, Nikkimaria. I simulated making my screen smaller and didn't notice any sandwiching. Given the clarification, I'd say that this passes image review. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • I have added a couple of line from scholarly sources about the competition and its impact.
  • Done both above.
  • I have removed all the one-word quotes and attributed to those listed above. Let me know if there are any further quotes that should be changed.
  • I would reexamine this part, Reviewers like Garron described the central characters, as this claim is not supported in the citation. This part claims that multiple reviewers described the characters in this way when it is only Garron doing this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a brief explanation on this.
  • I do not really seen an explanation for this in the prose. It now says he left prior the renewal, but that's not really an explanation (and it is okay if one is not available as some people just do not share this information publicly). Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed a couple of these I think.
  • I've tried to clarify both of the above and remove the mention of the video game as it might confuse things.
  • That is understandable. I will leave this for whoever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

I hope these comments are helpful. I did this review after reading through the article once, so once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend!

  • @Aoba47: Thank you for the comments. I would specifically appreciate if you looked over the new additions I have made. Thanks again! SatDis (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks great so far. I have left some responses above, and I will read through everything again tomorrow morning (as I have the day off work). Apologies for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Gandy

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Evelyn Gandy, the first woman elected to a statewide constitutional office in the American state of Mississippi, and the first woman to serve as a lieutenant governor in the Southern United States. Ambitious from a young age, she was the only woman in her law school class and even served as the school's student body president before being hired as a research assistant by Senator Theodore Bilbo. In that capacity she ghostwrite his book outlining and defending his racist views. From there she trailblazed her way through state government, serving variously as a legislator, welfare commissioner, state treasurer, and insurance commissioner, before being elected lieutenant governor in 1975. Her politics were something of a mixed bag of reform and status quo. Her two subsequent gubernatorial campaigns were narrowly brought down due to her gender and her old views on race, which she repudiated. Considered something of an enigma in her day by her contemporaries and distrusted by black leaders of the time for her erstwhile segregationist platform, in death she has become a hero of Mississippi feminists for overcoming a fair amount of sexism to achieve her career aspirations. Before she was buried, she broke through one final barrier by being the first woman to lie in state at the Mississippi Capitol Building. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF Will review at some point over the next three or four days. Hog Farm Talk 16:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much all from me. Hog Farm Talk 22:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Hog Farm Talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's That Man Again

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some while ago, together with a cherished and respected but now-retired colleague, I brought a celebrated BBC radio comedy series – Round the Horne – to FAC, where, I am pleased to say, it was successful. Before my collaborator retired we worked together on the article of an earlier BBC radio show, ITMA, which was a much-loved feature of British life during the Second World War, and did quite a bit to keep people's morale up during the darker years of the war. Looking at it again I think the article is of similar thoroughness and readability to our earlier effort, and I present it for FAC. Tim riley talk 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Only a few quibbles thus far:

  • "government departments and the ostensibly petty wartime regulations" it's a bit jarring to recognise exact phrasings from the lead in the body.
  • "Foster and Furst observe that averages a laugh every eleven seconds" Do we need inline attribution for mathematics?
  • "Worsley began experimenting with the size of the audience to see which worked best" I'm sure it's an EngVar thing, but I would say "what" for "which".
  • Yes, EngVar: "what" would seem odd here to my eye. It's "which size" rather than "what audience" we are emphasising. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The premise of the show changed again with Handley now dismissed as the mayor of Foaming-in-the-Mouth, and now the manager of a munitions factory." Are both "now"s necessary?
  • "Before the sixth series began recording, a film version It's That Man Again was released." should there be an "of" after "version"?
  • I've put in a pair of commas, making the title non-restrictive, rather than restrictive, which I think clarifies the point. Alternatively we could make it "also called It's That Man Again" but the blue link might then look a bit odd to the casual reader. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Handley's health was beginning to decline by the end of the 38-week series, and it was suggested that series 12 was delayed." Again likely engvar but I would conclude "be delayed".
  • It is indeed an EngVar thing, and in my younger days we thought the subjunctive was dying out in such constructions. But now, rather to my regret, it seems to be making a comeback, no doubt under the influence of American English. Nonetheless "suggested that series 12 be delayed" strikes an inappropriately ultra-formal note here, to my ear. I have made it "suggested that series 12 should be delayed".
Remainder soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All excellent so far; looking forward to the rest at your leisure. Tim riley talk 17:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A prototype of the character appeared in the third series:" perhaps "unnamed" before "prototype"?
  • I might move up the wiktionary definition of twerp to the first referent of Handley's office.
  • "The phrase "It's That Man Again" was originally used by members of the American Republican Party when referring to President Franklin D. Roosevelt as he introduced another element of the New Deal," the source no doubt says what it says but FDR was more likely to be called "That Man in the White House". (probably no action required)
  • I'll follow this up and tweak the note if the sources allow. Thank you for the pointer. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. There's so little that I'll Support now. I'm glad to have made my acquaintance with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your support and helpful comments. I'm so pleased you enjoyed making the acquaintance of ITMA. My collaborator and I certainly enjoyed researching it and writing it up. TTFN. Tim riley talk 20:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. It looks as if you and you retiring collaborator had fun.

  • Strictly no, I admit, but I feel the "all" emphasises Handley's centrality with everyone else revolving round him. I'll remove the "all" if you insist, but I'd rather keep it. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't insist. I merely pose the question.
  • The singular pronoun relates to "broadcast"; the syntax stands up and I think I'm happy with the wording, but if you press the point we could go full-on plural: "Parts of the shows were re-written in the hour before the broadcast, to ensure their topicality" (or perhaps, though I don't think it flows well, just "to ensure topicality".)
It reads a little oddly to me, but if you are content with it after further consideration, then fine.
On further pondering I think just "to ensure topicality" is probably the best phrasing. Thanks for this point. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Duly tweaked. (The show must go on, but not necessarily on and on.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it, and thank you for what we have so far. Tim riley talk 17:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes: at Piccadilly Circus, as we say in the text.
  • Worsley's phrase (p. 45) was "a near-'flop' ... it simply did not come off". He doesn't enlarge on the reasons. Should we perhaps say "the show was not well received", do you think? Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind that would be much better.
Done. Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priceless. Such a gem of an article that I shall IAR a couple of MoS points. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gog, for your review and kind comment. It's so pleasing when other editors give the thumbs-up to an article one has worked on and is fond of. Just wondering if in your current FAC for the Second Punic War you can find room for a mention of Radio Cunctator's show Hic Est Homo Iterum? Tim riley talk 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Absolutely! Done. Can't think how I came to omit it. Tim riley talk 06:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So it does. Thank goodness the second source links are all fine. Should I delete the first links in the Commons pages of all those images?
  • Would suggest doing so if they are not needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the absence of further information, would suggest so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you (as ever), Nikkimaria. Where would FAC be without your indefatigable image reviewing! We are in your debt. I'll follow your advice on both outstanding points. Tim riley talk 12:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Afterthought: if I may further impose on you, may I ask for your thoughts on the sizing of the three images remaining in the article? I'd rather like to make them a bit bigger, but I don't want to overdo it, and your comments would be most welcome. Tim riley talk 12:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could go up to 1.3 or even 1.4 on the images in the body; for the lead image suggest switching over to upright scaling instead of using fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, with grateful thanks for the steer. Tim riley talk 18:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

Looks good. I might not have much in the way of comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC) Broadcasts[reply]

  • This construction is of long standing and widely used. It's a variant of the historic present, so that even with long-dead writers we might say, e.g. "In Hamlet, Shakespeare makes extensive use of the soliloquy". You'll find it in the standard style guide, Modern English Usage: "Meredith writes…", "Swift writes…", "Stevenson writes…" and so on. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leading characters

  • We're following the main sources here: these are the ones particularly mentioned in Foster and Furst, Kavanagh, Took, and Gifford. Citations added after the end of the introductory para of the section. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catchphrases

  • I've added an additional citation to confirm the statement. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only get 70 results since 1990 for "It's being so cheerful that keeps me going", which includes some duplicates. I think you used a different search term, or perhaps the sources indexed vary depending on who the NewsBank provider is. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha! You have the advantage of me here, as my access to Newsbank went phut not long after we wrote the present text. 100 was right enough then, but from what you say, perhaps we should change "more than 100 times" to "on numerous occasions"? Tim riley talk 12:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that proposed wording is safer. I had a quick look in the British Newspaper Archive, which has limitations of scope (e.g. very few national papers) and often-appallling OCR transcriptions, and found only 38 instances since 1950. By coincidence, PressReader also gave me 38 results, all since 2008. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation

  • Redrawn. Took (p. 26) quotes other less than laudatory reviews, but I don't want to overload our text with quotations, and have footnoted one example of them. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & Lead

  • I've just run through them again, adding the "regular roles" in the Performers table to those listed in Leading Character and I make the count very nearly 100. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm in spelling out the duration in the main text: done. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took, p. 29 and Foster and & Furst p. 27 (total) and pp. 28–39 (stats per series). I've added this in the main text, avoiding having citations in the i-box, which I think looks clunky.

Sources

  • Indeed. An editor added some excellent information about Egan in November 2021, and removed my somewhat despairing statement "he is not mentioned in Who's Who in the Theatre or on the British Film Institute's website", but he/she omitted to remove either Who's Who or the BFI site from the sources. Both now removed. Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could see for now, Tim riley. I enjoyed reading the article, thank you. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose, Thank you very much for these really excellent points. I think I've attended to them all – satisfactorily, I hope. And I'm so glad you enjoyed the article. – Tim riley talk 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. TTFN. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, BennyOnTheLoose for your suggestions and your support. The article is decidedly improved and I'm most grateful. Tim riley talk 17:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

I'll try to do a full review in due course, but one thing that jumped out at me is that in the "catchphrases" section, there is absolutely no reason to have a full stop after each character's name in the second column...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By a curious coincidence the same thought struck me earlier this morning when looking again at the article. I blush to say I thought "Oh, the Hell with it!", but your comment has spurred me to action. Thank you, and I hope to see further suggestions if you have time. Tim riley talk 12:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

An IP has objected to our use of the past tense for the show. For our earlier FAC, Round the Horne, we used the present tense, because the series was recorded in its entirety and is regularly rebroadcast to this day. Few recordings of ITMA survive and those that do are not often heard, for reasons we explain in the text, and so from the outset we thought it sensible to use the past tense. If any editors have views on this I'd be glad to hear them. Tim riley talk 16:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is MOS:TENSE, which would seem to support use of present tense for that situation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, as always, Nikkimaria. I hope the other editors who have also commented in the review will feel able to comment too. Pinging Wehwalt, Gog the Mild and BennyOnTheLoose. Tim riley talk 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the article, going just on my vague memory of the guideline, past tense seemed appropriate. Rereading it, it still does - "use past tense only for past events, for subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist". I can see how either view could be argued, but past tense seems both most naturally appropriate and the best binary-choice fit to the guideline. I write this in opposition to Nikkimaria's view with some trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't have a personal preference, and if writing off-wiki may have made the same choice. But the guideline as written - "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering...works that have been discontinued" and the example of Earth: Final Conflict - IMO more supports present. (I don't know the background of why the peculiar division of print vs non-print media was set up, so that might be worth looking into or revisiting). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. That's a good point. I am tempted to reverse course. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, present tense seems correct, but your use of past tense makes sense, especially since the work no longer exists in its entirety. If I were reading the entry, I would have no problem either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hrabri-class submarine

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Yugoslav acquisition of this class of two British-made submarines in the late 1920s marked the beginning of the Yugoslav submarine service, something that has been celebrated as recently as 2013 in the Yugoslav successor state of Montenegro. The subs were built using parts assembled for British L-class subs that were cancelled with the end of World War I. They had an uncommon offensive set-up, with six bow-mounted torpedo tubes and two deck guns. When they were acquired, they sported the largest guns in the Yugoslav Royal Navy. One was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion and was quickly scrapped. The other escaped to safety with the British in Egypt, and was used for training purposes until returned to the navy-in-exile towards the end of the war. Transferred to the new navy of post-war socialist Yugoslavia, it served a static classroom until it was disposed of in the mid-50s. This article passed Milhist A-Class years ago, and has recently been updated with a comprehensive new source. The two individual sub articles are FAs, so the promotion of this article will mean all articles in the featured topic will be also be featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wilson (basketball)

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Anna Wilson, the sister of NFL quarterback Russell Wilson and the woman who holds the Stanford Cardinal record for most career games played, with 160. She won the 2021 NCAA tournament with the Cardinal, and was in the final four in 2022 until losing to Uconn. I believe this is ready for FA status. I don't believe she is pursuing WNBA but she is keeping her options open. If anything changes I'll be sure to update the article. Now that her college career is over, I think the article is stable enough to be a featured article. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Please bear in mind I know almost nothing about basketball, although I did attend a game once while on holiday in New York........

That's what I got. A good read although I got lost trying to figure out some terminology which would probably be really clear to someone from the United States but isn't to someone from the other side of the pond....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for the review, comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Comments from Sportzeditz

@Sportzeditz: comments responded to, thanks for the review. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurl.com

Nominator(s): lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gurl.com, a website aimed at female teenagers and young adults that was prominent in the 1990s and 2000s. Gurl.com was an influential part of 1990s Internet culture as one of the first online media and communities aimed at young girls. It was mostly known for being a peer resource for teen advice, containing honest discussions about sexuality, body positivity, and adolescence, back when female-oriented media, such as magazines, hardly addressed those issues. In addition, Gurl.com is also credited for Internet activity in girls from generation Y and has been a point of reference in academia regarding behavior of teenage girls on the Internet in the 2000s, such as the topics they discussed and the websites they would create. I started and brought this article to Good status in the past year. Particularly where Internet culture and technology is involved, media and communities aimed at women don't get discussed that often, especially since now most people have moved towards social media. lullabying (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Late Registration

Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Resolved comments from Wehwalt
  • "Late Registration was often viewed as a vast progression " the phrase "was often viewed" almost creates an implication that this has changed, and I don't think you mean to imply that. Also, "vast" seems a bit strong. Maybe "Late Registration was seen as a considerable improvement" or similar? You could include "by a number of reviewers" if you deem what I wrote vague.
  • I changed to has been and removed the usage of vast, while keeping progression. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album led to West receiving eight nominations at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, including the award of Best Rap Album, which it won." I would cut "the award of".
  • "while reaching the top 10 in nine other countries, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom." I might change the second half to "including the United Kingdom and Ireland" (mention the country with larger population first
  • Done, not only is there no specific rule on alphabetical order for the lead but also the album was more successful in the UK. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It eventually reached more than 3,000,000 copies sold in the US " I would simplify as "It eventually sold more than 3,000,000 copies in the US"
  • Done, the previous was a bit too wordy. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became highly imitated" maybe "was widely imitated"
  • Changed to something similar, rearranging the sentence for flow. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper gathered interest in Brion's music while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reacting positively to his score," Maybe "The rapper heard and liked Brion's score while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
  • "after only one afternoon in the studio" I would move this earlier in the sentence, to after "discovered".
  • Done, adding when to the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recording it in over a year" Over a year sounds indefinite by itself. Will sources support "just over a year"?
  • Yes, but I used slightly since that is a better tone for Wiki. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow Hollywood locations" "fellow" reads oddly when we're talking about places
  • Used other instead, writing further sessions earlier on in the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working in the studio" Are we talking about Sony? If so, I'd say so. If we're talking generally, I'd say "studio work"
  • This is actually not specified, so I simply changed to begin recording material. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done, as this has already been linked earlier in the body. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and ensuring all being synchronized " maybe "and ensuring all were synchronized"
  • "completely reconfigure the entire song in a manner that its verses are built around the rhythm of his vocals, " maybe substitute "so that" for "in a manner that".
  • Done, also changed to the verses for consistency with the choruses part. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "raw instruments"? Is there a way the reader can understand what is meant?
  • The source originally uses real instruments, but I replaced with the term authentic in prose since that reads smoother and doesn't sound potentially biased. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating, " some problem with the prose here.
  • Done using the term heavy, unless large would work better here? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "outro" to something?
  • "features the last vocals fading out as various bells and whistles are incorporated, succeeded by the bass synthesizer" Are these really bells and whistles? Given that this can mean something extraneous, I'd try to make it clearer that these actual sounds are meant if so.
  • The actual source (PopMatters, listed as generally reliable) says that various bells and whistles are used. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "all of which initially come in brief staccato bursts and act" I think come should be comes and act should be acts
  • Done, changing the preceding part as well to be less wordy. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A University of North Carolina scholar" Why not name the scholar?
  • " In his analysis, the former" it is unclear who is meant.
  • Replaced with the album, per the sentence's language making it clear he is talking about the later one. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the bonus track "Diamonds from Sierra Leone", West links Sierra Leone's civil war to the jewellery trade.[7][51]" This is, I think, the third time you've discussed this track. Can't this sentence be placed with one of the other two?
  • Done, rewording slightly. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rapper was then supposed to support U2's Australian concerts on their Vertigo Tour in March 2006, until the shows were postponed.[72]" I might say "but" instead of "until".
  • "who both served their roles for Partos" What does this mean?
  • Removed the "who both served their roles" part and added the company before Partos, as that is what this refers to. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropout Bear is an animated figure of an animal, and probably should be referred to as "which" rather than "who".
  • Removed who, but used alternate language from which still. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and shows West serving the role of a cab driver in an imaginary city." I might say "taking" rather than "serving"
  • I decided to use taking on. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and what is acheivable within hip hop's appropriate boundaries.[27]" Appropriate?
  • Changed to traditional, per this being the truly "appropriate" term. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and assured that West is arrogant, "only that's not why he always samples".[26]" I'm not sure you can use "assured" in that way.
  • Reworded most of this. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration appeared on year-end best album lists for 2005 by numerous publications, including being named the best album of the year by Spin,[103] Time,[45] and USA Today.[104] Rolling Stone also gave the album this ranking," Appearing on a year-end album list is not a ranking.
  • Changed to this accolade. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It scored a 107-point lead, standing as the narrowest margin in the poll's history.[108] " Is this going to mean anything to the reader?
  • This is historic, especially with Robert Christgau being a veteran critic, so it can be kept. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was West's second consecutive album to be rated "XXL" by XXL, the magazine's highest rank, which has been awarded to only 16 other hip hop albums.[112]" Given that this is a 2005 source you're citing from, "has been" should likely be "had been"
  • Done, adding by 2005 at the end. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the staff noted that West's ambition to be "bigger than hip-hop" was correct.[116]" How can an ambition be correct? Do you mean "realized"?
  • Reworded quite a bit. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Late Registration was ultimately nominated for the award at the ceremony, " I gather it did not win the Album of the Year and that should be made clearer.
  • "Despite West's previously instated problem of failure to win, he was happy with eight nominations.[130] Both "instated" and "failure to win" sound like odd phrasings.
  • Reworded to "having stated that he would have a problem with not winning". --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave him nearly double that of The College Dropout's first-week sales." Maybe "and gave him first-week sales nearly double those of The College Dropout."
  • "In the United Kingdom, the album reached number two on the UK Albums Chart for the issue date of September 5, 2005, being prevented from topping the chart by McFly's album Wonderland; however, both albums were new entries that week.[155] " Why the "however"?
  • Removed that and I don't really think both debuting is notable anyway. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wehwalt All covered, are you sure there is nothing left and will you now support? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive thanks, I really mean it! --K. Peake 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ErnestKrause

Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Jagger

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about Sir Michael Philip Jagger -- most commonly known by his stage name Mick Jagger. While studying to become an economist, he found success in a little known band he co-founded called the Rolling Stones in '62, which went on to be the most commercially successful band in history...with him at the helm. AllMusic and MSN have called him "one of the most popular and influential frontmen in the history of rock & roll" and Billboard has called him "the rock and roll frontman". He is best known for being the trailblazing lead singer of the Rolling Stones and half of the Jagger–Richards songwriting team, one of the most successful songwriting partnerships in history. According to Steven Van Zandt, Jagger's acceptance on pop radio "was a turning point in rock & roll. He broke open the door for everyone else."

He received a knighthood in 2003, has been inducted into two music halls of fame (Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and UK Music Hall of Fame), and even had a 19-million-year-old species of water nymph named after him. Jagger's style has been studied by academics and his vocal delivery and his sense of pitch and melody have baffled other singers. He has either directly or indirectly (through the Stones) served as inspiration for many artists, including Taylor Swift, Jack White, Steven Tyler, and Iggy Pop; in 2011, Maroon 5 released "Moves like Jagger", a song inspired by his unique dancing style. Despite all this (there is much more I didn't cover) and the immense success he has achieved in life, he didn't let the fame get to his head; the late Charlie Watts described him as "the least egotistical person" who would "do what's right for the band". I believe that this article is ready to be considered for featured article status and hope that you will support it along with me. Seeing as I am too late with this nomination for this year, I hope to have this on the main page to commemorate his 80th birthday in July 2023. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Several comments to start this assessment.

(1) On my 13 inch screen there are several problems with image sandwiches; these should be dealt with and addressed.

  • For the left-right image pairs in your article, that is, when you have a left aligned image immediately follwed by a right aligned image, there appear to be image sandwiches in the 1960s section, in the 2000s section flowing into the 2010s section, and the Popular culture section. Let me know if it needs more pinpointing on your screen. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going to 'all on the right side' format does not always work, since it sometimes leads to image 'bunching' on the right side; that is, when a sequence of several images carry-over into the next section where they don't really belong. The approach which other editors sometimes find successful is to deal with the left-right image pairs by trying to separate them by an extra paragraph of narrative text if the section is large enough to do this. Its sometimes possible to simply move one of the images in the image pairs down one paragraph in the section or up one paragraph in the section, in order to remove the image sandwich. In some cases, sometimes you may need to prune some images out. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved them around a bit for the 1960s section as a test. Does that help any? I might try replacing both of those with another (singular) image from the '60s if I can find a suitable one. I wonder if we should remove the photos from the personal life section? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ErnestKrause: I have removed an image from the 1960s section and replaced the other per the above image review section. Do you think we should remove the photos from the personal life section? They aren't adding that much to the article and that would also help with the crowding. As for the 2000s image overflowing, I do see what you mean. Hmm...I think that both images are important to keep...would reducing the size of that image potentially help you figure? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image sandwiches on my size screen seem better now; you might want to double check with Nikkimaria on how it looks on her screen. Regarding your use of multiple image formats, did you try the Bianca and Jerry Hall image in landscape mode for comparison; seeing the two of them side by side might be an interesting feature to see. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I have now done that. How does it look to you now? @Nikkimaria: do you still see the image sandwiching on your display or has that been resolved? TheSandDoctor Talk 18:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my screen there is minor sandwiching in 2000s/2010s, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you. I don't remember if Template:Clear is permissible in articles. If it is, would that help? Do you think that this now passes the image review? I believe I've addressed your listed concerns? TheSandDoctor Talk 05:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Nikkimaria on the image in the 2010s, I'm agreeing with her and it should be pushed down one paragraph lower in that section on the left side. Regarding the landscape mode for Bianca and Jerry Hall, it looks improved over the portait mode version. It would be nice to see some comment on his wealth added into the article; if he is supporting philantrophies and charities as you state in the article, then readers will want to see how much money he is using to support them. See this article [1] and see this book [2] for Jagger's wealth. I'll try to have something done by way of a source analysis for your article by early next week if that is useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ErnestKrause: I moved the image down a bit and found some better references than an illustration book (The Times, namely) and added 2021 wealth estimates. How does that look for you now? The downside is that neither of the sources you had or the two I found specify how much he gives to charity. He is very much a private individual offstage. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The lead section could use a little more summary from this fairly long article. Possibly some more about the distinction of his solo career and of his career as lead singer of The Rolling Stones.

  • It seemed that the third paragraph in the lead section could add a little more... there's nothing you could add about his solo career versus his appearances with the group? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the third paragraph of the lead section to include more legacy/honours related content. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Business career profits and commercial success numbers would be nice to see more of in this article. How profitable were his mechandising attempts over the years? How profitable was his solo career? How profitable was it in comparison to his career and profits from The Rolling Stones? Is it known just how large his commercial success has been when royalties and everything else is taken in account?

  • Some of the individual album articles on Wikipedia and concert articles on Wikipedia do speak about profitability, marketing, promotion, etc.; also, are you saying that there is no information about what percentage of his wealth comes from his efforts with The Rolling Stones as opposed to everything else he does? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article used to mention a networth of $360 million, if I recall correctly, but it was removed as being not exactly relevant during the peer review. The only net worth mention that I have seen is that number by The Richest and other sites of questionable reliability for an FA. I have never seen a breakdown of percentages. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I need to retract part of that. The Richest now includes a breakdown, but it stops at 2016 (there have been tours in the last 6 years) and the intro appears to have been written when A Bigger Bang was their last tour, meaning it is closing in on 20 years out of date. That said, I am not confident about The Richest's reliability for an FA and neither was Aoba47. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to confirm reading that his wealth in over $300 million, and that its useful to the article to include this. It means that he is not on the verge of bankruptcy, that he is actually very wealthy, and that he is not suffering from insolvency in any way. Aoba can of course offer his views on this as you have pinged him above. It looks like useful data to know about Jagger. Regarding profits from individual concert tours and individual album sales, this is also useful; Wikipedia has many articles on this subject such as the 3 articles about Bridges to Babylon and the related tour. Where did his money come from questions seem relevant to an article about a person like Jagger who has accumulated this much wealth. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware of a better source for that figure or the other financials you propose, though? --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(4) Private life and progeny. My understanding is that Jagger's family of children and grand-children is rather large, exceeding 2-3 dozen at this point and prominently discussed in the press. Could some more be added in this article? How many children does he recognize as his own? How may grand-children does he recognize? Also, how many children have been alleged to be his? There were several high profile court cases which disputed these facts; can they be added to the article here?

  • That's useful to read here. The reliable sources I've just searched using the Google engine seem fairly consistent that he recognizes: "Mick Jagger has eight children with five different women, five grandchildren, and is a great-grandfather." For example here: [3]. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) By "That's useful to read here" do you mean that that parody should be included (presumably in the "In popular culture" section)? --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is always important at Wikipedia. If there are reliable sources for a rock star's life and his girlfriends then it should be included in this article. From his various book-length biographers, Jagger is not portrayed as an innocent touring the world. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following RS is indeed important, I never said that it wasn't. The article mentions his adultery already in the personal life section. If you have any specific examples in mind that pass WP:DUE, I am all ears and you are welcome to add them. Going back to my actual question, I added mention of the parody to the "In popular culture" section and the number of grandchildren/great-grandchildren to the relationships section. I was also asking about if you had sources for ones he (allegedly) doesn't recognize, not the ones he does; it is already established well in reliable sources and in the article already for the ones he does recognize. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) Adding #5 by way of Source review. There appears to be an issue of whether the Bibliography and References sections are comprehensive for FAC when they are compared to the article and Bibliography in the GA for The Rolling Stones. Much of the biography of Mick Jagger is covered in the many published books about The Rolling Stones, though the list of books in this article for Mick Jagger is not matching up with the sources used in The Rolling Stones Wikipedia article. Has a check been done to ensure that the comments and information about Mick Jagger covered in the Rolling Stones Wikipedia article are also adequately covered in this Mick Jagger article along with the sources and citations which appear in the group's separate Wikipedia article? For example, in the Early History section of The Rolling Stones article it is stated that "In the mid-1950s, Jagger formed a garage band with his friend Dick Taylor; the group mainly played material by Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry...", while giving credit to the book by Nelson which does not appear in this Mick Jagger article. The same for the other sections of The Rolling Stones article and the many citations and sources there which deal with Mick Jagger directly by name. Have you done this check of sources and citations in the group's article and compared them to this Mick Jagger article? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: I have looked through The Rolling Stones and ported some sources and content over. My concern, though, is that we don't want to essentially clone that article entirely (there is a reason there are two articles and ((main)) is in use). They don't need to match up for those sections by sources or verbatim, at the very least, and can be more shallow versions. That said, I have added a few thousand more bytes of content from the main Stones article. Does that look any better to you? Any areas that jump out as needing more? Willing to work with you on this. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching you add the materials over the last day or two with your positive results. The main insight for doing that, I think, is to single out the material which focuses on Mick Jagger when using the books about The Rolling Stones. It looks like you've been adding sfn sources to supplement your previous list and it looks more complete now. Nikkimaria looks like she is ok with your images and passing based on images, and I think I'm ok with your upgrades to the sources and cites in the article and am now going to support the promotion of the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Thank you for the review! It is greatly appreciated. You might want to make the support vote in bold so that it better leaps out at coordinators? TheSandDoctor Talk 16:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

I am posting this as a placeholder. I will post a review once ErnestKrause is done with their comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It looks like Nikkimaria is answering the part about image sandwiching, and I'm planning to switch over to look at the source review sometime early next week if all goes well. If you have any FAC comments then you can add them at this time without waiting if that works for you. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. I will look through the article tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is too late for me to do a review today, but I will try to do it tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article one more time to make sure that I catch everything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you so much! It is very helpful, as always. Please see the above where I've either addressed all points or asked for clarification. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left responses to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! I think I have now addressed everything you raised. Please let me know if you see anything else. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. Thank you for your patience. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review, Aoba47! TheSandDoctor Talk 04:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "Jagger has had two genera named after him, Jaggermeryx naida and Aegrotocatellus jaggeri. "If I understand this correctly, only one is a genus, the other being a species.
@Wehwalt: Good catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need the birthdays of Jagger's parents and brother?
Probably not. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest the RS's first number one UK singles are significant enough to cover in main text, rather than just a footnote.
I agree. Where would you recommend putting that in the prose?
Maybe start a new paragraph with "The group played songs by American rhythm and blues artists like Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, " and then describe the two covers that became #1. Then pick up again with how they were urged to write their own songs in a new paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk)
That worked, thank you! --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There, he learned to play guitar" I assume after going back two sentences that we are talking about the south of France. But given I had to go back two sentences to figure out what was meant, some better formulation might do.
Changed. How does it look now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Director Alejandro Jodorowsky approached him in the same year to play the role of Feyd-Rautha[148] " This had no connection with the version in the 1980s with Sting in that role?
Based on the LA Times writing "Herbert's book would eventually be broguht to the screen in 1984 by David Lynch" and the surrounding context, no, no relation. Jodorowsky's project fizzled. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCarthy predicted the film would fare better once released to video than in its limited theatrical runs. (Unnecessary detail imo)[164] " Some commentary here? If I could put my oar in, I'd say I'd agree unless you tie up whether it did in fact do better on video.
I thought that that was your commentary, but then saw it in the article. Wow. Not sure how that ended up there and it wasn't mine. Huh. Anyhow, based on data from The-numbers.com, that estimate was well off the mark. Do you think that that should be referenced in the article or just drop the sentence? I've already cut the parenthesis bit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger has been married and divorced once,[170][171] and has had other relationships, resulting in eight children with five women, five grandchildren, and one great-grandchild.[172]" This could be read to say that his children were with the aid of his descendants. I might also toss in an "as of 2016" as the statistics might have changed by now.
How would you propose clarifying it? I've tossed in an "as of 2016". --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "... five women. He also has, as of 2016, five grandchildren ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That works! Implemented. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to give exact birthdates for non-notable people?
Probably not. Do you think a year by itself would be appropriate for timeline sake? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jagger's father and daughters Karis and Elizabeth were in attendance." Since you can be "in attendance" on royalty, I might say "present" instead.
Changed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2000 film Almost Famous, set in 1973, refers to Jagger: "Because if you think Mick Jagger'll still be out there, trying to be a rock star at age 50 ... you're sadly, sadly mistaken."[221]" I'm a little dubious about this, cute as that line is, and as much as I love that movie, if it's only a "mentioned in" and there's no explanation of why it's relevant that he's mentioned.
He has similarly shared this view in the past, though he said 45 and said it two years after the year the show was set in. Source. I've added a bit more, but would also be okay cutting it or tweaking further. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave it in but it's among my favorite films so I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • CNN should be linked and I don't think it should be italicised.
Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, Wehwalt! Could you please take a look at the theatrical vs video release point again? Otherwise I think I've covered everything. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Now

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2010 album by Taylor Swift. It sold one million copies within one week—a record in the digital era. Because it was the first album Swift released after 2009's Kanyegate, Kanye was very much inspired by its success (among many others in later years) to claim that he made her famous. Stripped off all of this context, Speak Now is a decent album, though her vocals are a little nasally at points. The first FAC failed because it did not generate any interest, so I hope this second round would get more lucky. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.C. Monza

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After over a decade of financial troubles, in 2018 Italian football club A.C. Monza was purchased by media tycoon (and generally controversial figure) Silvio Berlusconi. After a lot of passion (and money) injected into the club, Monza gained promotion to the Serie A (the Italian top division) for the first time this year. I thought it would be a good idea to nominate it for FA, given that it has just come back from a successful GA nomination. Nehme1499 00:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: Given that the picture was published in a 1976 book, it must have logically been taken the year prior. Also, line-up pictures of footballers are usually taken at the start of the season (so 1975 in this case). I have no concrete evidence to prove that the picture was taken before 1 January 1996, though.
  • Also, out of curiosity, is the cutoff of 1 January 1996 fixed, or will it become 1997 next year? Nehme1499 17:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The URAA date won't change and if the image is from 1976 it will go out of copyright most likely on 1 January 2072 (1976+95+1)—see the Hirtle chart. I don't think we can assume that an image published in a 1976 book must have been from the previous year, since news photography and some books are published in much shorter timeframes. (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buidhe: You're right, the image is actually most likely from 1976. I compared the players in the image with the players in Monza's roster throughout the 1975–76 season; a few players who left before 1976 are not in the picture. I'll try to replace it with another image. Nehme1499 17:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelenken

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the upload by the original artist:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see now that it is higher resolution that the version on the external site so I'm willing to accept that it's by the artist. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review! FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed now, I believe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What ref would be an example of this? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers

Interesting read, I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.

Re: "dominated Cenozoic South America in the absence of mammalian predators, though they did co-exist with some large, carnivorous mammals." If they were large and carnivorous how were they not predators? I'm assuming that what was meant was two different periods of time within the cenozoic, one after and the other before North and South America were linked.
Ah, good catch, the source specifies placental mammals, which I somehow overlooked, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"These bones were thought to belong" Surely "These bones are thought to belong" unless academic opinion has subsequently changed. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified as "The describers concluded these bones belonged to a single specimen" to keep it in past tense for the narrative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The area's stratigraphy had only been preliminarily studied at the time, and the age of the sediments had not been adequately determined, but compared with other fossil beds of the South American Land Mammal Age and radioisotopic dating, it is estimated to date to the Colloncuran age of the middle Miocene, about 15 million years ago". I think what the sources are saying is that other fossil beds with comparable fossils have been dated to about 15 million years ago by radioisotopic dating. Which begs the question, why have these deposits not yet been radioisotopic dated, but also the current wording implies that there are two dating methods - finding fossil beds with the same population and also radioisotopic dating. But I think what is happening is that the fossil analysis is linking these fossil beds to ones that have been dated to 15 mya by radioisotopic dating, not that these deposits have been radioisotopic dated. ϢereSpielChequers 20:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why it hasn't been done to this particular area I can't say, and I have looked for newer articles that might have done it, but nothing came up. But I have added "from different areas of the Collón Curá Formation". 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)FunkMonk (talk)

Mostly support

I looked through this article with the FACR in mind during the GAN at the nominator's request, and found it to meet most criteria. My primary concern was 1f, " free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". Some were fixed, but one example that remains is

Putting aside 1f, this article meets 1a-e, 2a-c (although I leave confirmation of 2c to the experts), 3, and 4. CMD (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I changed some of it back to be a bit closer to the source because the tweaks removed the text too far from the intended meaning or added info not in the source, the wording in the source is pretty condensed already, so it is hard to paraphrase without altering meaning too much. We need to know it is tall vegetation, not just any vegetation, the source doesn't specifically mention gaps between rocks, etc. But I changed it to "tall plants" just to vary it a bit more. I think the wording and tenses are changed far enough from the source to be considered rewording, but as usual when it comes to copy-editing as such, I'll ping Gog the Mild to see if he has any input on this. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first ping was possibly botched, trying to ping Gog the Mild again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Looks close to me. Hmm. Maybe 'They pointed out that the narrowing of the pelvis, upper maxilla, and thorax may have been adaptations to enable the birds to search for and take smaller prey animals in tall plant growth or broken terrain.'? No need to mention maxilla again in the same sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

Wubslin

That's just the lead. More to follow. --Wubslin (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This Year's Model

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. Even better than his debut My Aim Is True, Model really shows the artist and band at their best in terms of songwriting and musicality. I've been rebuilding a few of Costello's albums from the ground up now and I believe this one is ready for the star. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realmaxxver

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Realmaxxver Would appreciate feedback sooner rather than later. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

(1) Lead section. Use of the word 'viscious' seems a quote of Costello in his interview but you do not quote this word in quote marks. Suggest you quote it, or change it to 'cynical' or 'sarcastic' without quote marks.

(2) Side one section. It seems like a good idea to quote Elvis's opening words which kick off the song. Direct quote of the first 9-10 words before the band kicks in.

Its "I don't want to see you, I don't want to touch." Its surprising to see that none of the songs on this album have a Wikipedia page. It would be nice to see the opening lyrics from this song in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Packaging and artwork section. Its obvious, but mention that he is photographed in his signature black frame glasses.

(4) Critical reception section. It says that it was album of the year 1978 here, but its not stated as such in the lead section. Album of the year for the Village Voice is worth putting in lead section.

  • I mean "appeared on several year-end lists" I think makes that clear. And is it? Since it appeared on multiple lists stating an American publication and not the others seems odd to me. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could select the top 2-3 in the list to add to the lead section at your option. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(5) The phrase "ranked as one of Costello's best...", may look better as, "ranked as among Costello's best...".

(6) No Legacy section? No one has ever tried to copy one of his songs with any success?

There is a duet with Elvis Costello & Billie Joe Armstrong doing No Action. Since there are no singles articles from this album on Wikipedia (other than Radio, Radio?), then it would be nice to see a Legacy section for the album and its hits, listing any notable covers which might be out there. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ErnestKrause Wasn't able to find much stuff on potential legacy, unlike something like Low. If we go on a song-by-song basis I guess we could add something like that, or Linda Rondstadt's covers, or even Olivia Rodrigo's potential plagiarism of "Pump It Up" for "Brutal". But then again, I'd want legacy or influence to about the album as a whole rather than that. Might be just a me thing. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should serve as some start comments. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of optional further edits that I am listing above which you might add to the article, and I'm supporting this nomination. The article already has a top to bottom copy edit from its good GAN and the sources are well-developed and comprehensive. Supporting this nomination. If you have time to make some comments, then I've put in a nomination for the pop music group BTS for possible support/oppose comments from you if you can get around to it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

Cool, this is one of my all-time favourite albums and I always had it at the back of my mind I'd like to expand it someday, but it looks like you beat me to it. :-) (Ha, it looks like I made two edits to this in 2006 but haven't edited it since.) I will try to review this soon. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in my impressionable mid-teens I'm pretty sure it what sparked my interest in this was the 1987 Rolling Stone issue ranking it #11 best album of the last 20 years. I was instantly won over by its energy and catchy hooks, and have been a big fan ever since. OK, enough gushing, better get started with the review!

First read-through:

Image review

  • Definitely better, but now it's basically the same as the other cover - what's the rationale for including both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

  • I just bought the book cuz why not. Figure I'll be doing quite a few more of his anyways. I'll see what I can dim I'll probably be making quite a few new additions. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not OR. Costello himself wrote extensive liner notes for the reissues by both Rykodisc and Rhino for all of his early albums, so they constitute WP:PRIMARY here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should probably have mentioned that the reference in question is to "Anon. (1978). This Year's Model (LP sleeve notes)" rather than to the later editions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • there were videos for "(I Don't Want To Go To) Chelsea", "Pump It Up", and "Radio, Radio". (The "Pump It Up" one is mentioned in passing under the Spanish Model part of the article.)
  • Unfortunately none of the bios talk about any of his videos from Model nor Get Happy!! (maybe for Armed Forces but can't recall atm) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can find on that because that would be good to mention. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This Year's Girl"/"Big Tears" was released as a single in the US.
  • Unfortunately none of the bios discuss non-UK singles either; definitely not as in-depth as Bowie (ugh). I'll check out some websites but I don't recall many mentioning them. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just an aggregate website similar to Metacritic. It's only being used for overall album rankings and nothing else. I used it in my previous FAs Hunky Dory and Low and they passed just fine. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banded broadbill

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another species of Southeast Asian broadbill. Pretty well-known, and rather well illustrated for an article on a species from this part of the world. AryKun (talk) 12:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I may do some light copy editing as I go. If I mess anything up, could you let me know here.

Could we make them both lower case then.
D'oh! Sorry.
Hmm. Ok.
That's why I put "perhaps". Personally I think it's of some utility. But if you disagree, take it out.

That's all I have. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just the M/mainland issue, but no reason for that to stand in the way of my support. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

Aa77zz

Description

Distribution

Breeding

References

- Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Replaced map with new one citing its sources. The adult feeding juvenile may be a low-quality image, but it illustrates a feature of its behaviour well, and in any case, there aren't any other images that could be used for the Behaviour and ecology section. AryKun (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second Punic War

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants. All in fewer than 6,000 words. I took this to GA in 2020 and put it on the backburner while I concentrated on other matters. After a recent overhaul, especially of the sourcing - thanks Buidhe - I believe that it has a chance of meeting the FAC criteria. See what you think - as usual, all and any constructive comments welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

Shall review and report back. More anon. Tim riley talk 21:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First lot of comments, down to the end of the Italy section:

Deleted. (A different review suggested their use, and you know how I hate to quibble.)
Certainly, but point taken.
An interesting point which I do not wish to go into here. Replaced with 'liable', following the source.
Changed to 'The latter cavalry'[?]
What's convoluted about it? But changed anyway.
:-) Fixed.
This is something I much disagree with. But I am going to get outvoted, so changed; much confusion to the readers.
Ah. I've wondered about this sort of thing when citing two or three sources for different parts of the preceding sentence. There is a case to be made for doing as you did, helping anyone unhinged enough to want to check to find the relevant source as efficiently as possible. I confess I assumed your order was an oversight, but if it was deliberate I withdraw my objection and encourage you to revert the change, contra mundum. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remain unconverted, but the offending word has been.
Hmm. Gone.

More to come. Tim riley talk 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding

Only four more comments:

Good thinking. Done.
Identify seems as unambiguous as a word can be to me: "establish the identity of". But stricken.
Umm. I am not sure if you are winding me up here. (?) "Rout: To retreat from a confrontation in disorder." The elephants ("they") routed (retreated from the confrontation in disorder) through the Carthaginian (of which army they were a part) ranks. I honestly struggle to see the lack of clarity. The effect of this on the Carthaginians in those ranks and any irony inherent in this is left as an exercise for the class, this being a very summary style. I have changed "they" to 'the elephants'; does that help?
You expose my ignorance: I didn't know "rout" could be an intransitive verb. Now I know. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"them" - ah, you have caught me attempting to have this both ways. "break" - a standard military usage, I have seen it in newspaper reports from the Falklands War. "To destroy the arrangement of; to throw into disorder; to pierce", with the example "The cavalry were not able to break the British squares." But if as sagacious a reader as yourself is confused then it needs rewriting. I have changed it to ' Changed to '"Shock" troops are those trained and used to close rapidly and aggressively with their opponents, with the intention of breaking their formation before, or immediately upon, contact.' Any better? Or any suggestions?
That's much clearer, thank you. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. My comments are just on the prose. I have nothing to say about Livy -v- Polybius, raised below, or any other aspect of the content. – Tim riley talk 05:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent as always Tim, and many thanks. I regret that you don't find Hannibal's goings on as gripping as Edward III's, but as you have said "de gustibus non est disputandum". Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is true that I don't find the Punic Wars as interesting as the Hundred Years' War, but this is still a splendid article: clear, widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive as far as I can see, and well illustrated. I note the disagreement about the relative merits of the Graeco-Roman historians, but as a non-expert I think the article meets the FA criteria, and I am happy to support. Tim riley talk 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by T8612

Hello Gog. Before reviewing the text body, I think a significant rewriting of the "Primary sources" section is needed. You put way too much emphasis on Polybius and discredit Livy in a way that is not justified for the 2PW.

I also think Diodorus and Cassius Dio should be moved just after Polybius, because they used him and most fragments of Polybius' lost books are found in their works. However, you can ditch Appian for the 2PW, as he is more useful for the 3PW.
Nevertheless, as he wrote annalistically, Livy is invaluable for his precise recordings of all the Roman magistrates, commanders, triumphs, etc. which gives us a very good chronology of the events, something we don't have for the other wars because Polybius was not that much interested in recording these.
Hi T8612, response in two parts:
1. It is good to be back with the Punic Wars, I have missed them. It has felt like unfinished business for the last two years. I have a raft of work I want to get done, including, hopefully, several articles coming here. If you would care to get involved on the ground floor, preventing me from straying too erroneously, and perhaps even collaborating on an article or two, I would appreciate it. If this appeals, stick a post on my talk page. And yes please, a pdf of the 2020 source would be most helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again T8612:
2. Apologies for the delayed response to your substantive points. Basically I disagree quite a bit with some of them - especially the Livy and Polybius ones. Or, rather, I don't - no one cares what I think, or (no disrespect intended) what you think - but the sources do. I have been going back through the sources trying to find support for your general position and can't. I include in the article several quotes on the reliability of Livy and Polybius. After consulting more than a dozen sources since I read your post I am inclined to think that I am a bit hard on Polybius and soft on Livy - there are plenty more quotes I could use. Yes, there is the occasional quibble with Polybius, and much of the 2PW relies on Livy, but I don't think that I have unfairly represented the balance of the sources. I'll try to read Briscoe & Hornblower - many thanks for this, much appreciated - this evening and then have a go at rewriting the Sources section. I would certainly be happy to say something about the potential Scipio relatives issue. Bear with me and come back to me once I have done this. It may then come down to each of us stacking up sources, which is fine, if time consuming, but let's try to settle this. But I think you will find it difficult to find many sources which contradict the basic thrust of what I write, and even harder to establish a consensus of RSs for that. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "The Second Punic War (218 to 201 BC) was the second of three wars fought between Carthage and Rome, the two main powers of the western Mediterranean in the 3rd century BC." I might add a "which were" after the comma to settle any ambiguity as what "in the 3rd century BC is intended to refer to."
Done.
  • "defended the Carthaginian colonial cities with mixed success until moving into Italy;" I should say "before" rather than "until"
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay.
  • " by suborning pro-Roman factions." If they were pro-Roman, why did they need to be suborned?
That, ah, is an excellent point. Changed to 'by suborning factions within to give them entry'.
  • "Without the expected reinforcement the Hannibal's forces were compelled to evacuate allied towns and withdraw to Bruttium.[143][144]" Something odd going on with the second "the".
Indeed. Tim also picked up this stray definite article, which has now been humanely put down.
  • "After Publius Cornelius Scipio invaded the Carthaginian homeland in 204 BC," This is the first time you mention him in the body of the article.
It is?! Too many Scipios, too much editing. Edited out, so his introduction is also his earliest chronological mention.
With only minor quibbles in this excellent article, I support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
High praise indeed. Thank you Wehwalt. Responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Compassionate727

Alright, I've never done this before, but Gog the Mild convinced me to give this a try, so bare with me. I'll begin with comments on prose. If in the future, I should just make these kinds of changes myself, let me know.

Compassionate727, no, please don't. I will simply take them out again. I assure you that the article is correctly punctuated. For example, a comma inserted before "and" is known as a serial or Oxford comma. It is, under the MoS a permissible practice, but not a required one. The MoS states "Editors may use either convention so long as each article is internally consistent". Similarly, I am aware of the, to my mind strange, convention of inserting a comma after any initial mention of time. It is not one I use. So proponents of it would write, and, I assume, say "Today, I ate breakfast"; I would write and say "Today I ate breakfast". Either is acceptable. (Much as I itch to remove examples of the former when copy editing.) It is entirely acceptable to not use the former convention. And so on. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I'll admit I don't know the MOS as well as I should, so if you can point me to something, please do. I know that commas are frequently omitted from short dependent clauses; "Today I ate breakfast" is a good example. But I believe they cease to be optional once the clause is a certain length. Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who does? The only place you will find commas in the MoS is at MOS:OXFORD and immediately above. Other comma use is just the normal rules of English grammar. Of which, contrary to many opinions, there are a multiplicity. The ones I use are a common and consistent set of such rules, which clearly are not those which you are accustomed to. That doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means that there are no - or fewer than we thought - universal rules of English. If your jaw is dropping, I sympathise; when I first discovered that some writers always put a comma before "and" and after any date I was so shocked I couldn't speak. I am as liable to err as anyone, so if you really, really think that a comma is missing in the article, flag it up below and I'll have a look at it. Meanwhile, I'm for bed. PS "length" - really? That's a new one on me. How long is "a certain length"? (Just curious.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go to bed; we'll both still be here when you wake up. I'll do some more research and get back to you. Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
British English is on the whole much more sparing with commas than American English. For examples see pp. 4 and 732 of the current edition of Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2015). On the other hand the Queen's English does not follow Amerenglish in proscribing commas where they are useful but outlawed by some made-up "rule": the superstition that American teachers propound that when a subordinate clause follows an independent clause a comma is forbidden between them has no place in BrE. Equally a BrE speaker has no urge to rewrite the opening sentence of the Bible to insert an unnecessary comma in "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". It is in short unwise of a speaker of AmE to tell a writer of BrE how to punctuate - or vice versa, of course. Tim riley talk 06:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, and it's not my intention to be insensitive regarding Engvar issues; I just don't know what is an Engvar issue vs. an actual mistake until someone tells me its an Engvar thing. If you can recommend any good sources listing the differences, I would be delighted to read them. I recall attempting to find some many years ago without much success.
FWIW, my own research was only somewhat helpful. I was able to find a rather large number of sources saying that commas are necessary after initial dependent clauses, but we all agree that's not the full picture. I did find this article from Grammarly that says: Since the introductory clause consists of only three words, the comma separating the introductory clause from the main clause may or may not be used. (Grammarly, notably, prescribes according to American English standards.) It's not clear from this source if three words is actually a cut-off point or just an example of an acceptable omission (for whatever it's worth, I think three words is also what my Composition teacher in college said); I'm not inclined to treat is as a hard rule (it clearly never has been), and when I look at a Google Books preview of Modern English Usage, I see an example on p. 4 of a slightly longer dependent clause (four words) that also omits a comma.
I'm rambling now, though. If we accept that commas are definitely optional after subordinate clauses of three words or fewer, we eliminate most of the examples I'd ordinarily complain about. I can raise the rest below. Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I so sympathise with your wish for a list of differences between English and American punctuation! It would indeed be useful all round. The main obstacle to compiling one, I think, is that where something is a non-issue, as in the use of a comma after "In the beginning" or between a main and subordinate clause it would no more occur to a writer of a good BrE guide to say do or don't use a comma here than it would to say do or don't start a sentence with a capital letter. Some things just don't need mentioning. (That being said, a teacher of infants told me not long ago that the American form "In the beginning comma God created..." is now being drummed into British tinies, on the orders of HM Government. Heigh ho! Fortunately I shall probably be dead by the time today's infants are perpetrating prose in public.) Tim riley talk 14:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Good point. Done.
I slightly prefer mine, but done.
Done.
Good, cus I would have fought to keep the current construction. ;-)
Like any politician has ever sung the praises of any treaty their country has signed of on after losing a war? And obviously the statements of politicians can be taken as an accurate reflection of reality? [/irony] I prefer it to stay, without being wedded to the exact wording, if only to reflect the sources.
Which is fair, but it's a little awkward IMO, and it doesn't strike as important to note in the lead. If you disagree, I'll think some more about how to possibly restructure the sentence. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mr riley, if you could spare a moment, do I need a "that" there? I am inclined to believe not, and it seems clunky with one added, but I would value your opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Otherwise it would read as if he were awarded the agnomen.
Would that not be a fair statement? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see your point. The problem is that we don't actually know how he came by the name. Livy explicitly states this, so the modern sources all fudge it. As I have. :-)
Mmm. Could you briefly summarize what we do know and what is unclear? I'm not familiar with this issue and don't have access to the sources in question. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know he became known as "Scipio Africanus". The sources use words like "accorded"; "as a tribute ... he would be known as"; "assume[d] the cognomen"; "he assumed". Lazenby writes "Livy says he could not discover who had first conferred it". [My emphasis.]
Are we reasonably confident that it was originally conferred (i.e., Scipio didn't just adopt it on his own initiative)? Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"reasonably"? Depends what you call reasonable. We are not certain that happened, no. He could have just assumed it. He could have become known as Africanus informally before it was formalised; it is just about possible that it never was formalised. (IMO unlikely but not 100% ruled out.) IMO these possibilities is covered by the current form of words.
Yeah, I agree. Or at least, I agree that "received" is about as good of a one word description of what happened here as we are going to get. One last question: would it be acceptable to write: Scipio received a triumph and the agnomen "Africanus"? I recognize that "award a triumph" is a standard construction, so if "receive" would be considered inaccurate, it's fine to leave the sentence as-is. Just trying to tighten the prose as much as possible while faithfully preserving the meaning. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing forces
Done.
Done.
Changed.
1. Done. 2. sub unit
The wikilink you (or someone) added to manicle is what I was looking for. Thanks. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I should have thought to include it in the first place.
Er, no.
Yeah, now that I actually know exactly what that means, I agree. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Order tweaked as you suggest.
'during war' does not work for me. I am happy to rephrase, but my first two thoughts are both longer than the current formulation, which I assume you will object to.
Probably. This must be a British English thing, I don't think I've ever seen the preposition "at" used with time before. I don't suppose "in" would be less offensive to you than "during"? If not, don't worry about it. I would still prefer to eliminate "time of" if possible, though. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"in" is fine. Changed.
Oops. Thanks. Fixed.
You should. My explanatory footnote seems to have gone walk about, so I have reinstated it.
Clarified.
Possibly this is another example of "wo nations separated by a common language". It is usual to start a list with a colon. You have an issue with that?
It might be. My instinct is that you could use either a colon or "including" but not both together. But you can't remove "including" without altering the meaning of the sentence, and like I said, the colon's use makes a kind of sense to me, so I won't fight you over it. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Yes, the source is indicating that some of the Iberians were probably - but not certainly - heavy cavalry.
Should the sentence say "probably" instead of "possibly" then? Your call, I've not read the sources. Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "There is some evidence that some of the Spanish horse were heavy cavalry ... and may well have been armoured." Bleh!
The first mention of close-order is already Wikilinked. I have just Wiktionary-linked open-order.
Compassionate727, lovely stuff. Many thanks. Responses above.
More will be coming as I have the time and mental capacity to do so. I intend to get through the entire article eventually. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources

I'm not going to suggest copy edits to this section with your revisit pending and T8612's concerns still under discussion. I will say, however, that this section seems to have been basically copied and pasted between the various Punic Wars articles without attention to the context of each article. It is especially striking here: surely, the fact that almost all of Polybius's account of this war is missing deserves more than a single sentence, especially when the previous two paragraphs are almost entirely about how important Polybius's account is. If Polybius's account is broken and Livy's is suspect, who are we relying on? Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The same indiscriminate copying seems to have happened in the first paragraph of this section that happened in the primary sources section. It's overly detailed for a Second Punic War article. Do we really need to know about the Pyrrhic War to understand the Second Punic War? Or Richard Miles's opinion that they "stumbled" into the First Punic War? Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and yes. This is the sort of deep background which would be expected in a FAC in order to cover the second part of FA criterion 1b . (You may wish to skim my very recent oppose to CSS Baltic
1b. it neglects no major facts or details I would not consider the name of the Pyrrhic War a major detail in the background to the Second Punic War. (The first, sure, but not the second.) Neither is Richard Miles's name. The effect of the Pyrrhic War is important, of course; so is how Carthage and Rome didn't always see each other as inevitable enemies. I note both of these things in my proposed version of the paragraph below. But a few of the details that would be important background for the First Punic War become unimportant when you widen your view to include everything leading up to the Second. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I might propose text like this: The Roman Republic had been aggressively expanding in the southern Italian mainland for a century before the First Punic War, and by 270 BC controlled all of peninsular Italy south of the Arno river. During this time, Carthage, with its capital in what is now Tunisia, had come to dominate southern Iberia, much of the coastal regions of North Africa, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia and the western half of Sicily. By 264 BC, Carthage was the dominant external power on the island, (Sicily?) and Carthage and Rome were the preeminent powers in the western Mediterranean. Although their relationship was initially friendly, Rome's continued expansionary attitude and Carthage's proprietary approach to Sicily brought them into conflict. In 264 BC Carthage and Rome went to war over control of the independent Sicilian city state of Messana (modern Messina), starting the First Punic War. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would also consider glossing the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia as "the Western Mediterranean islands" (or "the islands of the Western Mediterranean"). It isn't shorter, but it is fewer items to process, which I believe is valuable when the goal is to convey an overview of Carthage's possessions and the islands' individual names aren't all that important. Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why deprive a reader of information when we are not even saving words or characters!? Why force a reader to chase a link to find out which islands the broader term refers to?
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read that line, I had to pause for a second to process all those names before realizing: "Oh, that's just every island in the Western Mediterranean." It would have easier for me to understand its meaning if the sentence had just said that to begin with. You ask why we should force a reader to follow a link to find out their names, but I don't see why any reader would bother doing so, because at this point in the article, at the very beginning of the background section, none of these islands are important as individual islands. Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm having second thoughts about this suggestion. I was quite sleep-deprived yesterday, which may explain why I stumbled while trying to process the sentence, and I'd rather avoid any ambiguity over what exactly is included in the phrase "islands of the Western Mediterranean" (I obviously wasn't understanding small islands just off the coast of Italy like the Pontine to be included, but I'm not sure there's any good way to communicate that). Consider this suggestion withdrawn unless someone else sees any merit to it. I would, however, suggest that Sardinia and Corsica be separated by "and" instead of a comma. Compassionate727 (T·C) 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CSS Baltic

Nominators: User:Sturmvogel 66, User:Hog Farm

A co-nom from me and Sturmvogel. An object lesson in what happens when you try to DIY an ironclad. I believe that this is the first FAC for a warship of the Confederate States. Hog Farm Talk 02:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support: A good article, but I think that long paragraphs in it may benefit from splitting. Long paragraphs are both very hard to keep track of and distasteful, and the issue would be further compounded by the new Vector skin. Other than that, I found the article is an interesting read about an obscure subject, will support if the aforementioned issue has been resolved. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane: - I've split one that did seem kinda long. Did you have concerns about the other paragraph lengths? The paragraphs are generally arranged fairly topically. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, partly because other paragraphs are long for a good reason. Changing my comment to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

Reviewing this version. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little treat of an article. Glad to see it at FAC now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

I am sorry, but I disagree. While I would not expect the same level of background as I would for, say, the battle of Vicksburg, I would expect enough from scratch background and context for a new to the topic reader to be able to make sense of it. I fail to see how the short length of the article absolves it of this. I am regretfully opposing on the grounds that the second part of FA criterion 1b is not met. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: - I've added several sentences from scratch introducing slavery, states' rights, Lincoln, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy and then tying that into the Confederates firing on Sumter. Then flowing into the Confederate naval advantage, the Anaconda Plan and the blockade, and then the early Union coastal victories at Hatteras, Clark, and Port Royal. Does this provide the needed background? It's not easy to summarize the causes of this war in a few sentences. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I was looking for. While I don't wish to tell you how to write the minutiae of the article, so far as I am concerned you could delete "Slavery became a significant part of southern culture, and the ideology of states' rights was used to support the institution." and perhaps add something on the blockade throttling the Confederate supply of arms and materiel after "in order to cut off trade". Rest of the review to follow.
Yeah, I understand that, but your average reader is likely to do a double take. Something like 'and so was relegated to mine laying duties ...' maybe? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've went with the "relegated" phrasing Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - sorry for the delay in getting to this. I've added a bit of background (first battle, more specific date of start of war, clarified importance of holding the coasts). I could add some more, but I'm not sure how much there's really space for since this is a shorter article than normal. Any thoughts? Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this screen? It doesn't copy the text to which I wish to reply? WTF?
The source doesn't specify exactly where the crew slept. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66: - are these all taken care of or should I dig out the sources in my spare time tonight? Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all done. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. It may be a day or two before I can get back to you on this. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second reading

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See if my changes are acceptable--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Old Head coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the last issue of coins of Queen Victoria, with the well-known portrait of her as an elderly woman. It received mixed to positive reviews at the time, which was an improvement from the previous Jubilee coinage anyway.Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

With the exception of the 1893 half crowns, those things are done. It looks like OTRS messed things up and thought they were purely PD. I will resubmit them tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS has now acted. That's everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

These fiddling suggestions are all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

No, but I've opened the parens.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, they are each different in subject matter and hard to combine.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for as noted, all done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

Three comments, none of which affect my support, but which you may like to consider:

The article is clear, the prose is good, the illustrations are impressive and the sources, old and new, are many and varied. I'm happy to support promotion to FA. Tim riley talk 06:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support. I've made that slight change in the lead and capitalised where it seems appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Neale

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is another article in the Georgetown University presidents series and the last necessary to promote its topic from Good to Featured status, an uncommon event! This article is a GA and I believe it meets FA standards. Plus, the subject's brother, Francis Neale, is already a FA. Ergo Sum 15:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I'm working on tracking these down. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query by WereSpielChequers

Nice read, an intersection of topics about which I know very little.

I'm assuming this chap was the first Roman Catholic bishop consecrated after independance, and that others had been consecrated in the 13 states before the revolution? Either way it might be worth qualifying this, with maybe a footnote or see also for any earlier consecrations in Miami or New Orleans.
As far as I can tell, Neale was, in fact, the first bishop ordained in any of the territory that is today the United States, including areas that were not part of the 13 colonies. I don't have any indication that bishops were ordained before Neale in Florida, Louisiana, or the Spanish missions in California or the Southwestern U.S. Do you have a source that says there were? Ergo Sum 11:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Puerto Rico had bishops for at least two centuries before that I'd be surprised if this was the first consecration on what is now US territory, but the few I've checked do seem to have been consecrated in Europe and sent out. Can I suggest a rephrase to clarify that it was the first Roman Catholic consecration in what is now the continental United States, as I read the article as just claiming he was the first consecrated after independence. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he became Archbishop after becoming bishop I'd be tempted to swap those two round in the lede, unless there is a pressing reason for the reverse chronology?
With biographies in general and religious biographies in particular, I've noticed that the highest title attained always goes first, unless that person held many titles of comparable stature. Here, Neale's most significant office was certainly Archbishop of Baltimore, so I think it belongs in the first sentence. Ergo Sum 11:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The whole suppression and restoration of the Jesuits saga seems underplayed in the article. Unless he left the Jesuits for part of his career or the Jesuits were tolerated where he was? ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does have a whole article on its own. I'm not sure what else that is relevant to Neale can be added. There is already mention of the suppression, how that impacted Neale's plans, and a whole paragraph about his advocacy for the restoration of the Jesuits. Ergo Sum 11:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, WereSpielChequers. I've left some comments above. Ergo Sum 11:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Older nominations

Battle of Van Buren

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After Battle of St. Charles and Marmaduke-Walker duel, here is another Confederate failure in Arkansas. Of the three primary Southern figures at Van Buren, you have department commander Holmes who was kicked upstairs for incompetence elsewhere, army commander Hindman who has managed to completely alienate the state where he was once a popular politician, and outpost commander Crump who drew guard duty despite past poor performances in that area. Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

As I supported this at ACR less than ten days ago I imagine that I will be doing the same here. But I will have another read through to see if I can find anything to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that trivia is all I have. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funk

@FunkMonk: - I've implemented all of these except the infobox image. Any thoughts on using the map? Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the map could hurt at least. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Payoh MRT station

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Singapore's oldest MRT station, and this is my 5th FAC nomination. I hope for a successful review, and to have it passed and featured on 7 November. ZKang123 (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Licensing looks fine but source is needed in the image description of File:SGMRT-LRT (zoom) map.svg for the location of the transit lines. (t · c) buidhe 07:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, a great article! However the prose is not exactly up to par in my opinion. Seeing "station" 4 times in the row at the start of "Station details" paragraphs is both repetitive and boring and some phrases are very ambiguous ("Train frequencies vary"?, "extension of eight months and additional monetary claims in November 1985" – is the extension or the claims made in Nov. 1985? Or is it just the claims?) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical ramblings: Image placement can be improved by moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section; there's no reason to collapse the track layout template as it is very short; some numbers can be written out such as 2.5 to 5 minutes -> two and a half to five minutes; "Notes and references" and its child headings are redundant, you only need "Notes" and "References" level 1 heading only; the note itself need wikilinking; DEFAULTSORT is redundant. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
moving two center-aligned images to "Station details" section
The two center-aligned images are there rather than in "Station details" as a compromise solution. Reason being that the track layout is floated right (seems to be the norm in these articles) and depending on screen/browser width, text size or zoom settings, it can interact with the infobox to cause really awkward layout, something like this. ((clear)) has been applied before the "Station details" heading to remedy that, but it causes a different issue on wider screens, leaving a really large blank space between sections due to the height of the infobox. The images help fill that space. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CactiStaccingCrane made changes as per requested ZKang123 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730: I understand, thanks for the explanation. ZKang123: Thanks for your edits! I don't think my reviews are comprehensive enough for a support, but I do think that the prose is better now. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

looks ever so slightly odd to have two images floating above the text
I've attempted some layout tweaks, hopefully the new image placement is less awkward for the overall layout.
  • For History section, highlight the commemorative plaque by placing it at top of section. Float left.
  • Put photos of concourse and platform levels together in horizontal gallery at bottom of History section. Thumbnail heights matched, align centered
  • These could have been used to accompany the text description in the Station details section. But for layout reasons, putting here helps fills space (esp. on desktops with larger screens) before the ((clear)) needed ahead of Station details and ((Routemap)).
HTH! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 06:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

Lead

I will leave more comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should the full name be mentioned before the abbreviation?
An unusual situation, because the building is properly named "HDB Hub", using the abbreviation rather than the full name of the government body that it houses(ha!). I will tweak the phrasing.
Are these all street names?
Yes. Tweaked wording before to "underneath the street intersection between..." to help make that more explicit. Those are the official street names used in English (originating from Malay), so replacing with a translation isn't appropriate. Would a wiktionary link help?
what does Toa Payoh mean?
It is a place name; the article for that has been linked, and does discuss its etymology. The station being named for the area it serves is unremarkable and I don't think it really merits further elaboration.
split this into two ideas
Agreed and done.
2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your second reply: yes, a Wiktionary link will be very helpful, as it's not a particularly common term in most of the English-speaking world. As for what Toa Payoh means, I would like to know the nominator's opinion on including etymology. While it may seem evident that the station is named after the planning area, other articles about MRT stations, such as Dhoby Ghaut, do explain the station's etymology in the article itself. – Epicgenius (talk) 04:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
History

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius Any further comments? ZKang123 (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I will add more comments in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Station details

More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dun dun dunnnnnnnn dun dun dun dun dun dunnnnnnnn da da da dun dun dun dun dun da dunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

You should now hopefully have the song stuck in your head for a while. This article is about Back to the Future, possibly the greatest family film ever made about a kid going back in time and almost accidentally having sex with his mom. Pure family entertainment with an enduring legacy, it is now your turn to go feel the power of love and supply the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity needed to elevate this article to FA status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, watched the film a few weeks ago and never knew that it is on FAC! I think that this article shines when you reads the whole thing, and with an exception of technical stuff, there's nothing much that I can think of to improve the article further. Some copyediting by others may be helpful, which is usually done in FAC anyways. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Let me do an image review for this. Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. The poster, while non-free, is being used appropriately under fair use (illustrates the article). No other image copyright issues. Just a few ALT issues (see):

Other alts are pretty descriptive enough.--ZKang123 (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed ZKang123 (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

  • "Doctor Emmett "Doc" Brown (Lloyd). " I might omit the "Doctor"
  • "Trapped in the past," I might change "Trapped" to "While". Marty may not yet know how he's going to return to 1985, but he's not trapped in the past.
  • "inadvertently prevents his future parents' meeting" I wish I could come up with a better way of expressing this. It probably isn't their first meeting. George certainly knows who Lorraine is, and when Marty is urging Lorraine to go out with George, she knows who he's talking about. Maybe "inadvertently prevents his future parents from falling in love"?
  • " Biff has been bullying him since high school" perhaps "Biff was bullying George even then"
  • "Lorraine was supposed to meet George instead of Marty after the car accident" perhaps "George was supposed to be hit by the car, and tended by Lorraine"
  • "Back to the Future features a 1985-era cast that includes" Maybe "Also featuring in the 1985 portion of the film" or similar. I similarly suggest changing the "1955-era". I might even mention Strickland last, after detailing the 1985 characters and the 1955 characters.
  • Some of the cast members, for example Tolkan, are double-linked.
  • "serves as the Twin Pines ranch where Marty lands in 1955 and Puente Hills Mall in Rowland Heights is the Twin Pines mall that replaces the ranch in 1985." Do you want to footnote that Marty's killing of a pine causes these names to change?
  • "and Griffith Park, where Marty begins his drive to the courthouse to return to 1985, crossing by a lamp post, situated outside of the Greek Theatre.[80]" What does "crossing by" mean here?
  • "The flying DeLorean used a combination of live-action footage" I might throw in an "in the final scene".
  • "Even so, Marty's future is enriched at the expense of others." Anyone else besides Biff?
  • "Where most people can only know their parents, Marty is given the opportunity to see his parents as his peers, when they were his age and shared the same ambitions and dreams as him." The first part of this sentence doesn't really say what you want it to. Really, this is saying the same thing as what Thompson says in the Legacy section about kids and dreams and it might be good simply to replace the above with what she said.
That's pretty much it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, thanks for taking the time to review this, these are the changes I've made, I think I've hit everything. Thank you again. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Changes look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

This is an amazingly comprehensive and well written article. I will do a close reading later, just one thing for now:

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, that "almost" was meant to be "among", my bad, but I've copyedited it further. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's all! —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The part about "Context 'avoid the negative perception of films released later in the summer period, instead of early like other blockbuster films' is that a thing?", yes that's a thing. May/June/July are the big months, while successful films can be released outside these (in December for example) studios rarely released big films expected to do well later in the summer, because if it was meant to do well you'd want it in theaters during the busiest time of the year. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point about "western" was that is often in capitals, but Pale Rider can't make up its mind about that either, so lowercase probably works too. Other changes are fine, especially the sequel story is much better now. Happy to support. —Kusma (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kusma! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ovinus

Exciting. Coordinators: are spotchecks still needed? If so I can perform them. In any case, will review over the next week or so since it's a long one. Ovinus (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ippantekina

This is gonna be a long read... More to follow. Ippantekina (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1989–90 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my 14th nomination of a season in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. This was the club's first season for 15 years at the fourth level of English football, which is timely as they have just been relegated to the fourth tier once again - sad times....... As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

That is all I have. Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: - all addressed, let me know what you think now....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Wehwalt

  • "but then slipped down the table after losing six consecutive games;" the slipping no doubt happened "as" or "whilst" losing, rather than "after".
  • "With injuries also ruling out Alan Walker, Tim O'Shea and Brian Clarke and further new signings not yet completed,[17] " should there be a comma after O'Shea? This seems to be your general practice.
  • "The draw, along with the results of the day's other games, left Gillingham nine points off the play-off places and therefore, with two games remaining and a maximum of six points available, unable to finish the season with any possibility of promotion." This seems a bit long-winded, especially the final clause. Cannot it be shortened?
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - many thanks for your review, see what you think of these changes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: - any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by FrB.TG

Galeb-class minelayer

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hardy class of mine warfare vessels were made by Imperial Germany in the last throes of and immediately after WWI. Disarmed, they were sold to the fledgling Yugoslav navy as "tugs", but were quickly re-armed and used initially as training ships and for "show the flag" cruises to introduce the populace to the new navy. They laid mines in the immediate lead-up to the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, resulting an a couple of "own goals" with friendly merchant ships. Captured by the Italians, they were put into commission as submarine chasers, and escorted merchant ships supplying the forces in North Africa. Subjected to air and submarine attacks, the six had been whittled down to one by the end of the war. The survivor was used to help clear the thousands of mines that had been laid in Yugoslav waters during the war, and wasn't disposed of until 1962. Good to be back at FAC. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review licensing looks ok but the claim "virtually identical to the Galeb class" needs citation (t · c) buidhe 08:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I tweaked the caption and added a cited sentence to the body to support the new caption wording. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

Yep, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, typo. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, actually KM... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought it might be.
It is intentionally in chronological order, so that the first para is "as they were initially set up" in 1921, the second reflects the armament changes in 1931, and the last reflects the post-war changes to the remaining ship. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yep. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, a "pre-table" hangover. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]