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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [1].

Vuelve (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-nomination with آرمین هویدایی and Tomica. This is my first non Luis Miguel album article in a long time. I worked extensively along with the editors mentioned and am tackle ready to tackle this for FA. Whatever issues the article presents, I am ready to address and any questions that might need to be answered. Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that Erick is User:Magiciandude, for the avoidance of doubt about top contributors stats check.
User:Max24 is shown as a top editor of this article and is still actively editing. And yet, two other editors are listed as co-noms. Was Max24 consulted prior to this nomination (see FAC instructions) and is Max24 in agreement that the article is FAC ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hi Nikkimaria, how does the media files look now? I uploaded two samples, each one to represent the uptempo and slow tempo tracks of the album, respectively. I used the tracks that were not released as singles so I don't have to justify its inclusion on this article in addition to their usage on the article about the song. If two samples are not suitable and one of them has to go, which one would you recommend keeping? Erick (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you elaborate on the FURs, particularly the purpose of use item? That would help justify having two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: How do the FURs look now on the "purpose of use" section? Erick (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:

Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments as always Aoba47. I've addressed everything but the last part and I'll admit I was taken back a bit since this I never had this problem on my past FACs. One idea I have is the first paragraph would be for what critics liked about the album and the second paragraph what critics didn't like about it. This would be consistent with the opening lead since the overusage of ballads was criticized and would be useful on the second paragraph. Erick (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for your response. To be clear, I did not mean for the final comment to come across as rude or offensive. I greatly admire your work on Wikipedia, and you have done a great job with this article. With the last comment, I was more so asking about your approach for this section, and I should have worded that more clearly. I was just somewhat uncertain of this section was structured. For instance, there are three critics who dislike "No Importa la Distancia" (i.e. Promis, Burr, and Tarradell), and it may be beneficial to organize these critiques together. I think your idea of separating the positive reviews into one paragraph and the negative into another makes sense to me. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aoba47: Oh no no no, I greatly appreciate your feedback and I'm actually glad you brought that section up. This will help for future FACs. I should've said "surprised", instead of "taken back" and I do apologize if I came across as offended. Erick (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just wanted to make sure. Let me know when you have revised that section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Magiciandude: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to check in on the progress for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey there @Aoba47:, I was working on the critical reception on a sandbox of mine and just finished revamping it. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Four weeks in and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination attracts considerably more interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:

So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much for your support and making the tweaks. I changed "a composition" to "an anthem". آرمین هویدایی (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal: my review is on talk. I intended to review the Spanish-language sources, per the request at FAC talk, because two prior Supports suggest that this article was indeed FAC-worthy and ready for a source review. But, the prose is lacking (unlikely to be fixed by a copyedit), the lead is poorly organized and scattered, and there are sourcing problems in the few Spanish-language sources I checked (suggesting that should this article come back to FAC in the future with better writing and text that conforms to high-quality sourcing standards, then a thorough check of sourcing should be re-done ... I checked only a few). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coord note -- For such issues to be raised in a nom that's been open six weeks is a concern, I suggest following the suggestions above and then perhaps trying PR (or seeing if Sandy is able to check over after improvements) before bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [2].

A Canterlot Wedding[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about... a wedding in Canterlot. Well, kind of. A My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode, "A Canterlot Wedding" follows Twilight Sparkle, who learns her brother will be marrying her old "foalsitter" Princess Cadance. She gets suspicious of this pink pony princess who isn't as perfect as she remembered and decries her evilness to everyone. And... everyone abandons her; she's left with Cadance who comforts her and then tells her "you will be [sorry]" and uses green magic to... banish her. So, yeah. That's what happens in part one. This article passed a GA review by Parcly Taxel in May 2012, less than a month after it was created and the episodes aired. FAC was brought up a few days later but was dismissed due to a lack of coverage about development and review coverage. Since then, this production and critical reception have been expanded and a themes section has been added. With three full(ish) reviews, these episodes have the most coverage from critics. All constructive feedback is welcome. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2.5 weeks in and no comments, so archiving this one as it is not trending towards promotion at all. Given the lack of participation here, the standard two-week waiting period does not apply, although I would recommend trying to get some potential reviewers lined up ahead of time. Hog Farm Talk 23:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [3].

Old Tjikko[edit]

Nominator(s): Vitaium (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a plant. Old Tjikko is the oldest Norway spruce alive, it is over 9,550 years old and one of the oldest clonal tree. Old Tjikko is likely seeded around 7550 BC and the tree is still growing, the height of this tree is about 5 m (16 ft 5 in). Old Tjikko is located in Fulufjället mountain, Dalarna, Sweden. Vitaium (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Look, I don't like being That Guy, but there are a few too many sources that aren't used in the article - which is quite short and with many dangling sentences. In particular this one should probably be considered (you can ask at WP:RX to get a copy) or its rebuttals refuted in some fashion. To be exact, without an expansion I don't think the article meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria §1a through d. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Z1720

I agree with Jo-Jo. The article is too short at the moment, and there are lots of sources that can potentially be used to expand upon this. Some great places to find sources are WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, and databases from your local library system or post-secondary institutions. Z1720 (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As noted above, this is far from needed comprehensiveness. Archiving. Hog Farm Talk 17:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 25 November 2021 [4].

No Panties[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is a hip hop song by American rapper Trina, featuring American singer Tweet, from Trina's second studio album Diamond Princess (2002). Despite its provocative title, the song is actually about keeping one's clothes on and not having sex with a man unless he has money. I initially worked on this article in 2020, as I'm interested in women in hip hop, and although I dislike this song, I decided to come back to it to improve it further. Any comments would be much appreciated. Aoba47 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review from Heartfox–pass[edit]

Quality

  • That makes sense. I have removed the source. I was on the fence about it, but I was uncertain if it would qualify as it was published in a newspaper, but I agree that alone does not make it a high-quality source. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have removed it as it really did not provide that much information. I do not think the Timbaland comparisons are particularly helpful for readers since the writer does not delve deeply into it other than saying that it is there. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for checking. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is a very silly mistake on my part so apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Formatting

  • I had put in the link more for verifiability purposes, but I have since removed this source from the article per an above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That makes sense to me. I have added them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I ended up replacing this source with a different one to avoid any unnecessary confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotchecks

  • I will look into this further later tonight (or this weekend). It could be something to do with the catalog numbers, but I will do further research. Apologies for the delay on this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For info, Discogs has listings for both the European vinyl and CD versions, but I don't know if that would be considered a reliable source.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I initially got this information from Discogs. I do not know either vinyls, although I did seriously consider buying one on eBay. From my research, the catalog number included on the vinyl does distinguish the area it was release. Discogs has a nice article on it here. Also, when I look up images of the UK/Europe vinyl, it includes information about how it is released "for the world outside of the United States" (their phrasing not mine), and this is absent on the US vinyl. Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As there is no clear evidence that the vinyl was specifically released in the UK/Europe, it might be better to go with a more general phrase like "another vinyl with an alternative tracklist including the bonus track "Get It" was also released". I'm also a bit confused as to why the track listing section only lists vinyls but there were CD/digital downloads released? Heartfox (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will post the CD and digital download track listings later today. I am somewhat hesitant about doing the digital download as it is just the song and nothing else, but I will still do it as it would be helpful to have the complete information. I will go with the more general phrasing that you have suggested for the different releases. Apologies for not being able to get to it until later. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Heartfox: I believe that I have addressed this now. Thank you again for the review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have checked on Spotify and that platform also uses the 2:42 time. The 2:43 time seems to be the clean version so the Billboard review was likely using that one instead. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies for this. I actually had formatted this correctly in my first draft of the article, but I for whatever reason mistook Rovi Staff for a person later on in the process. I have revised it accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heartfox (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Heartfox: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate your help. I have addressed everything, but one point. I will do further research on how releases in UK/Europe are distinguished from the US ones. I am currently on a small vacation in DC, so it will take me a little longer than normal. Apologies for that. I will still do my best to look into it further. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have responded to the vinyl point as it was easier to find out than I had anticipated. Aoba47 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say this is a pass for the source review. I hope you are having a great vacation and best of luck with the rest of the nom! Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you! I greatly appreciate your help. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Sorry for the ping. Just wanted to let you know I added the digital download track list to the track listings section. Apologies for forgetting to do this earlier. Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on stuff other than sources[edit]

  • Good point since it could easily be misread as Tweet's album. Revised in the article and on here. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I guess I thought it was the most of the most lol. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything else I can do to further improve the article. I hope you have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support from Pseud 14[edit]

  • I can understand your suggestion, but I am somewhat uncertain. Elliott worked on the two songs with other people (like with this one she worked with a producer), and I would be concerned that "contributed two songs" could be read that she gave the songs to Trina after doing all the work on it separately or by herself. For my phrasing, I was just trying to convey that she was a part of two different songs from the album, although they were both in different ways. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yikes, that was an embarrassing oversight on my part lol. I have revised this part. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's a great point. I have revised the section, but please let me know if further revision would be beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point. I have revised this to address your point. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the kind words and for the review. I have addressed everything, except for one point, but I have left a comment about my concerns about it. Please let me know if there's anything I could do to further improve the article. Have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the support! Aoba47 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawal request[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I would like withdraw this FAC. While I am very grateful for the reviewers who have helped to improve the article immensely, I would like to take a step back from Wikipedia to focus on other things. Thank you again, and I hope everyone has a great rest of their week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your work on this article, and I hope that you will be back here with it some day. Hog Farm Talk 04:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2021 [5].

Craig Bellamy[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about possibly one of the most polarising figures in modern British football, Craig Bellamy. A former captain of both the Welsh national side and Great Britain Olympic squad, he spent more than a decade in the Premier League with numerous teams. A managers' worst nightmare on occasion, his career has been blighted by injury and endless controversy. As usual, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comments[edit]

Nobody outside of Britain knows what "gobbiest" means, I reckon. Also, there's absolutely nothing about his playing style in the lede. The Style of play section too, has only a perfunctory mention of his "quick, bursting technique and calmness under pressure" before an extended managerial back-and-forth about whether he had a bad attitude or not. There's needs to be more on his stocky stature, finishing ability, the positions he played etc. I haven't read most of the article but some of this stuff must be in the lede and in Style of play.—indopug (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Indopug:, thanks for taking a look. In regards to the gobbiest quote, Robson is one of the most noted British managers of the last 40 years, so his quote is more than suitable I would suggest and would be commonplace in WP:BRITENG. The style of play features more than you seem to imply I would say, several of the quotes mention his intensity and commitment on the pitch which was a key factor in his style of play. I've expanded further to provide more though as well. In regards to this being in the lede, this not a common thing in football articles, see FAs such as Thierry Henry, Steve Bruce, Kevin Beattie, etc. The lede is generally used as a summary of the player's life and career. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for providing those examples. Thierry_Henry#Style_of_play is actually exactly what I had mind with my comments above. Some things that impressed me in that article's section:
  • what position Henry played in and how it changed over time
  • the kind of goals he would score and the techniques he used for scoring
  • who his heroes were and how they inspired his play
  • other aspects of play like heading, passing and set pieces
Also, while Henry has one quote per paragraph, mainly to give flavour to the text, Bellamy's section has a quote in nearly every sentence, overwhelming the text.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it's unlikely I'll be able to get into Henry's level of detail due to the sheer amount of coverage he has, I've added an extra paragraph from a few sources I dug up. I've also trimmed the number and length of quotes that are included as well. Kosack (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from WA8MTWAYC[edit]

@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've implemented all of the changes noted above. Kosack (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read Bellamy left Anderlecht last weekend and Kompany was quite emotional about it. I hope everything will be alright. Nevertheless, this is a great article, well done. I support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has hit the three week mark with limited indications that a consensus to promote is forming. Unless this changes over the next 2 or 3 days, I am afraid that this nomination may be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, this is done as well. Forgot to mention. Kosack (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like there is still an instance of fixed px size - this should be replaced with |upright=. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kosack, could you fix this? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

  • If that's the case then I'll withdraw this concern. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when everything is responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks very much, everything has been addressed bar the one comment above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TRM[edit]

Source review – pass[edit]

Hi Kosack, starting source review:

  • OK. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but if you didn't add it, and that means you're not familiar with the content in that source, one idea might be to remove it altogether, especially if the cited info is already covered by refs 217 and 218. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Apologies, I somehow got 13 and 14 mixed up when I was looking at them. Sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You're right. There it is. Sorry about this mistaken comment too. ;-) Thanks for your responses so far. I'm going to try to finish this source review very very soon. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed a couple of dead links. I also was not always 100% sure what constitutes a reliable sports source, but the ones I looked at seemed reasonably reliable-looking, so would like to give the benefit of the doubt on them. I'm satisfied with the sources. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Amakuru[edit]

I can't really comment on the Steve Davis article but in relation to Beattie, Bellamy is a modern player making the availability of sources far wider than players of the older generation. I think journeyman pro is under-playing Bellamy a bit as his career has been certainly one of the most colourful in recent years. A more accurate comparison for me would be Robin Friday perhaps, which comes in at 41kb despite having less than a third of the playing career Bellamy did. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early life
It's relatively common information to include, pretty much any substantial page tends to have it? Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The under-10s were the side formed, Caer Castell already existed as a club. I've dropped the chosen part to hopefully make that clearer. Kosack (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bristol Rovers and Norwich City

That takes me to "Coventry City".  — Amakuru (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newcastle United
Graeme Souness era
Celtic loan
Blackburn Rovers

That brings me to "Liverpool".  — Amakuru (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amakuru, that makes perfect sense to me. Apologies if I speed read your comments and missed that. Thanks for the prompt response. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru, Sportsfan77777 has said "I'm content with the nominator's responses". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild: thanks for the update. I will return to this early next week if that's OK, since as you know I'm spending my time trying to gather a last few points in the WikiCup, and hopefully Kosack won't mind as they're not involved in this phase of the Cup this year! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Yes, I'm here! I even started adding some more comments earlier today, but I never got around to hitting save 😃 I will finish the review tomorrow. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Liverpool
West Ham United
Manchester City
Cardiff City loan
Return to Liverpool

That brings me to "Return to Cardiff City". More later today hopefully!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Youth and senior arrival
Style of play
Personal life

I think that's about it. A long read, as I already noted, but it seems well-written and comprehensive anyway. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kosack ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

I've done a thorough read through, and I can't come up with much. It's a well written article. Below is all I could put together:

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review Lee, I've responded to all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick comments from Sportsfan77777[edit]

I'm leaning oppose for the article being too long, along the lines of what Amakuru has already said. All of the top athletes and other notable bios brought to FAC over the past year have been told to stay closer to 50kb than 60kb. Bellamy definitely isn't a top footballer, maybe not even a top Welsh footballer, so I don't see why his article should be this long when that's not even being allowed any more for all-time greats or important historical figures. With someone like Robin Friday, you can get away with having more detail because his career was short enough that even with so much detail, the article still isn't that long. If Friday had as long of a career as Bellamy, Friday's article wouldn't end up at 60 kb; it would be closer to 50kb and some of the detail currently in his article would end up being cut. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure it should be seen as a competition between how well-known someone is to how big their article can be and indeed Friday is a prime example of that. There are a stack of FA-rated cricket bios between 50-60kb and even 47kb articles on a single year in a player's career. We cover what is generally considered notable and covered by sources. As a modern day footballer with his considerable catalogue of incidents, Bellamy has probably received more print coverage than some of the world's best players combined from years gone by. As the availability of sources increases, so surely does the breadth of coverage we can provide. I have no doubt that there is probably some fine-tuning that could be trimmed here and there, as Amakuru is helping with above, but I think the article is of reasonable size for the subject.
In relation to Friday, I think it's an underestimate to say his article wouldn't hit 60kb. He played around 150 matches in his career, while Bellamy played nearly four times as much and holds a considerable international career to add as well. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Other FAs have certainly done that before, even if the recent ones haven't. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another big problem is that the article doesn't seem focused. The club career section covers three main facets: his accomplishments, his controversies, and his injuries. The way it's written (in particular with the length), that seems like too much. I could easily imagine someone coming to this article just to get an overview of all of the controversies he has been involved in or an overview of his injuries (those are the first things I looked for after reading the lead), but there's no summary of either of those things anywhere in the article. You essentially have to read the entire >6000-word club career section just to understand why he is so controversial or how injuries have affected him. That's too much to ask of a typical reader who just wants to find some specific info on Bellamy. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could potentially mitigate that issue by splitting off the controversies into a separate section. I could understand why his rift with Souness is an important part of the club career section because it led to him leaving Newcastle, but most of the other controversies don't seem to have any big or longterm effects on his career. Relatedly, I have doubts that proper weight is given to each of the controversies. He was suspended three matches for a head-butting incident, but that only gets one sentence. Meanwhile, his fight with Riise gets a full 10+ sentence paragraph, even though he wasn't even suspended for that and there is no longterm significance (or at the very least, no longterm significance is mentioned). The missed dinner and police caution at Newcastle are examples of incidents that are worth mentioning and maybe have the right weight, but might be better off in a separate controversies section because no significance of these events is indicated towards his playing career or how he is perceived. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article lists the events of his career in chronological order. Separating controversial incidents into their own section seems like bordering on WP:TRIVIA in my opinion and would possibly be adding WP:UNDUE weight and focus onto the incidents in relation to his career. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. I may be overestimating how controversial he is perceived to be. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thing I was wondering about was is Bellamy associated with any particular club? My impression from reading the article is that he is not associated or remembered for playing for any one or two clubs in particular because he played for so many different clubs. If that is correct, then nothing needs to be done to address this concern. But if he is best associated with say Liverpool and/or Cardiff (and/or Newcastle??), then that should be made clearer. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not really, no doubt fans of those club's would see him as such, but I don't think he's synonymous with any one club. Kosack (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sportsfan77777 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I commented above. I'm content with the nominator's responses. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Kosack - It looks like you haven't edited since 3 October, and it looks like a fair number of Amakuru's comments are not addressed yet, I'm afraid this may have to be archived if we can't get this restarted over the next couple days. We can't hold this open indefinitely, unfortunately. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With a number of outstanding comments still here, and Kosack on a lengthy break, I'm going to have to archive this for now. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2021 [9].

Australian nationality law[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the history and regulations of Australian nationality. This is a follow-up to the New Zealand nationality law article, which just got through FAC last month. Some information will be quite similar due to the two countries' shared history. Horserice (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

  • Added alt text for coat of arms.
  • Removed citizenship day image. From what I can tell, the source Flickr account was deleted. Requested the original uploader of coat of arms image to update source link. Horserice (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This nomination is showing little sign of gathering a consensus to promote. Unless this improves considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2021 [10].

William Utermohlen[edit]

Nominator(s): Realmaxxver (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the artist who drew the self portraits with Alzheimer's disease. In the past two months I have expanded this article from this stub to a Good article and now here, where I hope to make this article my first featured article. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Buidhe[edit]

Image review—pass
Added fair use rationale. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed image and nominated for deletion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other comments
Did Suggestion two. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also went and turned "Critical reception" and "In popular culture" into subsections. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from zmbro[edit]

  • I wasn't sure what you exactly meant, but I changed the title parameter from "The 92nd Academy Awards: 2020" to "The 92nd Academy Awards - 2020". (diff) feel free to specify. Realmaxxver (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand what you mean now. done. Realmaxxver (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I got so far. – zmbro (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not fully sure what you mean, but i changed it to "The Works of William Utermohlen — 1955 to 2000" Realmaxxver (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on source formatting this isn't ready for FA yet. But that can obviously change. – zmbro (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Zmbro, I have adressed all your comments, so I want to ask; do you Support or Oppose (put Support/Oppose in bold in your answer)? Realmaxxver (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wuold like to see what others say first. Also, I'm prefectly aware of how this process works. – zmbro (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • Because of this, I have also changed the value in the ((Sfn)) templates which used that source. Realmaxxver (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to say that The Times was not the only author/work which I linked, but: Done. Realmaxxver (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That claim came from this version, made before I edited this article. I have replaced it with "Caribbean" for now, but I might have to check if any sources say that he served in the Vietnam War (I did find these sources and also this source, page 8, which say that the War series references Vietnam, but it never says that it was influenced from personal experiences). Realmaxxver (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I figured it was a bit redundant to repeat the name of the art school (Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts), but done. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Already described in the next paragraph: "The Mummers Cycle is based on the Mummers Parade of Philadelphia,[20] but in a letter from November 1970, Utermohlen stated that the Mummers Cycle was also created as a "vehicle for expressing my anxiety".[21]" Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I should note that while the artworks were made as early as 1953, It was most active from 1973-1974. I have made an ((efn)) note to clarify. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I combined paragraphs in the Career and Early life section, shown here, here and here.

Comments from Spicy[edit]

I remember seeing this article when it was still a draft. It has developed well since then. I've made a few copyedits. From a FAC perspective, I have some concerns about the sourcing. Comments below:

  • changed to "but in the terms of the series's art style, the Dante cycle was inspired from 1960s movements like pop art.[19]" Realmaxxver (talk) 22:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added alt text. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think given that Utermohlen spent most of his life in England, I think it is best to use British English; I have replaced "color" with "colour". Realmaxxver (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed see also section for now, I think the EATEOT link could be useful in a subarticle about the self-portraits themselves.

Realmaxxver (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC) What makes the following high-quality reliable sources (per WP:FACR):Reply[reply]

Thanks, Spicy (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Spicy: Removed all sources. Realmaxxver (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open for nearly a month, and while attracting interest it has yet to receive a single general support. Unless definite signs of a consensus to promote develop in the next two or three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Pinging previous reviewers' attention to this - @Buidhe, Zmbro, Spicy, and Therapyisgood: Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still no supports, a week later, and now an outstanding oppose. Gonna have to archive this one. Hog Farm Talk 14:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

Sorry for being late to this FAC. It's a fascinating article. The prose needs more work in a few places:

  • Changed to "From 1993 to 1994, Utermohlen created a series of multiple lithographs which depicted short stories written by the World War I poet Wilfred Owen.[22]" Realmaxxver (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Merged the sentence with the sentence after; "According to New Statesman, he had saw the portrait and likened it to versions of the portrait created by Francis Bacon."
  • Changed. Also moved placement of info in the sentence; "Utermohlen's self portraits gained further attention after they were published in a 2001 paper from The Lancet, which has often been attributed for the self portrait's popularity.[45]" Realmaxxver (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think another copy-edit is needed, perhaps away from FAC, and the article re-nominated in a few weeks. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll read the article again tomorrow (Sunday GMT). --Graham Beards (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made a few more changes this morning, mainly to eliminate redundancies. [11]. -Graham Beards (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Graham Beards, Do you Support or Oppose? Realmaxxver (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FAC is about consensus rather than voting, but that said, the coordinators do need to see some unqualified support from reviewers. I think the article was nominated too soon and a lot of work was still needed on the prose. I have made a few edits but I still think the prose could benefit from fresh eyes. The best way to achieve this is to re-nominate the article in a few weeks time. In the intervening time, you might want to comment on other articles that are on the list at WP:FAC. Since you have forced my hand, I Oppose promotion at this time. Graham Beards (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TBH, i should've just put this through peer review before doing this. Realmaxxver (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 November 2021 [12].

Squid Game[edit]

Nominator(s): Leomk0403 (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about...

Oppose and suggest closure on the following grounds:

Strongly oppose:

Sorry, but no, this article is nowhere close enough to even be considered for a FAC let alone a GA nomination. Jeuno (talk) (contribs) 09:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2021 [13].

German destroyer Z51[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a planned class of Destroyers for Nazi Germany. Notably, the first to use diesel engines. After a long period of development, including four different models, only one was built, and launched unfinished to make room for submarine construction near the end of the war. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review[edit]

None used. I believe that if there are no free images, it would be possible to use a non-free image to illustrate the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given it is a unique ship, I suggest that a strong NFUR would suffice. See File:Torpedo boat tc 1.jpg for an example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Indy beetle[edit]

Initial comments:

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Seventeen in and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funk[edit]

Comments by PM[edit]

I'll also take a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 'LeadReply[reply]

Body

Down to Designs, more to come. I have to say that at this stage, the article is definitely not close to FA. I feel like the whole subdesign section needs a fair bit of work, and possibly division into subsections for each subdesign as well as tightened up descriptions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iazyges, I'm sorry, but I'll be having to archive this one now. With no traction having been gained three weeks in and the suggestion that it needs significant work, it looks like this one will be best worked up for a second FAC. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2021 [14].

I've Just Seen a Face[edit]

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about a song by the Beatles featured on their album Help!, except in North America, where it appeared as the opening track of Rubber Soul. Tkbrett (✉) 14:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

Before I get into my comments, I would like to clarify that I know very little about the Beatles so I'm very much a non-expert in that regard. My comments are below:

  • The infobox says this song was handled by Parlophone, but that record label is not mentioned in the lead, and instead Capitol Records is mentioned so it is a little confusing for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
  • I've included further info on the song's release to clarify the situation.
  • For this part, is today appreciated as a fan favourite from the band's pre-Rubber Soul era., I would avoid using "today" as that can change depending on when a person is reading this article.
  • Following the guidance given at WP:PUFFERY, I've changed the wording to specifically refer to the song's Rolling Stone rankings.
  • I believe so. I'm not an expert in the subject, but as I understand it, the country and western genres went through a process of amalgamation from the 1950s through 1970s. In the 1960s, "country and western" was the term of choice, whereas today we just call it "country". This is the term Paul uses in his authorized biography: "['I've Just Seen a Face'] was slightly country and western from my point of view" (Miles 1998, p. 200).
  • That makes sense to me. As I continued to read the article, I had a clearer sense about this. Thank you for the explanation. The history of country music is interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is nitpick-y, but if read literally, this part, A cheerful love ballad, the song's lyrics discuss, describes the lyrics as a cheerful love ballad instead of the song.
  • By all means, point out the little errors. How about: The song is a cheerful love ballad, its lyrics discussing a love at first sight and conveying the singer's associated excitement and inarticulateness.?
  • That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For this sentence, The Beatles recorded the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday"., I'd avoid repeating "recorded" twice in the same sentence.
  • How about this? The Beatles completed the song in June 1965 during their Help! sessions at EMI Recording Studios on the same day they recorded "I'm Down" and "Yesterday".
  • This part, while another acoustic guitar plays simultaneously to provide a contrasting effect, reads somewhat awkwardly as earlier in the sentence, you identify George Harrison playing a solo and it is not clear who is playing this part.
  • Yes, I presume it's John doing the contrasting acoustic part, since he did the rhythm guitar for this song, but I'm worried about WP:SYNTH since Everett 2006 doesn't actually say who is playing the other guitar. What exactly do you find awkward about it?
  • That is a fair concern. If John is not directly connected to this part, then I agree it is best to not name him. I just found it awkward to directly name the guitarist in one part of a sentence and in the other, just say that the guitar plays (seemingly by itself) if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have a question for this part, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face". What is the difference between reviewers and commentators?
  • I'm distinguishing between people like Stephen Thomas Erlewine, who reviews songs and albums for the website AllMusic, and someone like Walter Everett, who has written extensive musicological works analyzing the Beatles' discography, but isn't really a critic.
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. It is good to distinguish between the two as a critic will have a different approach and writing style than a musicologist. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are my comments for the lead and infobox. I hope this is a helpful start. I will read through the article either tomorrow or later in the week and add more comments at that time. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • For this part, had been rejected for inclusion, do you know who rejected them? Was it other members of the Beatles, the record label, or someone else entirely?
  • The band rejected its inclusion. That's as specific as i can get it.
  • That makes sense to me, and that is specific enough for me anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe the citation placement in this sentence, Working on a piano, he composed the melody first, beginning it as an uptempo country and western-inflected piece., hinders readability. I know that it is acceptable to put citations in the middle of a sentence (as it is more up to personal preference), but I find that these citations cut up the sentence rather awkwardly and more noticeable than they should be.
  • Agreed. Collapsed into one citation at the end of the sentence.
  • This is another nitpick so apologies for that. If read literally, this part, Split into three phrases, the intro's illusion of acceleration, is saying that the "illusion of acceleration" is split into three phrases, not the intro.
  • Tried this: Splitting the intro into three phrases, its illusion of acceleration ...
  • That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After reading the "Genre" section, I do not think it is accurate to call this a bluegrass song in the infobox. This section uses phrasing like "tinged", "inflected", "tempo", "feel", and "soaked", but does not outright called it a bluegrass song. This reminds of other song articles, where critics identify "elements" of a genre in a song and that is not enough to put that genre in the infobox. I understand this song was later covered by bluegrass bands, but I do not see clear evidence that critics classified the original as bluegrass.
  • Upon reflection, I think you're right. Quite a few describe it as either folk or folk rock, but I wasn't sure if it makes sense to have both listed since folk rock feels like a subgenre of folk. What do you think?
  • That is a good question. I agree with you that it could be a little strange so I think it would be best to just use folk rock and not both folk rock and folk. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not think the clear templates are necessary, but I am honestly not super familiar with them.
  • I have each of them there to prevent quote boxes from cutting off lower section titles on different screen sizes. I removed the one in the genre subsection b/c I don't think it's entirely necessary.
  • Thank you for the explanation. Again, I am not super clear with the templates (no pun intended lol) so this was more of a clarification question. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This part, Made up of run-of verses and alliterations, McCartney later described, reads as if McCartney is made up of run-of verses and alliterations.
  • I joined the first part to the preceding sentence to avoid the ambiguity. Also, fixed "run-of" to "run-on".
  • Is there a reason why the "Recording" section is after the "Composition" section? From my experience, it would usually go first.
  • Since WikiProject Songs doesn't provide much guidance in the way of article layout, I've based this article on some of the many Beatles related GAs, such as "Think for Yourself". As for FAs, I've seen it done this way at "Something", whereas "Hey Jude" uses the format you mention. I like it better with the composition described first, since it moves things along chronologically, with the song being written before recorded.
  • Thank you for the explanation. I do not have any issue with the current structure, and I can see your point about the order. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have two comments for this part, Recording took place in EMI's Studio Two, with George Martin producing the session. I do not think the producing link is entirely necessary as a majority of the music articles I've read do not use it. I would also avoid WP:Plusing. I do not have an issue with it, but I have received this note in the past and I've been told to avoid it in FA writing.
  • I really need to review WP:PLUSING again ... Anyway, how about this? Recorded in EMI's Studio Two, George Martin produced the session with assistance from balance engineer Norman Smith.
  • This was the only instance that I saw in the article so far. That looks better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are some more comments to the end of the "Recording" section. I will be really stopping here for tonight. I am enjoying reading the article so I got sucked in lol. Please let me know if you have any questions. I am always happy to see song articles in the FAC process. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much Aoba47, glad to hear you're enjoying it so far. My responses to your comments appear above. Tkbrett (✉) 15:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses! I will collapse my comments later today when I continue to read the article, but I will leave them up for now so you can see my responses to your responses. I greatly appreciate your explanations. My full review should be posted sometime later today. Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For this part, replaced the Memphis sound inspired "Drive My Car", shouldn't there be a hyphen between Memphis sound and inspired? I am admittedly not the best with this so I wanted to ask rather than make the edit myself.
  • I was wondering about that as well, and I think you're right, but I'm not certain. Anyway, I've gone ahead and added it.
  • Thank you for addressing this. If other reviewers say another, I'd go with their opinion as I am uncertain about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After reading the "Release and reception" section, I revisited this part from the lead, Reviewers and commentators have described "I've Just Seen a Face" in favourable terms. For the third paragraph of this section, there are a decent amount of negative or more subdued criticisms. I am not entirely sure if it is accurate to characterize the song's contemporary reviews as "favourable terms".
  • Those aren't contemporary reviewers – rock music criticism didn't really exist in 1965 (for more on this, refer to the talk page discussion). Those are retrospective commentators reflecting not so much on IJSaF as a song qua song, but on how its inclusion on the North American Rubber Soul changes the album's feel. To avoid the ambiguity, I've re-titled the section from "Release and reception" to simply "Release". I've also added a sentence to the lead regarding how these commentators view the change.
  • Thank you for the edits and apologies for my misreading. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but it seems that all the retrospective reviews for this song are positive. I am guessing there are not any negative retrospective reviews?
  • Try as I might, I haven't been able to find anything. Every substantial review or piece of commentary made regarding the song appears here, as far as I am aware. The worst impression seems to be Doggett saying it has "an entirely satisfactory acoustic arrangement" (though he also calls it "a McCartney gem", so he obviously still admires it).
  • That is what I thought. Thank you for double-checking though. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would revise this part, with Turner arguing it has been "key in stimulating a relationship between bluegrass and the music of the Beatles", as it is another instance of WP:PLUSING.
  • Changed to: ... covered by several bluegrass artists, and Turner argues it has been ... Alternatively, I could make them two separate sentences if you think that works better.
  • Either way looks good to me so I will leave that up to your personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I believe I already know the answer to this question, but I want to make sure. Since the original version of this song was never released as a single, it could not chart. Is that correct?
  • Hmm, I'm don't think so. In Everett's book The Beatles as Musicians, he lists every Beatles song added to the most popular radio station in 1960s New York, WABC. "I've Just Seen a Face" ranks at 77, but Everett lists its Billboard Hot 100 position as "Album Cut", seemingly implying it did not have the opportunity to chart as an album track.
  • From my understanding (and I could be wrong so take it with a heavy pinch of salt) was that songs from earlier time periods only appeared on charts if they were marked as singles and released to radio and album cuts being able to chart was more of a recent phenomenon. That being said, I could be wrong though. This is probably a better question for someone who is more familiar with this part of music history. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be the end of my review. Again, I am very unfamiliar with the Beatles so I am only focusing on the prose. With that being said, I really enjoyed reading this article, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once the above comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks so much for your helpful comments. I really appreciate your attention to detail. Tkbrett (✉) 19:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes a lot of sense. Going through the above and skimming the article I was tempted to do it unilaterally, but you may prefer a withdrawal - is this a formal request? Either way, the usual two week wait before nominating another FAC will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from JG66[edit]

Tkbrett, I'd been meaning to write something on the talk page but once you opened a peer review, I thought about participating there, and now you've nominated the article for FA, I figure I'll bring my comments here. Sorry to say, I find the article too long, and it's surprising to see it carrying a four-paragraph lead section. The last time I looked at the page was back in July, and I'm not convinced that all the expansion that's taken place since then is necessarily for the better.

In my opinion, it's as if you're trying to squeeze in a presence for every Beatles author who's ever written about the song. That's an exaggeration, I know – there are several hundred books about the Beatles – but there is that feeling that the article's become bloated, and I think some discernment is needed. The third and fourth paras under Release is one area; paras 2 to 4 under Retrospective assessment and legacy make up another. Is it not possible to halve the number of biographers we hear from? This is an approach I've always used, or always tried to use, with Beatles song and album articles – in fact, because of the massive amount of coverage any Beatles music continues to receive in formal reviews, from music critics, it's often impossible to include much in the way of personal opinion from biographers in sections discussing an album's retrospective critical standing. (On legacy-related points, yes, it's often the biographers who weigh in, but not their personal opinion on whether a piece of music is good or bad. On the other hand, it's not as if "I've Just Seen a Face" has much in the way of a cultural legacy outside of music; it's not like a lot of Lennon and Harrison songs where their impact is sociocultural, in the way that the Beatles are often described as having influenced and mirrored the times.)

What I've found with these song articles is I look across as many of Beatles writers as I can, most of whom are also music journalists – in no particular order: Ian MacDonald, Mark Hertsgaard, Peter Doggett, Nicholas Schaffner, Jonathan Gould, Steve Turner, Tim Riley, Walter Everett, Chris Ingham, Alan Clayson, Philip Norman, Kenneth Womack, John Kruth (in his capacity as author of a book on Rubber Soul) and Robert Rodriguez. I then pare down the comments and opinions to perhaps five at most, ensuring that the result is an accurate reflection of what seems to be an overall picture. I think the sections mentioned need a bit of that, because we just seem to be presented with more and more, but it doesn't really feel to me as if it's a benefit to the reader. One example would be Jim Fusilli under Release; why are we hearing from him, when he's writing as a Beach Boys biographer? It's sort of like the page has become a repository for anything that's ever been written about "I've Just Seen a Face".

Similar situation with the section on the Charles River Valley Boys' version – it seems way too detailed. Also under Other versions, given what appears before, I don't think we need to hear from the Dillards' banjo player; the inclusion of four writers' comments on that version also strikes me as over the top.

Sorry if this is more of a drive-by blurt than a considered review. I would try to present things in a bullet-point list, but to me, there's an overarching issue that's apparent from a distance, and from the very start in the overly long lead. Eg, do we need to have that bit about the Harrison solo accompanied by another guitar for contrast? Ditto with the song becoming "an immediate favourite of McCartney's" in combination with all the other detail on his post-Beatles versions? JG66 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, JG66; I know you're not usually a fan of the FAC process, so I was glad when I saw you lifted your embargo for this one.
@WP:FAC coordinators: JG66's above comments suggest quite a few rewrites to this page. I respect his opinion and so plan to work through them, but given the scope of the concerns I'm wondering if it makes sense to withdraw the nomination while the rewrites happen and then resubmit it in a week or two? Tkbrett (✉) 12:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes a lot of sense. Going through the above and skimming the article I was tempted to do it unilaterally, but you may prefer a withdrawal - is this a formal request? Either way, the usual two week wait before nominating another FAC will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'd like to request a withdrawal. Thanks, Gog the Mild. Tkbrett (✉) 13:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<edit conflict>Tkbrett, your willingness to take feedback and work so openly and co-operatively here is becoming a genuine source of wonder to me ... All power to you. (As for me, I'm afraid I find myself tired and a bit jaded; still love the research and writing, but not much outside that.)
The article does need a fair amount of cuts and trimming, I think, but I'd hope that wouldn't mean it misses the boat this time around. If it's of any help, in para 3 under Retrospective assessment and legacy, I suggest cutting everything from "Author Chris Ingham describes" to "the 'simple folk style' of McCartney's 1968 composition 'Mother Nature's Son'". None of that strikes me as being especially related to an assessment of the song, in terms of a critic saying it's good or bad, or anything that's meaningfully legacy-related. (Perhaps the straight descriptive points could fit up at Composition/Music or Recording.) It's that section on the Charles River Valley Boys version that needs the most work, imo. JG66 (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More