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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating[edit]

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etc[edit]

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


Nominations

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Iazyges

Abdollah Mirza Qajar

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... Abdollah Mirza, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty who was a poet and the governor of two provinces during his lifetime. I had nominated this before and I believe it was archived because it was so short, but there is barely any information on life to add. I have seen featured articles shorter than this so I don't think that's much of a problem. Thanks in advance for any reviewers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Growing Up Absurd

Nominator(s): czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While hardly a classic today, this book was once the bible of a generation, found on bookshelves across American college campuses during the 1960s counterculture as well as, years later, the cabin bookshelves of Ted Kaczynski. Growing Up Absurd was a paean to 1960s youth, written by a hopeful yet outcast intellectual finally finding his audience after a lifetime of striking out. Originally writing on the then-hot topic of rising juvenile delinquency, Paul Goodman defended the youth subculture that rejected adult society much as Goodman did himself, writing that youth had no business "growing up" into a world designed to process and spit them out, and that adults had better create a world of worthwhile ardor, with more meaningful work, honorable community, sexual freedom, and spiritual sustenance. Growing Up Absurd launched Goodman from the bohemian underground into a flash of idiosyncratic stardom in the twilight of his life, from lifelong impoverishment to the top tenth of American incomes, as he became a high-demand public intellectual namechecked in Annie Hall, a Dutch uncle to the counterculture and Berkeley Free Speech Movement, the philosopher of the New Left, and within only several decades, largely forgotten from American public consciousness.

Been sitting on this one while I work on other Goodman-related articles but read it again recently and I believe it's FA-worthy. It was reviewed for GA by @Tayi Arajakate in July 2021. Notices posted on relevant WikiProjects and my talk page. Let me know what you think? czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HMS Aigle (1801)

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a fifth-rate sailing frigate that served in the Royal Navy at the tail end of the French Revolutionary wars and throughout the Napoleonic war. She took part in some notable actions and campaigns, including the controversial Battle of Basque Roads and the disasterous Walcheren campaign. As can be seen from the edit history, I have done a not inconsiderable amount of work to the article since it became a Good Article in 2016. I have looked at the criteria for featured article and humbly believe it meets them. I am sure, however, that it can be improved and look forward to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aliens (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the 1986 science fiction action film Aliens directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, in what would be the first of the two trendsetting sequels he made. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Lankyant

That's it for now, will go through the rest of the article when I get chance :) Lankyant (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Lankyant, all changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support and Comments from ErnestKrause

Some comments about this well-written article which I've just noticed to get things started.

(1) There is an odd redirect to this film page from "M56 Smart Gun" even though there is no article for "M56 Smart Gun"; it just seems to redirect to the top of the Aliens film article with no explanation.

(2) In the lead section, you do mention this is the second film in the franchise, which is accurate. Given the strength of your Sequels section at the end of this article, it seems like it would be useful to state how large the franchise is in the lead section. For example, 'it is the second film in the 12 films in the Alien franchise', or, 'it is the second film in the two dozen films in the Alien franchise.' I'm not sure of the exact number but you might know it from memory.

(3) In the Plot summary, my memory is that the weapons and guns in this film received a good deal of screen time when I watched it. There are the scenes where the Marines are drilling with their M56A2 Smart Guns as if preparing for battle, and doing prepatory weapons drills, etc. Also there is the prominent scene of some extended length featuring the UA 571-C Sentry Guns which takes on the swarm of attacking Aliens. Can these be mentioned or added in some way into the Plot section since they were prominently featured in the film? (One link for the M56 is here [2], and one link for the Sentry Gun in here [3].)

(4) You did give some information about the German origin of the Smart Gun in the next sections, though you do not cover the Sentry Gun. Could this be added? My thoughts are that once you add some of the details about the Smart Gun and the Sentry Gun used in the film, that this would be the better place to link the re-direct of the M56 I mentioned above in my note #1 with an indexed link to this new section, rather than an unindexed link to the article as a whole.

(5) My recollection is that there was a novelization made for this film, separately from the graphic novels which you already mention in this article. Possibly you can find this on one of the book seller websites on the internet with its author and publisher.

Its a short list for now to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I fixed the redirect
  • The rest of the franchise is discussed in the last paragraph of the lead since it comes after the film's release,production, etc
  • It looks like just under a dozen films in the franchise; can you state that in the first paragraph. For example, in the Bond franchise it is typical to include the number in the series in the 1st paragraph of the lead section, such as the GA for Diamonds are Forever which was the 'seventh' (and final Eon Productions film) in the franchise. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What I read in the franchise article on Wikipedia is that there were 4 films in the original series: I, II, III and Resurrection. Could you change the wording in the lead paragraph of the lead section to state: "...the second of four films in the original Alien franchise." Or, something like that.
  • It wouldn't really be appropriate to specifically mention the weapons in the plot as there is a strict limit on how long plot sections can be, and mentioning the guns by name would not add to the understanding of the plot.
  • May include a mention of the one or the other. The scene with the Sentry gun lasted about 6-7 minutes in the film. It seems like it was more than just a cameo. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sentry guns aren't in the theatrical cut, they're only in the extended versions and the plot covers the theatrical cut. I've researched some behind the scenes info about the guns and put it in the special effects section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I linked the M56 to that section discussing the smart gun. There is no info about the sentry guns but that's because they were just kind of basic creations and there isn't much information about them. Because of the existing length of the article they're currently beyond its scope, but if I am ever able to obtain some of the more detailed design background literature, I might be able to split the special effects section off and make it larger.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wikipedia does have an article for Sentry gun which could be used for adding some details for this history of where this type of gun came from, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added info about the novel

Adding 6 & 7 below:

(6) The 4th paragraph of the lead section uses the phrase: "and both one of the best science fiction and action films and..". The conjunctions in one sentence does not look encyclopedia in presentation, can the sentence be tweaked.

(7) The next film in the franchise currently under way is to be directed by Fede Álvarez and to be produced by Ridley Scott, is this worth a mention in your Sequels section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its pretty good writing in the article as a whole, let me know about the opening sentences in the lead section about it being the second of four films. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving to support this well-written article about this film. I've also recently listed a FAC nomination for the popular culture figure Yuzuru Hanyu on the FAC page in case you might have any time for support/oppose comments. (From your other edits elsewhere, I've read the BFI book on Seven and you could ping me if you'd like a co-editor or co-nominator to improve that article.) ErnestKrause (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Support and Comment from Lankyant 2

I will take another look through this article but I am happy to support. Brilliant work and a very good and informative read. Lankyant (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lankyant, all doneDarkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funk

  • I did use the sources that contained relevant information, some might just mention Aliens by name in comparison to something else but the ones with analysis are in the analysis section. Removed the dupelink Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC), Henni147 (talk), and Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the mens ice skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu's Olympic seasons. He has recently retired from competition and completed his career of competing at the Olympics; this article covers his medal winning three appearances at the Olympics. The article is a co-nomination with Henni who has also done the FL for Yuzuru Hanyu's career, and Ernest who was the co-nominator for the successful GAN nomination of the Yuzuru Hanyu biography article at Wikipedia with User:Yolo. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Thank you very much for setting up the FAC nomination. Here are some additional notes that might be useful for the review process:
  • The result table got extracted from Hanyu's career achievements sub-page, which has reached FL status already. So it should satisfy the FAC criteria.
  • This Olympic seasons article emerged from a page split of Hanyu's bios page, and has no equivalent among figure skating articles yet. This is especially true for the sub-sections about Hanyu's six Olympic programs. Their background and creation process has received an unprecedentedly broad and thorough coverage by newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts, both in Japan and overseas, and we believe that a summary of these insights is very valuable for the global coverage of figure skating on Wikipedia. Henni147 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone familiar with the article since its conception, it wouldn't be objective for me to give a support/comment (it's obvious I support it). But I'll help responding to the reviews when it's needed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just want to add, since this type of article within Figure Skating project is unprecedented, it has gone through a peer-review before the 2022 Winter Olympics which can be viewed here. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Removed fixed px unless it's needed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Please inform me if I did it incorrectly. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: We uploaded two more images to Commons, and included them in the 2018 after season honors-section. On Commons, the two files are currently listed in multiple categories with "missing SDC copyright license". What influence does that have on the FAC nomination? Shall we remove the images, until the licensing issue is fixed, or is there nothing to be done? I am not familiar with the licensing procedure on Commons. Henni147 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: Issue seems to be solved. The categories have already been removed from one of the two images. However, another look at the copyright and licensing status might be good. Just in case. Henni147 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Village Green (song)

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a song by the English rock band the Kinks. Ray Davies, the band's principal songwriter, wrote it in August 1966 after feeling disappointed that beer was being served in metal kegs instead of wooden barrels. After the Kinks recorded it, he hoarded the song while figuring out what to do with it. It wasn't until November 1968 that it saw release on The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, an album which spawned from the song's central themes. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from PMC

Support from me on prose and content, following the in-depth FAC-style GAN review I just completed. Since I'm here, I may as well pitch in an image review and get that over with.

Thanks very much for your support! Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, happy to support since I suggested it in the first place! For the purposes of the image review, the replacement image checks out as validly free. ♠PMC(talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Sammi Brie

This is my first-ever FAC content review (two image reviews precede this), and I do intend on claiming it for WikiCup points. Other editors are invited to critique the review. Ping to Tkbrett.

I have no further concerns, and when the copy changes are made and remaining alt text integrated, I will support. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nikkimaria, out of curiosity, did you have a concern with my image review not being sufficient? ♠PMC(talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi PMC, nope - just missed it since it wasn't bolded. Oops. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something for it :) ♠PMC(talk) 03:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude

1981 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the the first of the six World Snooker Championships won by Steve Davis, who went on to dominate the sport in the 1980s. Viewers of TV snooker in the UK will likely be familiar with scenes of Davis's manager Barry Hearn bounding into the arena, lifting Davis in celebration. Losing finalist Doug Mountjoy set a championship record break of 145. Cliff Thorburn's petulant behaviour in the semi-final, stemming from his frustration at the behaviour of Davis and his fans, was well covered in sources. Thanks in advance for suggestions to improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Comments by Henni147

I am a big snookerfan myself and have worked on tournament articles at German wiki already, so I'd like to contribute to this FAC review. I'll start with linking and inline-citations:

Extended content
  • Lead section:
    • I'd say, there is no need to link "Engand" here, as it is a commonly known place.
    • The link to "frames" should contain the "s" letter at the end as well.
  • Overview section:
    • I would change "Birmingham, England" to "Birmingham in England" and remove the link from "England" to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    • Insert a link to "West Bromwich", which is not a commonly known place outside the UK.
  • Qualifying round:
    • Insert link to Stockport and maybe Bristol as well.
    • "best-of-seventeen" → change to best-of-17.
    • Wrong order of citations after "few days before entries closed.[16][5]"
    • Personally, I would remove the link from "nervous breakdown", but that's probably a matter of taste.
  • First round:
    • "at the tournament,[5] as did Knowles,[19] and Martin.[5]" → change to "at the tournament, as did Knowles and Martin.[5][19]"
    • Wrong order of citations after "after being tied at 5–6, 6–6, and 8–8.[19][15]: 50–54"
  • Second round:
    • Maybe try to change wording of "reigning world billiards champion Fred Davis" to avoid the two side-by-side links.
  • Qualifying matches:
    • Wrong order of citations after "and at Romiley Forum, Stockport.[45][15]:12"
  • Place the section about century breaks at the end of the article before the notes section, to make it uniform in structure with other snooker tournament articles.

That's it at first visit. I will take a look at the prose text and content later. I hope, the notes are helpful. Henni147 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for this, Henni147. I've addressed all of these. For the point about Birmingham, it's now in the text as "Birmingham, England", which is consistent with some of the other cities mentioned. (In case you're interested, there's a WikiProject for Snooker.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is a smart solution indeed. Thanks for the changes. I removed some duplicate inline-citations in accordance with WP:REPCITE and added a link to "best-of", because casual readers may not know how that match format works. I hope, that's okay. We also used to remove spacing from sources/citations to keep the markup size of the article as small as necessary, but every author has individual preferences (some don't like cluttered citation templates), so I leave that choice to you.
I will take a closer look at the content and wording now and give a quick feedback here. Henni147 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments from Henni147
Content and wording/formatting remarks:

Some more general comments:

That's it at second read. I can also do a source/reference check, but that will take a bit of time. Unfortunately, with spelling, grammar, and punctuation I am no big help, since English is only my third language. I definitely recommend to ask someone else for a detailed feedback there. Overall, the article looks very promising and I do think that it has the potential for FAC promotion. Nice job. Henni147 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dance in the Dark

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another nomination of a Lady Gaga song from her EP The Fame Monster by me. Unlike "Bad Romance", my previous nom, this did not enjoy much popularity and was released as a single only in France. Much of my work revolved adding sources (including academic ones) and thoroughly scanning the article for source-to-text accuracy considering it was taken to GA by a user who added fabricated material to Wikipedia articles. I look forward to your feedback on this one. FrB.TG (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image and media review (passes)

Unfortunately, I will not have time in the immediate future to do a full prose review, but I will do the image and media review to at least help somewhat and take some of the burden away from those who always help with these types of reviews in FACs.

This should be everything. I do not see any major issues. My points are mostly about having the ALT text be more consistent, adding archives of the source/author links, and fixing an issue with the Sawayama image's purpose of use. Please let me know if you have any questions and this will pass my image/media review once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your review, Aoba. All done as suggested. FrB.TG (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am updating my review as images in the article were changed. For File:PrimaveraBarcW1Jun22 (51 of 318) (52163776528) (cropped).jpg, I would archive the source and author links. However, this is not a serious issue and does not take away from my earlier review. I'd also like to add that the image does cut across section headings, but I am not sure if that is a serious issues or not so I will that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived the links on the new img as well. Thank you for updating on your review. (I thought of pinging you but didn't want to bother for something small.) FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am glad that I could help. Feel free to ping me if there are any further changes with the images and media and I will be more than happy to update my review. Aoba47 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elias / Your Power

Will leave prose comments within the week ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
03:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I am out of home right now, so I will have to leave comments via alt. More will follow in a few hours. For responses please ping this account and not the other one Untroubled.elias (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I have done all as suggested above and look forward to the next batch of your review. FrB.TG (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No prob FrB.TG - continuing. I am open to any justifiable objections to the comments below - please please please do not feel afraid to call me out on an unnecessary suggestion ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. I have selected the countries where the song reached top ten. - FrB.TG
I noticed that was the case in many sentences in that section. I have reduced the -ing usage a little.
Good paraphrasing suggestions. I have done it for a fair amount of quotes. Let me know if there are any more instances of unnecessary quotes.
We're good here :)
I'm not sure. It could mean either. The source doesn't clarify that so I have removed it for now.

That should be all from me for now. Tomorrow I will look through the article again to see if there is anything I missed. If you have enough time for a QPQ, I'd appreciate a prose or source review for my open FAC which deals with the concert film Happier Than Ever: A Love Letter to Los Angeles. Thank you for the patience with this review! I know I've left a lot to read and I apologize for that. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
14:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again for your thorough review. All very good points that I agree with. Let me know if something needs clarifying. As for your FAC, I'll be happy to review it once I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay these should be the final batch FrB.TG! Once all of these are addressed I will be happy to give my support. Thank you so much for your hard work and patience with getting this the bronze star, and thank you for your FAC contributions in general! You're an inspiration to this newbie :") ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
02:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the kind words, Elias. I'm happy knowing that my work has inspired you. And I really like the thoroughness and helpfulness of your review. All suggestions incorporated. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, looks like we are done here Face-smile.svg Happy to give this my support ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ippantekina

It's cited by several high-quality books here, indicating that it is a reliable source.
Removed Uproxx. ET Canada has been cited by several high-quality books here, indicating it is a reliable source. As for Softpedia, the very review used in the article is cited by the journal Twentieth-Century Music, which is published by Cambridge University Press so I would say this can be used.
Thank you for the responses. I can somewhat feel safe about Digital Spy and ET Canada, but being cited in books does not automatically qualify as reliable. For example, I can use the same reason to justify tmz.com, which is deprecated. Softpedia is a "software and tech news website", so I'd look further into the context of its use in the journal to see how much weights it carry. Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you. GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are all comments that I have. Overall this is a solid article, and I am open to discussion to any of the points I raised above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Ippantekina. All very helpful suggestions. Let me know if I have missed something. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support on prose--Thank you for the responses. A more thorough source review may be necessary, but I've left some comments regarding my thoughts on sources which I am open to discussion. If possible, I'd very much appreciate your input at my current FAC. Great work overall! Ippantekina (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GagaNutella

Removed extended play and replaced with EP since the abbreviation was already introduced earlier in the article.
Even better! GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not possible since the sources are automatically generated by ((single chart)) and they cannot be modified.

Great article! GagaNutellatalk 03:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you ver much for the comments, GagaNutella. I think I have resolved all of them. FrB.TG (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. GagaNutellatalk 23:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

Replaced "debuted at" with "charted at" to avoid repeating "charted" twice. Hopefully, it works.
Thank you, Chris, as always. All done as suggested. I'll gladly review your FAC as soon I finish a few other reviews I have recently committed to. FrB.TG (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Nice writing for this article about this very popular song. Its promising to see the many nice comments left by the editors above who are already supporting, and the article is put together at a comparable level to your other Lady Gaga nominations. It would be of some use to the article, I think, to at least mention at some level the fact that there was no official video to go with the release of this song. Why was this? Did they use up the entire video budget on the other releases on this album, or was the priority of which videos to release made beforehand, before they knew how popular this song would be when it came out? If RS ae hard to find, it seems like you could mention which songs from the album did get official videos along with which order they were actually released in. That is, how many of the songs on the album did get official videos and how many did not? I'm going to ask the same question for the cover version of the song, which you cover in this article, since it also does not appear to have an official video. Another coincidence? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ErnestKrause, thanks for your comments. There's (currently) no source for why no video was released/if there was ever plan for one. Saying other singles got videos is a bit POV-pushing IMO as it implies that we think this one should've gotten a video as well. This song was hardly a single (only released to radio stations in one country nine months after the album release). It would be another discussion if it was another song like "Do What U Want" where a video was in talks for months but it never saw the light of the day due to certain mishaps. FrB.TG (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RS is imiportant for this; what about simply listing it as one of the list of songs from the album which was not released with an official video? That way there is no POV pushing, it simply states that some of the songs had official videos from the album, and some did not. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could, but the thing is even something like "it did not have a video" needs an RS, which we don't. FrB.TG (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By looking at the album page for this, it appears that only Bad Romance, Alejandro and Telephone received official music videos, and the others did not. Dancer in the Dark looks like it simply was not one of the three songs from the album which were chosen to receive official music videos. It looks useful to the article to say this for readers of this article who could otherwise ask themselves why the article does not cover anything about a related music video. Putting this in neutral language I think might be useful in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that but my point is we need a source for this, for which none exists. Even talking about something not existing needs a source. Without a source, it would need a ((citation needed)) tag. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking of moving forward with this; what do you think of adding a column to the album page charts of individual songs on the album to include a column which would indicate the date of the release of official music videos for the individual songs. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s a much better alternative. I would suggest it adding it in prose form in singles section instead since all music videos from TFM were for singles. FrB.TG (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If its an understanding that in the process of time that you'll add this information to Lady Gaga'a various album pages (the release dates of official music videos for each album of hers), then that looks like it would be an improvement. In the meantime, I'm joining the other editors here who are supporting this nomination. (P.s. I've also listed a FAC for the Olympic champion in popular culture Yuzuru Hanyu above in case you might have some time for any support/oppose comments.) ErnestKrause (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review (Pass)

Well, it says "Cragg wrote some notes", which doesn't necessarily mean he wrote this article, but rather (possibly) that he made notes about the album and gave it to Hubbard who then penned this article with his help. I'll go by with the official credits. And MusicOH is fine for FA IMO.
It's arranged in terms of the opinions/quotes.
IGN is listed as reliable for pop culture news at WP:RSP
Gay Times has been referenced by several reliable sources, including The Cut, NY Times, a Routledge-published book etc.
Many thanks for the detailed source review, MaranoFan. I believe these should be addressed now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My pleasure! And the article officially passes the source review.--NØ 11:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Osbert Parsley

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the English composer, organist and 'singing man' Osbert Parsley, whose 50-year-long musical career at Norwich Cathedral spanned the reigns of four Tudor monarchs—Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. The article has received a peer review—and all comments on how to promote another of my Norfolk heroes to FA would be very welcome. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information on Wikimedia Commons amended to reflect the fact that I made the file myself using Musescore. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so then this too is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A tag has been added for the intermediate work (IMSLP); I'm looking for a tag for the original work (the original composition). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Observations by WereSpielChequers

Sorted, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll look to see if any of the sources provide this information. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Morehen came up with some relevant information regarding your point, and I've amended the Compositions text accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interestingly, Boston (1963) p32-33 speculates about Parsley's possible monastic life before the Dissolution. He notes that Parsley becomes a singing man in 1535, three years before the Dissolution. he then goes on to suggest that Parsley was:
  • either a layman who assisted the monks, saying there is nothing to suggest this could be wrong;
  • or he was a novice. In Boston's view there is no evidence he was a priest, so he wasn't, but he could possibly have been a novice who may have been prevented from taking holy orders, and so became a singing man.
This is imo all speculation by someone writing nearly 60 years ago, so I didn't include it in the article. Do you suggest any of this could be included? No other sources come close to speculating that Parsley might have been a monk. or why he married in 1558. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is speculation centuries after the event, and we only know the year of the marriage, not whether it took place under Mary or Elizabeth. Marriage involving those previously in holy orders was a way to clearly take a side in the reformation and counter reformation. If Boston is still seen as an authority on the subject then I think it would be reasonable to say that "Boston has conjectured that .......". ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tim riley

Some minor points on the prose:

  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth are unknown" – "x or y" needs a singular verb, rather than the plural one here. Alternatively, "or" should be "and".
  • "He was appointed a 'singing man'" – unclear why single, rather than the normal double, quotes are used here.
  • "conjectured that Parsley was either hired by the cathedral monks to assist them as a layman chorister, or he was possibly a novice monk" – the prose might flow better without the superfluous "he".
  • " ‘gifts’ from the cathedral" – more single quotes, and curly ones to boot.
  • "Te Deum" – unclear why there are quotation marks (here and later in the text). We usually give generic titles like this without quotes (or italicisation).
  • "during an Evensong service" – the OED doesn't capitalise "evensong" and nor does Chambers.
  • "Parsley's instrumental music, nearly all for viols, survives" – Does this mean some of his instrumental music or all of it? (It would be a bold claim four hundred years later that everything OP wrote in that line remains intact.)
  • "Peter Phillips … noted that "Parsley can be remembered as one of those men who just once conjured up a masterpiece, as it seems to us now, from nowhere". A nice phrase, but it isn't clear which one of Parsley's works Phillips is talking about.

Those are my few comments. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A non-metal, like oxygen or sulfur, is a chemical element that is not a metal, like aluminium or iron.

This is my fifth time at FAC for this article, attempt #4 having closed on February the 5th. All feedback up to then has been considered and acted on accordingly.

The article was subsequently referred for its second PR, which was recently archived on 2 August. SandyGeorgia (to whom, thanks very much :) helped me copy-edit the early part of the article. Sandy also helped me with images, listiness, stylistic considerations, prose, sourcing and the overall structure of the article; based on what I learned from her, I copy-edited the rest of the article. I thank Double sharp, DePiep, Graham Beards, Z1720, Bruce1ee and Jo-Jo Eumerus for their contributions to PR2.

I have hidden pinged participants in FAC4 and PR2, aside from the FAC coordinators. Sandbh (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Reaper Eternal

Prose:

I'll leave this more to the English experts.

Technical review:

  • Allow me to clarify this point. As it currently stands, this is the start of the section: "Most nonmetallic elements exist in allotropic forms. Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." This, to me, reads like "carbon" is an example of "nonmetallic elements with allotropic forms" with two allotropes "graphite" and "diamond".

Source review:

  • Thanks for adding the edition, but I believe the 2nd edition was published in 1964, not 1966. Can you verify?
  • I wasn't trying to say that ISBNs were necessary—they're more of a nice-to-have for a reader who wants to locate a book source. I'll strike this point to make it clear I'm not going to hold up the FAC over a couple ISBNs.
  • Your response doesn't really justify why "Free Thought Magazine" is a reliable source for this topic. It appears to be a magazine centered more around humanism and religion rather than natural sciences.

Citations & references:

I'll continue this review later. There's a ton of stuff to review. As this is basically my first FA review, if the FA coordinators see any issues with my review, please bring it up to me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responses by Sandbh
Thank you very much Reaper Eternal, and a warm welcome to the FAC review experience.
Prose:
  • I've replaced the "Broadly" in the first section with "More generally" since this sentence follows on from the more specific first sentence. On the question of "like" or "such as", I've followed the guidance here, which seems to favour "such as". For example, "luster" is not like "deformability".
  • I've shortened the introductory sentence and adjusted the rest of the paragraph accordingly.
  • Probably any FA can be further improved in terms of phrasing improvements. Over the course of four FAC and two peer reviews this article has been seen or commented on by about 38 unique sets of eyeballs so I hope that scope for phrasing improvement is approaching an effective end. But please feel free to have your say.
Technical review:
  • Good to hear the technical information looks OK.
  • The mention of carbon in the allotropes section says, "Carbon, for example, occurs as graphite and as diamond." As such, it doesn't imply that C only occurs as graphite and diamond.
  • Headslap! I've adjusted the prose accordingly. Thanks!
Source review:
  • Re the Boise University press release, the underlying study only refers to the high cost of black phosphorus, and the low cost of their proposed method. Certainly the listed price is consistent with what I can recall of prices from commercial providers. I'm not aware of any WP prohibition on citing media releases, especially from an organisation of the presumed calibre of Boise University.
  • I've (reluctantly) replaced the Cambridge article with a journal reference. Carbon candy floss is basically "spun" carbon nanotube wire.
  • Per WP:HOWCITE, ISBN's are optional when citing sources. I believe I accessed Evans's Book from here, which lists the date as 1966. There are two further 1996 listings here. I've now added that it's the 2nd ed. Per WP:HOWCITE, since the ISBN given at the Cambridge site is for the 1964 printing I haven't included it.
  • Evans was reprinted with corrections in 1966; that was also the year of the first paperback edition.
  • For Fraps (1913), books before about 1970 usually don't have ISBNs (although if published in the UK during the 1960s, they may have an SBN).
  • For the two Glinka's, thanks, I've removed the 1965 edition, and corrected the entries for the earlier edition.
  • For Wakeman (1899) I cited this as the oldest (English) source I could find for CHNOPS. I've added a hyperlink to it.
  • I feel that reliability is not relevant here; rather, what the source says is correct:
"To this carbon is added, in chemical combination, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and a touch of phosphorus and sulphur; these five [sic] elements make the chemical symbol word C. H. O. N. P. S."
  • For Zumdahl, thanks, I've removed the later edition and adjusted the originally later citation.
Citations & references:
  • I suspect the second para doesn't need citations since it serves as an introduction to the remaining paragraphs of the section, in which the citations are included.
Thanks again. Sandbh (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated Sandbh (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated. Sandbh (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Staurakios

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about another relatively unfortunate Byzantine emperor. Living in his father's shadow, he would not rise to become the senior emperor until a brutal defeat where his father was killed and he was mortally wounded. Reigning alone for a short time, he was deposed in a palace coup and died soon after. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Funk

I'm thinking images more than text, but probably same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan Fouts

Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about quarterback Dan Fouts, who led the NFL in passing for four consecutive years from 1979-1982. He led the Air Coryell offense, which placed an unprecedented emphasis on the passing game. As a Hall of Famer, his article is graded as top priority by the National Football League WikiProject. This is my first attempt at a FAC article after getting 10 articles to GA status, so I'll be interested to see the difference. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

'Drive-by comment'

I Drink Wine

Nominator(s): NØ 11:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "I Drink Wine", a sombre ballad she wrote with her "Hello" collaborator Greg Kurstin in the aftermath of her divorce. The song's original 15-minute version was reduced to a six-minute track for the release of 30. A favourite among fans and critics alike, it reached the top 10 in various countries despite not seeing a commercial single release. The song was also showcased in an acclaimed performance at the Brit Awards this year. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 11:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media review—pass

That should complete media review. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47

  • Done.
  • I believe this is a good idea. Split.
  • Linked.
  • Removed for consistency.
  • Linked.
  • Linked.

I hope these comments are helpful. I believe this should be everything. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything has been addressed. The review was very helpful, Aoba47! Hope you are having a great weekend.--NØ 04:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pseud 14

  • I am reluctant about this one since her bio addresses her as a "singer and songwriter" instead of a "singer-songwriter" and these types of changes have been contentious in the past.
  • Done.
  • I have added a link.
  • Done.
  • I think I'll keep the present wording if that is okay, the word "ensuing" would imply something not directly stated in the article or sources.
  • While many of them were positive, I think "some" is the safer word given the gravity of the wording I have included in the lead.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • I've used the typical rotation between "[song name]", "the song" and "it" I use on all my FAs.
  • Given the extent to which sources covered it I deemed it worthy of a one-line mention.
  • Done!
  • Thanks a lot for the review, Pseud 14. I've made most of the changes and left a few clarifications. Let me know if there's anything else.--NØ 19:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed and rationales are fairly reasonble. Support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have spare time or inclination, I would appreciate feedback on my current FLC. Not to worry if things are busy.

Comments from ChrisTheDude

  • Thank you so much for the review, ChrisTheDude! I believe everything is addressed :) --NØ 08:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review – pass

Version reviewed. Spot-checks not included.

  • Weirdly I'm able to access both the Independent refs without a subscription so I've removed it from both.
  • I replaced the Evening Standard with the best possible alternative. Thanks a lot for the source review!--NØ 17:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1997–98 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies if everyone is thoroughly bored of these by now, but here's my 17th nomination of a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C. - this one will (fingers crossed) complete an unbroken run of FAs from 1985 to 2001 (no idea why I left this one till now......). In this particular season the club came within the thickness of a goalpost of reaching the play-offs and sadly a fan died in fighting outside the ground, the only time I can recall such a tragic event happening at Priestfield Stadium...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed, but the Southall image is of quite poor quality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nikkimaria: - Southall image removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from NØ

I'll leave this as a placeholder and add some comments soon. I have an FAC right above this one in case it interests you to review it. Regards.--NØ 04:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is really well-done so I think that will be all from me.--NØ 08:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review, all done I think. I have left the first use only of both "promotion" and "relegation" linked to promotion and relegation as I think it is valid to link both, even though it's to the same target article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

Support - aside from the few nit-picks above, I don't have much else to add. Another worthy candidate to add to your series of Gillingham F.C. season. FrB.TG (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FrB.TG: - many thanks for your review, all the above fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

W. Somerset Maugham

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following successful FAC nominations or co-nominations for George Bernard Shaw, Hugh Walpole, P. G. Wodehouse and Arnold Bennett I've been working on another British writer, and hope his article will be found worthy to join the other four at FA. I had excellent input at peer review, and as ever, all comments on content, prose, structure or anything else will be gratefully received here. Tim riley talk 20:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

Mostly a placeholder as yet, but why is the full name bolded at the start of the body? If I may be so bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Didn't it oughter? Shows my mastery of the MoS after all these years. Happy to unbold it, which I shall forthwith do. Tim riley talk 20:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now done. Thank you, Wehwalt! Tim riley talk 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also in footnote 2?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I've only been editing for 16 years, so I can be excused (ahem!). Fixed. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Maugham never greatly liked the name, and was known by family and friends throughout his life as "Willie"" Which? William or Somerset?
  • "He successfully sued for divorce in 1916, citing Maugham as co-respondent.[11][61]" The birth of the child served to establish adultery, I assume? (after a hasty glance my notes re divorce from the Earl Russell's article) It might be well to cite the grounds.
  • "Samoa" Greater detail on this trip and why it was felt necessary (given that Samoa had been occupied by New Zealand at this point) might be interesting.
  • The source says "Germany had controlled Western Samoa until New Zealand occupied the island when war broke out in August 1914. The British had a strategic interest in Samoa, a turbulent and potentially troublesome island. The efficient German administration had been abruptly replaced by the government of New Zealand ... Vital information was needed about the use of the island's powerful radio station, the threat of German military forces and installations, and the danger from German warships still cruising the Pacific." That's about it – nothing more there, really, one can add to the article. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's all I have. Most interesting. I think I can safely Support--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, as always, Wehwalt, for your input and support. Tim riley talk 15:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Dudley

Support. I read this at PR and Tim dealt with my niggles. A very interesting and well written article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Dudley, for your support here and v. helpful suggestions at PR. Tim riley talk 20:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

  • The article is in BrE, and we don't need superfluous AmE-style commas in such constructions. See the current (2015) edition of Fowler, pp. 4 and 732. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately the suggested change would make a grammatically correct sentence grammatically incorrect. "describes as … was when" is not English. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn so far as commas are concerned, but a hyphen would be an improvement in "poorest working-class people" I now notice. Duly done. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree. I inherited this sentence from earlier versions. One is loth to change more than one must of earlier editors' contributions: one has a duty to avoid saying grandly "This is how I would phrase it", unless one can conscientiously say the existing phrasing is wrong or doesn't do the job properly. Your comment salves my conscience about imposing my preferred wording here. Now "career as a writer". – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have removed the adverb and substituted "substantial", which is, ahem, substantiated in all the sources. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good. Done.
  • No. See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn.
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn so far as the punctuation is concerned. As to the sentence, I agree we can lose "a daughter", and have blitzed it. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In my experience – possibly an EngVar thing – there is a shady overtone to "lucrative" that "remunerative" doesn't suffer from. WSM's immediate dislike is worth mentioning. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As this was his lifelong practice, not just on this trip, "as always" makes the meaning clearer. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That would miss the key point that Syrie had found something to do other than make trouble for WSM. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. He secured them as much as he could. (And did a pretty good job, hiding paintings etc so that the occupying Germans did not get their hands on many of them. Can't quantify his success/failure rate from the sources, unfortunately.) – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Start off with the general and move to the particular is how I have been taught to construct prose. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • His influence could have been for all sorts of things, but the question here is whether it was advantageous or deleterious. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The rarity of revivals and the small number of plays revived are worth mention, in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No. See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is. Not sure what to do about the middle initial. The article is clearly ascribed to Robert L. Calder, but our article omits the L. I have piped with the middle initial, and might add a redirect from Robert L. Calder to Robert Calder (writer). What do you think? – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the Maugham article, I would have the prose reflect the name that Calder used in the byline of the source, which in this case would include the middle initial, and pipe it to the wiki article (as has already been done in the article). I'm also tempted to move Robert Calder (writer) to Robert L. Calder because sources seem to always use the L. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support that, if you like to propose it. Tim riley talk 14:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No: see explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unnecessary, and I should say ungrammatical. Fowler (p. 166) says "The subject of a sentence should not be separated by a comma from the verb it governs". In this case the eleven words from "liberal" to "humanity" are the subject, and "led" is the verb it governs. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not an improvement, in my view. The first point is that the hero marries, and the second, whom he marries. The "very much" is very much germane to the plot. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Z1720, thank you for your suggestions. Some useful stuff there. Actioned as described above where appropriate. – Tim riley talk 10:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support: Thanks for your responses. Sorry that you had to repeat about the commas. I added a comment about Calder above, but that won't change anything in the article. Feel free to ping me if there are other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for the support as well as for your helpful suggestions. Do ping me if you want support for moving Calder's article. Tim riley talk 14:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • No worries. This is a photograph of a building. The current tagging reflects the copyright of the photo. However, because France does not have freedom of panorama, we also have to be concerned with the copyright of the building. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see − thank you, Nikkimaria! The building was completed in 1725, designed by the architect Jean Antoine Mazin (1679−1740). Can you steer me in the direction of the right Commons tag to add to reflect that? Tim riley talk 07:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, thank you, Nikkimaria for your help. Tim riley talk 06:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Fowler&fowler

What can I say? It takes me back to that summer sometime in high school when I read Of Human Bondage and Naipaul's Miguel Street (which had won the Somerset Maugham Award) among other books. So with that in mind as much as anything else, here's an appreciation, a list which I have scribbled on a dentist's bill—an anesthetic I hope for viewing it, and the nice touches for the commonplace book:

  • "his disillusion" (i.e. the condition of being freed from illusion)
  • "arranged accommodation for him, and aged sixteen he travelled"
  • "made himself comfortable there, filled many notebooks with literary ideas, and continued writing nightly,"
  • "From 1892 until he qualified in 1897, he studied ..."
  • "a reprint was quickly arranged"
  • "Lifelong, Maugham was highly reticent ..." (i.e. the comment adverb)
  • "providing a convincing domestic cover"
  • "despised from the first (noun as an adverb phrase)
  • "In M's absence his wife found an occupation ..."
  • (quoted) "materialistic determinism that discounted any possibility of changing the human condition"
  • (quoted from M): "words have weight, sound and appearance"
Fowler&fowler, many thanks for your support and the piquant comments above: they are greatly appreciated. I confess I was, and still am, not 100% convinced by "Lifelong, Maugham was highly reticent ..." but I couldn't think of a better way of putting it concisely. The grammar is all right but somehow the tune sounds a little off-key, if that makes sense. Be that as it may, can we, I wonder, look forward to Mandell Creighton at some point? It would be good if he were to get to FA. You will, I hope, be pleased to see that I have twice quoted your namesake in my replies to User:Z1720, above. − Tim riley talk 10:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds fine to me, but if you'd like you could change it to "All his lifelong he ..." I see Saul Bellow (whom I ran into once in the stacks of the college library in Chicago and was rendered speechless) has "All his lifelong he sold nonexistent property, concessions he did not own, and air-spun schemes to greedy men." (He might have life long.) Your choice. There's also Sterne: "all his lifelong he had made it a rule, after supper was over, to call out his family to dance and rejoice; believing, he said, that cheerful and contented mind was the best sort of thanks to Heaven that an illiterate peasant could pay."
And that brings me to the neglected Right Reverend, me being the peasant, that is. (I just finished Darjeeling at FAR, and have achieved some peace at Lion capital of Ashoka, a start class, so yes, I'm very much thinking of Creighton.) Have been tinkering, taking the load off James Covert (his only real biographer) by mixing in Fallows (1964), MC and the English Church. Fallows, slightly dated but OK, has a lot on the later years which I hope to use. There are the ODNB articles on MC and L(ouise)C. There is Lytton Strachey's sketch, or mis-sketch, and there are a few new articles. All will be grist. Surprisingly, there is still not a whole lot. I will then pass on the article to you. Will keep you posted.
Yes I saw the references to F. I have my grandfather's copy from the 1920s lying somewhere, as is the F brothers' The King's English (written in Edwardian times). Gifted they certainly were. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks for that. I've carried the episcopal thread over to your user talk page. Tim riley talk 13:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting
  • Isn't it either/or? Publication date or failing that the retrieval date? For the purposes of WP:V either does the job and adding both seems superfluous. Where a full publication date is known (not merely the year), my practice has always been to stick to that. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your logic is sound, but my comment arose because in all the other cases you have both publication and retrieval dates for such publications. This isn't pressing though. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In both cases I have ducked a question I can't answer. The Who's Who entry was put online in 2007 but of course derives from WSM's entry in the printed version, which came out during his lifetime at an unspecified date. Adding 2007 here would be rather misleading, I feel. For the Sutherland article, the OUP page says that it was written in one year (1996) and published online in a different one (2005). I think we can do without either date here, but I'm happy to add one of the two if pressed, though I'd be unsure which. Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you were using the online sources, I see no issue with adding the dates which they were uploaded, I rather think of it akin to citing using a book's second edition, so citing that edition's year (you could even put |edition=Online). Without a date of any kind, I would be quite hesitant Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The BBC's web pages refer to it variously as "BBC Genome" or "BBC Genome Project". As with, say, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, I think the shorter and more familiar title is probably better for general purposes. Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added the writer's name; for the retrieval date my comment above applies here too. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reliability
  • There are 15 citations to WSM's own writings: 12 are verbatim quotations of his stated opinions and the other three are my paraphrases of them. I have not relied on his writings so far as matters of fact are concerned: quite apart from Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, it would in this case be rash to rely on Maugham's versions of events, which are, to put it politely, questionable. The only borderline case, I think, is Footnote 3, which I inherited from an earlier version of the article and would be perfectly happy to blitz if nudged towards doing so. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This rationale seems sound. I figured for the sake of record keeping and thoroughness the topic ought to be addressed. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For the sake of sourcing, it seems fine, but in considering the article as a whole, the footnote seems too detailed for inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As you say, 31–34 and 76–78 are the original sources for contemporary press quotations. The only book source I have drawn on extensively that dates back to Maugham's own time is Mander and Mitchenson. There wasn't a second edition of that, but it may give you comfort to note that when their successors brought out a second edition of M&M's 1957 Theatrical Companion to Noël Coward in 2000 there were updates and additions to production details but I have not spotted any corrections of the first edition in the second. (And alas, new productions of Maugham plays are so rare that a second edition of that Companion will never be needed.) Of the three biographies I have most drawn on, Morgan's 1980 book is the oldest, but Meyers (2004) and Hastings (2010) cite Morgan repeatedly, and his is still probably the most important biography of WSM. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verifiability
Thank you, Aza24 for your thorough review. I loathe doing source reviews and am always grateful to editors who undertake the task; I found your layout in three separate sections particularly helpful. I have dealt with most of your suggestions and left questions about the others, above. – Tim riley talk 11:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Indeed, and thank you − I concur and have actioned accordingly. My thanks for the review and helpful follow-up remarks. Tim riley talk 19:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Raymond science fiction magazines

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about four science fiction magazines published in the early 1950s. The publisher, John Raymond, had no interest in sf, but was lucky enough to hire Lester del Rey, who acquired good material and made the magazines profitable. Raymond was difficult to work with and uninterested in improving the magazines, and del Rey soon left. The magazines lasted only a few months longer, which is a pity as they are better regarded than many of the other 1950s magazines that lasted for many more issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comments (full review later)

Comments by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Z1720: Thanks for the review! Replies above; I've made nearly all the changes, and argued for keeping a couple of words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added a comment about "in the event" above. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. I have just realised that I forgot to follow-up on this discussion. Sorry about that! All of my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

Drive-by comments by Piotrus

Also, minor quibble 2: "John Raymond" is not linked (is he not notable)?

Not as far as I can see. I tried fairly hard to find out which men's magazines he published, but couldn't, and I can't find out anything else about him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MQ3: one reference is expanded in the footnotes, the others are abbreviated. Please standardize.

The expanded one is a website; the rest are books -- I think this is a fairly standard approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, I am not a nitpicker for the reference standards. It looks jarring to me, but if our MoS is OK with it (and I presume MOS experts are active at FAC), than I am not going to make trouble :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super MSQ4: please rm duplicate link to L. Sprague de Camp in the body.

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MSQ5: Please add disetabilishment category; based on the tables, 1954?

I didn't add this because it's not the same for all four magazines. Three were 1953, one was 1954. Would it be valid to add both, do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the topic is magazines as a set, I'd think 1954 as the end data for the set would be ok. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll also ping User:TompaDompa who may be interesting in providing feedback on this topic too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks; and thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

Drive-by comments by TompaDompa

I was pinged by Piotrus above. A couple of things that immediately stood out to me:

I may give the article a more thorough look later. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for these comments; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Venus in fiction

Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been a long while since I've been here. Anyway, hello again, old and new collegues. The article I bring to you is IMHO well written and comprehensive, having went through a GA review that was the most extensive and detailed in my decade+ history of GA reviews. The prose went through much copyediting, and me and the reviwer, User:TompaDompa, did a very throughout literature review. Now, let me be the first to point out a few issues.

First, the name (Venus in fiction). The article is about Venus (planet) in fiction, and int the future, if there is a Venus (goddess) in ficiton article, a disambig may be needed. Right now, the other topic is only covered poorly in a subsection at Venus_(mythology)#Mythology_and_literature, but it is arguably notable on its own. Not sure if we need to be concerned about the potential future move and creation of a disambig in the current title, but I'd like to highlight the issue. Also, note that Venus in science fiction redirects here, as effectively any fiction about plant venus is science fiction. There is also a redirect from Venus in popular culture, a more or less synonymous if more ambigious concept. The current name is in line with Astronomical locations in fiction, although the two prior GAs me and TompaDompa penned on related topics are under 'in science fiction': Moon in science fiction, Earth in science fiction. Standardization of names of relevant articles is a wider issue with no perfect solution, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Culture#Naming_of_articles_in_Category:Topics_in_culture:_time_for_consistency?.

Second. I do belive that the article is not comprehensive when it come to certain aspects, such as coverage of non-Western works Talk:Venus_in_fiction#Comprehensivness, video games (Category:Video games set on Venus...), board games (Onward to Venus), or works I personally consider significant (from Maurice Leblanc's fr:Les Trois Yeux to modern TV shows like The Expanse). Unfortunatley, we were unable to locate any sources that discuss them in this context. In general, it is not impossible some useful coverage exists in other languages, but there are realistic limits to what we can find (speaking for myself, I did a Polish-language query and found next to nothing). Several interwikis exist, but they are not helpful (they contain no sugestions of literature that we might have missed). As such, while I am concerned that the article suffers from some Western/English bias in coverage, as well from a form of anti-recentism (not enough weight given to the works from the last 2-3 decades), at this point I am ready to conclude that those biases are unavoidable, given our OR policy, as they represent common biases in accessible sources.

Third. Structure. The article is pretty much about literature. We have a section called 'Media' about comics and films. I wanted to add more - a section on anime and manga, a section in television, a section on video games, etc., but we did not find any sources discussing these other forms of media in this context (portrayals of Venus) in any depth.

I am looking forward to your thoughts, suggestions and constructive critique. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Year's Model

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. I withdrew the first nomination as I felt it needed a little more work before it deserved the star. I have now spent a good amount of making new additions, including acknowledging the first nom's comments, that I now believe it's ready to go. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging past commentators ErnestKrause, Moisejp, Nikkimaria, BennyOnTheLoose and Magiciandudezmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tkbrett

Major oversight that I didn't provide comments on the last go-around. I'm posting this here as a placeholder so I don't weasel out of it. Tkbrett (✉) 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tkbrett Hey tk just a reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, zmbro! I've been making fixes while reading, but I've only found minor stuff so far. The prose of the Writing and recording section is especially fantastic. Is there any reason the December 1977 – January 1978 date range is tucked into a note? In the body, it similarly goes through all the trouble of saying "beginning towards the end of 1977 and completing in early 1978", only to tuck those dates into the note again. Why? Tkbrett (✉) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tkbrett I have no idea. Now that you mention it it definitely makes less sense than it did when I did it. Fixed that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few more comments:

  • This sentence caused issues with another reviewer so I went ahead and removed the whole thing, so we'll keep the first para solely about the genre. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are my only points of criticism. A superb article for a superb album. Tkbrett (✉) 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from magiciandude

Regarding Spanish Model only:

  • Done
  • I wanted to but the problem here (on web at least) is MOS:SANDWICHING with the infobox that I don't know how to resolve, unless we added an image to track listing, which would then look weird on mobile... Magiciandudezmbro (talk) (cont) 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zmbro That's fine. I now support as my final issues have been resolved. Erick (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all I got. Erick (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

First half of article:

  • In some ways I do get what you're saying, but overall I humbly disagree with your comment. I've simply kept things in chronological order. I don't think, and it was not my intention, to present the American LP as an afterthought (nor on Aim and Armed, where those are set up essentially the same way). Mentioning the American LP as far up as writing and recording is just silly, as when it was recorded, "Radio Radio" was just an outtake. Based on feedback from the last nomination I even made sure to include a description of what the song is actually about. Additionally, mentioning the differences between LPs in music and lyrics is also silly. I'm honestly not sure the best course of action here. I agree we could drop "the closing track" but I feel everything else is fine as is and doesn't neglect anything to the sideline. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This really is a small overarching problem I found when writing Aim, Model, and Armed; Get Happy forward cut all the removing tracks business. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I revoke my original comment after some thought. The main problem is just presenting everything chronologically, which I've tried my best to do (following other FAs Hunky Dory and Low). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • OK, I'm sympathetic that it may be tricky to balance chronology with addressing my concerns. I won't press this point any further. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree. Adjusted
  • Oops fixed
  • Clarified that he took charge starting with Armedzmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changed to Perone's opinion for variety; his is also clearer. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yessir, changed different to third to make it clearer
  • Yes they were. I neglected to read the whole section first before I added that. It should be fine now – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to get to get to the second half of the article very soon, and then after that I'll do a second read-through and check your changes to the first half above at that time. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ykraps

I've only read the lede so far but already I have reservations about the prose. Examples below. More to come (probably). --Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Fixed
  • I removed the part in the lead and body since it was causing issues. For the above sentence how does it look now? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed
  • "critical acclaim" is not an object so changed to reviewers
  • removed addition of
  • Regarding the above three, I've rearranged/simplified the sentence because as you said, it's essentially repeating the same info. How does it look now? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It still sounds a little repetitive with appeared on several and praised and praising so close together. What about saying, "...while also admiring Costello and his band as artists" and "It featured on year-end lists in both the UK and the US" (several seems redundant anyway, as lists indicates there was more than one)?--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tara Lipinski

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. If passed, it would be only the fifth FA about figure skating, and the first bio about a skater. It would fill in a much-needed content and gender gap and would bring more attention to the sport of figure skating, which due to its gendered status (i.e., most skaters are women), hasn't received the kind of attention it deserves in most areas of the world. Lipinski has made big contributions to the sport, both as a skater and as a commentator. It's a fun and interesting bio. I look forward to the comments. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aoba47

I've always loved figure skating, but I actually know very little about it so this is very much a non-expert review if that is okay with you. I will post a full review sometime next week, but I do have some comments below for the time being:

No problem, @Aoba47; I appreciate the feedback anyway. No expectations regarding expertise. ;)
Removed because I couldn't find a recent reliable source.
  • Thank you for removing this part. Would it be standard to have height in the infobox for this type of article? Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yah sometimes. For current athletes, that information's easy to find and support because of stat pages, but not always for former athletes like Lipinski. I think the safest thing is to remove it as per your suggestion.
Yes of course, done. I also changed ladies' to women's as per Wikiproject Figure Skating policy.
Yes again of course. Done. For clarification: for your second link suggestion, I linked only the word "loop" to "Loop jump." Is that enough?
  • That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.
Yes that's correct.
Nope.
I know there are some differences in opinion about this. I'd like your opinion: Do you think that I'm overreffing? Personally, I prefer to put the ref, if two quotes from the same sentence are from the same ref, at the end, to capture that both quotes are from the same ref. I put the ref twice because I've been instructed by other editors to do it this way, especially at GAN and here at FAC. I will follow the recommendation of the reviewers here.
  • My point was less about the referencing and more about the attribution in the prose. There are spots in the article where a quote is used but the individual and work/publisher is not specifically attributed in the prose. In one of my GANs, a reviewer referred to this as "ghost quotes" which I found both amusing and a solid way of describing this type of thing. I just was not sure if the attribution should be more clearly presented in the prose to avoid any confusion on where it is coming and to avoid having it interpreted as being presented in Wikipedia's voice. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, now I see what you mean. I went through and fixed all the instances of it, I think.
Oh sure they have, at the time and as late as 2021, according to one source I found. I guess I chose not to include it because other than Kestnbaum's reporting that it was a thing, I didn't think that information was encyclopedic. If you and other reviewers think it should be included, I would be happy to put it in.
  • I will leave that up to other reviewers. I can see your point about it getting very gossip-y or tabloid-y very quickly though. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope, mostly because the sources state that she wrote and published them, and that's all.
  • I still think it would be worthwhile to add a brief sentence or two about it to the prose (i.e. the titles, publication year, publishers, etc.) because it felt like I missed something when I scrolled to the bottom and saw that she had released two books. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, done.
My preference is that I don't link works/publishers in the citations, but somebody went behind me and linked some of them. I'll make it consistent, though. Which direction would you want me to go? I'm fine with either way.
  • I would go with any direction that you would prefer. What really would matter is consistency so if you would prefer to not have anything linked, then unlink everything. I do wonder why you would choose that route since I would think having the works/publishers linked would only help readers who may want to read more about the specific citations, but again, it is really up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's mostly just aesthetics, which is why if you or another reviewer directs me to link them, I would. I mean, the ref is linked to the actual source. I will make sure everything is unlinked, though. Hmm, there was only one linked publication; isn't that interesting.

I hope these comments are helpful. I have only done a brief read-through of the article, but will do more thorough job in the near future. I will post a full review sometime later next week as I am trying to balance my time on Wikipedia with off-Wiki work, but I thought I should help here and get the ball rolling with reviews. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes very helpful, thank you. Looking forward to seeing more comments. I appreciate you getting the ball rolling. Best to you as well. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for responding to everything. I have added some responses of my own and I will likely get back to this FAC for a full review later this week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you, too. I think that I've addressed everything and responded to your comments above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your responses. I just have one quick clarification question, and once that is cleared up, I will be more than happy to support. Would the perceived Kwan rivalry be notable enough to mention in the lead? It may not be, but I was curious since a decent-sized portion of this article talks about Kwan in some capacity while Johnny Weir gets a mention in the lead despite not being mentioned nearly as much. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. I went ahead and added a line about the rivalry in the lead. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

@Nikkimaria, done. Wish I had more images to alt text. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from ErnestKrause

Its nice to see this article coming forward as a FAC nomination. It has been at GA level for quite some time now and has served as an example for other figure skating biographies to follow. One topic of interest for this article is her role as producer for the Meddling documentary which has received some good reviews; can something more be added about this 4-part series since Wikipedia does not have a separate article for it? Another question involves the general outline for the biography which you are using for this article; it looks a little different that other Wikipedia biographies (for the non-skating majority of biographies) in that a section on Skating technique appears halfway through the biography sections, as opposed to coming after all the collected biography sections. Should the biography sections be grouped together, and then followed by the various themes sections which normally come later in most other Wikipedia biographies? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Ernest. Yah I've been a bit busy IRL for the last couple of years, so I've neglected editing, but that period has ended for now, so I've been able to do a deep dive back into it this summer. Also, to be honest, I'm a little anxious about bringing a figure skating bio here, especially one who's as polarizing as Lipinski can be. I'm glad to hear that you believe that this bio can be a model for others. I suppose I could add more content about Meddling, if I can find some serious reviews. I will go research and see what I can do. For figure skater bios, it's customary to place Skating technique/style and Influence sections after the sections about their careers; see WP:FS STYLE. I think it makes sense to make a clear separation of a skater's skating career and life post-skating because they're often very different and have little to do with figure skating. That's not the case for Lipinski, of course, but she seems to be the exception rather than the rule. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Endometriosis is mentioned in the article with her as a spokesperson for it and its symptoms listed on Wikipedia's medical article as "pelvic pain, heavy periods, pain with bowel movements, and infertility". Can something be added on this in her biography article here? Has she spoken about her type of experiences and pain management; does she and her husband speak about options like adoption, etc, are there any RS about these issues since she is a spokesperson for it? Also, the husband might be listed in the infobox as spouse. Regarding you TOC comments and the Skating technique section, then I'm interested if you are ruling out the option for rethinking the biography format for skaters; this may come up with the Hanyu figure skater article since he is transitioning to a professional only career at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I was able to find info about Meddling and added it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any formal reviews, mostly promotional pieces when Lipinski did some interviews about the series. I think what I added was substantial, though. I added spouse to infobox. The information about endo is pretty much all I was able to find about it, including her reports about her moderate symptoms and pain; there's nothing about fertility issues. About the bio format for figure skaters: again, it seems to be customary for these kinds of articles. Wow, the Hanyu bio is such a complicated article; I so admire those of you who have taken it on. I imagine that eventually, since it's certain that Hanyu's professional career will be as long and illustrious as his amateur one, that there will be a separate article about it. That being said, I support following conventions, but that doesn't mean that the team working on Hanyu's article(s) can't break them if they feel it's necessary. I'll support you guys no matter what you do, even if I disagree with it. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meddling section looks pretty good now. I've just noticed that Yolo has added a new section of "Professional career" to the Hanyu article at Wikipedia and that she is taking the convention of the Sonia Henni article at Wikipedia to keep the biography sections together, and to make the biography sections come before the discussion of Skating sytle or Coaches themes in the Hanyu article. What do you think? You are setting a type of precedent for figure skating biographies, and it would be of interest to hear your opion on this. Should Wikipedia follow the stardard biography article format for TOC like Hanyu and Sonia Henni, or, take your route here. Separately, can you also confirm for her Personal life section that she has no children with her husband. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ernest, I think this discussion is probably outside the purview of a discussion here at FAC. However, I've done a cursory look at other skaters' bios and found that this is handled in a variety of ways. Perhaps we need to take it to a vote/discussion at Wikiproject Figure Skating and get a consensus from those of us who work on these bios. Re: the Personal life section: I don't know what you want me to do. I haven't found anything about children, which is why there's nothing about it in this bio. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There appear to be comments from both Yolo and Henni below which can be used productively. The MOS page for FS you opened two months ago has had virtually no activity on it. If you wish to start the equivalent of a RFC on this, then this would put a 30-day hold on this nomination which I'm not sure will sit well with the FAC coordinators. Do you have any opinion of leaning toward Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? It might be better to discuss it here rather than asking for the equivalent of a 30-day RfC for something that might be more easily discussed here. Are you leaning towards Yolo's comments or Henni's comments? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding review comments below:

(1) Is there sufficient discussion of the new age changes rules made over this summer concerning the sport and Valieva? How does this affect reading Lipinsky and Sonia Henni? How would the Olympics games have changed in Lipinsky's year at the Olympics if she were barred from competing due to her age?

Good question. I'm not sure, though, that this belongs here, although it for sure belongs in Valieva's bio. I haven't seen anything that connects the age change rules that happened in Lipinski's era to this one, or conjectures about what would've happened if she wasn't allowed to compete in 1998. However, I have seen her comments about young female skaters in the sport and how a strong support system is needed for them, and how Valieva unfortunately and tragically didn't have it. There's also discussion in Kestnbaum about the influence of teenage girls on the sport. I'm sure you already know that it was Henie's young age that changed female skaters' costumes and that it helped loosen up the strict injunctions against women skaters, which also belongs in Henie's article. The ISU didn't change the wording from "ladies" to "women" until this year. Sorry for the digression; my point is that it may be something important enough and should be researched more. I'll see what I can do about it.

(2) Infobox could mention that she has no children. This is usually covered in Wikipedia articles for married couples.

Not sure how this is done in an infobox. Could someone do that for me, please?

(3) There were fairly detailed interviews about Lipinsky and Weir taking a strng public position opposing Valieva being allowed to compete at the February 2022 Olympics on at least two different occasions. Does this deserve more comment in this Wikipedia article?

I think I've addressed that before. Although this discussion belongs in Valieva's article, for sure, I'm not sure it belongs here, other than the affect it had on your commentating.

(4) Has Lipinsky made any comments about the new age limits for figure skaters from this summer? What does it mean for the sport if the highest performances in the sport will be made at the junior level rather than the adult level? What has Lipinsky stated on this?

Yes, of course she has. See my response above.

(5) Articles for Hanyu and Tara should be consistent with each other in terms of level of coverage and sequence of covered topics since both articles are at GA level, which Tara nominated now for FAC. Yolo and Henni have already made an FL for Hanyu, and the Hanyu article is relevant here for its TOC since Hanyu has much experience in Ice shows already in his career which were conducted while he was still competing.

Yes, I understand that, but if the research doesn't bear that out, you can't do that. The Hanyu team is able to access a myriad of sources, but for Lipinski, since both her amateur and professional skating careers occurred before the wide use of the internet, there aren't as many sources about her out there. It's also why there aren't as many free images of her to use here. The Hanyu team has been able to create an FL because the sources and content warrants it. That's just not true for Lipinski. If you compare this bio to Johnny Weir, you'll find the same thing, even though they're almost the same age, because Weir's career is later than Lipinski's and after the internet. (Yes, I'm considering submitting Weir's bio to GAN, but that'll require more work and frustrations.) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look forward to seeing your comments and updates. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After reading your comments below in the other sections, I'm going along with Aoba and Hawkeye in Supporting your nomination. After also reading Yolo's comments, it appears to my reading that you and Yolo are already in 90% agreement about the TOC issue. I've gone ahead and appiled both of your comments to adapting the TOC for the Wikipedia Scott Hamilton biography which you might look at sometime. The five comments I've just added above are optional for you to look at when time allows. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah thanks so much. Also thanks for your willingness to help and for your openmindedness to the discussion here. This bio and others like it will be better because of it. In that same spirit, I will go ahead and address your above comments now. There's so much work to be done on skaters' bios; it's a neglected content gap, for sure. Heck, I'd like to handle Sonia Henie's bio sometime. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Ok. I added the phrase "in figure skating history", as it states in the article's body. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can remove them, but for longer articles like this one, I like to include multiple links so that readers can access them if they want to without having to scroll too much elsewhere, or if they're only reading that one section.

That's all I have. Great effort. Nice to know that being a figure skating champion qualifies you to comment on fashion at the Oscars Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)