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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [1].

---

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship

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

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

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

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

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

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

@CPA-5: - anything left to address? Parsecboy (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks fine to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN11: the References entry for this book lists only one author, while there are two here - which is correct?
  • I'm going to have to pass to @Sturmvogel 66: on this one
    • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• FN12: References entry has authors in a different order
  • Fixed
• Clerici and Ordovini are the same periodical but are formatted differently
  • I'm not seeing the difference
• For consistency with Cernuschi, Sandler should also include state
  • I've removed them all instead - I don't see much of a use to including states and countries here
• Be consistent in whether you include subtitles - you have it for Goldstein but not Friedman
  • Added
• Romanych: both Worldcat and GBooks list a different publisher for that ISBN. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

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

• "(sentence) "The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were a group of four battleships designed for the Royal Italian Navy (Regia Marina) in 1913 and ordered in 1914
  • Isn't the page about the class? I'm a little confused here. Tiger, for example, is about the species—it doesn't begin with "Tigers are a group of 8,000 animals ... " I'm curious, not saying it is incorrect.
    • Well, that isn't exactly apples to apples - one would expect the definition of a small set of items to include their number, but not so in a very large set. The Sullivan brothers comes to mind - the obvious first question that comes to mind is how many of them were involved in the event that made them notable.
• ... ordered in 1914; the first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year. The other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915.
  • semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses if they are felt (semantically or structurally) closer to each other than to sentences to either side of them.
  • Should the separation be: "... ordered in 1914. The first ship of the class, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid down that year; the other three ships, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini were all laid down in 1915."
    • Works for me.
• (sentence) Armed with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns and possessing a top speed of 28 knots (52 km/h; 32 mph), the four ships of the class were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class.
  • Would "intended to be the equivalent of those in the British Queen Elizabeth class" be better?
    • Hmm, that's a good question - your suggestion would be slightly more parallel, but it's also a bit wordier, and the general rule of thumb I try to follow is, the tighter the prose, the better - let me ping @Dank: and see what his thoughts are.

PS, on second thoughts:

• • "The" keel was laid," I imagine, is the more common, the more encyclopedic, and the more easily understood expression. (vs. (the ship) "was laid down."
    • IMO they're equivalent (and actually, a quick google of "keel was laid" vs. ship+"was laid down" shows the latter is significantly more common. Granted, those are quick and dirty searches.
  • Would it be better to write: The keel of the first ship, Francesco Caracciolo, was laid later the same year, and those of the other three, Cristoforo Colombo, Marcantonio Colonna, and Francesco Morosini the following year." No semi-colons are needed now.
    • How about just trimming "were all laid down" to simply "followed"?
  • When were the ships launched? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added to the lead. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot about this review. Will return very soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler:, I expect this review will be closing fairly soon. Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66 and Ian Rose: I apologize for being so tardy. I have now read, and reread, the article. I don't know too much about this topic, and I can't speak to issues such as sourcing, but the text reads very well. I am happy to support the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

• Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Cannone da is duplinked.
  • Fixed
• You don't state who it was named for or link him. I know that a specific ship was named for him, but since the class was too, and the ship doesn't have its own article, it should be stated here as well.
  • @Sturmvogel 66: - do any of your sources cover the namesakes?

It would appear to be Francesco Caracciolo. Anyhow, once this is addressed, I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's obvious who each of the four ships were named after, but there are differing opinions about WP:BLUE, so I generally only add namesakes if I have a source that explicitly addresses it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a source that identifies the namesakes for three of the four. Where's the best place to link them? A new column in the table?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or when the ships are first mentioned each in the article body? FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the entry for the fourth ship, so all of them are now cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The intro is a bit dense, maybe break into two paragraphs?
  • Done
• "Chief of Staff of the Regia Marina (Royal Navy)" State the Italian.
  • The Italian version of the title? I don't know what that'd be, so I'll again defer to Sturmvogel

Oh, I meant say "Italian Royal Navy", as you say in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in)" Why no conversion for the first number?
  • It's already converted earlier
• "manufactured by Terni" In Terni?
  • Terni was an armor manufacturer, coincidentally located in the city - I'll remove the link to avoid confusion
    • Added a link to the company--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The photo under Construction has an ugly watermark.
  • I found a better version of the image
• "note incorrect aspects such as the single mast and ram bow" Do we know why the drawing is incorrect?
  • The drawing was prepared by someone in the American Society of Naval Engineers, so they wouldn't have had access to the plans and they were likely guessing based on the announced specifications. Or it might represent an earlier version of the design. These sorts of things are common, see for example the drawings in here
• "and ordered in 1914" Should also be stated in the article body.
  • Added
• "were intended to be the equivalent of the British Queen Elizabeth class" The article body is less specific.
  • Softened the lead a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - the names were a nice last touch, looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

All images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by L293D

These are really just nitpicks, but:

• Do we have the range of the secondary 6 inch guns?
  • No, unfortunately - though in checking Friedman, he lists them as 50-caliber versions, not the 45s carried by the Andrea Dorias - @Sturmvogel 66:, can you check Ordovini to see if they do have the 45-cal. gun?
    • Well, this is annoying. They specifically state 45-caliber guns, but the shell weight, charge weight and muzzle velocity is a better match for the 50-caliber gun listed by Friedman. Neither source provides a range for the 50-caliber weapon, though. Since Friedman specifically attributes the 50-caliber gun to these ships, I'm going to go with that and presume that Ordovini made a typo.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have the range of the torps?
  • No, in part because it doesn't seem that the Italians settled on a version for the ships. Friedman has data on Italian torpedoes, but without knowing the size (and specific model), there's no way to include specifics.
• Do we know if the ship would have had torpedo bulges?
  • Nothing I've seen, no. But it's not likely; bulges were first used in Britain during World War I.
• I'm all for more line drawings, but the right-elevation drawing in the infobox really contradicts the line drawing in the body. In the top image, the turrets are far apart, whereas in the lower image, the cannon barrels from the superfiring turrets overhang over the lower turrets. If one of the ships was launched, surely the had already decided where the circular gun barbettes would be. L293D (☎ • ✎) 04:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox image is correct - and the caption for the other one notes that it incorporates incorrect aspects. This is fairly common with speculative drawings of ships that haven't been built yet, which is why I think it's useful to keep. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. Supporting. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 January 2020 [2].

---

Teriitaria II

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

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

Support by Векочел

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

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

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

Fair enough. I'll try to have a read through later. Sarastro (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro

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

• I did some spot-checks on "Birth and Family", and everything checked out. I will do a few more if I go through, but I don't foresee any issues on this. Further to my comment above, all these sources are very high quality, so I have no further concerns on that.
• "...while her mother" does not quite work as well as it could. This may be simpler as "and her mother".

• Changed.

• I wonder do we have the sequence quite correct here? We talk about her birth and then her family's background. I wonder would it make more sense to give the background to her family losing their power, and then going on to her birth?

• Changed.

• It would also be useful at this point to say where she was born.

• I think this is just a guess on my part. We have no idea where she was born. It could have been Raiatea or Huahine since the Tamatoa dynasty lost secular power between Puni’s conquest and Tamatoa III’s reconquest in the 1800s.

• "While still retaining their esteem because of their rank..." Could we be more specific about what this means? It is vague to the point of being almost meaningless as it stands.

• So this comes from James King (Royal Navy officer): "Ooroo, the dethroned monarch of Ulietea, was still alive when we were at Huaheine, where he resides a royal wanderer, furnishing, in his person, an instance of the instability of power ; but what is more remarkable, of the respect paid by these people to particular families, and to the customs which have once conferred sovereign ; for they suffer Ooroo to preserve all the ensigns which they appropriate to majesty, though he has lost his dominions." Would it be beneficial to include it?

• Yes, I think it would help. Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "she held special status since traditional titles were passed down by the first-born daughters in the Tahitian social organization as a matrilineality": What special status? What traditional titles? Again, this is rather vague. I also wonder should this be "passed down through the first-born daughters"? It also may make the sentence flow a little better if we maybe moved "as a matrilineality"; maybe something like "... special status as Tahitian society was organised as a matrilineality and therefore traditional titles..."

• Changed.

• The fourth paragraph, that starts "In the Tahitian language..." is a little strangely constructed. "In the Tahitian language, Teri'i is a contraction of Te Ari'i, meaning the "sovereign" or "chief." looks like it's just tacked onto the front, when it should be in the middle of the paragraph. The next sentence, "Tahitian names were rooted in land and titles" would perhaps make more sense as the opening of the paragraph. It is also unclear why she adopted other names.

• Changed. She adopted the name and title of Pomare Vahine because of her marriage. Ariipaea Vahine, I'm not sure of why. There is no source to state she married Manaonao or Paiti (the regent before her). Ariipaea or Ariipaea Vahine is also a common title carried by Pomare I's aunt and brother, and then a collateral descendant of Pomare I after Teriitaria II's death into the 1900s. There is probably some territorial association with the northwestern districts of Arue-Pare.

• "It was connected through marriage and adoption with the hereditary chiefs of the other Society Islands": Doesn't seem quite right. Would it not be better as "...connected by marriage and adoption to the hereditary chiefs"?

• Changed.

• Finally, as someone who knows nothing about Tahiti, or this period of history, perhaps a few sentences to set the scene a little more? I've no idea of what a Ariʻi rahi would do, or how far their power or influence went. Perhaps a word or two on this, and a word or two on how long her family had ruled? Sarastro (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people." — The more complicated answer is that it varied between who is in charge and who is not in charged, same as the Prince of Salm-Salm may not have the same power as the Prince of Wales. The question of how long her family rule is not one I can answer or is found in the sources. If you based it on Teuira Henry, it would be from time immemorial based on her genealogy of the family.
• @Sarastro1: Thanks. I will address these comments one by one. I addressed each one. Look over again, please. KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, this looks to be an improvement, but now we say that "the islands of Raiatea and Tahaa were conquered by the warrior chief Puni of Faanui on Bora Bora" without saying who they conquered it from. I'm assuming they took over from the Tamatoa family, but we don't say so. I'm also not certain that "The ariʻi class were the ruling caste of Tahitian society with both secular and religious powers over the common people" is in the right place; would it make more sense at the very beginning? Sarastro (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Given the oppose, I’m not going to continue with improvements for now. I did request copy-editing from the Guild of Copy Editors but that has not been enough. A lot of these comments are just too nitpicking at the moment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 February 2020 [3].

---

Margaret Macpherson Grant

Nominator(s): GirthSummit _(blether) 14:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments

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

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

• When/where was the lead image first published?

• How many Proctors were involved?

• For how long did she attend school?

• When and why did the brother go to India?

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

• How are you ordering sources without authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Nikkimaria, :Thanks for your review. I feel that I would be able to address most of these concerns by revisiting the sources and/or revising the prose. I'd appreciate any further thoughts you have on the Saunders source however, since I'd be returning to that to expand on some of your other points. It's a completed PhD dissertation, reviewed by a committee and supervised by Samuel Wilson, who I think would be considered a specialist in the field - that's what SCHOLARSHIP calls for with dissertations, is it not? We have tried exercise care and to avoid leaning on it too heavily, but information about the Jamaican estates was hard to come by elsewhere. Do you think that we are using it too liberally without additional sources? Also, with regard to the source ordering, I think that's just been done alphabetically based on the titles - is there a preferred method for doing that? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SCHOLARSHIP lists several factors impacting assessment of dissertation reliability, one of which is supervisor. Another is citation - has this particular thesis been cited by other sources? As to source ordering, alphabetical is fine, but should be done consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks, much appreciated - I'll try to find out whether it's been cited in other scholarly works and get back to you. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I haven't done a proper citation search yet, but Google tells me that the Saunders PhD is cited as a reference here (the UCL 'Legacies of British Slave Ownership' project), it's referenced in this review essay on the subject, published in Slavery & Abolition in 2017, and it's cited a couple of times in this book published by the University of Georgia Press. Does that give you any confidence in us using it as a source, or would you want to see some metrics? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria I've made some changes to the article. To go through your points/concerns (apologies if I should have done this in-line above, please feel free to refactor if I'm doing this wrong):

• Given the length of the article, the lead should be considerably longer

I took a look at a couple of other FA biographies, and have expanded the lead to a similar length to theirs. Do you think this is better?

• When/where was the lead image first published?

I'm looking into that now.

• How many Proctors were involved?

Three - I've named them in the article now.

• For how long did she attend school?

The source isn't clear on this - it just says 'in her teens' - I've added a few words along those lines.

• When and why did the brother go to India?

Again, the source isn't clear - it tells us that he died there, but it doesn't go into any detail about what he was doing there. I haven't been able to find anything else to allow us to expand on this.

• What were the results of the Jamaican lawsuits?

Complicated. The source explains that it ended up as a legal mess, with multiple parties suing and countersuing each other. I' not sure how we could give a concise explanation of the final resolution without adding a lot more material about the other parties involved; my feeling is that this wouldn't really be due in an article about her life (there's probably a decent length article in the history of that court case...).

• Typically cattle are considered neither a crop nor produce

Good call, I've reworded that sentence.

• "provided she had attained her majority" - what age was majority at that point?

The age of twenty was specified in the will, I've added that to the sentence.

• "when Orange Vale was originally developed" - which was when?

1780 - I've added that.

• What was the problem with the English will with regards to Scots law?

The source isn't specific - and I'm not sure whether the lawyers were at the time. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd suggest that the principal problem was that an English document would not afford any income to an Edinburgh lawyer - a serious problem in Scots law! Seriously, I'm not sure we'll be able to get at that.

• Who ended up with the Grant arms?

I don't know - it's not mentioned in the source. It's likely that nobody inherited them - the Proctors don't appear to have taken on the name, I don't imagine they would have used the arms. Machpherson Grant's father had to apply for Royal permission for her to use the arms - my guess would be that if nobody applied for permission to use them following her death, then they would simply no longer be used by anybody, but I don't have any sourcing that would allow me to add anything to the article along those lines.

• How does the Saunders source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

As discussed above.

• How are you ordering sources without authors?

I've fixed a couple of inconsistencies there - is there anything else standing out?

I'd be grateful for your thoughts on the work I've done so far - is this heading in the right direction? You mentioned initially that you feel it's short on detail about the subject. I'm not sure how much more we'll be able to do about that at present, we've squeezed as much as we can out of the sources we've been able to find - do you think we're going to be able to get over the line based on what we've got here? Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely heading in the right direction, but things get tricky when there's not a lot of sourcing available - for me we're not quite there yet, but let's see what other reviewers have to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, did you want to take another run through now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I don't have any further comments at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Sourcing looks good for this section, and spot checks on a few of the references revealed no issues whatsoever.
• "Following their marriage on 30 April 1825,[3] her parents had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson three years later.[4]": Three little issues: 1) We use FamilySearch as a reference to a birth/baptismal certificate. I've no particular issue with this, but I'm never sure how much we should use these kinds of primary sources. If no-one else has any problem, neither do I, but how sure can we be that this is the right person. 2) Clicking the link to FamilySearch takes me to a sign in page. If registration is required to view it, I think that should be indicated in the reference. 3) The sentence is a little strangely constructed using "following" and "later". My inclination would be to replace "three years later" with a date such as "in 1828".

SusunW has access to this source - perhaps she would be willing to comment on this? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to answer Girth Summit limited use of primary sources is acceptable on en.WP and in this case, we used this record, the birth record for William Grant, and the will. Had no idea one could not see the link, though agreed, I have a free account with FamilySearch. The record lists his name "Alexander Grant Macpherson, sex M, christening date 18 Apr 1828, place of christening Aberlour, Banff, Scotland, date of birth 27 Mar 1828, and parents Alexander Macpherson and Anne Grant." Pretty straight forward stuff, no OR or interpretation required. Modified text as per request and affixed subscription required template. SusunW (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "...and her mother, despite being the daughter of a farmer,[6] was from the influential Grant family, and the marriage was considered to be beneath her station." Perhaps I'm being a little dim (which is certainly very possible) but why "despite being the daughter of a farmer"? I don't think being a farmer and being from an influential family are mutually exclusive. And looking at the reference that is given for this, there's nothing that actually says Annie Grant (her mother) was the daughter of a farmer. Instead, it says that Macpherson Grant's uncle was "the son of an agriculturalist". This is presumably her mother's brother, but this is not entirely clear from the source (even though it has to be him really!). If there is no better source for this, perhaps explain this in the reference somehow? Someone checking blindly might question the sourcing (which would be kind of annoying as the sourcing is right, but is not obviously right... if that makes sense?) But in any case, I'd be inclined to cut "daughter of a farmer" completely as I don't think it adds much to the sentence and sets up the contradiction that probably isn't a contradiction.

So, a couple of the sources comment on the idea that her mother had married beneath her (and it came up in the trial when she died intestate - the Proctors, who inherited her estate, were relatives on her father's side, so the estate was leaving the Grant family). I think we were trying to explain that she was from an influential family, but not a particularly wealthy branch of it. You're probably right that this isn't adding very much though, and we are indeed relying on the assertion that her uncle was the son of a father to assume that her mother was too, so I've removed this statement. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Her brother travelled to India, where he died in 1852, leaving Macpherson as the only surviving child": A little nit-picky, but maybe specify that she was her parents' only surviving child.

Good point - there were other children alive at the time! I've clarified.

• We have quite a bit on Alexander Grant here, and I wonder are there any sources that comment on him? He seems to have got rich off the proceeds of slavery, which I wonder do we need to make more explicit? The easiest way may be to find something that comments on him, or gives an opinion. No worries if not, we can't add what the sources don't say. However, when we say "Grant claimed compensation for the loss of his slaves", it looks as if he was being particularly awful in claiming compensation, but this was what everyone did. Perhaps we need something on this, just so it doesn't look like his actions were unusual at the time, no matter how jarring it sounds today. Sarastro (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded this a bit - is that better now? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding a couple sources which verify that indeed it was a government scheme. The ODNB merely says that he "involved in compensation awards", which could have been from anywhere. Feel free to revert if you disagree. SusunW (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I corrected a few spellings where I think we should be using the British variety (jewellery, labourers), but I may have missed some. It may be worth checking for more.

Thanks - nothing's jumping out at me, but I'll read through it again with fresh eyes and see if I spot anything. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "For example, when Orange Vale was originally developed in 1780,[23] its main crop was coffee, which was supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave labourers until 1813.": I'm not sure this is quite correct. As written, we are saying that its coffee was supplemented by hiring out slave labour. I'd suggest something like, "For example, the original main source of income for Orange Vale from 1780 was its coffee crop, supplemented by selling or hiring out its slave laborers until 1813." I'd also be inclined to start the next sentence with "After 1850..." Sarastro (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded - is that better?

Thanks very much for these comments Sarastro1, I'll have a go at responding either this evening (UK time), or over the weekend. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 07:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 Thanks again for reviewing - I've been through your comments above and changed what I can, SusumW may want to comment on the first one since she has access to that source. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks Sarastro1. I wasn't able to find much about Temple after her marriage, except the thing about their son being killed in the First World War. It seems like Yeatman was quite a common name in Dorset, I remember coming across a lot of references to Charlotte Yeatman, but they were either clearly not her, or I couldn't be sure enough. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note for coordinators: I did a source spot check as part of this review and found no issues. Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

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

SC

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

Early life

• "£2,200,000 in 2020 figures". That's a little vague. See Notes G to K for an alternative format, but certainly more precise wording. (And ditto for the later inflation-adjusted amounts).
• Associated with the above point: why do you have the source in a note, rather than in the sources ?

So, I copied the style used in this article from that used at Battle of Neville's Cross - I wasn't sure if there was a preferred format for this kind of information, so just went with what I saw used in an existing FA. I'll be happy to change that to the style presented at Great Stink if you think that would be an improvement, although my slight concern is that by moving the inflation-adjusted value down into the notes, and removing from the actual sentences in the article, are we making it harder for the reader to understand the values we're talking about. Do you think it would be worth keeping the converted figures in the text, but expanding the wording around them along the same lines as the examples you've given above?

The problem with things like this is that there is no "preferred format" written down anywhere I can find! Like most things, it's down to the preference of the main editor (as long as it doesn't break any MoS rules), so long as it is consistently applied. A hybrid version along the lines you suggest may be the best way, or having the "based on Consumer Price Index measure of inflation" etc bit in the footnote too, which means the prose isn't too disturbed by extraneous detail. Your call either way.

Inheritance

• "his twenty-year-old niece inherited his fortune": I struggled for a moment to remember that Margaret was the niece. It's a good rule of thumb to name the subject at the start of a new para, and that is doubly so at the start of a new section. Maybe "the twenty-year-old Macpherson Grant inherited his fortune"?

Good point - I think that paragraph started life in a different section, I've changed this.

With Charlotte Temple

• "However, the scale of her wealth" The "However" sticks a little, as it's not pushing against anything. You may know that the conventions of the time frowned upon homosexual relations (if that's what it was), or eccentricity (particularly from women), but some readers won't necessarily know that. Is there a way that either this is re-worked, or we stick it to a source (i.e.: "According to the historian Rachel Lang, the scale of her wealth...")

I've changed this to attribute it to Lang.

• "Her father": whose? The last person mentioned was Temple – was it Temple's or Macpherson Grant's?

I've clarified this (it was her own father, not Temple's)

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

Thanks so much for reviewing SchroCat - I think I've addressed most of your points, but I've got a query above about your thoughts on the inflation-adjusted figures - happy to do what you suggest, just not sure whether to keep the adjusted figures in the body of the text or shift it all down into the notes section. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A few minor queries all dealt with. I'll leave it to the nom to sort out the inflation information, but it won't affect my support whichever way they choose to do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild

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

Gog the Mild, my review included a spot check of sources, which I have now made explicit, but did not include the source formatting review. However, I never touch images with a bargepole as they terrify me. (That's image reviews, not images in general. That would be weird...) Sarastro (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sarastro. If you are OK with the idea, I shall do a source format review to round out the sourcing side. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely fine with me! Sarastro (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.

• Could the hyphenation of ISBNs be standardised please.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Gog the Mild Question - where I've got physical copies of the books this is no problem, but for the Cant (2003) source I accessed it online. Annoyingly, the URL it used to be at no longer seems to work, Internet Archive can't find it, and any online reference to it (e.g. WorldCat) gives the ISBN without any hyphens. I could standardise the ISBNs by simply removing all of the hyphens in all of the ISBNs, but that seems to go against WP:ISBN which says you should use the hyphens where they are known. So, what's least bad - no hyphens at all, or inconsistency? If we definitely need hyphens throughout, I could take a trip out to Boston Spa where I see the BL outpost has a copy, but I don't know when I could manage that - certainly not in the next week. (As an aside - if I have a ISBN as well, is it also worth putting in a WorldCat number, or is that overkill?) Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 17:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Gog, but Girth Summit "The thirteen digit number is divided into five parts of variable length ... The current ISBN-13 will be prefixed by "978" ; Group or country identifier which identifies a national or geographic grouping of publishers (English ISBNs start with either 978-0 or 978-1); Publisher identifier which identifies a particular publisher within a group; Title identifier which identifies a particular title or edition of a title; Check digit is the single digit at the end of the ISBN which validates the ISBN."[4] Knowing 1st 2 and last 1, seemed logical to find the publisher code (which I couldn't find here), but looking it up here would appear your number would be 978-0-9505994-7-2. SusunW (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that my better-than-the-real-Gog doppelgogger has put it well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both - I've done the Cant book as you describe, and I've followed the groupings of McKean and Pevsner from the books themselves. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting - pass Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

• Why do we refer to her as Macpherson at the start and Macpherson Grant later on?

Because her name was Macpherson when she was born, and she changed it as one of the conditions of her inheritance. Is that not the correct approach to take?

No. I would stick to "Macphearson Grant" throughout to avoid confusion. We are only talking about a few lines anyway, but it is right at the point that you are talking about her father, who you refer to as "Macphearson". Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I've changed this and refer to her as Macpherson Grant throughout. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is there a map in the lead section showing where she lived? Why is this important?

That was added during the GA review, as it was felt that her connection to Aberlour as a place was significant enough to be worth showing the reader where it is. I'm not wedded to it, if others feel it's irrelevant it could come out.

I'd lose it. We don't have one of Buckingham Palace for Elizabeth II so we certainly don't need this. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I think the average reader is more likely to be more familiar with locations in London than Moray, but I take your point - I've removed it. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Check the start of the "Early life and family" section for confusing use of pronouns.

It's not jumping out at me, can you be specific?

Where Macpherson Grant is mentioned alongside other females, call her "Mcpherson Grant". Cassianto^Talk 08:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Alexander Grant had been involved in business in Jamaica with Alexander Donaldson (died 1807) and Alexander Thomson (died 1818), who both predeceased him" -- we could comfortably lose "who predeceased him" as not important, not relevant, and leave the reader to do the fathoming out using the dates you provided.

I'll have a proper look at this in the morning, and reword accordingly.

Reworded.GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for the review Cassianto - I've replied above, and will look at what I can change tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't do much about generally shabby writing without more specific advice. The review history is all on the article's talk page. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 00:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shabby was perhaps a bit harsh, but it certainly does need more work. Let's see if we can get it where it needs to be. Cassianto^Talk 08:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need "£300,000 (worth approximately £36,000,000 in 2024 figures)" in the main text? It's awfully jarring. Suggest relegating it to a footnote.

  Took me a while to figure out how to do this, but I think I've done it correctly now. I haven't converted every single sum of money in the article, but when there is a significant change in date I've put them in - happy to go through and add them to all of them for consistency if you think that would help.

• "He also left her an outright settlement of £20,500 payable at his death provided she had attained a majority of twenty years of age, an annuity of £1,500..." -- yet, you don't do the same here? Consistency is best.

  I've added footnotes in for all mentions of currency now - as you say, better to be consistent.

• "For example, when Orange Vale..." -- "For example" is too conversational and not what I would expect to see in an encyclopaedia.

  Agreed, removed.

• "In accordance with her uncle's will, her father applied on her behalf for royal approval..." -- Was it in his will that someone apply on her behalf? If not, I'd lose that and just say that his wish was for the name to be combined.

  Agreed, reworded.

• Why the red link to "Salmon fishing"? I think most will guess what that is.

  Gone.

• "...and drew up a new will. This directed..." The will doesn't direct, the person does. The will instructs.

  Reworded.

• "She is reported to have then met Temple" -- reported by who? See WP:AWW

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant and Temple returned to live in Aberlour House, spending their time in field sports and stock raising." -- "and spent their time playing field sports and raising live stock." -- This sounds better, but am I correct in what I'm saying with regards to "live stock?

  You're correct - they bred livestock, exhibiting in country shows and the like. Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant promoted and supported various charitable causes, especially those involving the church. Their life together was described as being much like a marriage" -- I know what you mean, but some can be "wedded" to the church. Please clarify that you're talking about Temple.

  Reworded.

• "Macpherson Grant drank heavily during the late 1860s." -- Again, I know what you mean, but some may question it. Alcohol, I presume, and not because of an overly-salty diet?

Would it be fair to say that she became an alcoholic? Or she relied more so on alcohol?

• Reworded.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father..." One or the other here (the latter), not both. We've already had an introduction.

  It originally said 'her father', but an earlier reviewer suggested that it was ambiguous as to whether we meant MG's or Temple's father. I've gone with Macpherson Grant's father.

• "After his death, and as her aunt Margaret Gordon had died in 1866..." clumsy. Suggest: "After the deaths of her father and her aunt". Do we need to say when she died? If so, reduce it to a footnote, if you can.

  Reworded.

Cassianto - thanks again for these detailed comments. I think I've addresses all of them now, hopefully haven't broken anything else in the process. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, GS, seen those. I'll continue with it later, if I get the chance. Cassianto^Talk 15:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Around this time, Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander of the Royal Navy,[40] visited Aberlour." -- around what time? New para, new section, new date.

  Reworded.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• See this copy edit. If you disagree, please revert.

  Agree with your change, thanks.

• "Shortly before the marriage, Temple had written to Simon Keir, a partner of Macpherson Grant's agents at Milne & Co., directing that his accounting of sales no longer be sent to Macpherson Grant directly..." -- close succession of "directing" and "directly".

  Changed 'directing' to 'requesting' (which is possibly a better choice of words, since I'm not clear she actually had the authority to direct him).

• "Dissatisfied with this new arrangement, and with what he saw as Temple's interfering in his affairs..." -- was there ever any likelihood of him being satisfied? I doubt it. I would change "dissatisfied" with unhappy.

  Done

• "By this time, with Temple gone, Macpherson Grant was depressed, mentally unstable and drinking heavily. → "With Temple now gone, Macpherson Grant became depressed, mentally unstable and drunk heavily." Also, depression is depression, drunk heavily (as we've said earlier), yes, means she drunk lots of alcohol, but how was she mentally unstable? One is left questioning this, unlike the other two you mention.

  Reworded per your suggestion. 'Mentally unstable' was a reference to Lang's assertion that she was going through a psychotic episode. I've reworded this so that we're attributing it to Lang - do you think that's OK, or should we cut this (since Lang is an historian rather than a psychiatrist)?

• "She died on 14 April 1877..." Who did? We mention both Temple and MG in the preceding sentence.

  Do you think this is really necessary? MMG is the subject of the previous sentence, with Temple just mentioned in an aside - don't you think it would be awkward to use her (rather lengthy) name again here? (I'll make the change if you really think it woule be better).

  If fact, we also mention Lang, so that's three females in the preceding sentence. I'll leave it up to you, it's certainly not a reason to oppose. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch that she had gifted to Macpherson Grant, and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." → "She was also entitled to receive a gold watch and a diamond brooch that had belonged to Macpherson Grant..." Cuts our the awkward repetition of MG's name.

  Done.

That's all from me. I can see me supporting this once these have been addressed.  Cassianto^Talk 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cassianto - that all looks reasonable and doable. Something has come up at work that means I'll have very little time for a couple of days, but I hope to be able to get this done towards the end of the week, or over the weekend at the latest. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cassianto - I've made all the changes you suggested bar one - let me know if you really think that one is necessary. Thanks again for the very detailed review, most appreciated. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on the above fixes. I have really enjoyed reading this article and I hope to see you back here again soon, Girth Summit. Cassianto^Talk 19:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Tim riley

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

• William Roberston? As the link takes one to William Robertson something is not right here.

• Sorry, I don't quite understand this point - what's wrong with William Robertson? (Apologies if I'm missing something obvious.)

• Two letters were the wrong way round in "Roberston". I've amended it. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mrs Yeatman becomes Mrs meatman at one point – ignore that: a computer glitch at my end. All is well on this point.
• Mrs Yeatman is sometimes Yeatman and sometimes Mrs Yeatman – confusing

• I think there were instances where I thought it would help differentiate between her and her husband, who had been referred to in earlier sentences. I've removed it if you think it's clear enough without.

• The AmE "convince to" (three times) is out of place in a BrE article. One convinces that and persuades to.

• I didn't know that - thanks, I've changed it.

• MacPherson or Macpherson? We have both.

• The sources aren't consistent. I've tried to maintain consistency within the article, I think the only instance of McPherson is in one of the sources.

• "To do so, she employing A & W Reid" – this is not English.

• Fixed.

• A & W – much as I dislike the absurdly outdated use of full stops after people's initials, that is what the Manual of Style requires. (Uncle Sam is still in the early 20th century in this regard.)

• Fixed

Well now. This is the name of an organisation, a commercial partnership. Should the name not be given as it was used at the time? However that was - I have no idea whether messrs A and W styled themselves A. and W. respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Behave, Gog! The MoS bids us silently amend non-WP formatting and punctuation in such cases, and in any case I'll bet you a large glass of red at the Wehwalt Arms that in the 19th century this, like any other firm, would have put full stops after initials. We didn't start getting rid of them till the 1960s. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the nephews of its original architect, who had continued his practice" – ambiguous: it was the nephews who had continued the practice. Better to turn the sentence round and write something like "A. & W. Reid, Robertson's nephews, who had continued the original architect's practice in Elgin after his death in 1841".

• fixed

• "ball room" – one word, according to the OED

• fixed

• "leaving all of her wealth" – more Americanism. In BrEnglish "leaving all her wealth", without the otiose "of" is wanted. (It also avoids the repetition of "of".)

• Another one I didn't know - fixed.

• Throughout there are instances of the pointless AmE practice of putting commas after temporal references - "in 1854, Margaret", "While on a trip to London in 1864, Macpherson", "Later that year, Temple visited", " After 1850, the main crop", "Around this time, Captain Harry", "at times, she seemed positive", "After expansion, it became" and so on. I know of no BrE style guide that condones this silly practice.

• Chipping in here... (I'm not bothered either way, but I tend to use them myself like this) I'm sure that Tim will be delighted to know that this silly practice is explicitly taught in UK schools, and on grammar tests (which are a thing now), NOT putting a comma in such a case would result in the loss of marks. I know that will make you very happy... Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• God in Heaven! All this and chlorinated chicken, too. We are colonised (sorry, colonized) by the USA! Poor old God would have had marks deducted too: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" and "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made". Not a comma in sight. Tim riley talk 10:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments Tim riley - I'm going to start going through them, and Cassianto's, now. But just to add to Sarastro's point here - I'm afraid it's true. I am a primary teacher, and am required to teach children that the omission of these commas would be a mistake. I'm so used to teaching kids to use them that I do it myself now. (Perhaps you will take comfort from the fact that brighter kids often notice that the authors of their favourite novels routinely make this 'mistake', and they seem still to be able to understand the sentence.) GirthSummit _(blether) 11:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can cattle be classified as "produce"? Not sure about this, but it looks rather odd to my eye.

• I've seen this before, and it seemed ok to me. But perhaps I can blame my terrible geography teacher or my worse memory if it's not a thing! Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I struggled to think of a better word - can they be goods? Thinking about it, I'm not sure that the sentence added anything, so I've removed it and made a slight change to the following one.

• "Alexander Macpherson, her father, also tried" – we have already been told the name of the subject's father. Perhaps better to make this "Macpherson's father also tried".

• I've reworded this sentence.

• "Captain Harry Farr Yeatman, a retired commander" – as commander is a rank below captain in the RN surely this can't be right?

• Chipping in again, this is the fault of the source more than the nominator. (To make clear, the source is definitely high quality and appropriate but suffers from a little bit of Victorian convention) It says that Yeatman was a retired commander, but also calls him a captain. Without digging too deeply, I suspect that what has happened is that the source refers to him as "Captain" when talking about him pre-retirement as I believe a commander in the RN was given the courtesy title of captain. So the source is tripping itself up here, and the simplest solution is to remove captain (which I've done). Sarastro (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks - agree with Sarastro's change.

• "There was a report in the London Standard" – a citation?

• Added (Lang supports this, although it might be better to dig out a ref to the original report?)
  • I plan to toddle along to the British Library on Friday and can have a look in the Evening Standard archive if you'd like me to. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC) Afterthought: I should add that I don't think your present source is in any way inadequate. Tim riley talk 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim riley If you're going there anyway, that would be brilliant, thanks. According to Lang, it's 14/08/1875, Issue15928 p. 3. Not having read it myself, I didn't want to cite it directly, but if you can check it easily that would be very helpful. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Will do. I'm down there researching one of the founders of the National Trust. I may try to press-gang you into peer reviewing that article in due course, and you can get your own back for my nitpicking here. I'll report back here on the citation, or on your talk page if the article is promoted by Friday. Tim riley talk 21:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If I can be of any help at your article I'd be delighted. I'm not sure how useful I'll be, since I think you've already demonstrated that your copy editing skills far surpass my own, but if a pair of fresh eyeballs attached to a semi-functional brain would be of use, they're at your disposal. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The date and page are correct. The article (unsigned) is headed "Grouse Shooting: The Scotch Moors". It says that Captain Yeatman "bagged 26 brace of grouse, two hares and two plovers". Plover butties, anyone? Tim riley talk 13:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging that out Tim riley - much appreciated, I've added the citation to the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "a burial aisle she had previously erected" – as she was dead at this point, the "previously" seems surplus to requirements.

• done

• "lord advocate" – the lower case seems a touch Guardianish. The WP article gives the post its capital letters, and so does the OED, and so would I. And as there is only one Lord Advocate at any one time, I'd add a pair of commas to turn "presiding in the case" from a restrictive to a non-restrictive phrase.

• I wouldn't want to get involved in any arguments about capitalising job titles! Happy to change.

• "and a diamond brooch that had belonged to her" – not clear which of the two women "her" is here.

• Clarified

• "The press noted at the time that the closure of the case denied the public "the full revelation of a curious, an interesting, and instructive romance"" – I don't think you can reasonably attribute one newspaper's words to "the press".

• I've reworded this.

• "He is commemorated by a memorial at St Barnabas Church in Sturminster Newton in Dorset". – Of doubtful relevance to Margaret Macpherson Grant, I think.

• I'd prefer to keep this in - I appreciate that it's not directly related to MMG herself, but another reviewer expressed an interest in what happened to Temple/Yeatman after MMG's death - I wasn't able to find much other than this, and it seemed interesting enough to include it. I'll take it out if you feel strongly about it.

• Not a bit! I don't seek to twist any arms, and it's your drafting, not mine. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the info-box "Occupation: Philanthropist" strikes an incongruous note. We don't have our occupations in our passports any more but if we still did I can't imagine writing "Philanthropist" as my occupation.
  • There was a senior civil servant (a member of MI5 or 6, I seem to recall), who had "Gentleman" as his occupation. He was queried on the point on arrival in Australia, and asked the passport control officer "Why, do you not have them here?" And people think the English are arrogant? Pshaw! - SchroCat (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've cut it.

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

Thanks Tim riley - I really appreciate your detailed review, very helpful indeed. I've addressed most of your points, and made a few comments above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll be back after a further read-through, to – I hope and expect – add my support. Tim riley talk 14:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria, and I congratulate the nominator on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley talk 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from KJP1

Comments from me to follow, but it'll be over the next few days, I'm afraid. One immediate query:

• "entering into what was described as a form of marriage" (lead) and "Her relationship with Temple was described as being much like a marriage" (With Charlotte Temple). - It would have been pretty surprising for the time if the relationship was publicly described as akin to a marriage and I'm not seeing the contemporary sources that do so describe it, beyond the "remarkable tomfoolery" comment, which isn't quite the same thing. Do we have contemporary sources that do describe the relationship as "like a marriage" and, if we do, can we cite them? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi KJP1 - the phrase comes from Shaw and Gordon source (1882) - page 181 (near the top): "...something like a marriage had taken place between them. Each pledged herself to celibacy; Miss Grant 'married' Miss Temple, placing on the latter's marriage-finger a suitable ring... ...Miss Temple not only reciprocated the remarkable affection, but likewise manifested similar extraordinary proofs of it - she termed herself 'wifie' in her letters to Miss Grant...". Does that address your concern? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It very well might, if it could be included. But I’m not seeing it in the article, unless I’m overlooking it. KJP1 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was cited after the sentence about the tomfoolery - since it supported both sentences, I thought it would be OK to cite it once, but I've added another reference to it now. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not making myself clear. I wasn’t looking for a cite but rather for an explanation, within the body of the article, as to who was describing their relationship as akin to a marriage. Were the sources that did so newspapers or what? Were they contemporaneous? Something like: Gordon and Shaw/Moray County history/whoever, in their subsequent reporting of the affair, described the relationship as “something like a marriage”. Hope this is clearer. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, gotcha. I'll add some attribution into the text just now, thanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - just what I was after. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay on this. I'll be back to finish up tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delays in getting back to this. So:

Early Life and family

• "trading out of a property on Billiter Square" - can you check the spelling of the Square. The source has it as "Biiliter Square". Assuming it's this, [5], it could just be that the source has a typo, or that the spelling of its name changed, as it clearly has over time.

  I'm sure it's a typo - the source actually spells it both ways (first as Biiliter, but further down as Billiter) - Billiter Square seems actually to have existed, and while Google does throw up a few hits for Biiliter Square, from a quick glance they all look like typos (or possibly errors in machine-reading of old print newspapers) to me.

• ""with help from the bookkeepers and overseers" - links?

  Good call, done

• "issued by the High Court of Chancery" - And again?

  Done

Adult life

• "the output of the estates varied with changes in conditions" - Economic conditions? Weather conditions?

  Going back to the source, it's talking about the economic conditions - variability in prices, increase in labour costs (post-abolition of slavery). I've clarified.

With Charlette Temple

• "high sheriff of Wiltshire" - if it's MoS, just ignore me, but the lower cases look odd to me. They're upper case in the main article.

  Done

Philanthropy

• "which was built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" - being uber-picky, Pevsner gives a construction period of 1866-1869 (Highland and Islands, Buildings of Scotland, John Gifford, Penguin, 1992, isbn 9780140710717, p=188).

  Thanks - I don't have a copy of that one, I've added those dates. Can you check that I've hyphenated the ISBN properly in the sources? Gog's already done a source formatting check, don't want to break anything.

Temple's marriage

• "a retired commander of the Royal Navy" - "in" rather than "of"?

  Not sure about this one - since he was retired, can we still say 'in'? I'll change if you're sure it's an improvement.

That's all from me. I think it a comprehensive account of an interesting individual. The prose has benefitted from input here and I'll be pleased to support once the nominator has had the opportunity to look at the suggestions above. KJP1 (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1 - I really appreciate your input. I've addressed most of the points, a couple of queries above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 12:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM

• " with Alexander Donaldson and Alexander Thomson, who died in 1807 and 1818 respectively" reads like a very odd construction to me...

  Reworded

• "forty-two"/"twenty-two-year-old"/" forty-third" any reason why we're not using "42" and "22-year-old" and "43rd"?

  Personal preference - are digits preferred by the MOS? Happy to change if necessary.

  I think MOS allows for numbers expressible in one or two words to be written out, so no issues. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " the organ for Inverness Cathedral, built in 1866 by the architect Alexander Ross" the organ was built in 1866?

  I think so, but probably not by Alex Ross - I've added 'which was'

• " at St Peter's Church, Eaton Square in" probably a GEOCOMMA needed after Square.

  Done

• General: you discuss her "relationship" in detail and allude to some kind of homosexual relationship, but neither lesbian nor gay nor homosexual is noted with reference, yet there are LGBT categories here. I'm not aware of if this is "okay" because the LGBT nature is implied strongly enough, or if we should seek for stronger reliable sources stating it plainly? Just a thought.

  No source outright describes her as gay, or a lesbian, which is why I haven't directly used that language in the article itself. I think the article has relevance to the LGBT Studies wikiproject, but perhaps it is going to far to have the LGBT person categories on there - happy enough to remove them if you think that would be the right move?

  I think it wise, or at least remove them temporarily and perhaps see if the LGBT wikiproject have any thoughts, I'm happy to go with a consensus. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it's a very nice article.  The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks The Rambling Man - changes made, couple of comments/questions above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 14:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, a couple of replies above. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Categories removed, and I've left a note about it at the WikiProject talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Then it's a yes from me, and a yes from him. Cheers, well done. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(PS I'm supposed to state that I'll be submitting this review as part of my entry in the WikiCup, so there, I've said it... The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from Gleeanon409

• Not sure where to land comments about LGBTQ categories so feel free to adjust the formatting to make them work.
  • We need no proof of sexual relationships—in most cases a near impossibility—for these categories. Often the only evidence that LGBTQ people even existed was criminal records for euphemistic physical activities.
  • In this case you have two women marrying each other, not sure you really need much more than that. That they exchanged rings as well should clear any remaining doubts. It’s unsurprising that great pains are made to spell out that they didn’t have sex as likely that would be just too scandalous to survive. To me this is all along historical erasure of LGBTQ romantic relationships. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIIW, I am inclined to agree with Gleeanon409. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Gog. I think Gleeanon409 has rather too much a 21st-century take on the matter. Context is vital. In the post-Freudian era people obsess endlessly about sexual intercourse at the expense of considering the wider nature of relationships. It seems to me that the main author has got the balance spot-on, making due reference to what the reader may infer was a lesbian relationship, without making a production number of it. It doesn't matter whether or not the relationship was physical. From the 19th century citations it seems that the two women's contemporaries didn't make a big deal of things, and I think we should follow suit. They were plainly an item, but what that itemness consisted of is neither here nor there. Tim riley talk 17:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case I wasn't clear - a frequent occurrence - I also think that the main author has got the balance spot-on. I was supporting Gleeanon409 in so far as they disagree with the LGBT category tags being removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Yes, I'd keep them, I think. Labels are tiresome but we all need some reference points in putting people in context. It would be pushing it a bit to suggest that LGBTQ is an inappropriate tag. Tim riley talk 18:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was pointing out, for lack of better term, researchers’ bias. If one isn’t looking for evidence of LGBTQ-identity, it’s quite common to never see, and therefore acknowledge it exists. In historical cases, that anything non-heteronormative is noticed is a clue that a LGBTQ story is there but has been systematically erased—for whatever reasons—by people who had the ability to shape or write the history. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In another case, where it was explicitly known that a woman had serial long-term relationships with same-sex partners, but the exact nature of those relationships could not be ascertained, we opted to use the category "same-sex relationship", instead of LGBT categories, and keep the LGBT project banner on the talk page. Don't know if that is helpful, but it does serve to not obliterate the relevance of different types of relationships in the period. SusunW (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject of the article was in a same-sex relationship, which no one seriously seems to be questioning, our modern construct of LGBTQ or similar is the appropriate categories. I would restore them and ask people like @Bearcat: who are familiar with LGBTQ issues, and Wikipedia’s category system to weigh in. Ultimately categories help our readers and building the encyclopedia so no rush. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This exchange is worthwhile and thoughtful, but I don't think it belongs on this FAC page, which isn't concerned with categories. Is it all right if I transplant the whole section to the article talk page? Tim riley talk 20:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d suggest waiting a bit until the discussion is over. Then copying there for documentation. Gleeanon409 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This minor issue has no bearing on whether this article is promoted or not, so I don't see why this has to be discussed here and not on the talk page. I suggest moving it as soon as possible. Cassianto^Talk 23:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man brought it up in the context of their review. I don't think that further discussion should be moved unless they are content with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's fine, but when compared to the criteria, for me, this doesn't seem like a make or break issue. Supports should be based on the criteria and this meets it, with or without what cats it carries. Therefore, it should be moved to the talk page if this topic requires complex discussion. Given that the nom hasn't even answered yet, I would like to assume good faith with the nom that this wasn't an "attempt" to do the LGBTQ community a disservice by erasing anything. Cassianto^Talk 00:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to wait until Bearcat or someone else who’s versed in LGBTQ categories can offer advice. Unless there’s a pressing need? Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto I have just replied in detail to the similar comment you posted, addressed to me, on Gleeanon409's talk page. The conversation is becoming fragmented. Perhaps you would like to move, or copy, that part of it to here? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on Gleeanan409's talk page has nothing to do with this FAC, more your comments on Gleeanon409's talk page, so I'll leave them there. Cassianto^Talk 10:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for your insightful comments. My personal view is that the categories are probably OK; I removed them in response to what seemed to be a reasonable concern by a reviewer, and I will be entirely happy to reinstate them if there is consensus to do so. I see Bearcat has been pinged as someone well-versed in this area, so I'll wait to see if they comment, but if not my feeling fron this discussions is that there is a rough consensus to reinstate them. I'd be happy for further discussion of this to take place on the article's talk page. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow. I've been accused of some odd things in the past, but some of the insinuations dotted around Wikipedia are startling offensive. My comment was entirely derived from what I considered to be a lack of appropriate verifiable sources for categories in a FAC, and it has somehow been completely corrupted into me somehow making "inappropriate" comments, homophobic comments, attempting to erasure LGBT history etc etc. Thanks for that, noted. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, just no. I don't know who you are responding to, but with respect, you seem to be confusing two separate discussions. Nobody is accusing you of anything of the sort; in fact, nobody is accusing anyone of being homophobic. There are two discussions taking place; this one, to do with your legitimate comments re the cats, and this one, where somebody else who used an emotive word (not intentional) to describe the nom's act of deleting the cats, which I assume had been done as a result of your comments in this review. This diff is what the other discussion centres around, more specifically the word "attempt" which to me implies that someone was attempting to erase all traces of someone's homosexuality, which of course, could be homophobic. I did not believe that that was the case, especially since the nom had yet to reply, and "attempt", with much respect to Gog, was removed. Cassianto^Talk 13:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that Gleeanon has accepted that this was all done in good faith - noone is suggesting any wrong doing by TRM (or anyone else). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• So, it's been a few days now, and no further discussion of this has taken place here, the article talk page, or at WT:WikiProject LGBT studies (aside from a note that there is a related discussion going on at Wikidata). So far, one editor (The Rambling Man) has expressed concerns about including the tags, and three editors (Tim riley, Gog the Mild and Gleeanon409 have indicated that they think they are appropriate. I'm going to interpret that as a consensus to reinstate them, with a note for the record that I would be happy for anyone who remains concerned to restart a conversation on the talk page, or to kick off an RfC. Thanks all for your views. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair and reasonable, no need to hold up the FAC process further. Gleeanon409 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Since there's a lot of text above, I thought a quick note might be helpful to summarise it. Nikkimaria, who performed the first review, indicated that they didn't think the article was quite there yet; since then, Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, Cassianto, The Rambling Man and KJP1 have made suggestions for improvement, and have all noted their support after I followed up on them. I don't think there are any outstanding actions from any review. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the summary, GS, but checking that sort of thing is why they pay us the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias

• "The Macphersons married on 30 April 1825,[3] and had their first child, Alexander Grant Macpherson, in 1828." I found this a weird inclusion; it was mostly superfluous to the subject of the article, and took us back in time. Personally, I'd just note that she had an older brother, and move on.
• "..attended school in Hampstead.." I know it has a wikilink, but further inline clarification of where Hampstead is would be appreciated, to avoid me having to click that link and leave this article.
• "..trading out of a property on Billiter Square." This feels like excessive, unnecessary detail? What does this add about the subject of the article?
• "Resolution of the various lawsuits was not completed until 1861, seven years after Macpherson Grant came into possession of the estates." It feels odd to be told this before being told in the next section that she inherited his estate.
• Wikilink pimento.
• On the first use, you write "Milne & Co", and on the second "Milne & Co.". Be consistent.
• In my opinion, almost all of the Later events section is beyond the scope of this article.

In general, this is a good piece of work, but I have some concerns about how well it balances being comprehensive with remaining focused on the main topic. It has plenty of support above, so maybe I'm seeing things that aren't really there, but it just seems slightly aimless at times. Harrias ^talk 16:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking to close out this long-running nom and as I read through the above I felt that we could probably leave these things to be actioned post-promotion, until I got to the last bullet point re. Later events, which is more substantial and really should be considered here. Girth Summit, can you address that last point first? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping Ian Rose - I'll read through ((|Harrias))'s points and respond fully this afternoon. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:44, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias - first of all, thank you for your detailed review, I appreciate your suggestions and your candour about the balance between being comprehensive and maintaining focus. I've implemented the copy editing/minor changes that you suggested, but would like to explore some of the more substantive points further.

• Her brother. There seems to be some disagreement about this. An earlier reviewer suggested including more about her brother, such as why he went out to India, how he died and so on - unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out anything more about his life, but I'd be inclined to keep what we do know about him, including his date of birth, in the article. I take your point about jumping back and forth in time however, so I've reordered the paragraph to list the births chronologically - does that meet your concerns?
  • This reads much better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Billiter Square I'm not wedded to this exactly, but I think it's relevant. Alexander Grant built Aberlour House and made it his official residence, but the sources suggest that he never actually lived there - it seems relevant to indicate that sources show he actually lived at an address in London.
  • I think it is sufficient to say that "although it is doubtful that he ever actually lived there". Also, at the moment, the article says that he traded out of a property there, which doesn't necessarily indicate that he lived there. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Lawsuits I take your point, and thought about how I could restructure this so that we mention the resolution of the lawsuits at the right point in terms of chronology. I couldn't see an obvious way to do that elegantly however, since we don't really discuss the lawsuits again in the next section - we'd be breaking up a single paragraph covering them into two chunks, which would probably end up repeating information unnecessarily. I've reworded that sentence somewhat to shift the focus slightly in an attempt to address this concern - does that look any better to you?
  • This also reads better now, thank you. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Later events I disagree with you on this one. Other FA biographies have much longer sections with titles such as 'Impact and Legacy', where we discuss the lasting effects the subject's life had on society. MMG had no children, and she wasn't in a position of political or intellectual influence that would have allowed her to leave the sort of mark on society that we might typically discuss in sections like this. However, her impact on the architecture of the region was not insignificant: both Aberlour House and St Margaret's church are nationally significant buildings, one of which she remodelled extensively, the other she founded but did not live to see completed. The orphanage she founded went on to become the second largest such institute in the country after her death, and still operates as a children's welfare charity (which I plan to get around to writing an article about at some point). I don't think that it's beyond the scope of the article to have a short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death.
  • It looks like we fundamentally disagree here. While I would not object to a "short section outlining how her contributions in these areas panned out after her death" I do disagree with that as a description of what is present. The first paragraph, fine, though even here I would suggest that the additional detail about their son, such as the memorial, is unnecessary.
  • "James William Grant of Wester Elchies, another member of the Grant family, purchased the ruin of the Aberlour church from the other legatees, after it burned in 1861." What is the relevance of this? Also, 1861 isn't a later event, it takes us back to the Inheritance section time-frame.
  • The remainder of that paragraph (slightly reworded to succinctly explain who William Grant is) is fine for the reasons you lay out.
  • "William Grant died in 1877" This was mentioned in the last paragraph as things stand.
  • Given that Aberlour House (building) has its own article, and was built by someone else, I think the final paragraph can be vastly reduced. Harrias ^talk 14:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review - looking forward to your feedback on the changes I've made, and the points I've made above. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 13:54, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK Harrias- thanks for your speedy response. I've trimmed the Billiter Square sentence, and I've cut back on the final section, removing detail about the house (which, as you say, is detailed at its own article), and some of the stuff about the old Aberlour Church, which I agree was a bit confusing since it jumped back in time 20 years. On the point about Temple's son, another review further up suggested putting more in about Temple and her family after MMG's death - I couldn't find much unfortunately, but I thought this was an interesting point and I'd prefer to keep this in if you don't mind. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I think that's much better. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just three relatively minor points from me left, Girth Summit:

• Isn't "benefited" the US spelling? Presumably this article uses BrEng? (Moved this from above.)
• Why are the images placed on the left, rather than the right, which is more normal? I'm not keen on the aesthetic.
• It would be worth clarfying and bringing together the two "William Grant" paragraphs in the Later events section now. The repetition is a bit odd, almost leading one to wonder if it is two different people. Also, I think it would be worth specifically highlighting that St Margaret's Church was completed after his death. Harrias ^talk 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Harrias - you're right about 'benefitted', I missed that before. (My collaborator on this article writes in AmEn usually - I tried to find all the inconsistencies, but that one didn't jump out at me.) Image placement was purely personal - I find having them all on the right a bit boring, but nobody else has commented either way so I've changed this. I've also combined the two 'William Grant' paragraphs as you suggested - I agree that that is better. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; good work on this article, I'm more than happy to support its promotion. Ian Rose, I know this is why you earn the big bucks, but just a courtesy ping that my concerns have been resolved. Harrias ^talk 16:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys for working together so quickly and efficiently to resolve these points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just added the required note that I am taking part in the WikiCup, and will claim points for this review. Harrias ^talk 09:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 30 January 2020 [6].

---

Battle of Babylon Hill

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review; I've gone through this, the only detail that I can see lacking a citation is the Parliamentarian numbers, which I will add in later, was there anything else? Harrias ^talk 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Casualty counts. Infobox says 3–16 Parliamentarians - I see the 3, where's the 16 from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course: both now included in the main text with appropriate citations. Harrias ^talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "modern estimates are that the Royalists lost around twenty, and the Parliamentarians five" - I see this claim attributed to a single historian in the body, are there others that support this? If no, should make clear that this is a single modern estimate only
  • Good point, done. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Batten work title is incomplete
  • Expanded. Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Morris title is missing some commas. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a comma before "Yeovil". Harrias ^talk 12:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed

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

• Background: "...established a siege of Sherborne..." Suggest "besieged Sherborne"?
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: "During the first day,..." Suggest "On the first day,...", seems to flow better
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Background: Any indication of the size of the Royalist garrison at Sherborne?
  • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added this. Harrias ^talk 09:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Prelude: "Hertford sent Hopton with around 350 men" Delete "with"
  • I disagree, that would change the meaning of the sentence completely. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Prelude: Referring to foot soldiers and musketeers separately seems confusing as I think they are the one and the same? Perhaps just refer to 200 musketeers?
  • It is unclear from the sources whether all 200 were musketeers. I strongly suspect they were, but it is possible that some were pike men. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle: "...the Royalist leaders decided to retire to Sherborne..." This seems a little vague here as isn't Hopton the overall commander on site? The following sentence refers to the hill (I would suggest explicitly stating Babylon Hill) so it seems this isn't in relation to all Royalist forces outside of Sherborne.
  • Clarified to "Hopton consulted with his commanders". Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle: "Colonel Lawdy" link colonel, I notice captain is linked later so ranks should be treated similarly.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle: "...cavalry into array..." The wording seems strange here (perhaps you didn't want to get too close to the language of the sources) but I would suggest either "into an array" or just "into battle formation" or similar.
  • Yeah, I was avoiding close para-phrasing. I'll need to check the source text before I make a change. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to your second suggestion. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Battle: "The account records that when Captain Tomson reached the fighting..." No context for who Tomson is here, perhaps the commander of another one of the Parliamentarian troops of cavalry?
  • I'll need to refer back to my source text. Bear with me on this one too. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarified this. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Aftermath: "...on parliament's side..." shouldn't it be Parliament? Ditto for "sympathetic towards parliament".
  • Yes, I'm pretty haphazard with this, but they should all be fixed now. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Zawed: Thanks for the review. I've responded to most of the points above, a couple will have to wait for me to have my book sources handy. Harrias ^talk 12:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed: I have addressed the last few issues, let me know if there is anything else. Harrias ^talk 09:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber

Taking a look now...

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

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

@Casliber: I have made changes to each phrase, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 12:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Just to explain why I have been quiet here: we did some sorting over Christmas, and I can't currently find my copy of The Battle of Babylon Hill Yeovil 1642, which much of the article is based on. Harrias ^talk 09:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling well...I have most of my books packed up atm. Driving me nuts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

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

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

Support from Gog the Mild

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

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

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

Either that, or I'm finally learning how to write... Harrias ^talk 18:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image review - pass

• Inconsistent use of alt text.

• • Sorted this. Harrias ^talk 19:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments by Dudley

• "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish" I think it would be helpful to give the result at the start, e.g. "The Battle of Babylon Hill was an indecisive skirmish"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "they spotted a group of Parliamentarian soldiers" I would take "group" to imply a small number. How about "contingent"?
  • Trimmed down to "they spotted Parliamentarian soldiers approaching"
• "though many of their troops were routed" This sounds wrong to me. You can rout a group, not individuals. Also, according to the account below, sections of both sides were routed, not only the royalists.
  • Changed to "though sections of both forces were routed"
• "began withdrawing their infantry" What does "their" refer to? I would say "the infantry".
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "A Parliamentarian report from the battle described that". "described that" sounds odd. Maybe "According to a Parliamentarian account of the battle"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hopton lists that" Again odd. I suggest Hopton states that"
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "According to Hopton, Stowell was successful in routing the approaching enemy, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and themselves routed" This sounds contradictory. If the enemy were routed, they could not outnumber the royalists.
  • And yet, that is what the sources tell us happened. "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe ; and Capt. Moreton, being a litle too neere him, was likewise broaken with the same shocke". Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "In total, the Parliamentarians committed a similar number, around 350 men, to the fight" This should be in the lead as you state the number of royalists there.
  • Added into the lead. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "In a letter sent by the prominent Royalist Sir Edward Nicholas, he described that" Do you mean "to Nicholas? Also "described that" again.
  • No; have rephrased this to "In a letter written by.."
• "Morris suggests that" As this is the first time you mention him you should give his full name.
  • Good spot; have expanded to "In his account of the battle, the historian Robert Morris.."
• Aftermath section. You mention the retreat to Yeovil in paragraph one, but describe it in paragraph two. I would swap the paragraphs round.
  • Another good point. I have swapped them as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Hertford travelled with the infantry and artillery to Wales" Presumably they took the boats, so I would say "Hertford sailed for clarity.
  • Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The content of this article seems fine so far as I know with no knowledge of the subject, but the language is sometimes clumsy. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your review; "the language is sometimes clumsy" is essentially my style, much as I strive to improve! I have responded to each point above, mostly adopting your advice directly, but sometimes with variation as noted. Harrias ^talk 11:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [7].

---

Samuel Mulledy

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

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

Comments from Coffeeandcrumbs

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

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I appreciate whatever comments you can provide. If you're able to do a review of the whole article, that'd be great. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you have the strong enough sourcing to use the word "severe" in the lead or the body. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the word severe. Ergo Sum 22:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• there is inconsistent use of "President of Georgetown" and "president of Georgetown". Take a look at MOS:JOBTITLES. If ignoring JOBTITLES, find your own consistent rule.
  • I've made the capitalization consistent. Ergo Sum 17:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This source says that he received a class ("Silver") medal in mathematics as well as rhethoric which you have mentioned. He also received a honorable mention ("The Premium") in French.
  • Added. Thanks for doing a bit of research. Ergo Sum 17:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ergo Sum: Mathematics? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Coffeeandcrumbs: Added. Ergo Sum 05:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This source on Project Muse says that he was one of three priests at the dedication mass of St. Peter's Church (Richmond, Virginia) on May 25, 1834. It says Mulledy and Samuel Eccleston gave sermons on the occassion. I can email you the pages if you don't have access.
  • Actually, turns out the source confused the two brothers. Checking the source the author cites (column 5), it was Thomas (then president) that was at the dedication. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This source says that he was appointed president when Ryder was called to Rome. Apparently, Ryder was accused of having an affair. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added that detail. Ergo Sum 17:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Upon his return to the United States, he was named president of Georgetown" – he returned from Rome in 1941 and was not appointed president until 1945. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 05:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified the timeline. Ergo Sum 06:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Coffeeandcrumbs: Do you anticipate having any forthcoming comments? Ergo Sum 15:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. I am good. Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

An interesting read:

• " but sought to be relieved of the position after just several months." I might conclude (after "position") "after only a few months". Sounds better to me anyway.
  • I like that phrasing too. Ergo Sum 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I might say at first mention in the body how many years older Thomas was.
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Near his death, Quarter sent a letter to the vicar general for the Archdiocese of New York " I might say "Shortly before" rather than "Near".
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "I would capitalize "day" in "Christmas day" Even my autocorrect said to!
  • Done. Ergo Sum 23:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Should the Gramatowski title be in title case like the others?

• I'm not following. The title is formatted according to ((Cite book)). Ergo Sum 23:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The capitalization.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just capitalized it the way the source capitalizes it. I think if I were to change it, that would be (minor) modification of the original. Ergo Sum 00:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the briefness of the section of president of Georgetown College, it might be worth mentioning (having looked at the source) that while he was president the college attended Polk's inauguration and marched in the procession to honor Andrew Jackson on his death. By the dates, those happened during his tenure.
  • I left those out because I didn't think they were too relevant, but I've added a mention of them. Ergo Sum 23:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would think that you could mine Dooley for a few more details, again, given that the article is relatively brief. Father Quarter's opinion of his assistant sounds worth repeating. And it sounds like he overcame his alcoholism there, and possibly details of his funeral.
  • I've scavenged for a few more details from Dooley and incorporated them. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: Thank you for your comments. I believe I've responded to each. Ergo Sum 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Cas Liber

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

Source review

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

After a deeper look, I am almost certain this is about Thomas and you don't have any sources for Samuel going to Nice. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, that was my reading the Latin source too quickly. I've corrected the error. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for this thorough source review. It's much appreciated. Ergo Sum 19:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "subsequently taught rhetoric there" – needs page 47 of Dooley
  • Done. Ergo Sum 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Coordinator notes

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

Somewhat of a short article. Image-wise it seems like both use and license are OK here. Only one of them has ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both images have alt text. Ergo Sum 15:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: would it be acceptable for me to do a source review as well. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Absolutely. --Laser brain (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 January 2020 [8].

---

Horologium (constellation)

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

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

Support by Fowler&fowler

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

I agree about the lack of narrative - problem is creating overarching sentences where no sources have them veers into OR...which is also a problem. Happy for input on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see that there already is a long line of similar articles, even about Lacaille's constellations, which are FAs. So there's precedent. ( I'll have to mull this over more. My worry is (and this might not be the best place to air it): there are hundreds of topics, for example, in math, physics, chemistry, ... One could narrow down a topic to a constituent that is a near-indivisible thematically, then write something that is comprehensive. It might not have any narrative. What do we do with such an article? ) Still, I think there has to be more content that we can use, especially in the history section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 1: Horologium is a faint constellation in the southern celestial hemisphere, one of twelve described in the 18th century by French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille.
  • A constellation is an imagined conspicuous configuration. How does the imaginer other than an ancient Greek become part of the non-restrictive appositive?

Most of the more recent ones are faint as they are from left-over stars that the ancients didn't visualise into patterns. Constellations now are polygonal tracts of sky as well. Shall I take the "faint" out? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't so much the faint that I was objecting to here, as the comma that creates an appositive. Can we say rephrase the first two sentences as: "Horologium (Latin hōrologium, from Greek ὡρολόγιον, lit. an instrument for telling the hour<cited to OED>) is a constellation of seven faintly visible stars in the southern celestial hemisphere that was first described by the French astronomer Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille in 1752 and visualized by him as a "clock with a pendulum and a seconds hand." In 1922 the constellation was redefined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) as a region of the celestial sphere, and has since been an IAU designated constellation."?

Aha, ok. Yes that was worded very well and I will take you up on that offer. I had no idea about appositives until yesterday either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, adopted. @Fowler&fowler: (or anyone else) you wouldn't have a page ref for the OED would you? I have an OED with the magnifying glass thingy but we are rearranging rooms and I think it is under a pile of books somewhere and can't immediately locate it... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is: horologe, noun, Oxford English Dictionary, retrieved 26 December 2019 (subscription required). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:) I know all about the pile of books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • What is a faint constellation? Does it mean that the least luminous star is faintly visible to the unaided human eye or that in the crowded night sky the configuration itself can be made out with a low (but positive) success rate by the human visual perception apparatus? If it is the former, then what is its value? If it is the latter, then what psycho-physics experiment measures it?

It means that its brightest stars are pretty faint, unlike (say) Orion, Ursa Major or Crux Australis. Its pattern to the unaided eye is pretty indistinct (like many of the more recent constellations). Astronomy guidebooks often call constellations like this (like Mensa, Octans, etc.) "faint" as a quasi-shorthand. So sort of the latter - it just highlights to a lay-reader that is a faint rather than distinctive pattern. For more detail, we have the Bortle scale - I have touched on it in a footnote but not linked as such. Constellations simultaneously have two meanings to the lay-observer - the pattern of their brightest stars, but more comprehensively, a polygonal area covering a piece of sky and all the items thereis as a sort of "address."Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentence 2: It is one of the eighty-eight modern constellations designated by the International Astronomical Union.
  • This sentence makes no effort to explain why there are only 88 "modern" constellations, and why, for example, a post-modern teenager with killer eyesight will not find the 89th. (I.e. even if the 88 constellations subdivide the celestial sphere into polygons whose sides are parallel to the spherical coordinate axes, there is no guarantee that this teenager will not find a finer subdivision.)

The whole sky was mapped out into 88 constellations in 1922. It seems a bit off-topic to for discussion on that to be raised here. I did look to see if any planets were described as "one of the Solar System's eight planet" (but they aren't). Would it be better then to just omit the 88, as the main thrust is that the reader understands that this is a currently recognised constellation (not like one of the many that is no longer recognised) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The constellation is wholly visible to observers south of 23°N.
  • The southernmost star in the constellation of de Lacaille is β Horologii which is visible below 24 N. So, obviously we are talking here about a polygonal definition of constellations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I guess feasibly if Northern Hemisphere observer with a telescope was desperately keen to see something on the constellation's southernmost limits being the point... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand. Let me think about a rephrase. Sorry, I made a mistake; Beta-Horologium is visible below 26 N. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the diagram on the left will be useful in the Characteristics section. Without it, or something similar, the notion that the constellation is wholly visible below latitude 23 N might not be clear to many readers. (Or maybe it is, and I'm just underestimating their geometry skills.) It will have to be redrawn by one of the graphics people, though. Also, in that case, you might want to insert the last two sentences beginning, "The official constellation boundaries ..." after the first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS declension = declination; it has secondary meaning in grammar, that most people know. So, perhaps, best to use only declination. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the stats in at the bottom of the Characteristics section and figured that the numbers themselves help explain things satisfactorily. I've not been asked in previous constellation nominations. Pondering whether diagram might be good in constellation article somehow so it doesn't get repeated 88 time...(???) Maybe just leaving the phrase out of the lead altogether? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No leaving the phrase out is not a good idea, as it aids comprehension. Does it aid it sufficiently at the level of lay knowledge? This is a tricky call. My own opinion is that it does not. We are really talking about a 3-dimensional reality. We are saying the tangent plane (i.e. the horizon) at any point of latitude less 22.96 (approx. 23 N) intersects the volume between two downward-pointing cones of apex angles (90 - 39.63) and (90 - 67.04) transversally. "Transversally" means intersecting both the inner and outer surfaces. This, of course, it too complicated an explanation. Here is one resolution: Change the sentence to: "This region on the celestial sphere is wholly visible to observers at any location below 22.96 degrees N latitude." 22.96 instead of 23 will give the reader a clue to make a connection with -67.04, as 22.96 is 90 - 67.04. I will make some tweaks in the lead directly in the interest of moving this forward. Sorry this is taking time :( If you don't like them, please revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that the source has rounded to the nearest degree... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:) I forgot the cardinal principle. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I made a collapsible box to contain the diagram - can be seen on this version. Have reverted for now as I cannot get it to align on the left of the goddamn page and just sits in the centre jarring the whole thing. No-one has asked for something like this before, and am thinking it would be great on a more dynamic wiki that a hover would get it to appear. The collapisble box is the next best thing (I think). Anyway, have RL chores to do and will ask about how to left-align the collapsible box... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The dynamic wiki would really aid comprehension. The footnote is fine too. I will try to make a more accurae diagram. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a more accurate picture. It may take some time to show in the diagram. Also, as there already is precedent for constellations, so my objection to the short length doesn't belong here. I have changed my vote to Partial support, changeable to full support once some other changes are implemented. If you don't like the new picture, feel free to revert it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - wrestled with a collapsing box for a bit but there is no way to left-align it nicely and it has been pointed out to me that their use is discouraged as per MOS. I guess it has got me thinknig about a more dynamic interface but that is a discussion for another place and time. Newer diagram looks good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

thanks muchly, @Fowler&fowler:, these articles really benefit from some prose polish.....any spare time for a neophytic look at Rigel I would be insanely grateul for, even just the lead... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back home a little while ago, I happened to look up at the night sky, and lo and behold, there was Orion, of old, of my middle-school days, of when our dad and us would lie down on our backs with a fluorescent star atlas and count the constellations, the same Orion of Rigel and Betelguese, of the belt pointing to Sirius. My eyes are weaker, so Rigel was less blue and Betelguese less red, but they are all still there. Maybe I will look at the virtual Rigel. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

• Consider adding alt text.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source review - pass

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

SC

Lead

• "a seconds hand": I was thrown by the s until I checked the OED (it prefers second, but also allows seconds); the OED does, however, hyphenate. I couldn't see what variant of English is used, but it may be worth checking.

Wow, I'd never given that much thought. My natural instinct is to use "seconds hand" rather than "second hand". The latter reminds me of second-hand bookshops. Also, if with 's' then hyphen looks really odd inserted there...? I need to think about this... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was slightly surprised by the hyphen too, FWIW. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History

• Ditto on the hyphen

see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics

• Water snake is a disambig page

This is tricky - we discussed this at the GAN. It has some rudimentary information so isn't as strictly DAB as some others. There is no way of determining which water snake is meant by the Ancient Greeks as no source discusses it. Only alternative is to leave unlinked (if we think that is an improvement) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK, if there is some basic information for people, then this should be OK. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a large area of white space on my monitor. Given the length of the IB there is also some sandwiching, but I'm not sure there is a way round it.
• Is there a reason 'Hor' is in single quotes, rather than double?

Err, no. And I just realised other people have double quotes and I have perpetuated single quotes through a bunch of constellations, which I am have now fixing fixed... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought we were supposed to include indications about images in the text "(illustrated in infobox)"? (I can't find the guideline, so I'm not 100% sure if that's still current)

You mean "not include"? Is already in - this was the result of an FAC of another constellation where a reviewer said it'd be helpful (and I agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - yes, not include. The info is at MOS:SEEIMAGE - it's a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but there is a rationale for not using directions. I'll leave it to your discretion as to what to do, and it won't affect my support. - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so the guideline says "Don't refer to images as being to the left/right, above/below, etc. because image placement varies with platform (especially mobile platforms) and screen size, and is meaningless to people using screen readers." - this is fair enough. In this case, the text refers to the image in the infobox, which is in a fixed position at the top right of the article regardless of screen size or platform. I think leaving the parenthetical text s more useful in than not in the article as the description is hard to visualise and the image is in a distant part fo the article, hence a pointer is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stars

• You have some descriptions that use the definite article, and some without ("English astronomer Francis Baily" and "American astronomer Benjamin Apthorp Gould", but "The German astronomer Johann Elert Bode".

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

• You have a few page ranges that are in the 343–57 scale; the MoS now suggests the 343–357 format, but I'll leave that to your discretion as to whether to ignore or implement.

I previously used 2-digit spans everywhere but lost where I orignally read that, and someone else told me to use the whole range...fixing in a moment.. tweaked now to all digits Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Support The important points in my review have been dealt with; the others are more matters of my personal taste than anything to stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thx ! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Laser brain

• "He devised fourteen new constellations in previously uncharted regions of the southern celestial hemisphere, which were not visible from Europe." This statement is unclear to me. Is "devising" a constellation the same as naming one? Or do they decide which stars will be grouped into a constellation and thus "devise" it?

the newer ones are pretty obscure and their patterns are probably most diplomatically described as subjective. Hence people like Lacaille did their best to visualise patterns and then set out/demarcate constellations, so is more than just naming if that helps....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Horologium also has several variable stars." I find this needs linking or context here. Even having read the lead, I didn't remember that your link to "Mira variable" means the same thing as here.

A variable star is any star that varies in brightness for any reason. I've linked it now. Tempted to write "stars that vary in brightness" but then we end up with an easter egg link....A Mira variable is a very specific kind of variable star. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Support from Praemonitus

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

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15 January 2020 [9].

---

Battle of Lagos

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

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

Support Comments by RetiredDuke

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

• "The Boscawen incident, which caused so much trouble and eventually in 1762 was to be one of the pretexts used by Spain to declare war on Portugal..."^[1]
• "Britain ultimately had to pay a price for Boscawen again disregarding the rules of neutrality... Portugal became entangled against her wishes in the diplomacy of the Franco-British war and eventually became a reluctant participant in the war itself..."^[2]
• "... in the memorial by which... the crowns of France and Spain ordered Portugal to declare against England. The grounds of that memorial - ... the disregard of Portuguese neutrality..."; "recalling the deliberate violation of her neutrality by the fleet under Boscawen... Portugal would not be allowed to continue a neutrality she could not enforce... The allies declared war and invaded Portugal." - A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783

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

Hi RetiredDuke, thanks for that insightful comment and the helpful sources. I am away from my paper sources at the moment, so could you give me a couple of days to be reunited with them before I come back to you on this. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's no rush. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RetiredDuke. Apologies for the prolonged delay in responding - it kept slipping my mind. Researching this a bit, there seems to be agreement that Boscawen's action was not a reason for France and Spain declaring war on Portugal, but was one of the pretexts they cited when they decided to do so. So it does seem reasonable to make some mention of it. How would you feel about 'Three years later, the Spanish and French governments used this breach of neutrality as one of their pretexts for declaring war on and invading Portugal.', immediately after "Boscawen's violation of Portuguese neutrality was fully supported by his government, which placated the Portuguese by persuading them that it was an inadvertent result of Boscawen's general chase order."? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Gog the Mild, glad you could look into it. I had no great expansion on my mind when I made that query, just curious if a person with all the right sources on hand could point to any kind of scholarly consensus or agreement about that connection, without veering into the realm of WP:OR. Your proposed sentence is clear and concise and ties up that loose end nicely.

Taking now on the article as a whole, I found it to be well-written, engaging and well-researched. The next query comes from someone who does not know much about British military history (or French for that matter), so apologies if I'm being obtuse in any way.

- Could the idea behind this sentence be slightly expanded upon? "Meanwhile, Britain's war effort up to early 1756 had been a failure." - I do not know enough about the Seven Years' War to immediately tell what could be considered a failure to Britain in this context. (Does it mean that Britain was unable to help Prussia during their invasion? Or unable to repel the French offensive?) Whereas the French shortcomings were described in more detail just before.

It's a small point that does not affect my support for this article's promotion. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RetiredDuke. If you are indicating that you support the article's promotion, I would be grateful if you could clarify that by amending your section header. Regarding the history of Britain's war effort up to early 1756, it is, as is often the case, one of those which is a bit of a slippery slope, with no obvious cut-off point. I could mention: the Braddock Expedition's defeat and the Siege of Fort William Henry in America; Britain's abandonment by her long term ally Austria; Britain's naval defeat at the Battle of Minorca which led to her executing her own losing admiral and the fall of her Mediterranean stronghold, Minorca; the calamitous defeat at the Battle of Hastenbeck in their European possession, Hanover; the British government falling apart after 6 months and it taking three months to patch together a new coalition; the fall of Calcutta in India, followed by the ignominy of the Black Hole of Calcutta; a crippling shortage of sailors; and let's not even consider the economy. You get the idea. I was and am reluctant to cherry pick a couple of these, and even on review prefer a summary-style it "had been a failure". But I'm not wedded to either so short a summary nor those precise words, if you have suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well I read the article carefully and that was the only instance where I became a bit lost, since I'm not familiar with what Britain had been doing up to that point and what exactly was meant by "failure". I take the point that it would be rather difficult to summarize all of those individual setbacks. Support given above. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: Ah, but now you have me thinking. (Always a dangerous thing.) How about if I added 'with setbacks in Europe, North America, India and at sea'? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sounds good, I think. It gives an idea of the extent of Britain's war effort and that things were not going favourably for them in general. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

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

• Lead

• I wonder if it might be an idea to give a pronunciation guide for "Lagos"? It's something like la-goosh, not what the eye might expect. You can copy and paste from the Lagos, Portugal article if you agree.

Can I ask why we would want to give the Portuguese pronunciation of a battle between the British and the French, neither of whom would pronounce it in the Portuguese fashion? It would be easy enough for me to do, but there is no evidence to suggest that 18th-century Englishmen pronounced it differently than thee or me would. And if they did, I am writing for a 20th-century English speaking audience, who I would hope would pronounce it Lay-goss.

Well, I think a 20th- (or even 21st-) century English speaking audience would simply be wrong to call it Lay-goss, but it's your prose, and I'm not going to make this any sort of sticking point. I'd be interested to see if any other reviewer has views. Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background

• "Secretary of State for the Navy, Nicolas René Berryer… secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister), William Pitt" – inconsistent capitalisation.

Mea culpa.

• "significant handicap in a combat situation" – two points here: "significant" and "situation". As to the former, what did it signify? See Plain Words: "This is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable…". And I struggle to see how "in a combat situation" differs from "in combat".

Both changed.

• "acted as a strong disincentive to service" – just "were" rather than "acted as" perhaps?

Fair point. Done.

• Prelude
  • "refurbishment was underway" – according to the OED "under way" is two words

Ah. "underway" is a noun. Ah well.

• Battle

• "Boscawen ordered that there be no return fire" – have I missed an earlier explanation of why he might have done so? Seems odd, and one wonders why he did.

No, you haven't. Yes, it is. I am pretty sure why he did so, but as the sources simply report the fact I cannot OR in what is almost certainly the explanation. It seems necessary to report the fact, even if it leaves a reader dissatisfied.

Gosh! But fair enough. (You might share your OR thoughts here, though, out of interest.) Tim riley talk 22:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first broadside, fired as one discharge, from cold guns, double shotted, loaded exactly and at leisure was deadlier than subsequent ones; and captains would attempt to save it for a close range strike against their primary targets. Boscawen seems to have taken this to obsessive lengths. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for that. Well worth knowing, however unprovable. Tim riley talk 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• "The naval historian Nicholas Tracey claims…" – I'd be cautious with "claims". It carries overtones of disbelief. "Maintains", "suggests", "observes" and many other more neutral options might be safer.

Changed to "suggests". Although the Wiktionary definition seems to fit well "A new statement of something one believes to be the truth, usually when the statement has yet to be verified or without valid evidence provided."

• Aftermath

• "The three captured French ships went on to serve in the British navy as HMS Centaur, Modeste and Temeraire." – I did just wonder if that was the Temeraire, the one famously portrayed by Turner. I see from here that it wasn't, and as I imagine the name will ring bells in very many readers' heads it might be wise to add an explanatory footnote to the effect that this Temeraire was followed in the Royal Navy by a second in 1793 which is Turner's one.

Done. (I rarely receive requests to inform readers what is not the case.)

• Sources

• "A mixture of 10- and 13-digit ISBNs prompts at least one frequent FAC reviewer to demand 13-digits throughout. The necessary gizmo is here, if wanted.

I prefer to adhere to Wikipedia policy and use the ISBN which is actually printed in the volume I consult.

• "Dull, Jonathan R. (2009). The Age Of The Ship Of The Line" – is this really the capitalisation used in the title?

Oh dear. How tactful. It doesn't matter. All titles should be in Wikipedian title case. Changed

• Barnsley" – is in South Yorkshire in one source and just Yorkshire in another.

Well spotted. Standardised.

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

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

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

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

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Boscawen image

Done.

• Why use the Namur image for the infobox rather than the complete Battle of Lagos from which it is derived? The article after all is about the battle, not the ship

Because the image of the full battle appeared to me to be an indecipherable mess at infobox image size. However, replaced as suggested.

• File:Vaisseau_le_Redoutable_74_canons_a_la_bataille_de_Minorque_1756.jpg: when/where was this first published?

According to the Bibliothèque nationale de France sometime before 1825, by an unknown artist. The Bibliothèque nationale de France also states that it is in the public domain.

Hm, I'm looking at the source link provided but don't see 1825 listed - am I missing it, or are you looking at a different link? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Click on the large i in the top left and scroll down to "Relation : Appartient à : [Recueil. Collection Michel Hennin. Estampes relatives à l'Histoire de France. Tome 172, Pièces comprises entre les numéros 331 et 14303, période : 1643-1824]". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Source review by Factotem - Support on sourcing

General

• The dates are somewhat confusing. The infobox states 18–19 August, but the lead begins the third paragraph with the statement, "The British caught up with the French on the 17th and fierce fighting ensued...". I think you could also usefully restate the date in the first sentence of the Battle section.

For some reason I slipped a day with several dates in the infobox. Many thanks for picking up this embarrassment.

Date restated. But not in the first sentence - this would be clumsy without recasting the paragraph. See what you think.

Unsourced statements:

• Infobox states 10 British frigates, which is the quantity listed in the OOB, but the article states 12 (Prelude section)

10 took part in the battle, as stated in the infobox and restated and sourced in the OoB. The Prelude states "he also had 12 frigates" in the context of "In May 1759 Edward Boscawen took command of the British fleet in the Mediterranean". Ie, two of the frigates in the fleet were not present at the battle. The article states that "He ordered the first two of his frigates to be ready for sea to patrol to the east". La Clue evaded them and was in the Atlantic when spotted by Gibraltar, so I assume that this accounts for the discrepancy. But no source explicitly states this, hence the two unaccounted for.

• Infobox states 193 British wounded, but article states 196 (Aftermath section)

Apologies. That's me not adequately checking the figure in the infobox when I picked up the article. Corrected.

• Two of the three footnotes are unsourced. The last one explains only a convention used in the article and is fine. The second footnote, about The Fighting Temeraire painting is, IMO, not necessary.

I added the footnote about the painting at the request of reviewer Tim riley, doing so on my phone over Christmas, and squinting at it I messed up the formatting. The reference was there, but not showing in the text. If you are suggesting that the article would be the better for not having the The Fighting Temeraire footnote I would agree. But Tim is usually a good judge of these things and I don't feel that strongly about it. Perhaps the two of you could reach consensus?

I'm not comfortable with having any unsourced statements of fact, especially at FA. For me, that footnote is an unnecessary detail; removing it does not in any way degrade our understanding of the subject of the article. Anyone who is curious is just a click away from the ship's own article, from which it is just another click to learn that it is not the same ship as featured in the painting. Finally, if we're going to disambiguate this name, why not any of the others that were also used on multiple different ships? I would prefer the footnote to go. Let's see if Tim wishes to defend it. Factotem (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley:? The note is at least sourced now, but I still think it's an unnecessary detail that does not belong. I am, however, reviewing on sourcing only, so it does not affect my opinion on that. Factotem (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turner's picture was voted Britain's favourite painting in a poll organised by the BBC a few years ago. I think so many readers, in Britain at any rate, will see the name "Temeraire" and wonder if this is the Temeraire that it would be helpful to explain that it isn't. But if there's a consensus agin me I shall withdraw gracefully. Tim riley talk 10:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical checks:

• Ref #52 (Troude 1867, p. 373, 385.) p->pp

D'oh! Fixed.

• You use an ISBN10 ref for Kemp's The Oxford Companion to Ships and the Sea when all other ISBNs in the Sources section are ISBN13. The Worldcat entry for this work gives an ISBN13 of 978-0192820846. This is a nitpick I've seen in previous source reviews. For myself, I'm not fussed.
• Worldcat's listing of editions of Longmate's Island Fortress: The Defence of Great Britain, 1603–1945 does not list any as being published by Harper Collins. The ISBN link you provide indicates that the edition you used was published by Grafton. Can you check please?

It is Grafton of course. As there is no source from Harper Collins, so it can't even be a cut and paste error, I am unsure how I messed that up.

• The ISBN provided for McLynn's 1759: the Year Britain Became Master of the World links to a 2008 edition published by Vantage, according to Worldcat, rather than the 2005 edition published by Pimlico as stated in the Sources section. Can you check please?

This goes from bad to worse. I was actually holding the volume in question as I read that. (I had just checked the number of wounded.) Turning it over, it says "Vintage" (not Vantage) clearly enough on the spine. On the title page, part way down, it states "Pimlico edition 2005" by way of publishing history and I unhappily took that as referring to this edition. Corrected.

• Mahon's surname is repeated in the Sources section

Corrected.

• There appears to be two different titles for Kléber's work. You list Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660–1837, but this Worldcat entry indicates that the ISBN ref you provide relates to a work titled Imperial island : a history of Britain and its empire, 1688-1837. Note that Worldcat lists both titles, but does not provide an ISBN ref for the 1660 version that I looked up. Can you check please?

That one drove me half mad. I believe that WorldCat is in error. One can just about make out that the cover illustration states 1660. The WorldCat blurb starts "This is a lively, new textbook for US students on British history from the Stuart Restoration of 1660 ... " And I finally tracked down a Google Books title page with a title and ISBN matching that I have provided - here.

• A search for ISBN 0713884118, provided for Rodger's The Command of the Ocean gives no results in both Worldcat and Gbooks

My typo - it should be 0713994118. Corrected. (I have previously copied and pasted this into other articles which I shall have to find and change.)

• The ISSN ref you provide for Willis's The Battle of Lagos, 1759 appears to refer to the journal rather than the specific article. Can you add the DOI ref please (doi=10.1353/jmh.0.0366 should do it)?

Added.

• The Worldcat listing for Rif's British Warships in the Age of Sail 1714-1792: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates indicates Seaforth Publishing to be based in St. Paul, Minnesota, not Barnsley, South Yorkshire, as stated in the Sources section

Yesss. But. I am happy to bow to your superior knowledge, but this title page states that it was published in GB by Seaforth, an imprint of P&S of Barnsley; and is merely distributed in the USA, and that by MBI.

External link checker: no issues reported

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

Quality of sources:

• I'm always a little concerned when I see very old sources used. In this case, 10 out of 100 cites are to 19th-century works, but they are all accompanied by another cite or relate to the OOB, so I'm not concerned that such ancient sources are being relied upon to any inappropriate degree;

Me too. But they were the only ones I could find with that sort of detail, and like you I reassured myself that I was only using them unsupported for straight forwardly factual information.

• Had to research MacDonald and Jane's a little (and can you check the listing in the sourcing section? It appears to be misspelt with an accent on the s rather than the possessive 's' Worldcat and Gbooks list it as), but all publishers appear to be of appropriate quality;

I didn't realise that it was possible to get a French-style accent by mistyping an apostrophe. Well spotted. Corrected.

• Sixty percent of the cites are to three works focussed on the subject or time period by authors with solid academic credentials, so no issues there, other than to point out that Sam Willis can be linked.

I read his article and thought that I had. I have not done too well with this bibliography.

I was surprised at the lack of other detailed examinations of this battle. One of only three large naval battles in the Seven Years' War. I assume that Byng's disgrace three years earlier and Quiberon Bay three months after Lagos hog the limelight.

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

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

Comprehensiveness:

• I searched Google Books for "Battle of Lagos" but found only the sources used in the article, the advice to consult Sam Willis's work for a detailed narrative of the battle, and nothing to suggest the article is not based on a full survey of all relevant sources.
• A similar search on JSTOR did not reveal anything more concerning than Rémy (according to the article bibliography) Monaque is Rémi (according to the JSTOR listing) Monaque

Yes. It seems clear enough - [file:///C:/Users/Simon/AppData/Local/Packages/Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/naval-leadership-in-the-atlantic-world.%20(1).pdf]. Just me goofing again.

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

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

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

Support by Wehwalt

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

• "It left port amidst great confusion, with most ships not having their refurbishments completed, and many delayed and sailing in a second squadron." Possibly "sailed" for "sailing"?

I don't think that this works following "and many delayed". Tim, would you mind offering your Solomonic grammatical judgement on this? (PS Or I could rephrase as 'and many were delayed and sailed in a second squadron'?)

What about "with many delayed and sailing in a second squadron"?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wehwalt: done. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns, and both were having serious problems financing the war." I might cut the first comma.

The idea idea is to section out, by a pair of commas, "in either the land or sea campaigns". If you don't think that it works, I could recast the sentence?

Let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " From June 1757 it came under the control of the assertive new secretary of state for the southern department (foreign minister)," I realise there is something of a campaign to lower case things, but this seems lower than I'd expect.

I may be missing the point (I often do) but having just checked, the casing seems to be in accordance with MOS:JOBTITLES. I would not wish to defend the casing used, other than to note that I understood a compliance with the MOS in this respect to be necessary to pass FAC.

• "as HMS Centaur,[53] Modeste[54] and Temeraire.[note 2][43]|group=note))" some formatting issue here.

Whoops. Thank you. Fixed.

Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, thanks for stopping by and thanks for the support even before I have addressed your comments. All had me thinking, but I am inclined not to go with your first three. See what you think of my reasoning above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kablammo

The article is clear and concise, without unnecessary detail.

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

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

Support by CPA-5

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

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 January 2020 [10].

---

Freddie Mitchell

Nominator(s): Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American football player who had a high pedigree at the time he was eligible to play professionally but flamed out in the National Football League. He was a key participant in one of the most notable plays in his franchise's history, played in the Super Bowl the next season, and ran his mouth out of town the following year. A decade later he was in prison finishing a three-year sentence for tax fraud.

I previously nominated this page for FA status in March 2012, but I became overwhelmed with work in my real life and had to withdraw the nomination. I believe all of the comments from the first nomination have now been addressed, and I look forward to addressing additional concerns. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, fixed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment – I (unfortunately) don't have time for a full review during this holiday season, but I did peek at this article and thought that the Personal section looked the weakest. There's quite a few short, stubby paragraphs, and in general the section tends to float between topics. We go from family relations to media appearances to personal issues to more media appearances to the tax fraud stuff, without much rhyme or reason. Once the holidays are over, I'd focus on reorganizing these paragraphs by theme, and perhaps merging some of the smaller ones, to strengthen the section. Also, since most of the reference access dates are from around the time the article reached GA in 2011, it would be a good idea to run the article through the link-checker tool in the toolbox to seek out links that may have gone dead since the first FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your feedback, I have reorganized the paragraphs per your suggestion. Before nominating, I ran the link-checker and replaced all bad links it showed, and it looks like Gog the Mild has also added 136 archive URLs to preserve the active URLs this morning as well. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, suggest withdrawal: I noticed that this has been in the queue for quite a while, and had a quick look at it. I'm afraid in my view, it falls some way short of FA status. I looked closely at the lead and first section, and skimmed rest of the article. These are samples only, there are numerous other examples throughout, and I believe this article needs more work than is possible to accomplish in the timeframe of this FAC, and am inclined to suggest it should be withdrawn. Also, addressing these examples would not lead me to strike the oppose: I think the main editor needs to have some fresh eyes on this, and it needs a thorough polish and reworking from top to bottom. Sorry. Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead: Other than when I reviewed this at FAC years and years ago, I've never heard of Freddie Mitchell, and know nothing about him. Reading the lead, I still have no sense of who he is, or what his story might be. However, a quick internet search told me a little more, that he is famous for complaining and "trash talk", as well as not being quite as good as he thought he was. Yet none of this comes across in the lead. The first paragraph could literally be about any generic football player. It isn't until the FOURTH paragraph that I see what he's famous for. I'd be inclined to trim back this lead, and cut some of the listiness of his achievements and perhaps summarise these in one or two sentences. Because at the moment, as a reader, it's hard to see the wood for the trees.
• Prose: Throughout (including the lead), we have some very repetitive prose which makes this a hard read. Almost all of the sentences follow the same structure: "Mitchell/He [verb] [some information]". Partly because of this, the sentences are very disjointed and there is no flow to the narrative. For example, in "Early Years", we have: Father - School - Sports - Baseball - Baseball Stats - Drafted for Tampa Bay - Negotiated with Tampa Bay but signed for college basketball - Basketball role and number of points and his team won - His performance in the final (and a hint of his temper, which seems huge in the context of what happened later, but is here downplayed totally) - Football roles - Football award (is it football? Not clear without following links) (New paragraph) Visited one university, signed for another - Reason he made his choice. Now, all these sentences are just lined up. There is nothing that pulls them together, or tells a story, or makes one flow into another. It reads just like a series of 13 unrelated facts placed next to each other. This is evident throughout the article and someone needs to have a very close look at this.
• Sourcing:

• I had a close look at "Early Years", and noticed that we are using a local newspaper to source most of this, and in the sources, Mitchell is not always the focus. Although the information is present and correct in the source, I wonder can we not find a better source than using a series of articles from the time. Are there no overview sources which summarise this a little better? This may also be a reason that the prose feels so disjointed and repetitive; the source contains just one fragment of information, so each sentence contains just one fragment of information. Perhaps some better sources are needed, if they exist. If not, we may need to look at how the information can be rearranged to make it flow better.
• We may need to be alert for close paraphrasing. For example, we have "the son of a pastor" in both our article and Ref 3; "where he lettered in cross country, baseball, football, and basketball" (article) "who is lettering in four sports" (ref 4) [as written, it is hard to rephrase this, but could we not say it a different way instead of using "lettered"?]
• The sentence "He had brief contract negotiations with the Devil Rays, but decided to attend college instead of signing with a professional team" is not supported by ref 8, which says that Tampa Bay took a look at him, but went with someone else, and does not say that he chose college as an alternative to signing for them (incidentally, ref 8 has some good material for expanding the detail in this section and making it flow); We have "He chose to play on the West Coast mainly because of the opportunities presented for his career after football", but looking at ref 15, it seems more like he was considering a career in TV/film, which explains his choice of location, rather than it offered opportunities for a general career.
• This is just from that one section which makes me question how widespread the issue is throughout the article. I would recommend the main editors look carefully to see if everything in the article is attributable to the references given, and see if there are any other examples of close paraphrasing (where it is always better to be cautious).
• Also, a more minor issue, we list him as a pinch hitter in baseball, when the reference simply says that he performed that role in one game; we need a better ref than this if we are going to say he was a pinch hitter.

• Finally, the early life section is padded with lists of statistics and what he did. Some of these could be cut back and summarised in one or two sentences, and instead we could give more of a narrative of how and where he grew up, and how he came into sport. I wouldn't insist on this, but my personal preference would be to remove much of this information and replace it with something like "At Kathleen High School, he was a successful athlete who played several sports and was a cross country runner. Owing to his success in baseball, the Tampa Bay Devil Rays briefly considered signing him as part of the 1997 Major League Baseball Draft. As a guard in basketball, he was part of the team that won the 1997 Class 4A boys' high school basketball state championship. Following his performances on the football field in 1995, he was chosen for the Ledger's all-Lakeland second team."
• We need to link Bruins in Early Life as they have not been mentioned in the main body previously.
• There are various places where the prose needs a little more work as well, but I would recommend looking at the issues of sourcing, sentence structure and narrative cohesion before getting a copy-editor to take a look. Sarastro (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Sarastro's comments suggest this nom is somewhat premature; after acting on the above recommendations, you might consider Peer Review and/or the FAC mentoring scheme. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 January 2020 [11].

---

Ersatz Yorck-class battlecruiser

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

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

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

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Llammakey

• battlecruiser should be linked at its first appearance in the first paragraph of development
  • Good catch
• The improved field of view statement after the trunked funnels in the first paragraph of the design section is unclear if you mean the conning tower or the mast, especially since you just spoke about the spotting tops.
  • The mast - hopefully clearer now
• I would hyphenate single ended and double ended boilers
  • Fixed
• In armor, link Derfflinger-class ships
  • Done. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Changed to support. Llammakey (talk) 14:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Tirronan

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

Image review

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

Coordinator notes

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

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

Comments Support from Harrias

Note: I am participating in the WikiCup.

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

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

Thanks Harrias. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, more than happy to support this. Harrias ^talk 08:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by From Hill To Shore

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

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

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

Continuing:

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

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

Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments Support from CaptainEek

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

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

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

Thanks for reviewing the article, @CaptainEek:. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsecboy: Good fixes! I have replied to a few points above CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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