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a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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)).
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.
Place ((subst:FAC)) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
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.
Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
File:Easton_Massacre_Memorial.JPG needs a tag for the original work
Sorry, I don't understand what tag you are referring to. Can you be more specific? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current tag on the image reflects the copyright of the photographer. What's missing is a tag for the memorial itself - most likely reflecting copyright expiration due to age, depending on when the memorial was created, or possibly ((PD-text)). Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The memorial is in the UK which has Freedom of Panorama (a church is a public place) so copyright is irrelevant from a UK point of view but I see that the US does not enjoy this privelege. The memorial was not erected until 1978 so the image probably isn't legal in the US.--Ykraps (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have trouble seeing it as a graphic work; it hasn't been designed, has little artistic merit and would not require any great skill to produce. There is still the issue of whether it is PD in the US, and I would say not. It isn't a very inspiring image so I don't mind losing it.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As we both seem to agree it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, a familiar concept in US copyright law, I've tagged PD-text, as you suggested.--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Bombardment_of_Flushing.jpg: which James Grant is believed to be the author?
Yes, it's from his 1880 book British Battles on Land and Sea --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author field of the image description currently links to a disambiguation page. Can the target be specified? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Evacuation_de_Walcheren_par_les_Anglais_-_30_août_1809_-_Composition_de_PHILIPPOTEAUX.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag.
I've added a US tag but can't find an alternative source link. Does that mean I can't use the image? --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not automatically, but can you specify where and in what form the work was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is plate no. 179 in the 1870 French book, Collection de 350 gravures, dessins de Philippoteaux, etc. pour l'histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire Volume 2 by Marie-Joseph-Louis-Adolphe Thiers (OCLC = 458280134). That must have been one of its first appearances.[] --Ykraps (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've replaced the dead link on Wikimedia Commons with the book info.--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 , and one link for the Sentry Gun in here .)
(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.
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]
(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.
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]
File:Aliens_poster.jpg: image description should include info on the copyright holder
File:Pinewood_Studios_gateway.jpg: the license at the source is BY not BY-SA - however the larger issue is that the license there applies to "original content", which this does not appear to be. The source is dated December 2016 but the image was available online elsewhere before that - eg this site from October 2016.
File:Syd_Mead_LF.JPG: source link is dead
File:Alien_(1986)_-_Alien_queen.jpg could use an expanded explanation of purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In Sets and Technology "constructed from German MG 42 anti-aircraft machine guns", the MG 42 was a general purpose machine gun, seems weird to specify it was anti-aircraft or does the source say that and what makes it anti aircraft compared to normal MG 42? "constructed from German MG 42 machine guns" would work just as well.
In Critical response "cover of Time magazine (July 1986)" I would specify that it was July 28 1986 as the source show there were 4 different magazines in July 1986.
In other media: "Since its release, Aliens' has appeared across". Is that a rogue apostrophe because I can't see that it's possessive.
I'll check it out soonish, did you have a look at the sources I linked at Google Scholar at last FA? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ridley Scott is unnecessarily duplinked.
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]
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]
@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]
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.
Single cover - license correct, NFCC rationale appropriate, no concerns
Devon image - free Flickr license checks out, no indication of Flickrwashing
Harpsichord - On review, I'm not sure if the uploader can legitimately release this image on a CC license. The uploader is or was indeed an employee of the college. However, the image appears to have been taken no later than 2000, based on the publication details in the catalogue it was originally published in. There are no credits in the catalogue that I can find, and it does say that the catalogue is copyrighted to the RCM. I think there would need to be a VTRS ticket from the college confirming release before we can safely accept this. It may be easier just to replace it with another harpsichord image, unless you want to go to the trouble of emailing the college to ask them to release it over VTRS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's too bad. I scoured the Commons and found a couple candidates. I've switched it to this image from the Met which is definitely PD. 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.
Alt text: The newly added harpsichord image and album art do need alt text.
The tracks for Something Else done in late 1966 went unused and the band reconvened at Pye in early 1967 to re-record several songs. A comma is needed after "unused", as the "and" links what could be two separate sentences. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences
The Kinks' long-time producer Shel Talmy produced The name is an appositive—i.e. it could be theoretically removed without causing damage to the sentence—and should be set off with commas.
The song employs a fifth-cyclic sequence and a descending chromatic chorus, something musicologist Allan F. Moore writes evokes the music of Baroque composer George Frideric Handel, a relationship he thinks is further emphasised by the presence of a harpsichord. I wonder if the first comma should be a dash instead. The hierarchy of ideas in the sentence is a bit muddled with two commas.
Changed to a dash. I also tweaked the sentence after the comma in light of this change.
of a distance time and place — "distant", perhaps?
The community's value no longer consists in its original purpose, but is instead photographed by American tourists as a symbol of a past England. Conversely, there is no subject after the conjunction, so this comma should be removed.
...to F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel, The Great Gatsby, a relationship The novel title should not be in an appositive. If you remove it, you get "F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel". A reader is left to wonder, "What novel?"
In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties", the song's string section written for music enthusiasts while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics. I wonder if the second comma should be a semicolon and then everything after a sentence. Something like In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties"; the song's string section is written for music enthusiasts, while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics.
describing it as "beating heart of the album" missing article
I have no further concerns, and when the copy changes are made and remaining alt text integrated, I will support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:16, 3 September 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]
Because the Reardon caption mentions two people, it's not clear which one is shown - suggest adding an annotation similar to the one on the other people pictures
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:
"[...] was a ranking professional snooker tournament" → might sound better in wording as "[...] was a professional snooker ranking tournament" or even better "[...] was a professional ranking tournament in snooker" to avoid side-by-side links.
"Despite not winning major tournament since the 1978 World Snooker Championship" → the word "any" is somehow missing here.
"The tournament was the 1981 edition of the World Snooker Championship" → Since the year has been mentioned in the previous sentences already, this is no new information to the reader. It might be more constructive to replace "1981 edition" with "54th edition" or whichever edition it was.
I would also add the information that it's an annual tournament in the lead. It makes a big difference if the players have a chance to participate every year or just every two or four years. This is probably more relevant for the reader than the inauguration year of the event.
"The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive World Snooker Championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since the first championship held there in 1977." → This sentence can be condensed to "The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive world championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since 1977." It's a bit more reader-friendly.
"[...] top seed in the tournament was Cliff Thorburn" → I would definitely add "[...] top seed in the tournament was Canadian player Cliff Thorburn". It is rare to have overseas (especially Canadian) players in snooker, so I think the nationality is worth to be noted. It might be also good to mention that Steve Davis is from England.
"In the other semi-final, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." → "In the other semi-final, which was an all-Welsh duel, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." Again, it's quite special to have a semi-final at Worlds, where both players are from Wales.
"All qualifying matches were scheduled across the best-of-17 frames." → This wording might be more clear for casual readers: "All qualifying matches were scheduled in best-of-17 playoff format with the first player to win nine frames."
"[...] and were the best-of-19 frames." → Better use the wording from the FAC article about the 1985 World Championship: "[...] and were played as best-of-19 frames."
Usually the mentioned players in this article get a short introduction like "David Taylor, the 1968 World Amateur Champion", which is very nice for deeper understanding. However, Tony Meo and John Virgo just get dropped in the first round section without any information why their match or the players themselves were notable. Same with Kirk Stevens and John Dunning. I would either add something there to point out the relevance or skip those match results.
"Werbeniuk" is neither linked nor introduced with full name. Both should be added.
"[...] and were the best-of-25 frames." → See comment on first round section.
"Davis led 6–2 against Higgins after their first session" → There is no need to link here, but I would at least write the players' full name at their first appearance in the section (Steve Davis and Alex Higgins). There are multiple snooker players with the same family name, so it's good to make clear whom the text refers to.
Same with Mountjoy, Miles, Thorburn, Griffiths, and Meo in the second, Stevens in the third as well as Werbeniuk, Reardon, and Spencer in the last paragraph → add their first names at first mentioning in the section. For a reader like me who hadn't been born in 1981 yet, many of these players are still unfamiliar.
The first paragraph of the second round section should better cover the match between Davis and Higgins only (which is the most detailed), and the Mountjoy–Charlton match be moved to the second paragraph.
"He went on to lead 9–6, and won 13–7 to reach his first world championship quarter-final since 1977." → Does "he" refer to Mountjoy or Charlton? Better change "he" to "Mountjoy" to avoid confusion.
Since this section is quite short, it might be worth considering to merge it with the second round, which was played in best-of-25 format as well. Then there is no need to introduce all players in that section with full name again.
"[...] and were the best of 31 frames." → See comment on first round section. Also, hyphens are missing here.
Like in the second round section, it would be nice to call all four players by their full name at first mentioning.
"Karnehm described the match between Davis and Thorburn as the best of the championship." → I would rephrase this sentence here a bit to have a clean cut and logical transition between the summaries of the first and second semi-final match: "The second semi-final match, which was played between Steve Davis and Cliff Thorburn, was described by Karnehm as the best of the 1981 World Championship."
"Two weeks before the championship" → change "championship" to "tournament" to avoid repetition in wording.
"Karnehm says that the players barely acknowledged each other's presence [...]" → better change to "According to Karnehm, the players barely acknowledged each other's presence [...]".
"then 6-4 ahead, but went 6-8 behind as Thorburn won four frames in succession" → change hyphens to dashes.
"Davis went 4–3 ahead of Thorburn after the first session, then 6-4 ahead, [...]" → maybe change "then 6–4 ahead" to "extending his lead to 6–4 after the break". But this is rather a matter of taste.
"scoring 347 points across this frames to Davis's 35." → I think, "this" should be "these" here.
"It was the first world professional snooker championship final for both players." → add the players' full names: "[...] for both players, Steve Davis and Doug Mountjoy."
Some more general comments:
The sections about the match summaries are sometimes a bit exhausting to read due to the excessive repetition of terms like "frame", "session", "won", etc. I am aware that it's impossible to skip them, but it might be worth a try to rephrase some paragraphs a bit, and make them more reader-friendly. This is especially important if someone plans to record a spoken version of this article. I realized myself how much it helps to improve the overall quality of the prose part if you read the full thing aloud once.
The table with the tournament final statistics doesn't satisfy all criteria of MOS:DTAB and MOS:ACCESS at the moment. Especially column headers in the middle of a table are problematic for the navigation with screen readers, and should be avoided (see MOS:COLHEAD). Maybe it's best if you use the formatting of the table from the 1985 World Snooker Championship article, which passed the FAC review in 2020.
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]
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.
File:Lady Gaga - Dance in the Dark (single).png: I'd archive the source link just to be on the same side. This is a nitpick-y point, but the ALT text for this image does not identify the subject as Lady Gaga (at least I am assuming it is here) while the images of people in the article use their names in the ALT text. I only bring this up because I would be consistent with one way or the other.
File:Rina Sawayama - Dance In The Dark (Spotify Singles) (official cover).jpg: The purpose of use portion needs to be updated as it currently says it is being used in the main infobox, which is untrue in this situation. The ALT text does not identify Sawayama by name so I have a similar question to the infobox image about the consistency of the ALT text throughout the article. Also, this should not be a surprise by now, but I'd encourage you to archive the source link.
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]
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]
It might be just me, but right now the first sentence of the lead seems complex and clunky. I read it aloud, and I feel like (1) there are lots of commas and (2) there should be a longer pause between "The Fame Monster (2009)" and "the reissue". Can we change the comma between those to an em dash?
The word "song" appears in this sentence as well as the two following sentences. "The song is about a girl" -> "The lyrics are about a girl"
Is it due to include the release date for "Alejandro" in the lead? Oh, and the lead mentions the full release date, but the article prose itself excludes the day.
"Fernando Garibay co-wrote and co-produced the song with Gaga." the co- prefix there is IMO unnecessary and can be culled in the interest of conciseness
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]
Still in the lead - I think we can be a biiit more specific wrt the term "formulaic". Was the production formulaic? Were the lyrics?
Per MOS:NUMNOTES, please change every instance in the article where chart positions are written in both words and figures in one sentence. For example, "X song" peaked at numbers 5, 39, and 94 in the US, UK, and Ireland, respectively is good, but "X song" peaked at numbers five, 39, and 94... is not.
"charted on the UK Singles Chart" seems repetitive - "charted" can be changed to "entered"
By the way, is there any tangible basis by which peak positions in certain countries are mentioned in the lead? Right now the relevant sentence seems arbitrary. I could understand mentioning the US chart entries because Gaga is from the US, but I don't know why the lead says it charted in the UK without specifying the peak position like the other countries. Perhaps listing only the countries where it reached top 10/25/40 would be more reasonable (?)
Good point. I have selected the countries where the song reached top ten. - FrB.TG
"Other performances of the song included at the ..." -> Other events in which she performed the song included the ..."
Completely optional nitpick and feel free to ignore it, but "an intimate experience" sounds better than "the intimate experience". I read the LA Times article, and it didn't really strike me that she was inspired by two specific people who just had sex.
The sentence saying that Gaga also struggled with her body image fits better at the end of its paragraph, IMO.
"opinion of using stutter in American popular music as a way" -> "opinion that using stutter in American popular music was a way"
"Gaga responding to sexism" can be changed to "Gaga's response to sexism" - there seems way too many "Gaga [verb]-ing" type phrases here and we can always switch things up
I noticed that was the case in many sentences in that section. I have reduced the -ing usage a little.
"complement moments, where" I don't think the comma should be there
When I think of "mixed to positive reviews" I don't get that impression when someone says "this needs to be a single" or "this is an album standout", so I think those parts of the sentence can be split
"Campy" is not necessarily negative. There's what folks think is "good" camp ("this is so bad it's good") and then there's "bad" camp. The reviewers were pretty positive about "Dance in the Dark" - even encouraging readers to download it - so I don't know why the review ended up in the paragraph that deals with more negative song reviews.
"generic machine RnB" and "a routine and formulaic dance R&B track with retro eighties synth" -> these convey the same idea and can be merged to "or saying that the R&B production was formulaic" to cut down the use of quotations. An aside, but I would expect R&B to be listed both in the first paragraph of the section and in the infobox - the quotations are pretty explicit in calling the song that.
On the topic of quotations, I feel like we can easily paraphrase lots of these. WP:QUOTEFARM comes to mind. E.g. called it a "bold and bombastic club banger" can be paraphrased to appreciated its extravagant production or its topic about body images and sound ... made it arguably Lady Gaga's most emotionally potent song to date can become argued that its sound and its exploration of body image made it one of her most emotionally impactful songs
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 :)
"entered the French Digital Singles Chart at number forty and peaked at number thirty" the chart positions should be written with figures, not spelled out
The "being" in "while being surrounded" is not necessary - FAs should do its best to uphold conciseness
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]
Perhaps we can clarify that the thing women were afraid to speak their mind about, according to Gaga, were their sex-related insecurities. And also that the women she was referring to were "several women who recently got AIDS", to make the mention of the Mac Aids Fund relevant
"influenced by Depeche Mode's ..." -> changed to "which was influenced by" because the way the sentence stands, either Robin James was influenced by the song or "DitD" was influenced by the song.
"found the song was an example where Gaga uses a" -> "found 'Dance in the Dark' was one of many Gaga songs that use a ...". I assume this is what you mean when you say example, because right now readers unfamiliar with Gaga's discography might ask "an example of what, exactly" when they read the sentence.
"The interlude refers to" -> "The interlude includes references to"
"the moon liberates her" is this referring to a Gaga or a non-specific woman? I actually preferred the version of the sentence with the quotation.
"They called it 'campy' " -> "Some called it 'campy' ". "They" suggests that all reviewers used those adjectives to describe the song ++ it implies the adjectives are a mix of negative and positive, when of course all of them were used positively.
Nick Levine's review can go at the end of the paragraph, so that all the review summaries stay on one side and the specific quotations stay on another.
The "also" in "Praise also focused" can be moved to the next sentence (i.e. "Reviewers also positively...), IMO
"made it her most emotionally impactful song" the original quotation there said "to date". I'd add it back
"Reviewing the song" can be removed - given the context we already know everything in this section comes from reviews. I'd rewrite part of the sentence to "Gaga, through the song, was unafraid of pushing boundaries..." - note the change in tense
The "then" in "and then to a peak" is extraneous. So is "In France".
Add "In the US" before the Bubbling Under sentence
Might be worth clarifying that the 2009 leg was the 'original' leg concept-wise, if the sources support it of course.
Should there be a hyphen between "laser lit" ?
The "as part of a segment titled 'City' " can be moved to the beginning of the next sentence. Currently it reads like there was another original segment in the 2009 leg with the same title.
"began to sing" can be simplified to "sang" -> the source suggests the dancers were with her through the entire performance
"instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City," -> "instead of Electric Lady Studios in New York City" to cut on the awkward pauses
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]
Infobox introduces the genre as Europop; this should be mentioned in the lead too
" .. when the lights are out". the full stop should be inside the quotation marks per MOS:QUOTE
I'd add the release date of "Alenjandro" for context.
I personally avoid using Musicnotes.com as sources because we cannot be sure if it is the one to the official recording; the source here says "Easy Piano" and the instruments used are "Piano/Vocal/Chords", which makes me rather skeptical because it can be a sheet to a stripped-down version or a cover version.
"perform abnormality" this reads awkward
I know there will be a source review later, but I am unsure if Digital Spy qualifies as a top-notch source for an FA.
It's cited by several high-quality books here, indicating that it is a reliable source.
The same concern for ET Canada, Uproxx and Softpedia. I'd personally go for only reputable music publications (Guardian, Rolling Stone etc.), but I'm open to discussion on this.
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]
With quite a few unfavorable reviews from NME, the BBC and USA Today, which are arguably more reliable than the sources I raised above, I think it's fair to say that the song received "mixed" or "mixed to positive" rather than generally positive reviews.
"after it was released to Australian radio" do we have a source? This can be mentioned in the "Background and release" section.
I don't think we need "sortable" one-entry tables, like in the current year-end chart section.
I don't think the cover artwork for Rina Sawayama's version is necessary. I'd go for a free-use image of Sawayama and a caption like "The song was covered by Sawayama (pictured)"
"The song was recorded in Sawayama's home studio and is an electropop composition with production handled by Clarence Clarity. [...] Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Sawayama recorded her cover at her home studio, instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City. Her version replaces the Europop sound of the original song with nu metal-influenced electropop." somehow the information is repeated twice.
Also, "instead of Electric Lady Studios, New York City". We need some context; does Sawayama usually record at this NYC studio?
Same concern for Stereogum as a top-notch FA-worthy source.
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]
"A remix of the song appeared on Gaga's" I would replace Gaga for her, less repetitive.
All those famous people are wikilinked, maybe you should do it with Jesus as well.
"issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radios" => "issued "Dance in the Dark" to French radio" (in two places)
"as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Song." => "as well as the US Dance/Electronic Digital Songs chart."
"Universal Music France issued "Dance in the Dark" on August 25, 2010 [....] Earlier that March," - doesn't really work grammatically as "earlier that March" suggests that the former event also took place in March, which it didn't. Suggest changing the second sentence to "Gaga had released her first remix album entitled The Remix in March of the same year"
""Dance in the Dark" debuted at number 22 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles in August 2010 and number 9 on the Hot Dance/Electronic Digital Songs in October 2010" - think you need to add the word "chart" after each chart name to make this work
Replaced "debuted at" with "charted at" to avoid repeating "charted" twice. Hopefully, it works.
Monster Ball image caption needs a full stop
That's all I got - great work! If you have a few spare minutes, I wouldn't mind your thoughts on this FAC, but if not then not to worry :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
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)
While the release history table provides sources for Interscope and Universal, Streamline and Kon Live are only included in the infobox so is there a reference for those labels?
"is about a girl who likes to have sex with the lights off, because she’s embarrassed about her body" seems to be an almost direct quote from LA Times, this could benefit from being paraphrased
Ref 15 seems to give Michael Hubbard as the poster but seems to say in the text that Michael Cragg made the notes presented? If this is the same Michael Cragg who also wrote for The Guardian, I guess it should be fine from a reliability pov
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.
Tony Hardy (Consequence) seems to have called it a "formulaic dance R&B track", but the dance part seems to be omitted in the article currently. Also, both that source and BBC refer to R&B as a main genre than an influence, so it could be incorporated into the infobox
The ref order in the first sentence of Critical reception could be changed to 11 22 23 instead
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]
File:Nordovicum_(Map_of_Norwich,_1581).jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright - this needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Parsley's_Clock.png
File:Parsley's_Clock.ogg has several potential copyrights: the original work, the arrangement, and the performance. Which of these does the current tagging cover? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 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]
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
"The damage done was never completely restored by Edward's successors Mary and Elizabeth" is an interesting but not entirely neutral take on the reformation and counter reformation in England. A more conventional approach to the subject is that Mary attempted to reverse the changes under Edward, but at the end of her brief reign their half sister Elizabeth confirmed or reinstated some of Edward's work.
Given the context of the English Reformation, it would be relevant if possible to mention which of his compositions, extant or destroyed, were in accord with Roman Catholicism or early Anglicanism or indeed both.
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]
"the restricted compass of the top part" no doubt makes sense to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the subject. But is there a way to say this that caters for a general audience that includes people as ignorant of music as myself?
Getting married in his late forties was likely unusual for his era, has anyone conjectured that this indicates he was likely a monk? Especially if his wedding was after Elizabeth's accession - 1558 was a rather significant year. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 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]
"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).
Death and commemoration
"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.
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.
First section: "Broadly, they lack a preponderance of more metallic attributes such as [list of attributes]." This sentence has too many "generalizing" terms. Perhaps something more concise like "They lack a preponderance of metallic attributes like [list of attributes]." (Additionally, "such as" is being used incorrectly here. The word should be "like".) Never mind, I was wrong about "like".
First section, third paragraph: The introductory sentence should be much more concise.
Similar minor phrasing improvements can be made elsewhere, but I'm no expert in this area.
I'll leave this more to the English experts.
Technical information under the sections "General properties" and "Subclasses" seems accurate, at least from my education as a mechanical engineer.
Carbon has additional forms beyond the graphite and diamond allotropes. (Section "Allotropes".) This sentence should, at least, be reworded to explain to the user that the list given is not exhaustive. In its current form, it implies that elemental carbon only exists in the form of graphite and carbon. It is explained much better further down the section, but the introductory paragraph shouldn't set a false impression.
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".
The "Boise State University" article is basically a press release. You should cite the underlying studies.
Same with the "Cambridge" article, and probably any other similar ones. What even is "carbon candy floss" anyway?
The citation "Evans RC 1966, An Introduction to Crystal Chemistry, Cambridge University, Cambridge" appears to be inaccurate or incomplete. See here. Can you include an ISBN or similar tracking number for better tracking? Additionally, you should probably include which edition this is.
Thanks for adding the edition, but I believe the 2nd edition was published in 1964, not 1966. Can you verify?
Should the citation "Fraps GS 1913, Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, The Chemical Publishing Company, Easton, PA" contain an ISBN or similar tracking number? This also applies to other books cited throughout the article which do not contain ISBNs. This (and the edition number) is somewhat important since a lot of your citations are to textbooks, which frequently get updated and changed.
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.
Why are there citations to two different editions of Glinka's book?
What makes "Free Thought Magazine" a reliable source?
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.
Why are there citations to two different editions of Zumdahll & DeCoste's book?
Citations & references:
The second paragraph of the "Discovery" section is uncited. If you are importing material from the main article, there's a big banner on that article informing readers that the article lacks adequate citations.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggest scaling up the map
File:INC-1870-r_Солид._Никифор_I_и_его_сын_Ставракий._Ок._803—811_гг._(реверс).png needs a US tag for the original work
File:Byzantine_Empire_802_AD.png: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article looks a bit bare, nothing else relevant to show?
@FunkMonk: Unfortunately not really, he lived in the shadow of his father, who had a short reign himself, and a lot of the sourcing for him is hostile, so there isn't much to say. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking images more than text, but probably same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Unknown woman, her name sometimes given as Prokopia, possibly due to confusion with her daughter, Prokopia" Is all this detail needed in the otherwise stripped down infobox? Should already be explained in detail in the article body.
Changed to just "unknown"
"who are the main source of history" Sources?
"Bardanes Tourkos revolted" Perhaps introduce him as general?
" The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states that Staurakios "raped two beautiful girls", but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them" So it was not Staurakios?
Well the confusion appears to be two-fold. First, even Theophanes makes no suggestion of rape but only that Nikephoros pretty openly had sex with two girls who were in the bride-show; to be fair, if the story is even true, willing consent probably wasn't great given that the girls were probably ~16 and Nikephoros was literally the emperor, but even that is not as heinous as the corruption that Staurakios, not Nikephoros, directly raped two girls. IMO it's likely the story isn't true, as "oh they were an unfaithful manwhore" is pretty textbook for biased Byzantine sources trying to dunk on people they don't like. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 15:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"likely because Stephanos was the first to proclaim Staurakios emperor, to propose blinding Michael" Kind of confusing sentence, missing "and" before "to propose blinding"?
" occasionally being forced to make humiliating concessions to powerful enemies, such as the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809)." The article says nothing of this, though?
Will re-add some context; I had taken out a foreign relations section for being UNDUE as it was basically just the actions of Nikephoros for most of the reign.
Why not show the coin with his father since it's described in the text? Seems it would fit nicely under Historiography.
", which included the severing of his spine" why not state this alreadt after: "despite his severe injuries from the battle." Now it seems odd that you kind of only state the nature of his injury upon repetition.
File:1986_Jeno's_Pizza_-_53_-_Dan_Fouts_and_Don_Macek_(Dan_Fouts_crop).jpg: if this was from a republication then Jeno's would not be the author. Was there a copyright notice in the original publication? Ditto File:Jeno's_Pizza_54_Fouts_vs_49ers.pdf. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the alt text and deleted where I'd fixed a px size. The Jeno's Pizza card comes from this image originally. I struggle with the rules on when these images are allowed, but there are about forty images from the Jeno's Pizza series in use on Wikipedia, so I thought they would probably have been challenged by now if they weren't okay. I'm just going to tag in @Bagumba:, as a contributor to the Fouts page who I think understands image usage better than I do. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't the file uploader. From what I generally notice on Commons, these promotional card sets typically are noted as not having a copyright notice on them.—Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the original image has this quote under licensing: This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright notice, and its copyright was not subsequently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 5 years. Unless its author has been dead for several years, it is copyrighted in the countries or areas that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works, such as Canada (50 pma), Mainland China (50 pma, not Hong Kong or Macau), Germany (70 pma), Mexico (100 pma), Switzerland (70 pma), and other countries with individual treaties.Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I see that, but if the Jeno's cards were a republication as stated in the description, then the lack of copyright notice on them does not preclude the images having been copyrighted - for that we would need to confirm there was no notice on the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I understand; I've found one of the images in a recent article (image 12 of 44 in the photos section). As it's credited to (AP/Al Messerschmidt), does that mean that it's unusable (and the rest of the Jeno's set, by extension)? Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link is from 2021, and is not the original publication (if any) prior to the card's release. If there is still concern, I'd suggest nominating it for discussion at Commons, where it can be formally vetted. —Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That might be best. I'm not very familiar with Commons; should I start a thread in the Help Desk?Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:44, 28 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]
For the profile image, I'd include an archived version of the source link to be on the safe side.
The second paragraph of the "Background" section appears rather long (at least in my view) and I think it would benefit from being separated into two. I would start a new paragraph with this part, She announced the album's tracklist on 1 November 2021, as that is a natural change in topic.
I believe this is a good idea. Split.
I would link Rhodes. The Wikipedia article capitalizes Rhodes so should be it represented the same way here?
This is super nitpick-y, but citation 36 has 30 in italics while most of the other citations do not have it in italics. I'd be consistent with one way or the other.
Jon Pareles should be linked in the article and in the citation.
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]
English singer Adele – is a song recorded by English singer-songwriter Adele...
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.
Adele wrote it with its producer Greg Kurstin. The song became available as the album's seventh track – Adele co-wrote the song with its producer [..] It became available...
Think it would be worth linking organ to the instrument to avoid confusion
I have added a link.
A ballad with gospel influences, "I Drink Wine" is reminiscent of church music and incorporates a piano and an organ in its instrumentation. – I think you can start this off with “Musically, “I Drink Wine is a balled with gospel influences which is reminiscent.
A suggestion -- The lyrics are about letting go of one's ego and addresses Adele's divorce with Simon Konecki, and the ensuing difficult realizations about the state of her marriage and life.
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.
some of whom viewed – since critics have been mostly unanimous, perhaps use "many of whom viewed"
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.
To avoid repetition of "received" I would suggest -- The song’s instrumentation was praised, but some believed that the lyrics were weak.
Adele wrote the song "I Drink Wine" -- co-wrote the song
The composition and reception section has at least six mentions of "I Drink Wine" each. Perhaps reword some of them to avoid being repetitive.
I've used the typical rotation between "[song name]", "the song" and "it" I use on all my FAs.
Adele sang it in a lime green chiffon Valentino gown -- not sure if this is necessary to include what she wore, as the other live performances listed doesn’t include it.
Given the extent to which sources covered it I deemed it worthy of a one-line mention.
Use ((spaced ndash)) so there is the right space between personnel and roles.
That's all from me. Hope these comments are helpful. Nice work. --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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
"arduous realizations" - Adele is British so the article should be written in British English and therefore that last word should be "realisations"
"She reminisces her childhood" => "She reminisces about her childhood"
"reaches arduous realizations" - as above
"sometimes the road less traveled" => "sometimes the road less travelled"
"its lyrics were swarmed with clichés" => "its lyrics swarmed with clichés"
"Graeme Marsh opined the song's lyrics" => "Graeme Marsh opined that the song's lyrics"
"Afront a gold curtain" - I don't think "afront" is a real word, or if it is then it's a very obscure one, so I would just say "In front of"
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]
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]
"Results improved in the second half of the season and with one game remaining Gillingham were sixth in the table, which would be sufficient for a place in the promotion play-offs." - This could use a comma after "season"
I have been discouraged from using the word "however" in the past so I think this could be safely removed from the one sentence in the lead where it's used.
"The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, was 10,507 for a game against Fulham in March; the game was marred by fighting between rival supporters which resulted in a Fulham fan dying." - Pretty long sentence here so the part after the semicolon might benefit from being split.
There seem to be a bunch of overlinks, not sure if these are intentional but I still thought I should point them out: Preston North End, midfielder, Bristol City, Promotion and relegation.
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]
"and with one game remaining Gillingham were sixth in the table" - maybe place a comma after remaining.
"The club's first-choice kit consisted of blue shirts, blue shorts, and blue socks" - can we find a way to not repeat blue three times? Perhaps "blue shirts, shorts, and socks" or "shirts, shorts, and socks that were all blue"?
"Gillingham played five matches in October and won four of them, defeating Bristol City, Wycombe Wanderers, Wigan Athletic and Plymouth Argyle" - comma before Plymouth since you are using oxford commas throughout the article.
"Akinibiyi, Butler, Ashby, Andy Hessenthaler and Galloway" - oxford comma needed per above.
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]
"He successfully sued for divorce in 1916, citing Maugham as co-respondent." 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]
"Shortly before the birth of the Maughams' fourth son the government of France proposed a new law" suggest a comma after son
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]
"Maugham's biographer Selina Hastings describes as "the first step in Maugham's loss of faith" his disillusion when the God in whom he had been taught to believe failed to answer his prayers for relief from his troubles." The grammar is a little weird in this sentence. Perhaps, "Maugham's biographer Selina Hastings describes as "the first step in Maugham's loss of faith" was when God failed to answer his prayers for relief from his troubles." It tightens up the language and makes the sentence grammatically correct.
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]
"While still in his teens he became a lifelong non-believer." I don't think still is needed and can be deleted.
"In his work as a medical student Maugham met the poorest working class people:" Suggest a comma after student
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]
"on his 65-year career as a man of letters." -> "on his 65-year career as a writer." to avoid MOS:IDIOM
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]
"Nevertheless he had a wish to marry, which he later greatly regretted. Looking back, he described his early attempts to be heterosexual as the greatest mistake in his life." Suggest combining these two sentences together as "Nevertheless he had a wish to marry, which he later greatly regretted and later described his attempts to be heterosexual as the greatest mistake in his life."
"a Bildungsroman with unmistakably autobiographical elements." Remove unmistakably as an opinionated, POV term: it is possible that others might "mistake" and not notice the autobiographical terms, and the word isn't necessary.
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]
"According to some of Maugham's intimates, the main female character, the manipulative Mildred, was based on "a youth, probably a rent boy, with whom he became infatuated", but Raphael comments that there is no firm evidence for this, and Meyers suggests that she is based on Harry Phillips, a young man whom Maugham had taken to Paris as, nominally, his secretary for a prolonged stay in 1905." This is very long sentence, and I suggest putting a period after the quote and removing "but"
"When the book was published in 1915 some of the initial reviews were favourable but many, both in Britain and in the US, were unenthusiastic." Put a comma after 1915.
No. See explanation of BrE -v- AmE comma usage, above. This is correct as drawn.
"In 1915 Syrie Wellcome became pregnant, and in September, while Maugham was on leave to be with her, she gave birth to their only child, a daughter, Mary Elizabeth, known as Liza." If Wellcome had a child, then we can assume that she was pregnant, so that detail is not necessary to include unless there was something notable about the pregnancy. Suggest: "In September 1915, Maugham was on leave to be with Syrie Wellcome while she gave birth to their only child Mary Elizabeth, known as Liza." I also think that the readers will assume that this is a daughter by the name, so this cuts down the sentence some more.
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]
"In late 1920 Maugham and Haxton set out on a trip that lasted more than a year." Comma after 1920
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]
"which Maugham despised from the first, but found highly remunerative" -> "which Maugham despised but found highly lucrative" the article doesn't need to specify that he did not like it from the start, and I think lucrative is a more common word than remunerative.
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]
"Maugham, as always, observed closely and collected material for his stories wherever they went." Delete as always as unnecessary
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]
"In Maugham's absence his wife found an occupation, becoming a sought-after interior designer." -> "In Maugham's absence, his wife became a sought-after interior designer." To reduce the number of words necessary
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]
"During the 1920s Maugham published one novel (The Painted Veil, 1925), three books of short stories (The Trembling of a Leaf (1921), The Casuarina Tree (1926) and Ashenden (1928)) and a travel book (On a Chinese Screen, 1922)" Either all of these years should be in brackets, or none should.
"Germans and remained at the villa, securing it and its contents as far as possible, before making his way via Lisbon to New York." Should this be "as long as possible"?
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]
"As always, Maugham wrote continually. His daily routine was to write between an early breakfast and lunchtime, after which he entertained himself." -> "As always, Maugham wrote continually. His daily routine was to write between an early breakfast and lunchtime, after which he entertained himself." I don't think the first sentence is necessary if the article states that his daily routine involved writing.
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]
"and his influence for better or worse on his employer." Delete "for better or worse" as the sentence already says that biographers differ, so describing the two options for influence is not necessary.
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]
"was an adaptation by other hands" by other hands might be considered an MOS:IDIOM. Is there a more specific way that these people can be described?
In the first paragraph of "Plays" it is weird how it says the majority of the plays were comedies, names his dramatic plays, then lists the comedies. Suggest putting the information about the comedies first then talk about the dramas.
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]
"In Calder's view Maugham's "ability to tell a fascinating story and his dramatic skill"" comma after view
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]
"but his liberal attitudes, disregard of conventional morality and unsentimental view of humanity led adapters to make his stories" comma after humanity
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]
"in "The Ant and the Grasshopper" a young adventurer marries not a rich old woman who dies soon afterwards but a rich young one who remains very much alive." -> " in "The Ant and the Grasshopper" a young adventurer does not marry a rich old woman who dies soon afterward but a rich young one who remains alive."
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]
"A rising critic of a younger generation, Cyril Connolly," is this Cyril Connolly? If so, wikilink.
"Marking Maugham's eightieth birthday The New York Times commented" comma after birthday.
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]
File:Ambassade_Royaume-Uni_Paris_1.jpg needs a tag for the original work
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]
File:Of-human-bondage-ad-1916.jpg is likely too simple to warrant copyright protection. Ditto File:Maugham-symbol.jpg, File:Of-human-bondage-cover-1915.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
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]
ref 118, Sutherland, appears to be missing a publication year. Same with 187
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]
The NYT ref 145 is missing a retrieval date as well, and should include the author's name, Anita Gates
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]
I understand the intent of ref 2 to world cat, but I don't think this is the right way to go about demonstrating the prevalence of the use of 'Somerset Maugham' over 'W. Somerset Maugham'. Perhaps something simpler like "in many the titles of some biographies and studies he is referred as Somerset Maugham tout court, see the that of Raphael, Meyers and Hastings for instance", then a ref would not be needed.
I would be remiss to not mention the use of Maugham's own writings. I checked a few uses and found them largely appropriate, being primarily used for quotes and such Given that they are heavily outnumbered by scholarly references, this doesn't stand out as an issue to me. However, if any of them are indeed replaceable with secondary sources, you might consider doing so.
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]
Another matter I feel a need to address would be the use of rather old sources. These seem generally appropriate; refs 31–34 and 76–78, for instance, I cannot find genuine fault with in those contexts. But again, if any of these can indeed but substituted for newer sources, that would be best.
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]
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]
Pass for source review. I've left one response above regarding footnote 3, but I consider it more to do with article content than sourcing. Aza24 (talk) 19:39, 30 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]
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]
"When a second distributor approached Raymond, again suggesting a science fiction magazine, Science Fiction Adventures was launched, again with del Rey as editor, this time under an alias." When did this happen? Later in 1952?
Per the above bullet point: I'm not thrilled with this phrasing because of the number of commas. Perhaps, "A second distributor approached Raymond later in the year suggesting another science fiction magazine, and Science Fiction Adventures launched with del Rey again as editor, this time under an alias."
I decided to keep the "When" at the start, as it simplifies the syntax in the middle, but I went with most of your suggested wording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"but agreed, and became the editor of Space Science Fiction," -> but agrees to become the editor of Space Science Fiction" to remove a comma
"The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year, and Raymond soon decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953, and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month." Suggest splitting this sentence into two, and removing some extra words, as so: "The result was Science Fiction Adventures, which appeared in November that year. Raymond decided to expand further, launching Fantasy Magazine in March 1953 and Rocket Stories, also aimed at a juvenile readership, the following month."
"though in the event Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." -> "although Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired." or something similar
I'd like to keep "in the event" or some similar wording -- it implies that it was later events that changed the original plan, rather than simply saying it did not happen that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about "at that time"? I was confused about what event the sentence was talking about as the sentence is about a written editorial. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about "including fantasy, though as it turned out Fantasy Magazine became the outlet for the fantasy stories del Rey acquired"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Science fiction historian E. F. Casebeer considers that the magazine" change consider to stated, as I think that more accurately describes what Casebeer is doing here.
As above I'd like to argue the reverse -- he certainly is stating this, as you say, but isn't it true that any quote can be presented with "state"? I think that's because "state" doesn't colour the quotation at all; it just presents it. I think it's worth using verbs that indicate we are presenting a critic's opinion. I tend to avoid "state" anyway, because if something is worth quoting it's often because it's an opinion rather than a neutral statement of fact. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The first issue of Fantasy Magazine contained a Conan story, by Robert E. Howard," Delete the comma after story
The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation" but the body does not mention the "in order to improve circulation" element at all, or explain why paying the authors more would cause circulation to improve
I think it's implied by the sentence in the body after the description of the proposals: "Del Rey calculated the increased circulation that would be needed for these investments to show a net profit". Do you think it needs to be more direct? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That doesn't seem to say the same thing as the lead. The lead says "Del Rey persuaded Raymond to increase pay rates in order to improve circulation", meaning (to me at least) that Del Rey's argument was that if pay rates were increased, circulation would as a direct result go up. The text in the body says that Del Rey essentially said "we need to put up pay rates, and if we do so, we'll need to improve circulation by N% to be able to afford it", which is almost the exact opposite of what the lead says (IMO). Does that make sense....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see your point. I went back to the source and the way it's put in the body is the way the source has it -- del Rey's goal was reinvestment, and he argued that it wouldn't take much increased circulation to earn that money back. The implication is that he also argued that it would increase circulation past that point, meaning that the investment would lead to increased circulation, but you're right that saying his primary goal was the increased circulation isn't really accurate. I've dropped the mention of circulation from the lead -- does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The cover layout changed to mirror the inverted "L" format used by Galaxy" - I don't understand what this is saying, can you reword at all?
Most sf magazines had cover art that covered the entire front cover. In 1950 Galaxy Science Fiction came up with a cover design that reduced the art to about 80% of the cover, with an inverted "L" shape taking up the top and left edges -- you can see an example at that article. Several other magazines copied this (e.g. see here). The source for this article doesn't talk about the fact that multiple other magazines copied it, it just mentions that it picked up the design -- the image of Rocket Stories in this article has that design, for example. I've tried to clarify the layout in the article without going into too much detail -- how does it look now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
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]
I was pinged by Piotrus above. A couple of things that immediately stood out to me:
Is there any particular reason to cite the 1993 edition of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for the "SF Magazines" entry and the current online edition for the "Science Fiction Adventures" entry?
One reason I've kept it this way is that the 1993 edition was not authored by Mike Ashley. He has been added as an author to the online edition, since he's contributed updates to that version. Ashley is certainly the world's leading authority on sf magazines, but I want to avoid the articles I write relying solely on his name in the citations, so I like to use this version. It's not that big a deal and I can update to the online articel if you think that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would link to The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction in the references that cite it (in the same way that authors that have Wikipedia articles are linked). I think this is best practices.
I'm not a great fan of abbreviating science fiction as "sf" (or "sci-fi", for that matter) outside of direct quotes. Unlike, say, the paper editions of The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, we don't need to abbreviate the term to conserve space (WP:NOTPAPER).
I do it mainly for variety; spelling out "science fiction" in full can get very tedious to read. If you read through the last two paragraphs of the "Science Fiction Adventures" section as if each instance of "sf" were spelled out, it sounds very repetitive. And of course when we quote sources with the abbreviation we have to explain it anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I may give the article a more thorough look later. TompaDompa (talk) 11:38, 29 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.
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.
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]
Thanks for the reminder, zmbro! I've been makingfixes 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:
The article uses noted, noticed and pointed out a few times, which ought to be avoided by MOS:SAID.
...Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks... Do you know which tracks? It seems that when other songs directly influenced Costello, the article makes clear which ones.
The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, compared to My Aim Is True and Costello's next album Armed Forces (1979). I'm not sure which part the comparison is between. Does it mean the other albums are led more by Costello than the backing band? Or does it mean the other albums don't feature keyboards as heavily?
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:
Ref 130, use the parameter "url-access=subscription" as the original article is behind a paywall.
If you have any room in this section, I'd suggest an image of a Latin artist.
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... Magiciandude – zmbro(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]
My biggest comment is this. I'm not just writing this because I'm North American. But I'm a little uncomfortable with how the British version seems to be presented as the definitive version, and the American release as a footnote, even though for a whole continent of people, the American version was the reality. I'm sure it's valid to present the British version as Costello's artistic vision. But maybe the wording can be adjusted in a few places to be less potentially confusing for somebody who may be holding an American copy in their hands and might think, for example, "What's this about 'Radio, Radio' was not on the album?" ("The band recorded several other tracks in addition to the final track-listing, including 'Radio Radio'" <--This sentence is in "Writing and recording" but the reader has to go all the way down to "Release and promotion" to find out that "in America ... Columbia substituted "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" with "Radio Radio".) Similarly, the phrase "The closing track, 'Night Rally'" in the "Side two" section could be potentially confusing for someone holding an American copy in their hands. My ideal suggestion would be to possibly in "Side two" explicitly mention that "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" were on the British version and maybe even add a few lines to the end of the section, giving critical commentary about "Radio Radio" (like for the other songs), mentioning there that it had been added in the the American version in place of "Chelsea" and "Night Rally". Or if you don't want to go that far, I still urge you to (1) make the distinction between the two versions clearer earlier in the main text, and (2) ideally find a way to treat the American version as less of a footnote, because as I said above, it was the reality for a whole continent of people. Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
This is a minor comment. (I also mentioned a variation of this comment in my review of your first FAC, but that FAC was closed before you had a chance to respond to it, from what I remember.) I'm not trying to stoke the British vs. (North) American fires two comments in a row, and please feel free to ignore this comment as appropriate. The article is written in British English, as it should be, and that's great. For me as a North American (I can't be 100% sure I'm speaking on behalf of all North Americans, though), the word "American" as an adjective or a noun referring to people, clearly means "of the United States". But the word "America" as a noun is unclear and feels imprecise. Does it mean the United States, North America, the Americas? There are at least a few mentions of "in America" or "tour of America" in the article. But maybe in British English it's perfectly acceptable and clear. In Britain, does it always mean only the United States? (Did any of his mentioned tours of America possibly include Canadian dates? Maybe not, but for the sake of preciseness it'd be good to double-check if you haven't already.) Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Designed by Barney Bubbles, the initial sleeves were off-centre and exposed a printer colour bar on the right, which was corrected for later releases." / "The original UK cover artwork for This Year's Model was deliberately off-centre, making the title appear as His Year's Model and the artist "Lvis Costello" ... Riviera's soon-to-be-formed F-Beat Records first released the British album with a corrected sleeve in May 1980." If Bubbles did this design deliberately then "corrected" doesn't seem quite right,
"Wanting only himself on guitar, the first person hired was Pete Thomas". Seems like a dangling modifier since it was Costello who wanted only himself on guitar, but the passive subject is "first person hired".
In the "Background" section, Stiff is mentioned a couple of times before Stiff Records is wiki-linked.
Minor comment but it feels like the section between "He remained focused and the album was completed without difficulty" and "Everyone was really excited because they were the stars of the moment" could be tightened even a bit. It feels like the same kinds of ideas are repeated in different ways multiple times: the sessions were productive and energetic; everyone was excited about Costello's and the band's success. Or if you don't trim anything, maybe find ways to subtly acknowledge that a given idea has already been mentioned ("As mentioned above" is not very subtle but maybe something less direct along the same lines). Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head but in "For "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea", Costello originally based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures that made the track stand out on its own" the phrase "stand on its own" doesn't quite feel precise to me. I don't know, if you disagree or if you sort of agree but can't think of anything better, no worries.
"Costello did not contribute due to his still relatively little experience in the studio". Is this meant to imply that he wanted to contribute to the mixing but held back, or that it's normal for artists to contribute to mixing but Costello was an exception, or perhaps that for later albums Costello contributed but didn't for this one? It's not clear.
"The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, often outshining Costello's guitar": "outshining" sounds likely subjective. I guess likely this is the opinion of Trooper, Mendelsohn, and Klinger. I don't know if you might want to make it clearer in the text that this was certain people's opinion (even if it's just a blanket attribution like "some critics") or possibly substitute a more objective word for "outshining".
About "You Belong to Me": "Lyrically, it is a plea for sexual freedom and as such, is full of resentment and anger". Maybe this could be made clearer. Is the narrator's girlfriend viewed as possessive ("You belong to me" are the girlfriend's words?), while the narrator wants sexual freedom (not a monogamous relationship), and that's what he feels anger about? From the title alone, one might assume the narrator is pleading to the girlfriend that she belongs to him, in which case it wouldn't be clear why he'd be angry about a lack of sexual freedom.
"Lip Service": "Gouldstone writes that the track is essentially a declaration of independence on a female companion and the world at large." I'm not sure that "on" ("on a female companion") is clear here. For a second I was going to suggest "towards" but I'm not sure that's a big improvement either. Possibly this sentence could be rewritten to make it clearer. As it is, I think I know what it means but am not 100% confident. Moisejp (talk) 02:20, 29 August 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]
"a different shot was also used for the Swedish release": I think this means the Swedish cover photo was different from not only the British but also the American one. Just making sure that's right?
Yessir, changed different to third to make it clearer
"including Bruce Thomas cutting his hand smashing a glass bottle ... Bruce Thomas wore bandages on his hand after injuring it while juggling a beer bottle while backstage at a show in Manchester". Are these presumably talking about the same incident? If not, consider making it clearer that they were different incidents. If they were the same incident consider cutting one of the mentions, or rewriting the second mention to acknowledge that the incident has already been mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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]
Lede (paragraph 1) I don't think debuted live is the same as made their live debut and I think you probably mean the latter.
Lede (paragraph 1) Most of the material was written prior to the sessions - Were there any songs written during the recording sessions?
Lede (paragraph 2) The songs on This Year's Model are primarily driven by the Attractions - in what way?
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]
Lede (paragraph 2) ...with influences including works by the Rolling Stones and the Beatles - works is redundant
Lede (paragraph 3) This Year's Model also received critical acclaim; many highlighted strong songwriting and performances - much of it highlighted
"critical acclaim" is not an object so changed to reviewers
Lede (paragraph 3) ...while also praising Costello as an artist and the addition of the Attractions. - Praising the addition of the attractions?
removed addition of
Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim - ...This Year's Model continued to receive
Lede (paragraph 4)...continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition - much of it praising or with many critics praising
Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition and performances of the Attractions...- Isn't all this just repeating the previous paragraph?
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]
Background (paragraph 1) Not sure what 'aspiring image' means? How does an image aspire? Do you mean the image he aspired to or simply, his (Costello's) aspirations?
Background (paragraph 2) Per Costello's management contract, Costello followed Riviera and departed Stiff for Radar Records but retained his American deal with Columbia; his final release for Stiff was "Watching the Detectives" in October, which became Costello's first single to reach the top 20 in the United Kingdom. - Shouldn't that semi-colon be a full stop? Either way, this sentence would benefit from being split in two.
Writing and recording (paragraph 1) This Year's Model was recorded during Costello's break in his touring schedule - This sounds unnecessarily convoluted. Why not simply say, "...during a break in Costello's touring schedule"?
Writing and recording (paragraph 1) ...as producer, and, in Thomson's.... - I would say the comma after 'producer' is unnecessary.
Writing and recording (paragraph 1) Acting as a foil to Lowe was engineer Roger Béchirian... - I would also say there ought to be a comma after 'Lowe'.
Writing and recording (paragraph2) Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures to make the track stand out on its own. - Nasty repetition of 'figures' and 'tracks'. Also, to what does 'figures' refer? Are we talking about characters within the songs?
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]
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. ;)
The height in the infobox has a citation needed tag.
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.
Would it be beneficial to link single skating in "competitor in ladies' singles" in the lede?
Yes of course, done. I also changed ladies' to women's as per Wikiproject Figure Skating policy.
I have two comments about this sentence: She is the first woman to complete a triple loop-triple loop combination, her signature jump, in competition. I would link figure skating jumps at the end. Is there a way to include a link for the "triple loop-triple loop combination" to help with unfamiliar readers like myself? Triple loop is already linked in the article.
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]
Should the first sentence in the "Early life" section use Lipinski's full name (i.e. with her middle name)?
I am guessing there is not any information on her mother's occupation?
Yes that's correct.
Is there any further context to "the end of the relationship between the Lipinskis and DiGregorio"?
I have a question about some of the quotes in the article. In some areas, such (as spent the next year making her "appear more mature"), the quote is not directly attributed in the prose. Rather than listing these instances here, I wanted to get your opinion about this?
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.
The article gets into the perceived Kwan-Lipinski rivalry, but have either of them publicly commented on this?
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]
Does the article discuss either of her books in the prose?
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]
Some of the citations do not have the work/publisher linked. For instance, Cosmopolitan is not linked in Citation 2.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
Should figure skater be linked in the lead sentence?
In the lead, it is noted that she is "the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal". This is ambiguous, and should be elaborated. The body says "Lipinski was the youngest Olympic gold medalist in figure skating history". That is correct, but it passes over her other claim to fame: being the youngest ever in an individual event.
The lead states, however: "She was, until 2019, the youngest skater to win a U.S. Nationals, the youngest skater to win a World Figure Skating title, and the youngest to win an Olympic gold medal." And the article goes on to state all the individual events in question. If that's not enough, what else should be added?
Yes but.. she is the youngest ever Olympic gold medalist in an individual event. Winter or Summer. Any country. Any individual event. Hawkeye7(discuss) 03:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"She was the sixth American woman to win an Olympic gold medal." Should add "in figure skating".
Duplicate links: Richard Callaghan, 1996 U.S. Figure Skating Championships, Sonja Henie, Champions on Ice, Johnny Weir, Scott Hamilton
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.