- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 March 2024 [1].
The Overlook (Alexander McQueen collection)[edit]
1999 was a good year for Alexander McQueen. No. 13, his Spring/Summer 1999 collection, was an incredible work of romanticism whose finale - Shalom Harlow being spray-painted by robots - is a famous work of art in its own right. No one expected him to match the success of No. 13 with his Autumn/Winter show, but he managed to exceed expectations with The Overlook, a staggering work of heartbreaking genius in which McQueen channeled the wintery isolation of The Shining into a fashion collection. Famously, one model wore a corset made from coiled aluminium, and another, a bustier covered in raw rock crystal. Although some critics complained of the theatrics and the use of real fur, it is widely regarded as one of McQueen's best works. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Epicgenius[edit]
Saving a spot here. Feel free to needle me if I haven't left feedback in 3-4 days. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Epicgenius, I know I haven't finished reviewing 270 yet but - friendly poke. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about that PMC - it did slip my mind. As promised I will have my first comments on Thursday. Epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lead:
- Para 1: "It was inspired by the Stanley Kubrick horror film The Shining (1980) and named for the Overlook Hotel" - First, is the Overlook Hotel fictional? If so, you may want to add "fictional" before "Overlook". Second, I recommend a comma after "Hotel" for flow.
- Added fictional, didn't add the comma - I think Sammi Brie would tell me not to
- Para 2: "Vogue editor Anna Wintour, making her first appearance at a McQueen show" - I suggest "Vogue editor Anna Wintour, who was making her first appearance at a McQueen show" or something like that.
- Done
- Para 2: I notice that the "Production details" subsection of the "Runway show" section is not really mentioned in the lead. Perhaps that section can be briefly summarized here.
- Added a tad about the repeat creative team, but not sure the rest
- Para 2: Also, for the "Notable pieces" subsection, it might be good to mention the rock crystal bustier and the coiled corset as being particularly significant.
- The coiled corset was already mentioned in para 1, but I've revised it to add
- Para 3: The first two sentences seem a bit disjointed: the first talks about positive reception, then the second suddenly pivots to a criticism. How about something like: "Critical response to the clothing and the runway show for The Overlook was positive, and it is regarded as one of McQueen's most memorable shows. However, some observers objected to the use of real fur."
- Revised to account for other criticism instead, without the however
- Para 1: "It was inspired by the Stanley Kubrick horror film The Shining (1980) and named for the Overlook Hotel" - First, is the Overlook Hotel fictional? If so, you may want to add "fictional" before "Overlook". Second, I recommend a comma after "Hotel" for flow.
- Background:
- Para 1: "British designer Alexander McQueen was known in the fashion industry" - Should this be "had been known"? (As in, the knowing is continuous, not a one-time thing.)
- I don't think so, although I can't muster a better argument than "it doesn't feel right"
- Para 2: "Other explicitly film-inspired collections include The Birds (Spring/Summer 1995), The Hunger (Spring/Summer 1996), Deliverance (Spring/Summer 2004), and The Man Who Knew Too Much (Autumn/Winter 2005)" - Similarly to the above, should this be "have included"?
- This, I don't think so, because the including is continuous
- Para 3: "He had a light touch with collaborators" - This seems a bit idiomatic compared to something like "He allowed collaborators wide latitude" (though, you do use "latitude" again later in the sentence).
- OED doesn't note the phrase as idiomatic
- Para 1: "British designer Alexander McQueen was known in the fashion industry" - Should this be "had been known"? (As in, the knowing is continuous, not a one-time thing.)
- Concept and creative process:
- Para 1: "named after the Overlook Hotel where much of the film takes place" - As above, I'd recommend a comma after "Hotel".
- I've added fictional, but as above, no comma
- Para 1: "Some reviewers detected influence from the Arts and Crafts movement," - Any specific reason why they thought it was evocative of the Arts and Crafts movement?
- Revised
- Para 3: "As always with McQueen" - I'm all for wording like this, but it sounds a bit too colloquial for FAC. How about "As with McQueen's other work"?
- Went with "As was typical with"
- Para 3: "The boots worn by the models were designed to have heels" - I'd shorten this to "The boots worn by the models were designed with heels" or just "The boots worn by the models have heels".
- Done
- Para 1: "named after the Overlook Hotel where much of the film takes place" - As above, I'd recommend a comma after "Hotel".
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Production details:
- Para 1: "these were resolved in time for the show to proceed" - I think this can be reworded to "these were resolved before the show" or "these were resolved without interrupting the show".
- Went with option 2
- Para 1: "andVogue editor Anna Wintour" - You should add a space before "Vogue".
- Lol, yes
- Para 2: "Joseph Bennett, who had designed all of McQueen's runways since No. 13 (Spring/Summer 1999)" - Isn't this show (Autumn/Winter 1999) at the beginning of the year? So The Overlook seems like it's coming before No. 13. (More to the point, is "Autumn/Winter 1999" referring to shows in late 1998 and early 1999?)
- Fashion seasons are off compared to natural seasons, because they follow industry practices. The runway show is always staged about 6 months before the collection is going to be in stores (to allow for purchasing, production, delivery, etc). So, Autumn/Winter collections are shown in February (ish), and Spring/Summer collections are shown in October (ish).
- That being said, I don't think it's that confusing. This one is labelled as A/W 99, #13 is labelled S/S 99. Most people will logically infer that Spring/Summer comes before Autumn/Winter, and also, I mentioned earlier that No. 13 is the previous show. So I think readers will follow.
- Ah, that makes sense. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "Because the vinyl release of the film's soundtrack was rare" - I suggest "Because few copies existed of the vinyl release of the film's soundtrack".
- Number of copies isn't strictly supported by the ref - all it says it that it was "hard to source". I've changed the wording to say "difficult to find"
- Para 1: "these were resolved in time for the show to proceed" - I think this can be reworded to "these were resolved before the show" or "these were resolved without interrupting the show".
- Catwalk presentation:
- Para 2: "the film's Overlook Hotel was built on" - I suggest "on which the film's Overlook Hotel was built".
- Much nicer, yeah
- Para 3: "Look 8 from this phase" - Does this use of "phase" carry the usual meaning of "part" (period, chapter, episode, etc.) or does it have a different meaning here? Usually, I only use "phase" to mean "part" if we're talking about time period. In addition, what is "this phase" referring to - is it referring to the soft brown/taupe/pink phase?
- I've used "phase" before in this context; def 1 in wiktionary is "A distinguishable part of a sequence or cycle occurring over time", which I think fits.
- I did mess up the order though with Look 8, now fixed.
- Para 4: "McQueen took his bow The show earned a standing ovation, regarded as a rare achievement in the fashion world" - This looks like it's missing punctuation or a few words.
- YUP lol. That was a leftover from when I realized I had lost the soundtrack section :|
- Para 2: "the film's Overlook Hotel was built on" - I suggest "on which the film's Overlook Hotel was built".
- Notable pieces:
- Para 2: "Leane built the aluminium corset over the course of six weeks, working 16-hour days" - I'd say "Leane worked 16 hours a day for six weeks to build the aluminium corset" or something like that.
- I think I like my phrasing better, is there a specific issue with it?
- Not really. I think your phrasing is better too, now that I think about it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I like my phrasing better, is there a specific issue with it?
- Para 3: "Taking it on and off could take up to 15 minutes." - The word "take" is repeated in close proximity here. I'd say "Donning and doffing the corset could take..."
- I went with the slightly longer "putting it on and removing it" if only because donning and doffing have always been very silly sounding words to me
- Para 2: "Leane built the aluminium corset over the course of six weeks, working 16-hour days" - I'd say "Leane worked 16 hours a day for six weeks to build the aluminium corset" or something like that.
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reception:
- Para 1: "Anna Wintour, although reputedly difficult to please" - Is this view attributed to a specific commentator, or just in general?
- In general. She has an industry-wide reputation for being extremely unpleasant. Meryl Streep's character from The Devil Wears Prada is based on her, if that gives you any idea. The Telegraph ref that follows that sentence covers her reputation fairly broadly, and the other ref is for the actual "I loved it" quotes from her.
- Para 1: In general, the second half of this paragraph feels a bit repetitive. You have three sentences in a row that are structured like "In A, B wrote that C" or the similar construction "B wrote in A that C" (emphasis on the repetition of the words "wrote that", which is my main point of contention). I'd rephrase it a bit, and personally I would also paraphrase at least one of the quotes per WP:RECEPTION, though this is not required.
- Ohh ugh yeah, I didn't even notice. Adjusted these and a few elsewhere, and paraphrased a couple quotes
- Para 2: "Menkes argued that McQueen's time there had enabled him to elevate his signature styles to match them to the winter theme." - The second part of the sentence repeats "to" three times. Is there a way this can be condensed, like "Menkes argued that McQueen's time there had enabled him to match his signature styles to the winter theme"?
- This is much better, thank you
- Para 3: "evidence of McQueen's growing maturity" - Maturity in what sense? I get that it's figurative, but do you mean the maturity of his designs, his career, or something else?
- Designs, career, personality in general. Early on, McQueen was a bit of a shock jock - he made good clothes but he also did a lot of gross weird stuff that critics often put down to immaturity. They saw him as a kid lashing out for attention even if it's negative. Once he started making it in the industry, he toned it down somewhat, and reviewers often responded by noting what they saw as his growing maturity. This reviewer doesn't really get into the weeds with it unfortunately.
- Para 4: "Winwood wrote that "animals rights campaigners will be less than impressed" with the rabbit fur and crocodile skin." - That reminds me, did animal rights campaigners have any opinion on this?
- Not that I ever came across. They did vandalize the set for the show after Eye (so two seasons past this one), so maybe they just took a bit to get planning
- Para 1: "Anna Wintour, although reputedly difficult to please" - Is this view attributed to a specific commentator, or just in general?
- Analysis:
- Para 2: "In addition to its explicit references to The Shining, The Overlook also reflected the film" - The phrasing "In addition ... also" is redundant because "also" means "in addition". I suggest removing "also".
- Done
- Para 2: "Similarly, the skating segment interrupts the usual sequence of a fashion show. It uses the same song" - Because the show has already occurred, should this be past tense instead of present tense?
- Done
- Para 3: Were there any other examples cited by Skogh, other than the bodice? (Unrelated, but it would be funny if the Swedish king got an artificial mountain.)
- No, just that one from The Overlook. Yeah, gifts given to royalty were really weird back in the day
- Para 2: "In addition to its explicit references to The Shining, The Overlook also reflected the film" - The phrasing "In addition ... also" is redundant because "also" means "in addition". I suggest removing "also".
- Legacy:
- Para 1: I'm not sure if Eye would be considered legacy, if McQueen already knew prior to The Overlook that he would be hosting Eye at NYFW. Though there might be a good reason for this.
- I've retitled to "aftermath and legacy". Mostly it's important because it was already generating coverage even while The Overlook had just been staged.
- Para 3: "The coiled corset was the sole item from The Overlook to appear in original 2011 staging" - Might just be an ENGVAR thing, but in the US we'd generally say "in the original 2011 staging".
- It's not, I'm just stupid
- Para 1: I'm not sure if Eye would be considered legacy, if McQueen already knew prior to The Overlook that he would be hosting Eye at NYFW. Though there might be a good reason for this.
- That's all from me. Overall, a very good article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Epicgenius, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, I left a few comments an hour ago that haven't been resolved yet. Once these are resolved, I think the article will look good. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies Epic, I misread "That's all from me." Time to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are all resolved now :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Looks all good now. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are all resolved now :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies Epic, I misread "That's all from me." Time to take a break. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, I left a few comments an hour ago that haven't been resolved yet. Once these are resolved, I think the article will look good. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Epicgenius, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Edge3[edit]
Just a quick comment. At the recent FAC for oyster dress, we disagreed on the applicability of MOS:SEASON. After that discussion, I modified MOS:SEASON for copyediting and clarity. Although the current version of the guideline has a provision for a "title of a work", there is an exception for a "seasonal edition in running text". If you disagree with that guidance then I suggest taking it to the talk page, where you'll see a recent discussion on this topic.
I don't have time to conduct a full review currently, but if this is still open in April I might be able to help out. Edge3 (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Obviously my feelings on the matter remain as they were, and I will continue to capitalize fashion seasons as proper nouns, per the consensus of over a dozen FACs now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus for oyster dress (and your other articles) was based on the previous version of MOS:SEASON, which has since been amended. You could discuss your disagreements on the MOS talk page, where I did ping you to participate. Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, MOS:SEASONS has been amended by you, with wording that you arbitrarily decided on! I saw the ping and deliberately didn't participate in the discussion because your behavior at the oyster dress FAC clearly demonstrated that you have no interest in listening to the opinions of other editors. Something like over half a dozen people responded there to tell you you were wrong, and you still unnecessarily opposed. And the article passed, which indicates the coords did not feel your oppose carried much weight.
- As it happens, the capitalization is still correct under your wording: "Season names are generally not capitalized (a hot summer), except when personified (Old Man Winter) or when part of a formal name". A fashion season such as "Autumn/Winter 2008" or "Resort 2014" is a formal name for a particular period in the industry, so it is capitalized. Other editors clearly agreed with this interpretation in the last discussion, so although the MOS wording may have changed, the reality underpinning my reasoning has not.
- I am not interested in debating this with you at every FAC I nominate in the future. I am not going to change it. It is not up for debate. If you feel you must oppose on the basis of capital letters, just do that and let the coords weigh it accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The consensus for oyster dress (and your other articles) was based on the previous version of MOS:SEASON, which has since been amended. You could discuss your disagreements on the MOS talk page, where I did ping you to participate. Edge3 (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from The Night Watch[edit]
Saving a spot. The Night Watch (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- The Night Watch gentle poke :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Almost done! Sorry, my health hasn't been particularly good lately. The Night Watch (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- No problem! I understand completely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some comments. I'm unfamiliar with fashion articles but I can still provide some general notes:
- Is the wikilink to aluminium necessary? I think most people know what aluminium is but you don't need to remove it, this is just a simple preference of mine.
- I tend to land slightly on the side of "why not" when it comes to links
- "Some reviewers detected influence from the Arts and Crafts movement, which McQueen had drawn from in his previous collection, No. 13 (Spring/Summer 1999)" What kind of influence exactly?
- Resolved already per Epic's comments - I now mention the knitwear and embroidery the critic was referencing
- "surprised the audience by instead taking inspiration from its wintery, isolated setting" —> "wintery and isolated" and maybe remove the wikilink to setting.
- I'm not sure the "and" works better than the comma. Can you clarify your thinking?
- "The Overlook attracted its share of criticism" —> some criticism
- Hmm. Tweaked.
- "McQueen
hadannounced that his next collection"
- I think the "had" belongs, as we're talking about two past events, one of which occurred before the other.
- That's it. The article is very well written and I could not find many more points without being nit-picky. The Night Watch (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some comments. I'm unfamiliar with fashion articles but I can still provide some general notes:
- No problem! I understand completely. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Almost done! Sorry, my health hasn't been particularly good lately. The Night Watch (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi The Night Watch, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I do support. The Night Watch (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi The Night Watch, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
PCN02WPS[edit]
- "named for the 1976 Martin Scorsese film." → might be more helpful to link "the 1976 Martin Scorsese film" to Taxi Driver rather than just linking Scorsese's name
- Done
"latitude for interpretation, and often" → remove comma- see Sammi Brie's comment below. It appears that I am sadly still a comma novice sometimes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)- "andVogue editor" → missing space
- Fixed in Epic's comments above
- "making her first appearance" → tense switches from past to present here, perhaps "who made her first appearance"?
- Fixed in Epic's comments above
- "McQueen's runways since No. 13 (Spring/Summer..." → "No. 13" is already linked in the first paragraph of "Concept and creative processes"
- WP:DUPELINK allows duplicated links in separate sections if they're relevant
- "McQueen took his bow The show earned" → something funky here, part of the sentence either missing or misplaced
- Fixed in Epic's comments above
- "Anna Wintour, although reputedly" → Wintour is linked earlier in the article
- "was learning at Givenchy had influenced" → Givenchy already linked
- Dupelink again for these two
- "elevating it from kitsch" → if "kitsch" is kitsch, recommend adding the link
- Ah yeah good thought
- "offering The Overlook and Voss (Spring/Summer 2001)" → Voss can be delinked since it's linked at the end of the previous section
- This I've done because they're quite close
- "brand internationally, and was clear" → remove comma
- Done
- "the revised 2015 stating" → typo
- Yup lol
Nice work as always, that's all I've got as far as prose is concerned. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing is as perfect as I would expect. The PRNation source is probably as good as one could expect for what it supports. I think it adds something about the lasting impact of the show. The daily record is the only newspaper with a location. You might want to consider removing it for consistency reasons.
Unrelated, the MOS:SEASON dispute seems to be based on a misunderstanding of how the fashion industry works. *channels Miranda Priestly giving her cerulean blue speech* Most designers release two major collections per year, traditionally titled Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter, that are shown at the major fashion weeks. You sometimes see one or two additional collections of more "fun" clothes titled something like Resort, Cruse, Holiday, Pre-Fall, Pre-Spring, etc. The names are of the seasons, but they are shown at times that line up with the southern hemisphere's seasonality while being created for Europe, Canada, and the US. The name Spring/Summer 1999 shows clothes debuted in 1999 that were created for warm weather rather than speaking about the seasons as spoken of in normal English. I encourage reviewers to see it as a term of art or a descriptive part of the title of the work. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments and source check Guerillero; always appreciate it. (In case it matters to any coords, I *think* the source being identified as PR Nation is the RR Auction source. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Daily Record location removed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from Sammi Brie[edit]
I reviewed the GA and am here to take a look at FAC too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The runway show was staged on 23 February 1999, at Gatliff Road Warehouse in London." no comma needed here because dmy
- Fixed in both instances
- I disagree with PCN's "latitude" remark. That's an appositive: "He had a light touch with collaborators, providing short creative briefs that permitted latitude for interpretation, and often did not see the work he had commissioned until right before the show." You could read the sentence without the bolded section.
- "As always with McQueen" is "As always" appropriate wikivoice?
- I swapped to "as was typical" per Epic's comments
- Should "trip hop" be linked?
- Sure why not
- "Prior to the show, McQueen had announced that his next collection, Eye (Spring/Summer 2000) would be presented" you need a comma to complete the appositive after "2000"
- Done
- "McQueen viewed this as a step toward developing the brand internationally, and was clear from the outset that he intended to return to England the following season." Classic CinS. There's one subject: McQueen. Toss the comma.
- "Stating" or "staging"?
- Both of the above done per PCN
Thanks for your comments Sammi! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to flip to a support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Source and image review[edit]
File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 42.jpg might need something to say about whether the clothes are copyrighted - in the US fashion apparently isn't copyrightable, but in the UK? Spot-check upon request. I don't think that The Sun is usually considered a high-quality reliable source. Wipf and Stock Publishers seems to have a speciality quite far removed from fashion? Is there a logic behind which links have ProQuest and which ones don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- We had this conversation at the oyster dress FAC. Clothing designs are not copyrightable in the US or in the UK ([2], [3]). Nor in Canada, where that photo was taken ([4]).
- Normally I wouldn't cite The Sun, but here I think it's relevant as a piece of criticism from outside the fashion world. Everyone inside the bubble is very impressed with the whole thing, but it's interesting to see someone from the outside call it a load of BS.
- I've never found publisher specialty to be prohibitive when citing sources, unless it's a publisher that's unreliable on the face of things. For me, it's interesting to see analysis of fashion from a religious/theological perspective. It's a shame he didn't have more to say about The Overlook.
- There's no logic, it's just whatever sources I found where I found them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The file page still ought to say something, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [5].
Anna Blackburne[edit]
This article is about one of the earliest woman naturalists in England, a notable collector of specimens who corresponded with Linnaeus and Pennant, among others. —Kusma (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- Family image is missing alt text
- Added
- Avoid sandwiching text between images
- Moved all to the right, which has other downsides. (I use large images, where it is normal to have left and right images on the same height; I do not understand the "no sandwiching" thing as that is very much dependant on settings, and often less bad than other options). Happy to hear furtrher feedback, especially from people using standard settings.
- File:Eurasian_wren,_raspberry,_wood_lice_and_pupa_from_the_Natural_History_Cabinet_of_Anna_Blackburne_(1768)_painting_in_high_resolution_by_James_Bolton._(51927517051).jpg: the description indicates this work is PD, but the tag used is CC? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the work is PD as indicated by the Yale library holding it, for example. The version in the article is cleaned up and watermarked by some company that then put a CC-2.0 on it, possibly in the belief that their cleanup work entitles them to it? I am not sure what the best thing to do is here; I could just download a non-watermarked version from Yale and upload it if you think that's better.
- I do - we should be avoiding watermarks anyways. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the work is PD as indicated by the Yale library holding it, for example. The version in the article is cleaned up and watermarked by some company that then put a CC-2.0 on it, possibly in the belief that their cleanup work entitles them to it? I am not sure what the best thing to do is here; I could just download a non-watermarked version from Yale and upload it if you think that's better.
Thank you Nikkimaria for the image review! —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Support by Pickersgill-Cunliffe[edit]
- While she called herself "Mrs", I don't think it counts as an honorific prefix as Wikipedia understands it.
- Remove the disambiguation from her father's name in the infobox
- Should be birth name rather than other name
- I assume at the time of her birth Orford Hall was not in fact inside Warrington, so perhaps add the full link in the infobox
- All done. I'm not an infobox person so I'm terrible with them :)
- Suggest beginning the first section with her full name rather than just the surname
- I thought I'd have a look for any portraits of her. Didn't find any, but have added them for John, John, and John.
- I don't think there is anything except for the lost painting by Hamlet Winstanley that shows her "aged 15", the sources say. The painting is from 1741 after her mother died in 1740, but Winstanley had a technique of painting just the heads from life, then sending them to London to be put together on a large canvas. [6]. For the botanist, you may enjoy the ghost pineapple, see [7].
- There's a slightly confusing tendency to swap between calling her "Anna", "Blackburne", or "Anna Blackburne". I understand that we want to keep readers from being confused about which Blackburne is being referenced, but for example in the "Johann Reinhold Forster" section all three names are used, making me at least more confused about who exactly I'm reading about.
- Tried to make it better
- "Anna Blackburne eventually became the mistress of the manor" do we know when?
- From Wystrach, it is only clear to me that it was after her mother's death, which is in 1740. moved to a different place because we don't know the "Mrs" for sure before the 1771 letter to Linnaeus.
- Priestley is only mentioned in the article as being replaced by someone else. I don't quite see why he needs mentioning at all if this is the extent of his contribution.
- Name dropping removed.
- "On 29 June 1771..." try not to start paragraphs with dates
- Rearranged.
- Was Fairfield Hall a new-build specifically for Blackburne, or was it an existing house adapted for her use?
- New build.
- I think the caption for the warbler image could be expanded slightly
- Longer now, but I'm not sure what to write
- Did she learn Latin in order to read Systema Naturae or did she learn Latin and then also read it? The lede and main text differ on this wording
- The lede has it right: the motivation was botany.
That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Pickersgill-Cunliffe for the review! —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, are you able to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies to Kusma for leaving this hanging! Happy to support based on these changes and the responses to the other reviews. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- In both the lead and the main article "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens". Is is known how this came about. Eg, did she assemble it herself, inherit it, receive it as a gift or series of gifts or what? For the lead I would suggest replacing "had" with 'assembled'.
- Changed in the lead, need to do more about this in the body.
- Are we still waiting for the "need to do more about this in the body"? If so, could you ping me once it is done? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- "corresponded with several notable naturalists of her era." I gather from the absence of 'other' that she is not herself considered a notable naturalists of her era? Indeed, I note that the article avoids describing her as a "naturalist". Is that a reflection of the sources' view?
- Hm. She is often described as a naturalist, or as an amateur botanist. Wystrach says "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance."
- "where Anne likely studied botany". Is there a reason for the USvar English in an article about an Englishwoman? ("likely" rather than 'probably'.)
- My personal biography (English as second language, two years in the US, a decade in the UK) tends to make me mix varieties.
- No worries. I do it myself. And get picked up at FAC for it. My excuse is too much reading of US light fiction.
- " Thomas Pennant studied these birds in Blackburne's collection". Pennant needs introducing.
- done
- The lead is long in relation to the article and would benefit from condensing.
- Dropped Pallas and reduced to two sections.
- "and her museum". What museum?
- Introduced earlier
- "produced salt in Cheshire and at Salthouse Dock in Liverpool". Did they "produce" salt in Liverpool?
- Fixed.
- "following her mother's death". Is it known when this occurred?
- Fixed.
- "Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall". Are their number and sexes known?
- I think all were men, but it is a bit unclear. In the footnote to the claim that Anna was the fifth child in Wystrach's paper, he mentions six sons and three daughters, with Anna the fourth child. From [8] I gather people cared little about two of the other daughters (not even their names are given). This is another source mentioning eight children and naming seven. I changed the "fifth child" to "fourth or fifth".
- So little is known about those who survived her? Ok.
- Could "natural history" be both defined and Wikilinked.
- Wikilinked yes. A definition would need to explain that at the time, it mostly meant geology and biology, but I haven't got a citation for that right now.
- Page 2 of Allen (1994) would give something like 'Natural history was not a precisely defined term but was understood to include the study of natural objects and organisms'. What do you think?
- The coded source would be Allen, David Elliston (1994), The Naturalist in Britain: a social history, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 270, ISBN 0-691-03632-2
- Thanks. I use p. xviii, is that what you had in mind?
- "she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members." I am absolutely ORing here, but it seems highly likely that merchant captains who worked for or contracted with the family on business realised that gifts of exotic organisms brought back from their journeys would ingratiate them. Anything in the sources to suggest this sort of thing.
- When I was a kid, my father had a client who was a seafarer. Every so often, my father would come home in the evening with a pocket full of coins from exotic places. I have no idea how it affected their business relationship, but I've kept them to this day for the memories. I just went and poked through the pile and found 5 Spanish Pesetas, 50 Philipine Centavos, 50 Mexican Pesos, and 100 Milimes (not sure if I read that right) from someplace Arabic. Thank you for reminding me of this. Sadly, I suspect the gifts of exotic organisms also included exotic microorganisms causing exotic diseases which were previously unable to cross oceans. An early example of the unintended consequences of modern technology. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Roy, SusunW recently took me down memory lane on my talk page. I am unsure what this says about our mental functioning. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing to suggest this. I know she used the family's merchant captains to help her trade specimens with Pallas in Russia, but that is all I know about them.
- A shame, but can't be helped. The bit about merchant captains and Pallas is, IMO, worth mentioning.
- "presented his lectures on entomology to her". I am unsure what is meant by this. Presented her with the transcripts? Gave her private lessons? Something else?
- Private lessons where he read the content to her, I think.
- What is a folio copy?
- Explained more and linked.
- "Forster dedicated one genus to Blackburne and her father". Is it known what it was a genus of?
- Plants.
- "including a young musk deer". Dead or alive?
- I strongly suspect it was dead, but the source doesn't say (neither Wystrach nor the Pallas-Pennant correspondence see a need to specify).
- "She had a herbarium". A brief in line explanation would be helpful.
- done.
- "After her father's death". Perhaps insert 'in 1786'?
- added
- "She also had plans for a botanical garden, but was unable to carry these plans out due to health issues." Suggest deleting the second mention of "plans".
- Interestingly, St Oswald's Church, Winwick featured in one of my recent FAs.
- Neat!
- "Her collection was inherited by her nephew". Which of her siblings was he the son of?
- Thomas. [9] (but I can't figure out how to cite that, so I cite something else).
- Is it known what happened to her collection - both the part taken by John and that not. Is any extant?
- Very little is known and very little seems to be extant (some specimens in a herbarium in Liverpool, and the Bolton watercolours in Yale). Added.
- Hoare needs a publisher location. As do Urness and Williams.
- The titles of books should be in title case. Eg Shtier.
- Done the ref issues.
Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! A lot of things fixed, some still need to be done. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- On a skim, it looks good so far. Could you ping me when you have finished responding to my comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, thanks again. I have finished responding, and also added a mention of Blackburne's cousin Ashton Lever. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly there. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, I think I have addressed the remaining points. —Kusma (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly there. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild, thanks again. I have finished responding, and also added a mention of Blackburne's cousin Ashton Lever. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- On a skim, it looks good so far. Could you ping me when you have finished responding to my comments? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (support)[edit]
For now, just a few random comments.
- In the lead, you refer to her family as merchants. I tend to think of that as meaning a shopkeeper, not somebody who "owned merchant ships". Maybe there's a better word that could be used here?
- Haven't found one :( Even for Jakob Fugger the Rich, the word is "merchant".
- My first big thought upon reading this was, "Why is this only talking about who she corresponded with, and not about what she did herself?" Reading the Wystrach paper, I see the reason: "She was not a significant contributor to the botanical or ornithological literature, but she was well regarded by her contemporaries as a knowledgable collector of considerable importance". It might be worth mentioning her lack of authorship so as to head off the same question that our readers might be wondering about.
- You are right, I added something.
- On the topic of the Wystrach paper, Figure 1 is a contemporary drawing of the Blackburnian Warbler. I assume this is out of copyright; maybe it would make a more interesting illustration than the 2010 photograph?
- I was thinking of using File:Robert Havell after John James Audubon, Black-throated Green Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and Mourning Warbler, 1837, NGA 32540.jpg, but that raises the question of the history of the scientific name of the warbler, which I would prefer to avoid.
- You mention that she learned latin. Wystrach says, "Anna Blackburne discloses that she was essentially self-taught in Latin, but admittedly not very fluent" which is worth mentioning.
- Mentioned "self-taught".
OK, going through the whole article this time:
- "had an extensive collection of natural history specimens" I'd make it clear that she did the collecting as opposed to having been the passive recipient of the collection as a gift.
- Not sure where this was, but I tried to clarify at some point.
- I kept mis-reading "Orford" as "Oxford", leading me to be particularly confused when I got to "Occasionally, Blackburne visited London and Oxford", i.e. if she lived there, why did she only visit it occasionally? I don't know that there's anything useful that can be done to make the distinction more obvious to the reader, but if you can think of something...
- Not really. Something like "the southern cities of London and Oxford" also sounds awkward.
- "Blackburne collected insects, shells, minerals and birds", Clarify whether you're talking about Anna or John here.
- Done.
- You've got Ashton Blackburne redlinked. Is there reason to believe he's notable on his own and thus the link might turn blue at some point?
- After looking through Wystrach again, there is probably currently not enough known about him for a separate article.
- "Thomas Pennant studied these birds" When somebody says they "study birds", I tend to think of live birds. If you're studying their dead bodies in a naturalist collection, I think "specimens" is a better word, although I can see the desire not to be overly repetitious with the word. I don't feel strongly about this, so I'll leave that up to you.
- Tried with extra "specimens".
- "After her father's death, Blackburne and her museum moved to nearby Fairfield Hall." This is the first time you mention a museum. I'm guessing that's just another way of saying "her collection", but it's a little confusing.
- There's a lot more "museum" now.
- "and the Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", I'd tell the reader what this is, i.e. "and the flowing plant Blackburnia pinnata, now called Zanthoxylum pinnatum", just like you did with "the beetle Geotrupes blackburnii"
- Is "plants" enough?
- "the fifth of nine children of John Blackburne ..." I would have written "... to John Blackburne" instead of "of John Blackburne". Maybe it depends on what that phrase is suppsosed to be modifying. I read it as modiying "was born", i.e. "Anna Blackburne was born (in 1726 at Orford Hall, Warrington, as the fifth of nine children) to John Blackburne (1693–1786) and ..." Not a big deal either way.
- Rearranged. I am not sure anymore that she was the fifth, as Wystrach is contradicting himself in the footnotes.
- "exotic plants including pineapples and cotton." To me, cotton is not an exotic plant, but I guess it could have been in 18th century England. Maybe it's worth saying something like, "he grew pineapples and cotton, neither of which were native to England" Or maybe just link "exotic" to Introduced species#Introduced plants, and that'll be enough.
- Linked. Cotton is exotic in Europe, and has always been imported.
- " In the years following her mother's 1740 death, Anna's surviving siblings left Orford Hall; eventually, only Anna, who became the mistress of the manor, and her father remained" Many of those commas could go away. Also, I'd link "mistress of the manor" to Mistress (form of address), lest somebody think you're talking about Mistress (lover).
- I love commas. Reduced a bit and linked as suggested.
- "surprised the bystanders with the extent of her botanical knowledge" It would be interesting if you could give some specific examples of what she knew that the gardeners didn't.
- Unfortunately not much other than it was about the geranium; I think this episode is only known through the exchange of letters between Blackburne and Linnaeus.
- "She collected various natural history specimens", no need to say "various"; that's implied by the list of things she collected.
- done
- " In the early years of her collection, she obtained most of her specimens from her widely travelled family members" This comes back to my earlier comment about being the actual collector vs being the passive recipient of the collection. Was she ever out in the field getting her hands dirty digging up plants and bugs and picking up dead birds? I'm guessing a high class lady from a wealthy 18th century family never got her hands dirty doing anything, but if she did, that would be the most interesting part of her story. In that respect, this reminds me of Margaret Sibella Brown.
- She did no field work. I assume that also the botanical gardens were tended to by others for her. No un-ladylike dirty hands seem to have been reported.
- "The claims in her obituary that Blackburne was a "friend and constant correspondent of Linnaeus" or that he named a plant after her are inaccurate." That seems like a strong statement to say in wiki voice. It should be attributed, something along the lines of "biographer V. P. Wystrach argued that..."
- I've gone for "exaggerated". None of the newer literature repeats such a claim (it would be in the excellent ODNB article [10] if there was any basis for it).
- "Her collection was inherited by her nephew John Blackburne, who moved selected parts of the collection to his seat at Hale Hall" I don't know what "seat" means in this context.
- WP:ELVAR, tried to avoid saying "residence" as in the source, replaced by "manor".
- "she bequeathed a total of more than", just say "she bequeathed more than"
- done.
Looking through JSTOR, I see a bunch of sources you don't use that at least mention Blackburne (although most don't say much). Just want to make sure you've seen these.
Green Languages? Women Poets as Naturalists in 1653 and 1807 Author(s): Donna Landry Source: Huntington Library Quarterly , 2000, Vol. 63, No. 4, Forging Connections: Women's Poetry from the Renaissance to Romanticism (2000), pp. 467-489 Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3817613
Gender, Science and Physical Geography in Nineteenth-Century Britain Author(s): Cheryl McEwan Source: Area , Sep., 1998, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Sep., 1998), pp. 215-223 Published by: The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20003898
Making Natural History: Doing the Enlightenment Author(s): Bettina Dietz Source: Central European History, Vol. 43, No. 1 (MARCH 2010), pp. 25-46 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Central European History Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40601018
WOMEN TRAVELLERS, ROMANTIC-ERA SCIENCE AND THE BANKSIAN EMPIRE Author(s): Carl Thompson Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London , 20 December 2019, Vol. 73, No. 4, Special issue: Rethinking Joseph Banks (20 December 2019), pp. 431-455 Published by: Royal Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26858986
- Thank you for the review! These JSTOR sources are like many of the mentions of Blackbourne in books, where she is mentioned as an example, but without any usable details. I have dealt with some of your comments already, and will respond to all of them after some more sleep :) —Kusma (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- @User:RoySmith, all done I think. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
All your changes look good. I have no strong opinion on replacing the 2010 photo, so do what you feel is best there. Nice job! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments/source evaluation by SusunW[edit]
Gog pinged me about walking him down memory lane, I got intrigued and thus here I am. It will take me a bit to peruse, but I will add comments as I see needed.
- Info box shouldn't contain anything not cited in text and I was curious about that "Baptised 3 January 1726". Wystrach p. 164 says her birth is commonly shown as 1740 but that calculating from age 67 at death she was "actually born in 1726" and that he was unable to find records in the archives of Warrington or Winwick churches. Thankfully, we have digitized records. Per p 44 (Sorry about the ancestry link with proxy, but I don't know how else to show it.) of the Church of England Register of Christenings, Marriages, or Burials for Warrington, Lancashire 25 February 1720-27 March 1727, we have under the heading "January 1725" 3rd line: "Anne Daughter of John Blackborne of Orford Esqr. and Catherine his wife 3rd" I think the year is likely in error, as January 1725 follows December 1725, which if one is listing things as they occurred in a registry book is illogical. However, Christenings: Warrington, Lancashire, England, March 1701—March 25, 1760 (from the Norman Collection, Salford, England) (1961) Salt Lake City, Utah: Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, p. 65, Microfilm 823699 image 72 also has it listed in 1725, and a couple of pages further (68, image 75) on the page labeled 1726, I found on 12 February the christening of William son of John esq and Catherine. So maybe 1725 is correct? I also note that the ancestry record says it is a "bishop's transcript" so I am wondering if that means that it is a master list of the various individual priest/vicar's registration books, which would then make sense of the date duplicates? SusunW (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- The year was known as 1725 when this was written, as it is an Old Style date (so "March 1724" is followed by "April 1725" in the record). January 1725 is indeed the month after December 1725 :) I decided to follow the ODNB, who apparently use the New Style year together with the Julian date. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, right, forgot that bit about when the year started. Perhaps you need to mark it as New Style if you are using 1726? SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Trying not to do too much OR here and not cause too much confusion; I don't have any source explicitly saying this is New Style and Julian. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but we do have the actual record, made before the Gregorian calendar was adopted in England and before 1752 when England changed the start of the year to 1 January.[11] and as the Julian calendar was in effect at that time, it isn't OR and to my mind would eliminate the confusion that currently exists (in my mind anyway). SusunW (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Trying not to do too much OR here and not cause too much confusion; I don't have any source explicitly saying this is New Style and Julian. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, right, forgot that bit about when the year started. Perhaps you need to mark it as New Style if you are using 1726? SusunW (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- The year was known as 1725 when this was written, as it is an Old Style date (so "March 1724" is followed by "April 1725" in the record). January 1725 is indeed the month after December 1725 :) I decided to follow the ODNB, who apparently use the New Style year together with the Julian date. —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Edmondson gives no dates or places of birth for Anna – consider removing it here. Wystrach p. 150 gives only 1726 and calls her 5th of 9. Shteir (ODNB) should be added. States born at Orford Hall, Warrington, Lancashire 5th of 9 kids and gives baptism date of 3 January 1726 in Warrington. (Were it me, methinks I'd clip/upload the registry page to avoid confusion of what year.)
- Should be "Edmondson and Rowley 1998", sorry. Wystrach's footnote has her as fourth child, with very confusing information on how many children.
- Text reads "fourth of fifth of nine children", 1st of should be or. If you are going to list her as or 4th, you need a source. Your Hale Hall given above shows on p. 34: Thomas 1720, Jonathan 1721, John 1723, William, Ann, Mary, Asheton, infant with no dates on the last 5, but we know from the baptismal records above that William was younger than Anna/e. Were it me, I'd make 4th or 5th a separate statement so it can be cited and explained.
- Footnote of Wystrach is cited for "fourth".
- Edmondson and Shteir (ODNB) and the baptismal records show mother's name as Catherine, Wystrach p. 150 says Katharine. Perhaps show Catherine and change parenthetical to (Katharine Assheton)?
- How do we know the hothouse was "coal-fired"? Shteir (ODNB) says he grew pineapples in a hothouse. Blake p. 37 says it had lead-glass windows, was a "wonder of Lancashire" and grew pineapples and cotton.
- We know it was heated, but indeed coal-fired is OR. See File:John Blackburne (1693–1786).jpg for the chimney. Here is a source for artificial heating, but I think "hothouse" in the context is sufficient.
- "Little is known about Anna's formal education" ... Rosove p. 617 says Forster tutored her in "biology, entomology, minerology, and other sciences", between 1767 and 1770. Easterby-Smith p. 87-88 also states that she may have attended classes at Warrington Academy which unusually allowed women to attend classes (but not enroll), and notes that even if she didn't attend classes, she benefited from the close relationship of her father to its instructors and students.
- Pennant obtaining shells is not on Wystrach p. 157, but is on p. 158
- Indeed, thanks.
- Characteres generum plantarum in the source is in title case, which per the MOS is how English works should be cited. Looking through ref section in general, case seems to vary and is not standardized, nor is title case used consistently. This is a handy tool.
- The book is in Latin, though, where I don't think there is a unified concept of title case. In general, title case is an abomination and should be burned with fire (most languages do not have such a concept), but I will try my best. All ((cite book)) are now in title case. I have been taught to use sentence case for titles of journal articles -- do we have other conventions here? I couldn't find a MoS page about that. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles of works#Capital letters "In titles (including subtitles, if any) of English-language works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word is capitalized except for the definite and indefinite articles, the short coordinating conjunctions, and any short prepositions". (Although my writing training was decades ago, the title of "any work" should be in title case, i.e. newspapers, journal articles, etc., for English, but for other languages varies.) SusunW (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- The book is in Latin, though, where I don't think there is a unified concept of title case. In general, title case is an abomination and should be burned with fire (most languages do not have such a concept), but I will try my best. All ((cite book)) are now in title case. I have been taught to use sentence case for titles of journal articles -- do we have other conventions here? I couldn't find a MoS page about that. —Kusma (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- "publish his work.[31][28]" flip refs
- "it is instructive."[44][19]" flip refs
- Sorted all refs; as I don't put any meaning into the ordering of refs, they can be in ascending order without harm.
- Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but "skins sent to Blackburne by her brother Ashton" does not seem supported. Wystrach p.609 doesn't indicate that they were skins, but rather specimens. Do we know that he skinned them? (Admittedly, I have zero clue how one obtains bird specimens, but I clearly remember pickled frog specimens from biology class and those were definitely not skins, but whole critters.)
- No idea why I said "skins", perhaps trying to stop saying "specimens" all the time.
Thanks @SusunW for your careful reading, very helpful! —Kusma (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- You are very kind. You and I both acknowledge that I am somewhat obsessive about certain things. I appreciate that you humor me. SusunW (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am so not going there. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- In case it helps, I use the formulation "on 14 October 1747 by the Julian calendar then in use in Great Britain. Following the normal convention, all further dates are Old Style and use the Julian calendar; they also assume that each year starts on 1 January.[1]" as a footnote the first time a date comes up, usually in the first sentence of the lead. If applicable use Gregorian instead of Julian. See eg Second Battle of Cape Finisterre for an example. (Which went through FAC.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Daniel Solander as well.[51][10]" flip refs (and yes I know it doesn't matter as far as accuracy, but in FA consistency does.)
- "cousin Ashton Lever.[52][13]" flip refs
- all done
- Not sure "Blackburne had a museum" has the same meaning as that she created/assembled/curated it.
- Not sure what you mean here?
- "St Oswald's Church, Winwick" Wystrach p. 150 says only in the family plot in the churchyard in Winwick. How do we know that's the church in question? (Although I admit that Edmondson (ODNB) says that St Oswald's is where her father was buried.)
- Indeed that is where her father is buried. Also, it is the only church in Winwick, so people did not feel the need to specify.
- "Yale Center for British Art.[61][53]" flip refs
- done
Sources: Except as noted above, spot check does not reveal copyvios or problems with attributions. Overall, sources appear to be reliable and given the time-frame in which she lived, contemporary records are likely the best available. For consistency, I note the following:
- Publishing houses and locations are not consistent for journal articles, for example Easterby-Smith gives Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, but Edmondson & Rowley, immediately following gives neither. Should be standardized IMO.
- Easterby-Smith is a book.
- Fries language? Trans-title?
- Added.
- Hoare isbn isn't segmented properly – should be 978-0-7256-0121-8
- Done.
- Kendrick source says 2nd edition which per worldcat is oclc 561059791
- Pennant (1774) is oclc 939438039
- Pennant (1784) is oclc 890812562
- Rylands is oclc 904223196
- All added.
Thank you for another lovely article on a woman, Kusma. I appreciate your work and enjoy working with you when our paths cross. Overall, well-done. I won't be able to respond again until sometime tomorrow afternoon (on my side of the pond Mexico CST) SusunW (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot again SusunW for the detailed review and for helping me root out remaining inaccuracies! I hope I have answered everything, let me know if I have overlooked a comment. —Kusma (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Enjoyed the collaboration, as always. Congrats on another lovely article. Happy to SUPPORT. SusunW (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that SusunW. Just doing my usual belt and braces thing: is that a general support and a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, to both, Gog the Mild. Should I have said it differently? SusunW (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that SusunW. Just doing my usual belt and braces thing: is that a general support and a source review pass? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, the instructions suggest "To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s) ..." but we are used to editors being creative. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 March 2024 [12].
Hanford Engineer Works[edit]
This article was split from Hanford Site. During the FAR of Hanford Site, I decided to create a new article on the World War II establishment. This brings it into line with the articles on Los Alamos, Berkeley and Oak Ridge, all of which have subarticles on their role in the Manhattan Project. The sources complain about how Hanford has been overlooked compared with Los Alamos and Oak Ridge. This seems to be the case, but not for any scarcity of sources.
On Wikipedia the fault is mine. I began overhauling the Manhattan Project articles over ten years ago, but did not deal with Hanford, because Hanford Site was already a featured article. I did gather material though, and overhauling Hanford Site for its FAR made me aware of how poor the coverage of Hanford was compared with the other sites. So I took the opportunity to create this article.
It is a subarticle of both that article and Manhattan Project, and covers the site during the years of the Manhattan Project. The article contains a lot of beautiful images, many of which I located and uploaded specifically for it. The article has recently passed an A-class review that included source and image reviews.
Support from PM[edit]
I recently reviewed this excellent article at Milhist A-Class, and consider it meets all the FA criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Support / Image review from Adam Cuerden[edit]
I've done an image review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hanford Engineer Works, and would support the promotion of this article. I mean, I'm sure others will pick apart the text more than I, but I'm very happy with the images. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Placeholder for now, will take a while. But... Hawkeye, I was just making my way up from bottom of FAC page and this nom doesn't appear there? JennyOz (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi Hawkeye, told you it'd take a while! Lots of questions, most just for confirmation of intention. It was heavy going to read this as someone with very little knowledge of its subjects but I did find it very interesting and informative. I doublechecked it against the Hanford Site article and whilst there is a little unavoidable overlap, I find both articles can stand alone very well. I've added some Misc notes at end which you might (or not) prefer to read first.
I still though, per my note above of 6 March, don't understand why this nomination appears on here but not on here???
lede
- The acquisition was not completed before Manhattan Project ended in December 1946 - the Manhattan?
- The site suffered an outage on 10 March 1945 - The Works?
- The Manhattan Project ended on 31 December 1946 and control of the Hanford site passed - site and works?
Contractor selection
- Approximately four tonnes of uranium was required to produce one kilogram of plutonium - no conversions intentional?
- seemed beyond human capability."[9] - move full stop out?
- met with Dupont's executive committee - DuPont's
- Groves assured Dupont's president - DuPont's
- Dupont initially refused payment, - DuPont
Land acquisition
- White Bluffs - link White Bluffs, Washington
- Rattlesnake Mountain - link Rattlesnake Mountain (Benton County, Washington)
- were based in Seattle, or Portland and - is comma needed?
- during the Great Depression. - refine link to Great Depression in the United States?
- and Justice Departments - change link to US federal ie United States Department of Justice rather than generic article?
- Priest Rapids -link
Township
- two fruit packing warehouses - add hyphen fruit-packing
- Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing barracks for men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected - that's 6x barracks. I reckon the 3rd and 5th (or 6th) can go?
- Only two types. White and non-white, and men and women were separated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, was not alluding to number of types, I was mentioning the 6x repetition of the word "barracks".
- My suggestions reduced them to 4;
- Two types of barracks were erected: two-wing barracks for women and four-wing
barracksfor men. White and non-white people had separate barracks. Barracks construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195barrackswere erected. - Or, in last sentence,
Barracks'Construction commenced on 6 April 1943 and eventually 195 barracks were erected, ...' JennyOz (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Only two types. White and non-white, and men and women were separated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- There were 110 for white men, 21 for black men, 57 for white women and seven for black women. - numeral 7 per mos
- Not all were used for accommodation, and one white-women wing was turned over to the Women's Army Corps. - if not for accommodation what did WACs use it for? (And... what was role of WACs at Hanford?)
- For heating, they had a wood- or coal-burning stove in each unit - mention temps at Hanford?
- In all, 820 double huts and 272 single huts were bought from the Pacific Huts company in Seattle - were they Quonset huts? (per "This design was conjured in the Seattle area and was termed the Pacific Hut." yeah not RS and per Camp Columbia (Hanford) and this. Your sources do not name them?
- one aligned north–south and the other east-west. Both were 200 feet (61 m) wide, but the north-south runway was 4,000 feet (1,200 m) long and the east–west only - 2x dashes v 2x hyphens
- tendered the lowest bid of $103,005.30 - is the 30 cents important?
- 23,000,000 board feet - link Board foot
Richland
- which was already being acquired, instead. - "instead" is redundant?
- The citizens of Richland were given until 15 November 1943 - no date was given at "Richland was chosen", so for context, how long were the citizens given?
- The village plan initially called for a village of 6,500 people - 2x village, second one can go?
- Two 5,000-kilowatt and one 10,000-kilowatt substation were built - plural substations
Personnel
- About thirteen percent were women, and 16.45 percent - mos, both words or both numerals
- Matthias instituted a five-and-a-half-day and then a six-day work week - in that order?
- An eight-week campaign against absenteeism among the construction workforce reduced the rate of absenteeism from 9.8 percent - 2x absenteeism, second one can go?
- would fly them from their home state - fly them in (or that just me hearing fifo so often?)
- The first of them arrived at the Hanford Engineer Works on 1 September. - add year?
Facilities
- The ideal canning substance had a high resistance to corrosion by water, a low capacity for absorbing neutrons, and be capable of transmitting heat to the cooling water. - "be" seems wrong in this statement, swap to 'was'?
- This involved cleaning the slug with carbon tetrachloride and sprayed with - tense spraying?
- would normally run at 65 °C (149 °F), well below - this is only temp C-->F
- laminated steel and masonite sheets, - masonite (x5) is brand name ie needs cap M?
Separation
- In the original plan there was to be eight separation plants - were to be?
Operations
- would require only a few kilograms of plutonium - convert
- containing kilogram-quantity shipments - convert?
- On 10 March 1945, a Japanese balloon bomb struck a high-tension line running between Grand Coulee and Bonneville. This caused an electrical surge in the lines to the reactors. - did the Japanese know what Hanford was processing or just a coincidence in locality?
Postwar
- Possible replacement companies... - explain intention of keeping Hanford operating now war over?
- What do you want me to say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know! I suppose I expected it would be shut down at end of war, so wondered if these replacement companies were for wind-down operations, or if Hanford was to continue processing with no planned end date. I've read a bit more so I'm fine for you to leave it as is. JennyOz (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- What do you want me to say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Until news arrived of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, - add 6 August ie 'of the 6 August atomic bombing of Hiroshima'?
- adjacent to its research centre in - center
- During the Cold War, - link?
- sixty thousand weapons built for the U.S. nuclear arsenal - this is only use of "U.S." ie with dots
- The United States Department of Energy (DOE) offers free guided tours of the site, which can be reserved via the department's website. - obviously not intentional but unfortunately that sounds like an ad? Maybe drop "free" and change "which can be reserved via the department's website" to just 'via its website'. And DOE acronym not needed?
References
- Gerber, Michele (June 1996) - chrono, move up?
- Nichols, Kenneth (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear - curly apos
Images
- no alts?
- Image caption "Aerial view of 300 Area in 1944" - use lowercase for 'area' to match accompanying text?
- Image caption "Front face of B reactor in 2013" - use cap R
Tables
- Table Reactor startup - 'Charging completed' column is alone aligned right intentionally or make all columns right aligned? (and per Land acquisition table and Housing authorized table)
Misc
- Please add Use American English template - if only to help stop the itch to "fix" aluminum:)
- HEW is used in lede a lot and then once in Site selection section but not thereafter, ie Hanford Engineer Works is used - intentional?
- Hanford site (x6) v Hanford Site (x2)
- I noticed when checking some links that the articles of eg Franklin Matthias, B Reactor, DuPont, etc have prose/links to Hanford site - should any be changed to this Works article?
- Manhattan Project is dmy, Hanford Site is mdy and Hanford Engineer Works is dmy - all intentional because MP and HEW are military but HS more a civilian area?
- I'm wondering about work hours. I'd guess some workers were in plants at all times. Did plants etc operate 24/7? Anything about workers' shifts in sources?
That's me. Let me know any problems with my comments. JennyOz (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I've added 3 clarifications above and have one new question for you...
- explosives department under Roger Williams known as TNX. - change "known as" to 'code named' eg this?
Source reviewish[edit]
Source formatting seems consistentish. Is Plutopia a reliable source? Leslie Groves was pretty deeply involved in the project, can we rely on his word in #177 and similar? I didn't notice any source that blatantly did not belong and the sauces used seem like the ones you'd expect on this topic, but this is hardly my field of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Plutopia is a reliable source. It has won multiple prizes for historical works. The author, Kate Brown, is a is a Professor of Science, Technology and Society at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
- Groves's book is widely cited. In fact by all of the sources cited in the article except those written before it was published, including the official history. Groves was critical of historians who relied entirely on documents. Most of the references refer to his own motivations, or are duplicated by other sources. The outlier is, oddly enough, fn 177. When I double-checked I found another version of the story, cited by the National Parks Service [13] in which the sum is 32 cents. I'm going with Groves's and DuPont's version, which makes more cents, but am willing to remove the sentence if it is a problem. (Maybe @NuclearSecrets: will know more.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Kusma (support)[edit]
Reviewing.
- Lead: "The HEW erected 554 buildings". I may be misunderstanding things, but if the HEW it is a "nuclear production complex" I don't see how it can erect buildings; that would have been the HEW's owners?
- "Construction commenced in March 1943 on a massive and technically challenging construction project." perhaps do not duplicate "construction" here?
- Site selection: "Physicists at the Metallurgical Laboratory were more sanguine; Eugene Wigner claimed they could be built on the Potomac River near Washington, DC" here "they" are the reactors, not the physicists. It might also be better to first say what the security concerns before explaining that Wigner dismissed them.
- "for planning purposes it was intended ... The ideal site was described by eight criteria:" I think it would be great to state in this section when exactly this planning took place.
- Land acquisition: perhaps remind us who Stimson was
- Is this necessary? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- It is not strictly necessary in the sense that (a) it would be a silly point to oppose over and (b) you have introduced him. My point is that I read this and thought "huh, who's that? Sounds like a powerful guy" and had to ctrl-F him (easy on my laptop, hard on mobile) so another word about him would be helpful. Perhaps it should be embarrassing for me that I don't know him. —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is this necessary? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Area E, which was acquired only if necessary" shouldn't this be "was to be acquired only if necessary"?
- Hanford: "Construction was expedited by locating them on the sites of existing villages, where they could take advantage of the buildings" who are "they"?
- What is a "hutment"? It redirects to shanty town.
- "Groves released construction workers working on barracks by purchasing hutments." how did purchasing hutments release construction workers?
- "The school closed on 13 February 1945" do we know why?
- "The subcontractor ran afoul of wartime regulations requiring the company to hire local drivers, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, who cited safety issues." can you make this easier to understand, also for people who don't know that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is a union? Is it the union referred to in the sentence "He negotiated a settlement with the union"?
- Health and safety: do we know of any cases of radiation sickness or long term injury caused by radioactive materials?
- Not from the wartime period per se; the postwar period is covered in Hanford Site#Environmental concerns Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fabrication: "Metal Fabrication and Testing (500) Area" what about the 500? is this the area designated 500? where is that on the map?
- Irradiation: maybe remind us again who TNX is
- "each reactor would require 30,000 US gallons per minute" gallons of cooling water
- Why is the section called "irradiation"? A lot of it is about water and reactor construction
- Do we know how much helium was used for the cooling?
- Xenon-135: I don't understand whether they did anything about the Xenon-135, or just loaded the reactor differently.
- Separation: "separate the plutonium in the irradiated slugs from the uranium" how long were the slugs irradiated for? the "irradiation" section did not say
- Operations: there is some context missing here. It would be helpful to explain that both Thin Man and Fat Man were plutonium based, and what the problem with Thin Man was, and how much plutonium they needed.
- "On 1 May four tubes in D reactor were loaded with 264 slugs containing bismuth. The irradiated bismuth slugs were shipped to Los Alamos for processing" is this connected to the polonium production or is it a separate thing?
- Separate. Bismuth is irradiated to produce polonium, and "polonium was required for the Fat Man's neutron initiators". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- "There was intense pressure [...] to produce more plutonium [..] in late July for operational use." is the (fairly euphemistic) "operational use" just Fat Man?
- Postwar: from 1947, was the complex no longer called "Hanford Engineer Works"? Was there a new name for the facilities?
A very detailed article about an important part of the Manhattan project. Excellent work, but I think a few clarifications would help. —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2024 [14].
Well he would, wouldn't he?[edit]
- Nominator(s): voorts (talk/contributions), Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Tim O'Doherty and I would nominate this article, wouldn't we? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- File:John_Profumo.jpg: per the UK tag the image description needs to include details of research to attempt to identify author, and the US tag needs sorting
- File:Harold_Macmillan.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria - I think I've done the first following the template documentation: not sure about the second. It looks like it was created in December 1959, but there isn't any information about when it was first published. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like the US tag on the first indicates that tag cannot be used for post-2012 uploads at all?
- On the second, what is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's strange. I've removed it for now, but assume it'll need to be replaced with something similar at some point.
- I'm not sure. Any way to find this out? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- On the second, what is the first known publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could try seeing whether appears/credited in sources, or using a reverse image search. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've tried running a search and couldn't find anything. Can we upload these here with fair use rationales? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Could try seeing whether appears/credited in sources, or using a reverse image search. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Only if there's not an alternative free option that could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've not been able to find anything. Should we remove the Macmillan image? Replace it with another one on Commons? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fine with me. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria - We've removed the Macmillan image: are we good to go? Profumo need any adjustment? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Profumo still needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the Profumo UK tag is appropriate; the author is not unknown, it is "Bassano Ltd." Just because it's unlikely we can easily trace Bassano Ltd. or the photographer of that company, doesn't mean they're unknown. It's possible that the photographer died in the 70s, for example, which means we'd still be within 70 years of the author's death. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Profumo still needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there another image of Profumo we can use? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed both images for now so they're not a liability here. Once / if the licencing issues are resolved, we can add them back. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I wish we had a PD image of Ward. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- From all the portraits on the NPG website, it seems none of the known photographers died long enough ago for the copyright to have expired; closest we have is 2027. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Were any of them taken by a photographer in the employ of the government? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like it. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Were any of them taken by a photographer in the employ of the government? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed both images for now so they're not a liability here. Once / if the licencing issues are resolved, we can add them back. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Given that the images have been removed, did we pass image review? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, the remaining image has no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
UC[edit]
I will review this (won't I) when I get a moment. Placeholder for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Should we bold and redirect MRDA?
- Right, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll start an RM for that. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Right, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why is Mandy Rice-Davies Welsh but Stephen Ward British (as opposed to English)?
- Changed to "English". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- secretary of state for war, John Profumo: if we phrase this as "John Profumo, the Secretary of State for War)), we could avoid the WP:SEAOFBLUE. On another note, I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES wants the capitals here.
- Done both. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Profumo had had an extramarital affair with Rice-Davies's friend, the model Christine Keeler, lied about that affair to Parliament, and then publicly admitted that he had misled the House. : I think this is clearer if we cut one had.
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Since its widespread adoption following the Ward trial: how immediate was this widespread adoption? We hint at "very" but don't actually say as muhc.
- The phrase first appeared in the ODQ in 1979. Any interpretation of the age of some of the sources might be clipping into OR I think, but happy to be given an explicit source saying how quickly / slowly it was absorbed into the public consciousness. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- who beginning in July 1961 had an extramarital affair: this would read more idiomatically to me with beginning in July 1961 after an extramarital affair, but I can believe it's in line for a slightly mid-century BrE.
- when Keeler's private life became public: what about her private life?
- who in October 1963 resigned for reasons of ill health.: we might clarify that M. was in hospital after an operation for what he believed to be terminal cancer at the time: as written, the ill health sounds like a pretext, which it wasn't (or at least wasn't entirely).
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov, a naval attaché at the Soviet embassy, which meant a possible national security risk: I think this needs spelling out a little: Keeler was a model, so is the suggestion that she was sharing secrets about Profumo and his work with Ivanov?
- Given that we've linked osteopath, I would also link socialite.
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- the barrister Geoffrey Robertson stated that the Macmillan government had her arrested to coerce her testimony: I think this would be clearer as a more verb-y phrase: something like to coerce her into testifying. I'm a little uncomfortable with the authority of this source versus the gravity of the accusation: has anyone else given this view any credence? What makes Robertson an expert here?
- Done the first. To your second, Robertson wrote a book on it: Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK. I'd say his including his view is relevant (and fairly authoritative) here, especially on such a niche subject. He seems to be the expert for the Ward trial (living, at least). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- That book doesn't seem to be cited: it should be, surely? We don't seem to have any book cited which is explicitly or entirely about the trial, or MRD. Are there any (more)? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is at Internet Archive. I'll take a look. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- and is described as such: I'm not sure who is being described as what by whose biographer here.
- Fixed, hopefully. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- What are committal proceedings?
- Linked. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- in his book on the chronology of the Profumo affair: was it strictly on the chronology (the order in which stuff happened)? The quoted paragraph seems at odds with this.
- Removed "chronology" (it's written in timeline-ish fashion). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Rice-Davies is reported to have replied: "Well he would, wouldn't he?", which was met with laughter: for grammar, we need to rephrase which was to keep it within the "reported" framing: perhaps "It is reported that Rice-Davies replied "[MRDA]" to widespread laughter"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I've fully grasped the significance of the other reported exchange: the Guardian article gives it as an example of MRD's prickly style and use of rhetorical questions, and I'm not sure how relevant that is here (as opposed to in her biography). Very happy to be convinced here.
- I don't think we bold redirects in the body when they've already been bolded in the lead.
- Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- It has been interpreted in political, rhetorical, and linguistic terms as representing a counter to political elites, an ironic response to self-interested criticism, and a means of dismissing a person's opinion.: can we cite this?
- Isn't it just summarising the cited info in the following paras? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTCITE, section leads generally don't need citations, like the article lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, they don't need them: it just read oddly to have a single uncited sentence after a series of cited ones, and I suggest that it would be fairly trivial to double the citation to avoid this. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:NOTCITE, section leads generally don't need citations, like the article lead. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't it just summarising the cited info in the following paras? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Rice-Davies had exposed that people in positions of power are willing to cover up their misdeeds and put their own interests above national security: this is an opinion, but is presented as a statement of fact (I'm not saying I disagree!) I'm also not totally sure I understand the direct connection to national security.
- Rephrased and note added. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- undermined the authority of elite attorneys: lawyers in England, I think: attorneys is generally either American or Scottish.
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest linking truism.
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- if–then statement should have an endash, I think.
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Rice-Davies's statement should be evaluated from ... an objective statement of reality: something has gone a bit wrong grammatically here.
- Fixed? Per Gog's comments yesterday. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- which, according to her biographer Richard Davenport-Hines, "delighted" Rice-Davies.: not totally clear (what exactly is the antecedent of which: the quote, the abbreviation or the dictionary?)
- Fixed. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dictionaries are books, and therefore should either be a subset of Books and journal articles or simply rolled into that section. I'm not sure I'd call the ODNB a dictionary in the strict sense.
- OK, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seems odd to be sniffy about separating a book chapter as its own thing, when we'd be happy to treat it alongside the other books if it were published in a journal.
- Done? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Guardian article seems to suggest that there's a little bit of doubt as to a) whether the quote is fully authentic and b) as to whether it truly was followed by laughter. We allude to this with the verb "reported" but don't really go into it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Re-added an old note. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Might come along later and do the image review. I hope the above it useful: it's a nice little article, and please do come back and quibble where necessary. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: are there any other edits you would like done? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, though I'm not sure if the consultation/integration of Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK mentioned above has happened yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @UC, apologies: I did look over the book shortly after I left the comment. As I remember, the Rice-Davies section of it (the relevant bit) was pretty thin gruel and didn't add anything new. I did cite the book in the Savundra note as that was the best source readily available for that. I've also added another cite from Robertson 2013 to the end of section 1 to bolster the statement a bit. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to support from there, then. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @UC, apologies: I did look over the book shortly after I left the comment. As I remember, the Rice-Davies section of it (the relevant bit) was pretty thin gruel and didn't add anything new. I did cite the book in the Savundra note as that was the best source readily available for that. I've also added another cite from Robertson 2013 to the end of section 1 to bolster the statement a bit. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, though I'm not sure if the consultation/integration of Stephen Ward Was Innocent, OK mentioned above has happened yet. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comment by Eddie891[edit]
- Just a drive-by. This article is, quite frankly, not that long.I find myself asking after reading this article why it couldn't be merged somewhere (ie to Mandy Rice-Davies herself). The few sentences of literary analysis that might not fit there are, in my opinion, literary scholars over-reading into her commentary and I'm not convinced anything would be lost if it wasn't retained. This is not to say anything about the work you have done here (it's good work), but is it enough for a stand-alone article? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's definitely enough in the sources (and enough of them) to establish notability: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that I don't think there's notability here. Stand-alone notability is a different thing. I am not clear why this article couldn't be merged with Mandy Rice-Davies. Clearly there would be no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT the two, and there's really just not that much discussing the quote by itself, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The FAC at Sagan standard had similar issues raised, if I recall correctly. Obviously these two articles are different kettles of fish, but not incomparably. I think this article has stand-alone notability, but then again... does the joke really need to be repeated? ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- It would need to be repeated, wouldn't it?
- Acknowledging that I was the reviewer who approved this article's earlier DYK nomination, my two cents are that the coverage of specifically the phrase is sufficient to warrant standalone notability. The psychologists, linguists, historians, philosophers, etc. cited on this page for analysis of specifically the phrase (multiple of them in peer-reviewed academic periodicals) are, by all available guidelines and measures for Wikipedia, WP:RS and know what they're doing. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, they're reliable, but even what they have to say is just not terribly substantive, is it? Sagan is a different case because there's just so much else to say in his article that a merge wouldn't make sense. For me, it's more analogous to the situation with Elizabeth Willing Powel, where "A republic... if you can keep it" is discussed as part of the same article. I'm not sure why we couldn't do the same here, and why it is better to have the two articles separate. The quote would arguably be better contextualized through inclusion in Davies' article. But, I'm not super invested in this, and this was just a drive-by thought, as advertised. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- The FAC at Sagan standard had similar issues raised, if I recall correctly. Obviously these two articles are different kettles of fish, but not incomparably. I think this article has stand-alone notability, but then again... does the joke really need to be repeated? ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that I don't think there's notability here. Stand-alone notability is a different thing. I am not clear why this article couldn't be merged with Mandy Rice-Davies. Clearly there would be no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT the two, and there's really just not that much discussing the quote by itself, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think what's been said about this phrase is any less substantive than what has been written about the Sagan standard; both have been analyzed in philosophical and political terms and both are used to describe particular truisms about self-interest and the scientific method, respectively. SIZESPLIT only applies when the article itself is getting too long; it doesn't speak to whether an independently notable topic should be merged back into an article on a related topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd echo voorts here: there's no converse of WP:SIZESPLIT to say that we should merge two articles, each of which would independently pass WP:GNG, simply because the resulting article would be of a manageable length. Indeed, WP:FRANKENSTEIN would flag up some potential dangers of doing so. Honestly, I think the Elizabeth Willing Powel example shows the difference: that article has been very careful to keep the focus on Powel and so not to discuss the afterlife of the "if you can keep it" quotation, except to discuss Powel's progressive removal from its story. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how WP:FRANKENSTEIN is related to this? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry: I was going for WP:COATRACK, I think. The article on (say) Mandy Rice-Davies is about a person. If we merge with that an article about a quotation, there is a strong likelihood that we will find some information that's due more weight in an article about the latter than the former, and so we'll either include it and create a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem for our coverage of the person, or exclude it and create a comprehensiveness problem for our coverage of the quotation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I just have two thoughts, and probably won't return to drag this out any further: 1) there is a converse of SIZESPLIT, it's MERGE. 2) the difference between Sagan's quote and this is that the quote is MRD's primary source of notoriety. It wouldn't, imo, be undue to cover it (and even its reception/legacy) fairly extensively in her biography. And a lot of the linguistic analysis is just linguists being unnecessarily convoluted-- you can only interpret something someone said in passing so much. But clearly opinions differ on this. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry: I was going for WP:COATRACK, I think. The article on (say) Mandy Rice-Davies is about a person. If we merge with that an article about a quotation, there is a strong likelihood that we will find some information that's due more weight in an article about the latter than the former, and so we'll either include it and create a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problem for our coverage of the person, or exclude it and create a comprehensiveness problem for our coverage of the quotation. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how WP:FRANKENSTEIN is related to this? Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd echo voorts here: there's no converse of WP:SIZESPLIT to say that we should merge two articles, each of which would independently pass WP:GNG, simply because the resulting article would be of a manageable length. Indeed, WP:FRANKENSTEIN would flag up some potential dangers of doing so. Honestly, I think the Elizabeth Willing Powel example shows the difference: that article has been very careful to keep the focus on Powel and so not to discuss the afterlife of the "if you can keep it" quotation, except to discuss Powel's progressive removal from its story. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's definitely enough in the sources (and enough of them) to establish notability: "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- Background: Could we establish that we are talking about the UK? Perhaps 'The Profumo affair concerned John Profumo, the British Secretary of State for War ...'?
- It says "British political phrase" in the first sentence.
- Er, I started the sentence with "Background" because I wanted to talk about - no, no, you guess. ;-)
- Oops, my bad. Done.
- Er, I started the sentence with "Background" because I wanted to talk about - no, no, you guess. ;-)
- In the "Profumo affair" section two dates are to the month, one only to the year. Any chance of giving the month at least of Profumo's lie?
- Done.
- "Keeler's involvement with Yevgeny Ivanov". Is the nature of this "involvement" known:?
- Sexual; added.
- "Edwards and Potter contended that Rice-Davies's response rebutted (through use of the modal verb "would")[28] an implied criticism from Lord Astor (that Rice-Davies was lying) by ironically suggesting that he was known as a self-interested person." I would personally replace the parentheses with commas, but that's your call.
- I decided to let loose and changed it to an em dash.
- You rash impetuous devil you.
- "rather than from an objective statement of reality". Should that be 'rather than as an objective statement of reality'?
- The word should be standpoint rather than statement; fixed.
- If you follow the link doffed their caps I think you will find that the definition isn't the one you want. You are after something more like wikt:tug one's forelock.
- Done (but tug one's forelock sounds like something you probably shouldn't do in front of a playground).
- I wasn't suggesting it (smutty pun intended), just indicating that I understood what sort of link you wanted.
- Martin and Thorpe need publisher locations.
- Martin is University of Toronto Press, and per ((cite book)), "Geographical place of publication; generally not wikilinked; omit when the name of the work includes the publication place, for example, The Boston Globe, The Times of India." For Thorpe, according to commented out text from Tim: "Kindle edition, no ISBN or publisher location"
- The latter is London - [15].
- Done.
- The latter is London - [15].
What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild: Thank you for the review! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Responded above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
A lovely, well written little article. A pleasure to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Drive-by comment: The philosopher Timothy Williamson ... suggested that Rice-Davies could have instead said "Well he did, didn't he?" This should be "could not have instead said". From Williamson: "Mandy Rice-Davies’ point was that Lord Astor’s making the denial was modally robust given his interests, irrespective of the truth-value of her allegations, and so was evidentially worthless. She could not have made that point just by saying ‘Well he did, didn’t he?’ She used the modal sense of ‘would’ to full effect." Shapeyness (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Support by Johnbod[edit]
- Not much to say, I think. Nice read.
- 👍 Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- In lead, at "by the Welsh model Mandy Rice-Davies during the 1963 trial of the English osteopath..." insert "while giving evidence" (so not just in a fag break) after her name.
- Ha, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- There aren't many images (though the lead one is good), so there is no need for a horrible tiny double image. Much better to break them up.
- I'm still holding out hope for the Macmillan image issue to be resolved, or finding a replacement - if not, will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think a photograph of Ward makes more sense than McMillan. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but he wants to have both (I think). Johnbod (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do we have any images of Ward under a free licence? If we do then I agree that that would be better than Macmillan. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- If we don't, we can upload one to en-wiki under fair use. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- We do have this one. Question is whether we can justify using it here. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- If we don't, we can upload one to en-wiki under fair use. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think a photograph of Ward makes more sense than McMillan. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would guess not; @Nikkimaria, any thoughts? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still holding out hope for the Macmillan image issue to be resolved, or finding a replacement - if not, will do. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Given the subject's date of death, I'm surprised we would need to rely on a non-free - have you looked into potential PD options? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- 2nd lead para looks too long (on my screen anyway); best to split it. Also the single para "Political use" section.
- Not sure where / if to do it in the lead, but done in the second. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I split the lead paragraph. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure where / if to do it in the lead, but done in the second. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would expand a bit to clarify (or at least list more clearly) the various wordings given at the time, integrating notes 1 and 3 into the text. The (typical) difficulty in finding out what was actually said is itself of interest.
- Hm. I'm not sure about adding the first note into the prose: would be very long for the lead sentence: ""Well he would, wouldn't he?" (quoted by contemporary sources as "he would, wouldn't he?";[1] sometimes misquoted as "well he would say that, wouldn't he?"),[2] commonly referred to as Mandy Rice-Davies Applies (shortened to MRDA), is a British political phrase[...]". In my mind, this is exactly what notes are for: clarifying and expanding if needed without being too bulky. Re note 3, it had originally been cut out of the article but put back in in response to a different review, and is just the story of a scribe jumbling up his notes, which he later admitted to. Happy to be convinced either way though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of adding to the "Utterance" section. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Now done: note in lead still kept, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was thinking of adding to the "Utterance" section. Johnbod (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hm. I'm not sure about adding the first note into the prose: would be very long for the lead sentence: ""Well he would, wouldn't he?" (quoted by contemporary sources as "he would, wouldn't he?";[1] sometimes misquoted as "well he would say that, wouldn't he?"),[2] commonly referred to as Mandy Rice-Davies Applies (shortened to MRDA), is a British political phrase[...]". In my mind, this is exactly what notes are for: clarifying and expanding if needed without being too bulky. Re note 3, it had originally been cut out of the article but put back in in response to a different review, and is just the story of a scribe jumbling up his notes, which he later admitted to. Happy to be convinced either way though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- As I expect you know, the "Indian doctor" was Emil Savundra (neither Indian nor a doctor). If you can reference that it should be linked - also his bio has a cn tag for that, which it would be nice to lose.
- Yes, done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod - thanks very much for the review. All points addressed: some you might want to pursue. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from Hydrangeans[edit]
Just some brief comments; not so much a formal review (I already reviewed for DYK)
- Pleased to see how well this FAC has gone! Sorry to be a little eleventh hour, but while I see why Gog the Mild suggested linking Rice-Davies's "doffed their caps" remark to "tug one's forelock" (the whole deference vibe), that seems a bit easter egg-like, linking one phrase and sending the reader somewhere else entirely, and sort of veers on an WP:OR presumption about what Rice-Davies really meant to say. Toggling the examples provided with wikt:doff one's hat to makes me think the original link is actually right:
I doffed my hat to the wondrous horse, the fast trotter, the best in mother England
I doff my hat to Mr. President of the Republic as he celebrates his eighth anniversary of accession to the pinnacle of political power.
Perhaps this is why she enjoys writing series (doffing her hat to all the series she read as a child).
- These seem to be along the lines of what Rice-Davies is talking about: a gesture of praise or respect to someone else. The middle quotation especially seems to capture Rice Davies's meaning—an "age of deference" where people still "doffed their caps" to those they were supposed to respect.
- I also certainly understand why Gog the Mild suggested wikilinking Emil Savundra, since otherwise the reader has no idea who this "Indian doctor" is—but that also turns into a bit of an unintended easter egg since the reader doesn't know to expect to stumble on an article about someone who isn't in fact Indian or a doctor. If Emil Savundra is making allegations that involve Rice-Davies, should that be incorporated into the Background section? Or maybe at least an explanatory note along the lines of
The "Indian doctor" was Emil Savundra, a Sri Lankan scam artist who
... etc.?
Sorry about not getting around to comments earlier! This is really excellently put together; and I don't mean to hold it up. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 06:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Hydrangeans, and no worries: both done now. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- And both look excellent. Best wishes! Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! You're not holding anything up. We still need a source review, if you're interested in doing that. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. Reviewing this version. There seem to be rather inconsistent citations, but from checking it looks like that's due to different sources proffering different information. I think that iNews is linking to the wrong page. I wonder if there are any pages here and here that could be used. It seems like we are relying on a mix of academic sources, biographies and newspaper articles which I guess are OK. Apropos of nothing, I remember seeing this phrase as part of the essay Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies which I am admittedly rather iffy about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The sources are formatted consistently with the available information provided. I'll take a look at the sources from the link you shared later today, but I'm pretty sure we've gotten the main points without citing repetitive sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: There are no other sources that I could find from those searches that would be useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I think this passes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck much nor am familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK. I think this passes, with the caveat that I didn't spotcheck much nor am familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: There are no other sources that I could find from those searches that would be useful. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done re iNews / iNews. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: Is this good to go or do we need a few more general reviews first? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's at the stage that an uninvolved coord (e.g. me) could check it over... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking over from a referencing perspective, I tend to agree with UC that we could afford to cite the last sentence of the first/intro para under Analysis, even if it is all covered in the following text -- it is after all a strong statement in itself that I think warrants standalone verification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking over from a referencing perspective, I tend to agree with UC that we could afford to cite the last sentence of the first/intro para under Analysis, even if it is all covered in the following text -- it is after all a strong statement in itself that I think warrants standalone verification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's at the stage that an uninvolved coord (e.g. me) could check it over... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 March 2024 [16].
Capri-Sun[edit]
- Nominator(s): Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) and theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Capri-Sun debuted in West Germany in 1969. Since then, it has become a global brand, one made distinctive by its stand-up Doy-N-Pack pouch. Growing up, you could find a Capri-Sun in the lunchbox of that kid you hated. These days you can find them center-stage in French hip-hop culture as "the new ostentatious elixir of French rappers and gangsters". In the United States, Capri Sun is associated with wholesome things like picnics, soccer practice, and having for 16 years been licensed to one of the world's largest tobacco companies, which applied its expertise at both selling products to children and misleading the public about products' health effects, in a marketing strategy so effective that you're probably still thinking about that kid from two sentences ago. Childhood consumption of sugary beverages increased, and so did childhood obesity, but admittedly Pacific Cooler does taste great.
Initially, Tamzin and I thought this was gonna be a quick adventure – we thought we'd quickly flip a good number of soft drink articles, maybe even get a good topic. Capri-Sun quickly proved to be no insignificant task, though – it's the longest article either of us can put our names on, with every word of prose written from scratch. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive independent work on Capri-Sun in existence. We got it to GA in early 2023 after a couple months' work, making it one of two GAs on a soft drink and the only one on a juice beverage. Then, it just sat for a while. But after dusting off the ol' thing and giving it the last few bits it was missing, it is with much pride and added sugar that we finally push this towards the finish line. :) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) and theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Eddie891[edit]
- reading the google translation of Doll 2009, I'm not seeing where he says it is "it one of the few globally prominent soft drinks not originating from the United States". Could you help me with what I'm missing?
- This is a summary of
The drink from Germany enjoys special status in the beverage industry: 'When it comes to soft drinks, it was the case for decades that the Americans were number one in the world with their products. Capri-Sonne shows that there is another way,' says Günther Guder, board member of the German Federal Association Beverage wholesalers.
[GTrans] I've added the quote to the reference for full clarity. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)- I don’t think that saying the Americans were number one is the same thing as saying that few globally prominent soft drinks originate outside of the US, especially when the relevant text is quoted from a spokesman of the industry, who would presumably want to paint Capri Sun well Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's fair. I've removed the line. May loop back later if there's some good fact I can think of to put there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t think that saying the Americans were number one is the same thing as saying that few globally prominent soft drinks originate outside of the US, especially when the relevant text is quoted from a spokesman of the industry, who would presumably want to paint Capri Sun well Eddie891 Talk Work 22:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is a summary of
- It seems that 6 billion sales a year might be more common-- even the company itself cites that number. How'd you decide to go with 7 billion?
- That number was added to the article before the source you cite was published. I've updated it. Thanks.
:)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- That number was added to the article before the source you cite was published. I've updated it. Thanks.
Guerillero[edit]
I am going to abstain on supporting due to my review of the article for GA, but I have some thoughts.
- Guerillero, there is no onus nor obligation to support or oppose any FAC and all reviewer comments are welcome. But there is no reason at all why you should refrain because you reviewed it at GAN. If anything the reverse, having already looked at it in detail you will be in a good position to advise the FAC coordinators whether it merits promotion here or not. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing was high quality a year ago, and it continues to be today. I do have a few thoughts:
- I wonder if Carney 1992 should have a publisher since the report was internally published by the company
- The Local should be The Local DE to match how the publication reports its name. It doesn't share editorial staff with The Local DK.
- Zhu 2016 is fine because you attribute the facts to China Daily
- Is there a secondary source that reports the switch back to foil bottoms? That seems like something that would get some traction
- Good job on capturing the international perspective with sources in German, French, Spanish, and Ukrainian.
--Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Responding just to pt. 4 for now, I searched high and low, and the only sources I could find discussing the switch were social media discussion and the ABOUTSELF comments from Kraft/Capri Sun (one on Twitter, one on Facebook). This makes some sense: Packaging changes are usually only reported in trade publications unless there's an ad campaign or a strong public response, and even the trade pubs like BeverageDaily that do their own independent journalism are still usually guided there by press releases. And "we undid a popular change that we enacted to address a health concern" doesn't get a press release for some reason.
:P-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC) - pt. 1 done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- As to pt. 2, looking at [17], I think either "The Local" or "The Local Germany" could be correct, but "The Local DE" seems to just be what's in the logo, not something that's used for a name. This is why I'd gone with
|work=[[The Local]]|location=Germany, but I have no strong preference between that and|work=[[The Local Germany]]. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)- The reported location on the masthead is Stockholm, SE -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Switched to "The Local Germany". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 10:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The reported location on the masthead is Stockholm, SE -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 07:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Airship[edit]
As always, these are recommendations, not demands; feel free to refuse with justification.
Many comments
|
|---|
More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
More to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Last section to come. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
|
Very nice article. Please ping when you're done with the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- With the reworking of the main Philip Morris Cos. paragraph, AirshipJungleman29, I think we're ready for a second look :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent work. Just a couple of responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- There's still the little matter of the table page numbers above, but that's not big enough to stop me from supporting the promotion of this article. Hope all goes well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent work. Just a couple of responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie[edit]
Good to see this article at FAC; we don't get a lot of nominations about business topics. I started to read through to review, but found myself coming up with some sourcing questions, so I'll put some of those down here first.
- 'After World War II, Rudolf Wild created Libella, which the Lexington Herald-Leader in 1998 described as "the first all-natural soda made with real fruit juice".' The Herald-Leader is not a good source for saying Libella is the first such soda, which is why I assume you phrase this as you do rather than in Wikipedia's voice. I'm not sure it's worth reporting at all, though. Do you have another source which would let you say "it was marketed as the first all-natural ..."? Perhaps Hans-Peter Wild's book?
- Hans-Peter makes a narrower claim than the Herald-Leader, that it was "the first German branded drink based on natural fruit juice" (GTrans). I've replaced the claim with that, but it may make more sense to cut it outright, since it's only tangential to Capri-Sun. The more important thing is how Libella's success led to Capri-Sun's development, which I think the Herald-Leader is a fine source for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- And I have to ask: have you been able to use Wild's book? It's in German, and I can see it's not going to be an unbiased source, but it would surely be useful for non-controversial historical detail, for correlating with other sources, and for giving attributed "inside" opinions. As far as I can see you only cite it for a minor detail. There's almost nothing about the brand between 1969 and 1978, for example; does Wild give any information about sales or marketing during that decade?
- Have you been able to access German food industry trade magazine sources? I know that trade magazines can be an excellent source for business articles, but it's usually quite difficult to access them. I found this article, for example, which may or may not be useful, but it's paywalled.
- A rare site where the free trial doesn't require giving a card up-front! That source proved helpful on some stats about brand performance as of 2009. I also found another useful source on the site about squash sales in Germany. Will look further to see if there's anything else usable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had a look in Category:Professional and trade magazines, which led me to this site. (I tried to link to the search results but there are square brackets that I can't be bothered to figure out how to encode.) If you go to publications in that site and then search for "Capri-Sun" you should get nine hits, and it looks like the archives are not paywalled. Haven't looked to see if those results are useful but the archive only goes back to 1999. That journal began publication in 1947 so there might be more in the dead-tree version. I had a look in the equivalent German category but didn't see any equivalent magazines listed though that doesn't mean there isn't one. Will look around some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. One of these was already in use; a further three added small useful details, but none give great insight into company structure or anything like that, so I'm pessimistic that older issues would either. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had a look in Category:Professional and trade magazines, which led me to this site. (I tried to link to the search results but there are square brackets that I can't be bothered to figure out how to encode.) If you go to publications in that site and then search for "Capri-Sun" you should get nine hits, and it looks like the archives are not paywalled. Haven't looked to see if those results are useful but the archive only goes back to 1999. That journal began publication in 1947 so there might be more in the dead-tree version. I had a look in the equivalent German category but didn't see any equivalent magazines listed though that doesn't mean there isn't one. Will look around some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- A rare site where the free trial doesn't require giving a card up-front! That source proved helpful on some stats about brand performance as of 2009. I also found another useful source on the site about squash sales in Germany. Will look further to see if there's anything else usable. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I found this, though frankly I can't figure out what it is or whether it's a reliable source. I mention it because it gives a date for the introduction of the organic versions of the drinks, which is something the article doesn't mention. A minor point, but it reinforces my sense that trade journal sources might be important for getting a complete picture of the history of the business and the brand.
So I'm a bit concerned about completeness of coverage. Let me know what you think; I'd like to settle this before going on to review the content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added the bit about Sisi-Werke introducing an organic flavor, but I would need a more confident translator than Google to do more with that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
A couple more possible sources.
- This lists back issues of several different German food industry trade magazines; I haven't looked to see how far back they are archived or if they are paywalled.
- I see you do have some academic sources. Searching Google Scholar for "Capri-Sun" comes up with a lot of hits; just wanted to make sure you'd looked at this or a similar academic search.
- Yeah, we've definitely done some digging there :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- This might be worth a look.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: with all due respect, I don't think it's reasonable, even at FAC, to expect that editors will comb through stacks of unsearchable, foreign-language, possibly paywalled sources to find possible mentions or articles. If you have a source that mentions things you think we should add, that's certainly welcome, but I don't know that we have the time or the energy to steward more than that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't currently plan to oppose, because I don't know of any sources that you're missing -- it was more of a question about how you'd approached getting the information. I used to be in the oil business, and if I wanted to write an article about a particular rig or platform, I would absolutely have to get access to Rigzone, one of the trade publications. Without that there would be no way to get complete information. Similarly in the IT business, for small and medium-sized companies there may not be much coverage in the national press, but trade journals are likely to cover them. You do have a lot of cites to trade journals which makes me more confident, but I hope you see what I'm driving at. Just one specific question: has at least one of you read Hans-Peter Wild's book? I think that when you know a source like that exists, even if it's not independent, you have to read it to say you have complete coverage. I have to say I would consider opposing if you don't know what's in that book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Tamzin could speak to this better than I can, but I will say that we cite Mr. Capri-Sun—Die Autobiographie multiple times. Trade journals > blatantly non-independent source, so I think it's best used sparingly, but they can check in on whether there's more in there to use. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't currently plan to oppose, because I don't know of any sources that you're missing -- it was more of a question about how you'd approached getting the information. I used to be in the oil business, and if I wanted to write an article about a particular rig or platform, I would absolutely have to get access to Rigzone, one of the trade publications. Without that there would be no way to get complete information. Similarly in the IT business, for small and medium-sized companies there may not be much coverage in the national press, but trade journals are likely to cover them. You do have a lot of cites to trade journals which makes me more confident, but I hope you see what I'm driving at. Just one specific question: has at least one of you read Hans-Peter Wild's book? I think that when you know a source like that exists, even if it's not independent, you have to read it to say you have complete coverage. I have to say I would consider opposing if you don't know what's in that book. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: First off, sorry for taking so long to get to your most substantive concerns here. I've been busy for the last few weeks and didn't want to do you the disrespect of phoning this in, so I've focused on more bite-sized concerns. But I've got today free to sit in a library and dig through sources, so here we go.I've looked through every article on the LZ and IFT websites that mention Capri-Sun, and incorporated a number of details I found there. (More than just the two cited; several times I found something there but then cited a better or more accessible source found elsewhere.) For reference, here is the composite diff of every change to the article since you left these comments (including some unrelated changes). As to the modul100 source, I think it's probably reliable, but am less confident in the verifiability of the site it's hosted on, but in either case we've mostly avoided getting too nitty-gritty on drink varieties, because soft drink articles tend to drift toward listcruft of that variety. (See Special:Permalink/1136534297.) But I understand that your point was more general than that, more about whether we are missing important details from trade journals. What I can tell you, having gone through the LZ articles, is that I think we've now mined about as well as we can with contemporary German trade sources. LZ is of course only one source, but generally major trade journals cover fairly similar articles.The real question, then, is older sources. Before I get to that, I'll address Mr. Capri-Sun. Sadly, I do not speak German. I can mostly follow the flow of a sentence, and I can use the Kindle web-app to search for a German keyword, and then manually type the (un-copy-paste-able) output into Google Translate, and I've gotten a few useful things out of the book this way. But I can't do what I'd do with an English-language source, which is skim it at about 20 seconds per page until I find something relevant. If a German-speaker like Kusma would like to obtain a copy and look through, I absolutely welcome that assistance. But ultimately I go back to leek's point that anything we find in this is of limited use verifiability-wise. It could maybe point us in the right direction about some things, but that would only be useful if we could find secondary sources to check against.Which brings us to: There are presumably German trade and newspaper sources from the previous century that could flesh out the history of the German brand much like we've used Newspapers.com to flesh out the American brand. I don't know what those sources would be, though, nor whether they are online or even remotely accessible, nor whether they are verifiable and independent. If you or anyone else would like to point me to such sources, I will continue to make my best effort to incorporate them where appropriate. Otherwise, though, I feel that I am left with a Russell's teapot of comprehensiveness: Supposed better sources whose existence I can neither disprove nor accept.Ultimately, the question is whether this article "neglects ... major facts or details", and if you feel it does, then of course I respect that. But I will submit that, if we're talking about digging through offline German trade journals from the 1970s, or going through a billionaire's vanity autobiography, whatever details would be gleaned there are not "major", for the simple reason that contemporary reliable sources do not see them as major. (Much like how the article would still be comprehensive without some of the details we have about the U.S. release, even if they make for interesting color.) If you see it otherwise, I do understand. Personally I'm happy with the work I've done to get this as comprehensive as possible given the sources at hand—and, again, remain happy to do more of that work if more sources become available.I apologize for the long post. This aims to synthesize all outstanding concerns above, so if there's any particular detail I still haven't addressed, please let me know. Thanks. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tamzin, thanks for the detailed reply. You make good arguments about both Wild's book and about the likely importance (or otherwise) of any information in old German trade sources. And it's reasonable to request anyone suggesting there might be sources out there to put up or shut up. I have no objections remaining from a source point of view. I haven't read the article in sufficient detail to be able to support on content, but I see you have two detailed ongoing reviews. When those are concluded (with supports, I hope) please let me know if you still need more reviews and I'll come back. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
With the above resolved, here are comments from a read-through.
Suggest linking GmbH.- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"Sales increased another to 250 million the next year": looks like some editing debris?- it's 20%, i added that one in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
'Starting in 2018, Capri Sun Group began assuming direct control of more of its distribution, starting with Switzerland, Austria, the Middle East, China, and Poland, and in 2023 ending its agreement with CCEP. As a result, in March 2024, Capri Sun Group began to take over operations in Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom." What does "As a result" connect to? It seems to refer to the end of the agreement with CCEP, but the dates make that unlikely. If it's meant to refer to "began assuming direct control" I think some rephrasing is needed.- Does this clarify it? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
'The company has cited a desire to be more "agile and responsive".' They cited this desire as the reason for wishing to take direct control? Again I think that's the reading but it should be clearer.- Ibid. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"had accrued a significant amount of experience selling cigarettes to young people. However, they had been barred from marketing cigarettes to children; to circumvent this barrier" If I understand the intended meaning, how about "had been barred from marketing cigarettes to children, but had accrued significant experience in selling to young people before the ban had been implemented. To make use of this expertise"? This is a slight change in meaning and I don't know if the sources would support this wording -- I'm assuming this is what was intended.- it's not entirely supported by the sources with strict respect to Capri-Sun, but it's support with respect to the overall trend (which included Kool-Aid, Sunny-D, et al.), and that's good enough for me. Implemented :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"Their marketing campaign emphasized flashy colors and beach scenes": suggest "The marketing campaign" -- the referent for "their" is quite a long way back at this point and I think the meaning is clear without it.- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"A 2019 review in The BMJ found that the marketing techniques introduced by Philip Morris were still in use, even after Kraft became independent of the company in 2007": why does the source point this out? It seems unremarkable that a company with an effective strategy would keep using that strategy despite severing their connection with its source.- I'm not sure I'd agree, to be honest. Capri-Sun's marketing technique was uniquely the brainchild of execs at Philip Morris and the background they brought to it – I find it notable that they kept up that strategy even after no longer being connected to that source. Plus, it does slyly introduce when Kraft became independent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The statement comes at the end of a paragraph which lists several marketing campaigns, at least some of which (e.g. bright colours) don't seem particularly unusual, and the statement doesn't specify which marketing techniques it's referring to, so it appears to be either the mostly recently mentioned or all of them. If there's something unique or at least unusual about Philip Morris's marketing, I think we have to say so for this statement to make sense. Even then, why would it be surprising that a company continues a successful tactic? Perhaps what you're saying is that there was something about the marketing that could be criticized in some way? If so that's not coming through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- We struggled a lot with how to properly section all of the information, since this breaks a fair bit of new ground; in this case, we thought that the advertising tactics should be in the "brand history" section and the fallout of it (childhood obesity crisis and all) would go elsewhere. So, the tobacco company's intentional screwing of childrens' health is (implicitly) heavily criticized, just in another section. That said, point taken; let me think on that one for a bit, and open to suggestions :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron: How does this look to you? We could also throw in a ((see below)) if desired. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- That works for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- works for me! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- @theleekycauldron: How does this look to you? We could also throw in a ((see below)) if desired. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- We struggled a lot with how to properly section all of the information, since this breaks a fair bit of new ground; in this case, we thought that the advertising tactics should be in the "brand history" section and the fallout of it (childhood obesity crisis and all) would go elsewhere. So, the tobacco company's intentional screwing of childrens' health is (implicitly) heavily criticized, just in another section. That said, point taken; let me think on that one for a bit, and open to suggestions :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- The statement comes at the end of a paragraph which lists several marketing campaigns, at least some of which (e.g. bright colours) don't seem particularly unusual, and the statement doesn't specify which marketing techniques it's referring to, so it appears to be either the mostly recently mentioned or all of them. If there's something unique or at least unusual about Philip Morris's marketing, I think we have to say so for this statement to make sense. Even then, why would it be surprising that a company continues a successful tactic? Perhaps what you're saying is that there was something about the marketing that could be criticized in some way? If so that's not coming through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd agree, to be honest. Capri-Sun's marketing technique was uniquely the brainchild of execs at Philip Morris and the background they brought to it – I find it notable that they kept up that strategy even after no longer being connected to that source. Plus, it does slyly introduce when Kraft became independent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"starring a character modeled after the male leads of romance novels designed to disinterest children, before changing tack to pitch Capri Sun": a bit too compressed for me -- I don't understand what the ad did.- expanded a bit, although I don't wanna give too much weight to a new ad campaign only discussed in a trade mag. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Down to Products; more tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
More:
If Capri Sun Strawberry Kiwi was the lowest in the least healthy tier, with 34 grams of sugar, but Capri Sun Lemon Lime, with lower sugar, was also placed in the tier, isn't that a contradiction?- I don't think it was the lowest in the least healthy tier, where are you seeing that?
- That's how I read "A 2009 comparison of various flavored drinks published by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health classified Capri Sun Strawberry Kiwi, along with all of the other surveyed fruit punch and fruit juice drinks, in the least healthy tier. Drinks in this tier, which had a classification requirement of more than 12 grams (2.9 teaspoons) of sugar per 12 ounces (.35L), were recommended for consumption only "sparingly and infrequently". At 34 grams (8.1 tsp) of sugar, the drink's sugar content was the lowest in the category." What does "the drink" in the last sentence refer to if not Strawberry Kiwi? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, right you are. It was the lowest in the 'fruit drinks' category, while Lemon Lime is a sports drink, which is hopefully clearer now. Might be worth cutting if it's jsut an arbitrary line, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's how I read "A 2009 comparison of various flavored drinks published by the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health classified Capri Sun Strawberry Kiwi, along with all of the other surveyed fruit punch and fruit juice drinks, in the least healthy tier. Drinks in this tier, which had a classification requirement of more than 12 grams (2.9 teaspoons) of sugar per 12 ounces (.35L), were recommended for consumption only "sparingly and infrequently". At 34 grams (8.1 tsp) of sugar, the drink's sugar content was the lowest in the category." What does "the drink" in the last sentence refer to if not Strawberry Kiwi? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it was the lowest in the least healthy tier, where are you seeing that?
"placed in the red tier": presumably this is the least healthy tier but unless you can find a deft way to make the equivalance clear I think it would be easier to just say "least healthy tier" again.- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
"In 2022, Capri Sun lowered its sugar content from 14 grams to 8": presumably this is per 12 ounces? But we just said that two of their drinks were at 34 and 20 grams; where does the 14 come from?- per 12 ounces, yeah – my best guess is that, the harvard source being from 2012, Capri Sun's cut of HFCS in 2015 was what took it from 34 to 14. Can't be sure, though. Can't find sources to substantiate, but I've moved the HFCS sentence in between. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- per this, it looks like the switch to HFCS (which took it from 60 calories to 50) also took the sugar content down from ~34g to ~13g, but I don't have a source that says that out loud. I'll add a bit about it cutting calories, and hope that gets the message across. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- This is the last outstanding point; sorry, but I'm still not getting it. In "Capri Sun lowered its sugar content from 14 grams to 8" what does "its" refer to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
"disputing the 2007 tagline": I had to look back up the paragraph to confirm this was "all-natural"; I think it would easier on the reader just to say 'disputing the "all-natural" tagline'.- Intention clarified—it was actually about the tagline adopted in 2007 to replace "all natural"—although I don't love the flow. Maybe leek can wordsmith. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- How about making it 'disputing the "no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives" tagline in light of ...'? Perhaps not the most elegant way out but it makes the intention completely clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that what it currently says? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- So it does. I must have been looking at an old version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that what it currently says? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- How about making it 'disputing the "no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives" tagline in light of ...'? Perhaps not the most elegant way out but it makes the intention completely clear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Intention clarified—it was actually about the tagline adopted in 2007 to replace "all natural"—although I don't love the flow. Maybe leek can wordsmith. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
More tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
More:
"Capri-Sun had a line removed from Naps's "À part ça" (2017) that associated the brand with drug use": by lawsuit? Or the threat of one?- The exact quote is "La marque a exigé la suppression du clip de la plateforme de vidéos, et la mention de la boisson a été remplacée par un blanc." 'The brand demanded the removal of the music video from video platforms, and the mention of the drink was replaced by a blank'. I've added a bit more detail on that, but afraid I can't give any greater insight into the nature of the coercion/threat. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
"since the video of German man André Ortolf's successful attempt went viral": suggest "since the video of a successful attempt by André Ortolf of Germany went viral".- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
One more suggestion: you might link "Calorie" when you first use it -- the uppercase for nutritional calories is not widely known and it would be best to provide a link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Clarified the sugar content sentence as best I could (sourcing here is rough), and cut the Calories out (kinda like Capri Sun halfheartedly did) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Support. Thanks for your patience on this; the article looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: A heartfelt thank you for all of your help :) the article looks to be in much better shape because of it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from Kusma[edit]
Capri-Sonne! Never liked it much as a kid (I grew up in West Germany). Let's see if I like the article better. —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any information on the use of the island of "Capri" as a name for marketing reasons? It seems fine as it is in the article now, but I wonder whether anyone has noticed that the same thought processes must have led to the names Langnese Capri for an orange ice cream and Ford Capri for a car (Capri-Sun seems to have used Ford Capris for advertising a few years back)?
- [19] mentions the Ford Capri but it's not clear from that whether its name directly influenced the drink's. Hans-Peter Wild's autobiography does not mention the Ford Capri or Langnese Capri. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe)
- I didn't even know that it was discussed whether there was information on this, but I did find and add it with some neat commentary! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am a bit surprised by the contrast only with 1.4l fruit juice can -- was there nothing fruity at all sold in drink cans or small bottles or other single use packaging?
- The source says that 1.4L cans were the dominant form of juice packaging in the U.S. at the time. It's not clear from the source how much any other forms were used, other than that aseptic packaging had yet to be introduced. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- But basically that means there was no single-serving fruit juice packaging? —Kusma (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not that had a significant market share, at least. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- But basically that means there was no single-serving fruit juice packaging? —Kusma (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source says that 1.4L cans were the dominant form of juice packaging in the U.S. at the time. It's not clear from the source how much any other forms were used, other than that aseptic packaging had yet to be introduced. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Anything known about the Chinese name and its use in marketing? 果倍爽 Guǒbèishuǎng ("fruit extra bright" or something like that) is written on the company HQ picture.
- Contents: "child obesity rates in the United States began rising, a phenomenon attributed in part to the rise in sugary drinks consumption across the board[88]–including food industry advertising, which has been linked to a rise in obesity in both children and adults." could perhaps do with simplifying by putting the advertising into an extra sentence. It is not so clear what "including" refers to.
- Not even sure what I was trying to say there – rewritten :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- What is "HFSS food"? Could use a gloss.
- Acronym expanded. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Capri Sun apple juice's use of citric acid" does this mean "the use of citric acid in Capri Sun's apple juice"?
- switched to "incorporated" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Packaging: Is Doy-N-Pack named for the Doyen family?
- It was named after Thimonnier's CEO Louis Doyen, but I'm not sure if that's relevant to this article. (Incidentally, I'd considered piping Thimonnier to Barthélemy Thimonnier, but sources are unclear as to whether the current company is actually related to his.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Green Dot (symbol) is something that is essentially on every packaging of consumer goods in Germany. It feels weird to have this mentioned after "subject to scrutiny".
- Rearranged the paragraph :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Plastic straws have been banned in the UK since 2020 (and also in the EU since 2021), which is important context to the use of paper straws by Capri-Sun that is missing in the article.
- fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reception and impact: I find it weird that this section starts with a review of one specific product instead of talking about the 50 years of orange drinks preceding it, which have had the impact of turning Capri-Sonne into a massive global brand. Perhaps this is just a question of using the right headline for the content, but it is not the content I was expecting under this headline. Perhaps "product reviews"? The content of "public perception" is much more like what I would expect in the context.
- Rearranged the section :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I looked through the German article to see whether anything from there seems to be missing here.
- They say the product was originally meant to be seasonal.
- There are and were various notable sports sponsorships, for example they had their own cycling team for a while. This is mentioned in the hatnote only, and should be in the body.
- I was on the fence here since there isn't much by the way of secondary sourcing on this, but it's in Mr. Capri-Sun, which shows that the owner of the brand at least sees it as relevant, and it only takes up a sentence, so, sure, added. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The main competitor of Capri-Sonne in the 1970s and 1980s was Sunkist, who sold orange drinks in tetra paks.
- I couldn't find sourcing for these first and third claims in dewiki, but I'll add anything you can find an RS for :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also struck out on seasonalness. Mr. Capri-Sun does not contain the word "saisonales". I could source Sunkist to Mr. Capri-Sun (p. 226), but I'm on the fence about that given that it's non-independent. Have looked for a better source and can't find one. Thoughts welcome. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I couldn't find the "seasonal" thing using Google books either, and it is easier for me to think of search terms. Searching for "Jahreszeit" actually brings up something about winter marketing. For Sunkist, I think quoting Wild with attribution could be OK. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also struck out on seasonalness. Mr. Capri-Sun does not contain the word "saisonales". I could source Sunkist to Mr. Capri-Sun (p. 226), but I'm on the fence about that given that it's non-independent. Have looked for a better source and can't find one. Thoughts welcome. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I couldn't find sourcing for these first and third claims in dewiki, but I'll add anything you can find an RS for :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Sunkist one is e.g. in Wild p. 187 The "seasonal" claim is likely also from that book. As for other sources, perhaps this is helpful for criticism of the packaging? From there I found this article with the nice quote "Capri-Sonne war der fruchtsaftgewordene Antichrist der Ökobewegung", "Capri-Sun was the ecological movement's antichrist turned into fruit juice". I'll look at your other replies soon. —Kusma (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Other than that the article seems reasonably comprehensive. Nice work! —Kusma (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Kusma, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Most of my comments have been addressed, but I'd like to hear a response to my 23:15/23:17, 19 February 2024 sources that kind of explain how Capri-Sonne was universally reviled amongst 1980s ecologically minded Germans, both for its packaging and its content. I know that it is now a global brand, but I think its German history could be covered slightly more thoroughly. —Kusma (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I have added that information from Maak 2001, which is cited by the source you gave :) I think we've addressed everything now, so, waiting for your re-scan – thank you for the review! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- You might now be giving Maak slightly more weight than he deserves, but as another critical voice from Germany he certainly helps to balance the article out a bit. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I can support at this point, but I think it will be very helpful if @Mike Christie has another detailed look. With an article like this, the exact boundaries of inclusion and exclusion are difficult to determine. While talking about marketing and brand ambassadors, you might also wish to include Jo-Wilfried Tsonga; I am not sure whether his work is more or less notable than the French rappers in this context. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- OK, will definitely put this on my list. I should be able to get to it over the weekend, if not earlier. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think I can support at this point, but I think it will be very helpful if @Mike Christie has another detailed look. With an article like this, the exact boundaries of inclusion and exclusion are difficult to determine. While talking about marketing and brand ambassadors, you might also wish to include Jo-Wilfried Tsonga; I am not sure whether his work is more or less notable than the French rappers in this context. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- You might now be giving Maak slightly more weight than he deserves, but as another critical voice from Germany he certainly helps to balance the article out a bit. —Kusma (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I have added that information from Maak 2001, which is cited by the source you gave :) I think we've addressed everything now, so, waiting for your re-scan – thank you for the review! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Most of my comments have been addressed, but I'd like to hear a response to my 23:15/23:17, 19 February 2024 sources that kind of explain how Capri-Sonne was universally reviled amongst 1980s ecologically minded Germans, both for its packaging and its content. I know that it is now a global brand, but I think its German history could be covered slightly more thoroughly. —Kusma (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Hello Tamzin and leeky, congrats on the thorough job you've done on researching and writing this comprehensive article! I felt like the only person who'd never heard of this product and, unfortunately, that has contributed to me having a rather long list of questions and suggestions. Whilst there are many, any you agree to implement are very tiny tweaks. Mammoth article gets mammoth amount of comments...
lede
- targeting different national flavor profiles - preferences?
- "Profile" seemed like a better word to describe the average set of preferences for a resident of a country. I'm not married to it but is there a particular reason you think "preferences" works better? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Characterizations of the juice drinks as "all-natural" have led to conflict in several countries between consumer advocates who highlight the high sugar content and low juice percentage, and Capri-Sun and its licensees, who have generally maintained that the term correctly describes the ingredients. - comma after advocates?
- Wouldn't that imply that that's the view of all consumer advocates? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- drink of choice in poor areas - low-income areas?
- To me "low-income" just seems like a euphemism for "poor", and a less accurate euphemism at that. Most retirement communities, for instance, will in the literal sense be low-income. Being poor is about having few assets, not about making little money. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- a negative award from Foodwatch - introduce ie consumer rights advocacy group?
- Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Brand history
- Origins and global overview
- which according to Ruldof's son - typo Rudolf's
- Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- with a fruit juice base - add hyphen ie fruit-juice base
- Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Muhammad Ali began promoting the brand in 1978; it was his first endorsement deal - but Camilli says "promoting yet another product" and Miami Herald has "Muhammad Ali is back on the endorsements trail" so does "his first endorsement deal" mean Ali's first with Wild?
- This was per Salewski in Zeit, a highly reliable source making the claim unequivocally... and yet, apparently, completely incorrectly. I suppose it's possible that Ali technically signed that contract first but ran other campaigns in between signing and doing the campaign, but that seems unlikely. It's only a bit of flavor anyways, so I've cut it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- said that the deal included one crate of the product a week for four years. - not only that, part of the deal included?
- Wouldn't "included" mean that it was partial? Otherwise it would be "comprised" or "consisted of". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- That year, Americans and Germans drink around 6 Capri-Sun pouches per year - tense drank? on average?
- Yeah that sentence was a bit tortured. I've killed some darlings and tidied it up a bit. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Europe
- began marketing the drink in France in 2007 - selling, retailing? (you can market something without selling it?)
- Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- 213 million pouches were sold in 2016, a 24% increase from the previous year.[27] Sales increased another 20% the next year, to 250 million - 213 + 20% = 255?
- I imagine rounding by the source or some difference in definitions. The absolute claim is stated more certainly than the relative one, so I've cut the "20%". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- in Germany, the last country to retain the original name - original spelling?, tense tweak? 'to have retained' or 'which had been the last'?
- "Sun" is not a variant spelling of "Sonne", so I don't think "spelling" would be accurate. They changed from a German name to an English(ish) name, and that's how Spiegel Online characterizes it. I agree on tense though and have tweaked. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a result, in March 2024, Capri Sun Group will take over operations in Belgium - swap "will" to 'planned to'
- "Planned to" would be understating it, since legally the takeover is the default outcome when the license lapses. But we can't predict the future, so I've changed to "is set to". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It has hired an additional 70 employees - remove has, ie it actually happened?
- I'm not sure I follow. The "has" is there because it's part of an ongoing process. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
North America
- 1979–1991: Shasta Beverages
- After promising test runs - ambiguous (verb, adjective)? maybe 'After two promising test runs, in Buffalo...' or 'After promising test runs held/conducted in Buffalo...'
- added "two" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- faced a competitor in aseptic "brick packaging" like Tetra Pak - change link to Tetra Brik?
- Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- placed image spots - what are they? akin to Product placement, within storylines? Are they paid for?
- Standard magazine advertising, one assumes? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- and Sports Illustrated for Kids, building brand loyalty based on promotional offers, word of mouth, and child-oriented package design - and built rather than "building" because those initiatives not part of magazine spots?
- I believe they were part of the image spots :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- By 1982, it had a 10% market share in the markets where it was available - avoid 2x market? 'areas' for second mention
- just cut "in the markets" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sara Lee - link?
- yep! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- a dedicated subsidary, was established - typo subsidiary
- fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
1991–present: Kraft Foods
- Kraft's acquisition of Capri Sun was expected to strengthen the former's share in the juices and drinks market, and to provide increased marketing power for Capri Sun.[46] Kraft's acquisition of Capri Sun Inc. included - maybe avoid rep of "Kraft's acquisition of Capri Sun", just 'acquisition included' at second mention?
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- However, they had been barred from marketing cigarettes to children; to circumvent this barrier, they acquired sugary drink brands - they weren't circumventing "marketing cigarettes to children", they were finding other product/s to market to children? ie fill the gap to that demographic. As is, it reads like, they were going to sneak in cig adverts.
- I think they were circumventing a barrier preventing them from marketing harmful things to children. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, I understand leeky but it still reads a little iffy to me. Perhaps it's the use of "barred" and "barrier", or perhaps it's the word "circumvent" which suggests something deceptive or evasive, or perhaps it's just me. If no-one else interprets it as I do, I'm fine with current wording. JennyOz (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think they were circumventing a barrier preventing them from marketing harmful things to children. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- extremely successful: sales of Capri Sun went from around $100 million in 1991[59] to over $230 million in 1996, with the volume increasing by 26% annually; this rise - avoid a colon and a semicolon in one sentence? Perhaps just new sentence at "This rise"
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- donating 5 million to schools - insert pouches (lest it be thought dollars)
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- pouches of filtered water - better pipe Bottled water?
- they are technically not bottled, they are canned! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think this is probably an Engvar thing. I know you aren't saying it's Canned water. Is Purified water a better target pipe than Water purification? I'm not particularly concerned though. JennyOz (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- they are technically not bottled, they are canned! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- shutting down water fountains - insert drinking
- replaced "water" with "drinking" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- modeled after the male leads of romance novels designed to disinterest children - add 'while parents were being told that Capri Sun now contains less sugar.' or something similar to explain why
- I think that just saying "Capri Sun has less sugar" is pretty misleading, and wouldn't want it to standalone :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:27, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Products
- are sweeter than those used in Europe - remove "used" or swap to offered?
- In addition to the main line of juice-concentrate-based beverages - swap second hyphen to MOS:SUFFIXDASH ie juice-concentrate–based
- A "No Added Sugar" version debuted in 2015 - UK?
- through use of Stevia as a sweetener - lower case stevia
- CCEP changed the composition of some its Capri-Sun flavors - some of
- United Kingdom's new rules on HFSS food - insert (high in fat, sugar and salt) seeing target article doesn't explain acronym (or other way around per (HFCS) in following sentence)
- sued Kraft for deceptive packaging, alleging that its usage of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) made its claimed "all-natural" status inaccurate. Kraft announced a day later - is that a day after Florida woman announced her intention to take action or after a court had ruled (per "sued")?
- changed to "filed suit against" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- and sucralose to sugar and Stevia - stevia
- whole section is done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Packaging
- In the United States, the pouches, sold in packs of 10 - so you cannot buy an individual single-serve drink?
- You may be able to from some online resellers, or like out of the fridge at a store, although as I understand it that's a federal offense since they're not labeled for individual sale. But in terms of direct sale from Kraft or stores it distributes to, no, I am not aware of Capri-Sun having ever been sold by the pouch in the U.S. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- GmbH sued American Beverage, claiming that the company's use of pouches - who is American Beverage, not manufacturer of SunnyD, just marketer and or distributor?
- Pouch supplier. Clarified. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- introduced clear bottoms - to pouches
- seems unambiguous as is? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capri-Sun purchases a recycling guarantee - typo purchased
- continual purchase, is renewed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- the aluminum industry (which does the recycling), getting a "Green Dot" on every - but the green dot article says "it is not a recycling logo" and "The Green Dot logo merely indicates that a company has joined the Green Dot scheme, and not necessarily that the package is fully recyclable. The logo is often confused with the recycling logo.". Is recovery better?
- I mean, not necessarily, but the industry does recycle Capri-Sun pouches per the source.
- pouch recycling is done by a company callled TerraCycle - typo called, link TerraCycle which mentions Capri
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Capri-Sun introduced paper straws to its pouches - replacing plastic straws?
- Seems implicit from the context earlier in the sentence, I'd say :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- complained about the straw's inability to pierce - plural straws'
- done! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Reception and impact
- Chad Eschman of Vinepair reviewed - cap P ie VinePair (and in cite)
- done :)
In media
- which the brand had removed - that means had had?
- Clunky wording. Reworded. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- since the video of Ortolf's attempt went viral - missing any prior mention of Ortolf "The record was previously set at 10.41 seconds by German man André Ortolf in December 2022"
- would be UNDUE, but have added something smaller theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Public perception
- to their children in that age. - missing word? that age range or group? Or of those ages?
- added "group" :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- but only 16% said that they give their children the drink - tense, gave per just above
- would imply that the giving is past tense relative to the the survey, but it's present tense relative theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- because they consider it a healthier option - tense considered
- changed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- A 2022 Morning Consult survey - link MC?
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- survey of [[Generation Z in the United States|American Generation]] [[Generation Z in the United States|Z]] adults - is that intentional or a VE thing?
- VE, fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- points higher than the Millennial respondents - maybe add (Gen Y) to emphasise chronological relationship
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Notes
- note b "are to the Wild subsidiaries based in Germany" - remove left over "to" (it previously had "refer to")
- Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Citations
- Ref 61 Moss 2014, p. 134–135. - pp
- Ref 103 natural fruit flavors'? / With - errant nbsp code?
- both fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Trade publications
- Rentz, Ingo (7 April 2022) - line break before url= in this citation
- fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
caption
- The Capri-Sun factory in Eppelheim, Germany, is shaped like a box of Capri-Sun - is a sentence, add full stop
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Consistencies
- age ranges of children - all but two are given in numerals. Those in words are "aged six to twelve decreased and "between the ages of six and twelve"
- done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- pouches - Doy-N-Pack (x4) v Doy-N-Pak (x3, including in caption) - intentional change?
- Former is correct. Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- conversions - some are given as imperial --> metric, others vice versa - though perhaps this is intentional?
- I mean, it is an article with lots of ties to specific countries? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- More precisely, I would say, containers are defined by whatever size is used on the label, because that's how the containers are known. E.g. there's no such thing as a 1.4-L can in the U.S.; there's the 46-fl-oz can, which happens to convert to about 1.36 liters. For units used in the abstract, e.g. the total volume of Capri-Sun sold annually, we've used metric. The one exception is the mixed-unit grams-per-fluid-ounce used by Harvard. I don't have a strong feeling of what to do with those, but I guess would tend against changing to pure metric, for convenience to readers who might go on to look at the source and see different numbers than we've given. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, it is an article with lots of ties to specific countries? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Misc
- called foil pouches - are they plastic lined? I see in first sentence of Packaging "laminate vacuum pouches" so "laminate" means 'lined'? I don't know if any of the sources mention but there may be something to mine from Retort pouch.
- doesn't look like there's anything to mine at that article specifically, but per the article, capri-suns are an example of one variety of retort pouch. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- maybe at vacuum - link vacuum packed?
- i believe they are canned, not vacuum packed? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- the lede first sentence has C-S "is a brand of juice concentrate drinks" but it's not purchased as a concentrate? That's the base in its production line? By the time the product is retailed, water has been added and it is ready to drink?
- Added "–based" to mirror body. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 17:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
New - there has been a flurry of activity on the article since I prepared this review 2 days ago. I have removed some of my comments that have since been addressed; sorry if I have missed any.
- cite magazine |last1=JB |title=Capri Sun launches 'bottle can' - presumably the author's initials. Could that be formatted last1=B first1=J ?
- We cite three trade journal articles that identify the author only by initial—coincidentally, two by a "J.Be." and one by a "JB". Honestly, I couldn't find any clear MoS or CS1 guidance on what to do in such cases. Initialed bylines are generally intended as a back-reference to the masthead, so, the authors at Rayon Boissons, "J.Be." appears to refer to co-editor-in-chief Jacques Bertin. (There's also a Justine Bessaudou, but she seems to have gone by J.Bes. prior to their switch to full names some time in the past few years.) JB appears to be Jim Butschli. To me this all falls into a gray area of "say what's on the source", since, is the source the article or the magazine? But due to the nontrivial amount of research involved I felt that it was better to side with not expanding the names. Either way, sure, I see the case for first/last-ing it. Done. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Santolaria, Nicolas (23 November 2020). "Le Capri-Sun, boisson addictive passée des cours de récré au gangsta rap" - spare } curly bracket at end this cite
- Fixed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
That's it from me. Enjoyed the learning. JennyOz (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @JennyOz: thanks so much for the review! It's been quite the task to get to all of these improvements, but it looks like we're ready for your feedback again. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both very much for tweaks and other explanatory comments. I've been through each of your changes and other replies. I have added a few comments above. No dealbreakers! This is a very well-researched and well-written account of a brand. I had not heard of CS before so thanks for your patience with my myriad questions! I am happy to s'port promotion. JennyOz (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note[edit]
We're seven weeks in and only the single support. I've added it to the urgent; if the nomination doesn't attract more support in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: we have two supports, one from JennyOz and one from AirshipJungleman29. We've addressed all of Kusma and Mike Christie's concerns – we're waiting on the former to respond, and the latter will respond once the former does. There's no outstanding article work we can do to push this towards passing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will try to do a full review this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)<
- Given that there are two supports I'll probably wait for Kusma to finish before starting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie, I think I'm done reviewing. I'm happy to help with translating/skim reading German sources, but I don't have the energy to go hunting for more sources. I think I'll end up supporting, but I need to sleep now, and will try to make up my mind tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I will try to do a full review this week. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)<
- @FAC coordinators: as an update, all of the outstanding reviews on this page have concluded, and we're now at four supports. I hope that's enough to avoid archival! Especially because this one's headed towards the bottom of the listings page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have just requested a source review for it Leeky. Unless something horrible comes out of that it should be safe for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- perfect, thank you! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have just requested a source review for it Leeky. Unless something horrible comes out of that it should be safe for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Harry[edit]
Not checking references or source-text integrity etc, mostly just prose:
- with licensees including Kraft Foods don't use "with" to join two clauses like that, which forces a change in tense. Use a semicolon or a full stop, then you can lose the "with" and continue in the present tense (cf. User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing).
- Same goes for "with the exact cut-over dates varying by country" in footnote c and probably other instances.
- I think that's a good point regarding some sentence constructions (see below). In these two cases, though, both sides of the "with" are in present tense. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Globally, its best-known flavor is Orange Is orange a proper noun?
- Yes. It's the name of the flavor, which contains natural orange flavoring but also contains other things. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- By 1982, Capri-Sun was sold in 23 countries Would be interesting to know which new markets (maybe continents or regions) were being exploited if the sources elaborate
- Source doesn't say, unfortunately, but I imagine that they're mostly the U.S. and a smattering over Europe. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nigeria too! We have that in § Africa and Asia. But "in 23 countries" is in the global overview section, so probably best to not get into too great detail. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Source doesn't say, unfortunately, but I imagine that they're mostly the U.S. and a smattering over Europe. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Capri-Sun in 18 countries is "bottle" the best verb? I suppose "pouch" doesn't really work as a verb!
- Hah! I mean, I wouldn't know of a better one, other than just straight-up "manufactured"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- with its marketing director for new products telling a journalist As above; there are other instances
- Sure, here I agree. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have a quite a few footnotes and they get a bit distracting in places where there are several of them in quick succession. Is he information in all of them absolutely necessary but not so necessary that it needs to be in the main body? Also, I get why you repeat footnote a but I don't think it's necessary.
- The fourth usage of footnote a was an editing error and I've removed it. For the other two in the body, as the community has recently affirmed in a different context, readers don't read articles from top to bottom, and given that this detail is particularly confusing (four different companies called "Capri Sun", plus the product itself), I think it makes sense to have the footnote both when the Wild subsidiaries are first mentioned and when the Kraft subsidiary is first mentioned. I could take or leave the footnote in the infobox.As to other efns, I think they're all good uses of information that helps the reader understand context better, but would be undue to mention in the article. The two that might straddle the boundary are the Mexico and Canada efns. They're there because we didn't want to give too much weight to two markets that reliable sources have pointedly ignored, and whose exact status in the past decade is unclear. (You have no idea how many hours I have spent trying to get a clear answer on the current status of Capri Sun in Canada.) So, if you think those should be in the body, I'm open to it, but I guess that's something I'd want to discuss more. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- with its marketing director for new products telling a journalist Bit repetitive of the previous sentence. Can't we just say when the US was included?
- Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Capri Sun was now being pushed to children the use of "push" here feels like a value judgement, not a neutral statement
- to the extent that "push" is a loaded verb, that's only because it implies that the company knowingly pushed harmful products to people who didn't know better – an implication supported by the attitude and findings of every reliable source we could find on the subject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- 6 and 14, a significant shift in the product's marketing strategy Not far above, you tell us the product is aimed at 7-10-year-olds; expanding the range by a year or two either side doesn't feel like a significant shift to me (compared to marketing it to older teenagers or adults, for example) or have I missed something? Or do you mean the company rather than the product?
- Yeah, I think the general statement from Jacobs 2019a doesn't override that Shasta was basically doing this on a smaller scale before PMCos. ever came on the seen. Cut the sentence :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- aimed at kids between the ages of 6 and 12 "kids" is too informal to be encyclopaedic, and repeating the age group feels redundant. If it can't be helped, suggest shortening to "6–12-year-olds")
- truncated :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- They discontinued the brand in 2020 Not clear from the preceding sentence who "they" are or which brand was discontinued.
- clarified :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Again, not sure the flavour names should be treated as proper nouns but willing to listen to arguments.
- My thought on this would be that consistenty is king, and not all Capri-Sun flavors are named so simply. Pacific Cooler, for instance, doesn't work as an actual modifier. So I think the brand names should remain capitalized as brand names. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure you need the footnotes on the flavour names when the explanatory box is right there.
- The footnotes connect to the explanatory box, it's a partial notelist. Could always rework it, but then it'd be less interesting :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- British retailer Tesco announced that it would stop selling might be worth noting that this would probably have a major impact on sales; Tesco is far and away the biggest grocery retailer in the UK.
- yeah, I'm also pretty sure that hurt CCEP et al.'s wallet, but I don't think any of the more lax news reporters who got in on the coverage here could get any qualified estimates (at least from my memory and a quick skim of the sourcing). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Tesco's size does seem worth mentioning, though, and is mentioned in the context of the ban by BeverageDaily, so I've added that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 15:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- yeah, I'm also pretty sure that hurt CCEP et al.'s wallet, but I don't think any of the more lax news reporters who got in on the coverage here could get any qualified estimates (at least from my memory and a quick skim of the sourcing). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Packaging: The distinctive Doy-N-Pack pouches were developed by Rudolf Wild & Co. in collaboration with Thimonnier, a French company that primarily manufactured sewing machines Haven't we established this above?
- Normally, I do like reintroducing full names, but Thimonnier is the full name and I dont think the sewing machines bit adds much on reintroduction, so, cut. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- attributed in part to the rise in sugary drinks consumption across the board what are you getting at with "across the board"? I don't think it adds anything.
- I mean to say that it's not just Capri Sun- could switch to "overall"? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree with this revert. Both the subclause "according to..." and the name of the son require parenthetical commas (which don't imply that there was only one son) in formal writing.
- I have always been taught that comma-offsetting a term like "X's son" means that they are the person's only son. See for instance this from the L.A. Times:
So technically, without a comma [in 'My wife, Lea'] you're saying that her name is there to indicate which of your multiple wives you're talking about
. Or this tweet from the AP:If you leave out the comma [in 'I love my husband, Nicky.'], it indicates you have at least one other husband: 'I love my husband Nicky but am less fond of my husband Joe.'
I notice both of these are AmEng style authorities—is this maybe an EngVar matter?
- I have always been taught that comma-offsetting a term like "X's son" means that they are the person's only son. See for instance this from the L.A. Times:
Interesting read, and not much to criticise in 4.5k words. You've managed to chart the changing attitudes to these sorts of drinks well without straying off-topic or turning the reader off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the review! leek and I have both responded above, if you'd like to take a look. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've had other stuff going on. I haven't forgotten about this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The MoS is quiet on the comma issue (unusual for the Mos!). I'd be willing to chalk that up to an ENGVAR issue if there are no other opinions though the AP tweet appears consistent with my edit. I think the "with" issue is largely unresolved; the way you're using it, I don't think it's a grammatical construction—it doesn't match any of the uses given by Merriam-Webster, for example, and is comparable to the examples in Tony's essay. Even if we accept that a few uses are legitimate, you're using it 12 times in the current version (excluding the one "with which", which is perfectly fine). Other than that, I'm satisfied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Harry: I suspect this is also a regional thing, because this is pretty standard writing in American English (used twice in this
article today in The New York Times, for instance). This broadly falls under Webster's sense 4, but is described more explicitly in other dictionaries including sense 17 on Dictionary.com (used as a function word to specify an additional circumstance or condition: 'We climbed the hill, with Jeff following behind.'
) or, for that matter, sense 4 on Wiktionary (Used to add supplemental information, especially to indicate simultaneous happening, or immediate succession or consequence. ... 'The match result was 10-5, with John scoring three goals.'
). All of that said, I agree it's a bit repetitive as used here. I've reworded six instances of the construction. I count five remaining uses, all of which seem consistent with the definitions quoted above. (If there's a 12th other than the "with which", I'm not spotting it or I've miscounted.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)- It's common in journalistic writing, especially places like sub-headers, but (should be) less common in encyclopaedic writing, especially where we don't have column inches to worry about. But I'm happy with the tweaks you've made. Support on 1a and 2a/2b; haven't looked at the others in detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Harry: I suspect this is also a regional thing, because this is pretty standard writing in American English (used twice in this
- The MoS is quiet on the comma issue (unusual for the Mos!). I'd be willing to chalk that up to an ENGVAR issue if there are no other opinions though the AP tweet appears consistent with my edit. I think the "with" issue is largely unresolved; the way you're using it, I don't think it's a grammatical construction—it doesn't match any of the uses given by Merriam-Webster, for example, and is comparable to the examples in Tony's essay. Even if we accept that a few uses are legitimate, you're using it 12 times in the current version (excluding the one "with which", which is perfectly fine). Other than that, I'm satisfied. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've had other stuff going on. I haven't forgotten about this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. I kind of notice that there is a mix between various source formats in the citations section. What's EDTECH? I am not sure I like the "A study..." things in the health and public perception section; do we have some review studies rather than single studies? Looks like otherwise we are using pretty major publications and some connected sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re
I am not sure I like the "A study..." things in the health and public perception section; do we have some review studies rather than single studies?
: I think this is distinguishable from a MEDRS or MEDRS-like standard of sourcing. The underlying principle here – the harmfulness of sugary drinks on health – is incredibly well-established in MEDRS to the point where mentioning it here would be redundant. The actual work we're citing – how much sugar is in these drinks, and surveys on how people perceive the sugar content – is not strictly related to questions of medicine. If someone published a study on how Capri-Sun specifically affects the human body long-term, yeah, that would probably fail MEDRS, but apart from that, I'm not sure that there's any reason to expect a literature review for the information we're bringing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)- I know this isn't the kind of information we want MEDRS sources for, but the problem with using such individual studies is that it's extremely easy to (deliberately or inadvertently) cherry-pick and overgeneralize them. That needs some safeguards against. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, but I think that's true of any source. My assessment is that the current sourcing in the article matches the WP:DUE balance of reliable sources available; if you think that the article is off-balance, feel free to propose more sourcing we're missing. I don't think that relevant literature reviews have any useful information, but if you have them, I'd love to use them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I know this isn't the kind of information we want MEDRS sources for, but the problem with using such individual studies is that it's extremely easy to (deliberately or inadvertently) cherry-pick and overgeneralize them. That needs some safeguards against. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re
I kind of notice that there is a mix between various source formats in the citations section.
: could you elaborate a bit on what needs fixing? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)- I am not sure why some sources have quotes and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, the quotes are for the more complex citations, but Tamzin tends to favor them more than me in general. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I've included quotes in cases where the relevant part of the source might not be immediately obvious to a reader clicking through, or where the body of the article uses a translation of a non-English quote, in line with WP:FOOTQUOTE. I have gone ahead, though, and removed the footquotes about pouch size, since that's an uncontroversial detail cited to two pretty short sources. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 14:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Generally, the quotes are for the more complex citations, but Tamzin tends to favor them more than me in general. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure why some sources have quotes and others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Re EDTECH: here's a link to an infopage for the page we're citing on the EDTECH website. Looks to me like a small-time academic publisher. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW User:Headbomb/unreliable flags that one as predatory. Of course the list used by Headbomb could be wrong in this instance, but it is perhaps worth double checking. —Kusma (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's correct, and Tamzin found on further examination that Gibbs and Steele probably aren't real people :) I've fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think we're ready for another look, if there's anything outstanding you wanted to respond to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Don't have much to add, other than the caveat that there is a lot of sources, many of which I am not deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think we're ready for another look, if there's anything outstanding you wanted to respond to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's correct, and Tamzin found on further examination that Gibbs and Steele probably aren't real people :) I've fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW User:Headbomb/unreliable flags that one as predatory. Of course the list used by Headbomb could be wrong in this instance, but it is perhaps worth double checking. —Kusma (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- Factory is missing alt text
- File:Capri_Sun_EMEA_logo.png: source is dead. Ditto File:Capri_Sun_North_America_Logo.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed alt text. Will leave the latter two to leek since she can see the deleted file they were split from. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- swapped the former to the grandparent file, File:Capri-Sun Logo 2017 (EMEA).png, and updated the source link for the latter. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- A ping to Nikkimaria to make sure there's not anything we missed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- swapped the former to the grandparent file, File:Capri-Sun Logo 2017 (EMEA).png, and updated the source link for the latter. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed alt text. Will leave the latter two to leek since she can see the deleted file they were split from. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2024 [20].
The Day Before the Revolution[edit]
- Nominator(s): Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is about a 1974 short story from American writer Ursula Le Guin, some of whose other works I have brought to FAC before. I rewrote this page entirely some months ago, and it's since had been reviewed at GAN by Grnrchst and had a pre-FAC review from Mike Christie. I've done my best to dig deep into the sources, and I feel it to be comprehensive, but all feedback is welcome. I'm aware I haven't kept up with reviewing at FAC as I should, but I hope to remedy that somewhat in the coming days. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie[edit]
Having reviewed this on the article's talk page I don't have much to add here.
- The first link to anarchy is in the body, though there are a couple of opportunities to link it in the lead. I see you link separately to "anarchy" and "anarchism"; what's the thinking there?
- I've added a link in the lead now (though to anarchism). The two articles are, theoretically at least, about an anarchist society and about anarchy as philosophy; lots of overlap, of course, but I've tried to use the link appropriate to the usage in the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The experience of death, grief and sexuality in older age are major themes ...": I found myself parsing this as "The experience of <death, grief and sexuality in older age>" which I don't think is intended. (If it is, I'd make it "experiences" instead.) How about "Grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of death are major themes ..."? The similar phrasing at the start of the "Themes" section might be rephrased too. Any reason the lead only lists three of the four themes mentioned at the start of "Themes"? For the "Themes" section how about "The short story explores grief, sexuality in older age and the experience of aging and death, themes that were largely absent from The Dispossessed, which has a younger protagonist"?
- This took me a little while...I've come to the conclusion that "experience" is actually somewhat superfluous for the lead; I've written simply "Aging, death, grief..." How does that look? For the body I've implemented your suggestion.
There was no reason to omit aging in the lead, I've added it now.Strike that last: I see why I omitted it, it was to avoid the repetition of "aging" with the rest of the sentence. If the meaning isn't clear I can try to reword.
- This took me a little while...I've come to the conclusion that "experience" is actually somewhat superfluous for the lead; I've written simply "Aging, death, grief..." How does that look? For the body I've implemented your suggestion.
- It's a pity that the first mention in the body of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas" is not the natural place to explain the meaning of that story; you give the meaning right at the end of the article. I can't think of a good way to finesse this. Maybe a footnote giving a sentence or two of explanation of that story, so that the reader has a sense at this first mention what Le Guin means by calling Odo "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas"?
- I'm open to ideas on wording, but I can't think of a good way to do this that isn't confusing, even in a footnote: because the links are philosophical, rather than plot-related. Odo doesn't live in anything like Omelas. The sentence that follows I think provides more context than a summary of "Omelas" would; because, despite the similarities, one has to get fairly deep into that story ("there are some people who choose to walk away from the idealized society...") for it to connect meaningfully to Odo.
- Looking at ways to get rid of some more "wrote that"s, which I think sound awkward. Could we do "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies" for the last paragraph? And maybe change "Scholar Jane Donawerth wrote that" to "In scholar Jane Donawerth's view"?
- Done as suggested, thank you.
These are all minor, and I'll certainly be supporting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done: these are all your comments, Mike, but perhaps you'll want to have another read through once I've handled the others below? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll wait for the outcome of UC's review, just in case I have anything to contribute to those points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Support. Have read through again; I made a couple of minor copyedits, but no problem if you want to tweak those again. Looks great. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from TechnoSquirrel69[edit]
Hey Vanamonde! This seems like an interesting subject, and I might as well jump in with a quid pro quo, right? ;) I'll be back with some comments later this week. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Source and image review[edit]
Review time! Citation numbers from this revision. I'll put the quality concerns at the top.
- What makes citation 12 reliable and high-quality? The database appears to curated by a single person without editorial oversight.
- I would consider him an expert in the field, but please also note I'm using him for strictly bibliographic information which isn't otherwise easily available. See a previous discussion about the website at FAC.
- Works for me. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would consider him an expert in the field, but please also note I'm using him for strictly bibliographic information which isn't otherwise easily available. See a previous discussion about the website at FAC.
- What makes citation 15 reliable and high-quality? The article has a "blog" tag at the top and the writing style is candid to the point of being unprofessional.
- I see that the original url redirects to a different one, which I would agree wouldn't be reliable by itself. The piece was first published, AFAICS, on Tor.com, which has editorial oversight and is comparable to any SF mag review, I'd say. See the archive url, which has no indicator that it's different from other material they publish.
- Ah, I hadn't seen that Tor.com had gone through some restructuring. Worth noting here that even before the switch to Reactor, the magazine had open submissions for contributions. However, since the author seems to be recognized for their SFF reviews based on their site bio, taken together with the editorial review this source should be good to go. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see that the original url redirects to a different one, which I would agree wouldn't be reliable by itself. The piece was first published, AFAICS, on Tor.com, which has editorial oversight and is comparable to any SF mag review, I'd say. See the archive url, which has no indicator that it's different from other material they publish.
Less important gnome-y suggestions are below.
- In citation 4: link Extrapolation.
- In citation 9: "Only in Dying, Life" → 'Only in Dying, Life'
- In citation 14: add
|author-link=Pamela Sargent, consider switching the title to title case. - In citation 15: italicize The Wind's Twelve Quarters, link Tor.com.
- In citations 17, 18, and 20, consider adding
|publisher=''[[Locus (magazine)|Locus]]''.- Done but without the italics, the template gets upset. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- In citation 19:
|publisher=Wildside Press LLC→|publisher=[[Wildside Press]] - In citations 22–26: use ((cite magazine)) instead of ((cite journal)).
- Given that I'm using the same parameters, this is cosmetic, no? But I've no objection, so okay.
- In citations 22 and 23: link Publishers Weekly.
- In citation 24: italicize The Wind's Twelve Quarters, link Locus, add
|author-link=Susan Wood (literary scholar). - In citation 25: link Fantasy and Science Fiction. Also, I wouldn't consider an access date necessary here since it's a courtesy link to the Internet Archive.
- In citation 26: link Galaxy.
- In citation 28 and Slusser 1976: link Borgo Press.
- In citation 31:
|work=Sydney Morning Herald→|work=[[The Sydney Morning Herald]] - Related to the above, make sure the formatting of the name in the prose matches.
- In citation 32: link St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
- In citations 35 and 39: link Science Fiction Studies.
- In citation 35: italicize The Dispossessed.
- In citation 37: add
|author-link=Robin Anne Reid, link Bloomsbury Publishing. - In citation 38: add
|author-link=Kenneth Roemer, link Utopian Studies. - Only some of the citations in § Sources have locations. I'd prefer to remove them for consistency with the others. (I also consider locations an extremely dated feature of citations in the age of the Internet.)
- Agreed, removed (also per Gog below).
- In Cummins 1990: link University of South Carolina Press.
- In Harris-Fain 2005: 1970-2000 → 1970–2000 (with an en dash)
- In Le Guin 2017: link HarperCollins, consider adding
|author-link=Ursula K. Le Guinif you're feeling superfluous.- Linking UKLG would be superfluous, I think.
- In Spivack 1984a: link Twayne Publishers.
- In White 1999: link Camden House.
- All done with a couple of exceptions noted above, thanks for your diligence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your work on this article! I made a couple of minor fixes not mentioned here while finishing up the review. Source review passed. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- All done with a couple of exceptions noted above, thanks for your diligence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Image review passed. The Day Before the Revolution.jpg is a non-free file with an appropriate use rationale and resolution. Ursula Le Guin (3551195631) (cropped).jpg is a free image and is captioned appropriately.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
UC[edit]
Saving a space -- I've just started to dip my toes into Le Guin's short stories. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Set in the fictional Hainish universe created by Le Guin: more concise as Le Guin's fictional Hainish universe.
- Done
- wl "anarchist" to anarchism in lead.
- Done
- The strike is implied to be the beginning of the revolution that leads to the establishment of the idealized anarchist society based on Odo's teachings that is depicted in The Dispossessed: per MOS:LEAD, better if repeated in the body and cited there, with the lead clear of citations (MOS:LQ)
- I hope you don't mind, but I'm rather attached to lead citations when it's possible to cite individual sentences. I waste far too much of my time on-wiki reverting people who remove lead content claiming it's uncited: and I've also seen cases where our guideline is abused to add original research to the lead. As to the quote, I assume you're referring to "general strike", which i've unquoted per below.
- MOS:LQ allows rather than requiring citations to be omitted, so as long as all is cited in the body as well, this is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe everything is cited in the body. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:LQ allows rather than requiring citations to be omitted, so as long as all is cited in the body as well, this is fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind, but I'm rather attached to lead citations when it's possible to cite individual sentences. I waste far too much of my time on-wiki reverting people who remove lead content claiming it's uncited: and I've also seen cases where our guideline is abused to add original research to the lead. As to the quote, I assume you're referring to "general strike", which i've unquoted per below.
- I would echo the comments above about death, grief and sexuality in old age, and about the virtue of a footnote to explain "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas".
- See my replies above.
- I can think on this, but I think it's possible to get the point in a sentence or so: perhaps something like In Le Guin's short story, Omelas is a utopian society whose prosperity depends on the suffering of a single child. When its residents learn this, most accept it and continue their lives, but some choose to leave, preferring to venture into the unknown rather than be complicit in the child's suffering". My general principle would be that if a line like this is important enough to include in the article (and it is), it's important enough to spend a minute making sure the reader understands it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a shortened version of that, with a couple of sources.
- Another thought: has Le Guin ever, perhaps in an interview, said (hopefully in a pithy and quotable way) what she imagines the ones who walk away to be, or represent? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not unlikely that she did, but off the top of my head I'm unaware of such: in those that I've seen (and I looked again just now) she mostly refers to it's popularity, and ambiguity.
- I can think on this, but I think it's possible to get the point in a sentence or so: perhaps something like In Le Guin's short story, Omelas is a utopian society whose prosperity depends on the suffering of a single child. When its residents learn this, most accept it and continue their lives, but some choose to leave, preferring to venture into the unknown rather than be complicit in the child's suffering". My general principle would be that if a line like this is important enough to include in the article (and it is), it's important enough to spend a minute making sure the reader understands it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- See my replies above.
- Odo is described as exemplifying the ideal of that story: someone who "cannot enjoy a prosperity dependent on the suffering of others": if this is a quote from Le Guin's foreword, shouldn't it be cited to that, rather than a secondary source?
- No, the quote is from a secondary source directly; do you feel that requires clarification?
- Yes: as written, it reads as a Le Guin quote. I would always make sure it's clear in the text who said what. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- This ended up being omitted altogether in a lead rewrite, see below. Vanamonde93 (talk)
- Yes: as written, it reads as a Le Guin quote. I would always make sure it's clear in the text who said what. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, the quote is from a secondary source directly; do you feel that requires clarification?
- which uses vivid imagery to depict the experience of aging: this is a bit fluffy for me, at least in the lead: even in the body, we don't actually talk about any imagery ("looks down at her feet with loathing" is not really that). If we must talk about something like this, I'd be much happier with e.g. "critics have drawn attention to the vivid imagery Le Guin uses..." or similar.
- Reworked slightly.
- best short story: I would capitalise (see the FA Academy Award for Best Actor), as this is the specific title, not simply a description.
- Done as suggested.
- away from "romantic quests": if this is a quote, it should be attributed (did they all use those words?): if scare quotes, it would be good to think if we can say what we mean a little more directly. Later it seems that these are specifically White's words.
- I'm without access to Erlich at the moment, but should get my hands on the book (again) in a few days: I'll work on this then.
- I now have Erlich in hand again. He very clearly notes Le Guin's movement away from romanticism, but does not (unsurprisingly) use the same quote. As such I've removed it from the lead.
- I'm without access to Erlich at the moment, but should get my hands on the book (again) in a few days: I'll work on this then.
- in which human beings did not evolve on Earth, but on Hain: Hain will not be familiar to most readers, so something like "evolved on the planet Hain, rather than on Earth", would be clearer. Is Hain an earthlike planet, or materially different? Perhaps worth an adjective.
- Hain features in several works, but as far as I'm aware it's ecology isn't analyzed in secondary sources, so I'd rather not get into OR...but I've added "the planet", as you suggestion.
- The people of Hain colonized many neighboring planetary systems possibly a million years before the setting of the stories: This sentence wasn't totally clear to me; I'd put a comma after systems, as a start. Possibly threw me off a little: do we mean that they definitely colonized them, but nobody remembers exactly how long ago it was?
- Yes, that's the intended meaning; "million or a half-million" is what the source says. I could say "hundreds of thousands" instead, it's a little wordy but perhaps clearer?
- It depicts the last day in the life: it's usual practice, I think, not to cite plot details from a work of fiction, as the work itself is considered the source. Is this (or any of the other similar details here) not obvious from the text itself? If so, it would be wise to explain how we get to it.
- This is my attempt to finesse a few different matters without confusing the crap out of the reader: Odo's name, her death at the end of the story, and the fact that these are not covered by the same source in the same way. Also, it is my practice to cite the primary text outside the plot summary, because otherwise it isn't clear what parts I'm getting from the primary text and what parts are from elsewhere.
- without private property ownership: I'd cut ownership as tautological: private property is, by definition, owned.
- Done
- the historical figure "Odo", but in this story, told from her point of view, she is called Laia: why quotes only for Odo?
- Removed; it felt natural, I suppose, but I see the asymmetry
- The protagonist Laia is introduced: commas around Laia, as there's only one protagonist.
- Done
- Awake, she is shown to be an elderly woman: reads slightly stilted to me: When she wakes is more natural, I think.
- Done.
- the death of one of her parents: do we find out which one?
- We do not; they are referred to separately (they don't both die), but with no indicators of gender.
- they express surprise that a revolution occurred there first: rather than in A-lo?
- Yes; is it ambiguous? I don't believe I've introduced any other territory.
- The ambiguity is that first is superlative: it's not clear whether they're surprised that Thu was the first place (out of anywhere) to have a revolution, or whether they're surprised that A-lo didn't have a revolution before Thu did. It's not massively important for comprehension: more a matter of good prose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've rewritten this sentence; on reflection, the surprise is the less important part of the material.
- The ambiguity is that first is superlative: it's not clear whether they're surprised that Thu was the first place (out of anywhere) to have a revolution, or whether they're surprised that A-lo didn't have a revolution before Thu did. It's not massively important for comprehension: more a matter of good prose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes; is it ambiguous? I don't believe I've introduced any other territory.
- feeling trapped by her obligations: as we've presented her so far, I'm surprised to hear that she has obligations. What are they?
- She's required to speak with the visiting students, and answer some letters..."obligations" seems the most concise description
- a "general strike": why the quote marks -- could we simply link to general strike, or is it a cover for something else?
- No conscious reason; changed as suggested
- called it Le Guin's "best short story",: reads as scare quotes to me: would remove per MOS:QUOTEPOV
- Not intended as such, just quoting from source, but I suppose it's a common enough expression, so quotes removed.
- I think the middle paragraph of "Publication and reception" is going the right way in terms of imposing order upon a busy critical field, but I still find myself losing my way in it a little: I think there's still more than can be done here to pull out the threads and patterns and to guide the reader through this dizzying number of voices. I'd like a bit more explanation on a turning point in Le Guin's writing toward works infused with feminism: what is feminist about this story?
- Now considerably expanded and reworked.
- Le Guin's science fiction often subverted stereotypes: fiction is in the eternal present, so subverts.
- It reads a little odd to me with the use of past tense for Spivack, but I cannot dispute the grammar with you, so changed.
- Yoke concluded that Le Guin had gone beyond writing a story, and had created art.: Might be subjective, but I find this simultaneously pompous and patronising: is everyone else's fiction writing not art?
- I'd agree it's both of those :) But it's the reviewer's opinion, no? They're known to be pompous. But I may omit it if need to include more material per Czar's comments below.
- We are always judging what to include based on its value to the article: the reader might also have had a strong opinion about coffee, but we don't need to include that simply because they did. I wonder whether a paraphrase might be kinder to this reviewer: something like "wrote that Le Guin had elevated The Day Before the Revolution to a higher artistic level than a typical story"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I like your suggestion; done.
- We are always judging what to include based on its value to the article: the reader might also have had a strong opinion about coffee, but we don't need to include that simply because they did. I wonder whether a paraphrase might be kinder to this reviewer: something like "wrote that Le Guin had elevated The Day Before the Revolution to a higher artistic level than a typical story"? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree it's both of those :) But it's the reviewer's opinion, no? They're known to be pompous. But I may omit it if need to include more material per Czar's comments below.
- Odo's character is defined by "dynamic ambivalence" as she struggles between contradictory impulses, toward "defiance and resignation, action and inertia": I would always, at least where possible, attribute quotations like this in text (I think it's in the MoS to do so when the quotation is an opinion, as here). On another note, I'm a little wary of the straight line we've joined between the two, that the ambivalence is between these four things: it's a kind of WP:SYNTH, since each quote comes from a totally different source.
- I've reworked this section considerably as well.
- but also resents it: being a monument, or the movement?
- The former; wording adjusted
- she recognizes she has already become part of history: this could be clearer: as in, she feels that she is being treated as a historical artefact by them? She is upset by the reverence with which they treat her? She is upset that they no longer consider her relevant?
- All of the above, is my reading; but I've adjusted the text, is that better?
- in the activities she is responsible for: responsible is slightly ambiguous: did she make them come into being, or is she charged with ensuring that they go well?
- Neither, really, it's just the things she has to do (see above re: obligations). Gone with "tasks", perhaps better?
- Her role in the period of time described in the title: any reason not to cut after "her role"? Lots of quotes in this section: some are clearly from the text, and others from scholars, but it's not totally clear which.
- Her waking periods are interspersed with recollections of her past: interspersed with implies that this only happens when she's not awake; if this is so, I'd make recollections of into dreams recalling or similar.
- The issue is with "waking periods" rather than "recollections": she's awake, and getting lost in her memories. I've reworked, but please feel free to suggest something different.
the traditional trope: I'm not sure about the word traditional here: suggest cutting (a trope is, by definition, established in the cultural firmament, and I don't think we need the moral connotations of traditional here).- Agreed. Omitted.
she exemplifies the titular individual of the short story: there is no single titular individual of that story.- Tweaked to "individuals": look okay?
My usual question on Further Reading: what would a reader gain from Elrich, and would any of it be of value in the article? In general, if it's useful, we should cite it; if it's not, we shouldn't waste readers' time with it.- An oversight; Erlich is already in the sources, section removed. FWIW, I do think such a section can have a role when there's more material than can reasonably be cited in the article, but which could benefit someone wanting to go deep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist: I do believe that's everything: sorry to keep you waiting, but some of the comments required me to reacquire some library sources and pore through Erlich's lengthy non-indexed work. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- I will go back through and have a look at these, but it will probably be piecemeal over the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support: happy with all of this, and the article reads well. Great job. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- I will go back through and have a look at these, but it will probably be piecemeal over the next couple of days. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Czar[edit]
I had these additional sources in my citation manager for this title, in case you haven't seen them:
- Bucknall, Barbara J. (1981). Ursula K. Le Guin. New York: Ungar. pp. 116, 133, 141. ISBN 978-0-8044-2085-3.
- DeBolt, Joe, ed. (1979). Voyager to Inner Lands and to Outer Space. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press. pp. 8, 22, 32, 47, 99, 114, 163, 192, 210n. ISBN 978-0-8046-9229-8.
- Sunfrog, Andy (2010). "Forever the Day Before". Fifth Estate. 45 (1): 30. ISSN 0015-0800. EBSCOhost 48074708.
- Walton, Jo (September 7, 2017). "A Moment in a Life: Ursula K. Le Guin's 'The Day Before the Revolution'". Tor.com. Retrieved August 2, 2021.
Also this story is dedicated to Paul Goodman and I happen to have an FAC open about one of his works (The Structure of Literature), in case you're interested. czar 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would gladly review that when I have a moment; it had caught my eye already when looking through the list for places where I could usefully comment. Thank you for your sources. I own Bucknall, but IMHO there is nothing to be added from that source; she doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Walton looks good, not sure how I missed it: I will work it in. Are you able to access the other two? If not, I can ask at RX. I'm quite open to adding more material as it is found, but I will say that there's a lot of sources that make brief mention of this story, thanks to its proximity to The Dispossessed; few of these have any unique material to add. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've now worked in De Bolt and Walton. Bucknall, though I've used her elsewhere, doesn't have anything to add here IMHO. I am quite unable to find the Sunfrog source. I do think that as a publication from a non-scholarly organization, it would carry less weight in any case, so I'm comfortable omitting it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- A lead of four paragraphs for a short article seems to clash with MOS:LEADLENGTH.
- I don't love paragraphs as a metric; I could easily combine them into four longer paragraphs. It's currently at 13 sentences, which is in the middle of what the MOS has to say about FA lead size...I do think this hinges a little on your next comment, though; if I removed those, it'd be a lot shorter.
- Now shortened, per below.
- The last two sentences of the third paragraph of the lead seem over detailed, or even completely out of place, the lead being a summary.
- I take your point, but I'm hesitant only because of how often that introduction of Le Guin's is mentioned by the sources. I seem to recall multiple sources (that I probably didn't use) that say nothing of the story besides Le Guin's introduction. Mike Christie, can I bother you for another opinion here? Would it detract greatly to omit this fragment from the lead? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine as is, but I also don't think it would be a problem to remove it. Having it in the lead requires a bit of inline explanation which makes it a touch clumsy, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Trimmed.
- I think it's fine as is, but I also don't think it would be a problem to remove it. Having it in the lead requires a bit of inline explanation which makes it a touch clumsy, perhaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- I take your point, but I'm hesitant only because of how often that introduction of Le Guin's is mentioned by the sources. I seem to recall multiple sources (that I probably didn't use) that say nothing of the story besides Le Guin's introduction. Mike Christie, can I bother you for another opinion here? Would it detract greatly to omit this fragment from the lead? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- "the setting of the stories". The plural, as you have not introduced any stories other than TDBTR this jars. Perhaps make singular?
- It's a reference to "Hainish cycle", but I suppose that's ambiguous, and it's not inaccurate to say it about DBR alone. So amended.
- "her younger self and her lover". Maybe 'her younger self and her then lover'?
- Done.
- "Publication and reception", second paragraph: consider a paragraph break before "Conversely".
- I've reworked this section considerably.
- "Multiple scholars commented that it represented a tonal and thematic shift in Le Guin's writing away from "romantic quests" and toward works infused with feminism." "Multiple": only one such scholar is mentioned in the article.
- Only one scholar used the phrase "romantic quests", so I've removed that from the lead; other commentators making the broader point are now mentioned in the text.
- "and said that the thorough character development in "The Day Before the Revolution" made it one of the stories that demonstrated the literary worth of science fiction." I suspect a typo somewhere in there.
- I'm not sure I see the grammatical problem, but I agree it's a little mealy-mouthed; I've shortened it; how does it read now?
- "dynamic ambivalence"' "defiance and resignation, action and inertia", "tension of opposites" etc. The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
- Reworked to allow attribution. In general this is challenging with literature; arguably everything is opinion, but that leads to very stiff prose. In this case, though, I think it's a valid concern.
- "For Spivack, Odo exemplifies the titular individuals of the short story". Which short story?
- Omelas. Adjusted.
- In Sources three works don't have publisher locations.
- Omitted.
Lovely stuff, I expected no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, as always. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde93, are we still waiting for your last couple of responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Yes, and my apologies for tardiness. I've put in a fair bit of work, but the outstanding comments in each section are largely intertwined and are waiting for me to rework some bits of "Themes", particularly the rather complex first paragraph. I can get to it this weekend if that's okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. I have been away for most of a week and was just checking that I hadn't missed anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Yes, and my apologies for tardiness. I've put in a fair bit of work, but the outstanding comments in each section are largely intertwined and are waiting for me to rework some bits of "Themes", particularly the rather complex first paragraph. I can get to it this weekend if that's okay. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Vanamonde93, are we still waiting for your last couple of responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gog, I do believe that's everything, you may wish to have another look. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
New
- While I am a comma minimalist, I think that a serial comma in "Death, grief and sexuality in older age" would add clarity.
- I did this, but forgot to note it (I'm not a comma minimalist, also :) )
That said, supporting nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments by TompaDompa[edit]
- General comments
- At slightly over 2,000 words, the article seems remarkably short for what is described as "one of Le Guin's most famous short stories, as well as one of the most frequently analyzed".
- I don't disagree with you; I would prefer if I could flesh out some themes. But I'm honestly unaware of any more material I could reasonably add, and I've looked quite hard. Some more (Jose, Walton, de Bolt) was added during this FAC courtesy Czar and others. A few dozen newspaper sources exist that don't add anything besides an adjective about the story. The Donawerth source has a little more material, but it's exceedingly dense to the point of being incomprehensible to anyone who isn't themselves a literary scholar. If you have suggestions on what to add I welcome them, but I'm hard put to think of what I could reasonably lengthen.
- That's a shame. It is after all a short story, so it stands to reason that it would have less extensive analysis than a significantly longer work would (e.g. The Left Hand of Darkness, to pick another work by the same author, where the "Themes" section alone is nearly 1,700 words). TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Well, TLHoD alone accounts for probably a quarter of all the critical attention Le Guin has received. This story, while important, doesn't receive anywhere near as much scrutiny; I should know, seeing as I wrote the themes section you refer to. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with you; I would prefer if I could flesh out some themes. But I'm honestly unaware of any more material I could reasonably add, and I've looked quite hard. Some more (Jose, Walton, de Bolt) was added during this FAC courtesy Czar and others. A few dozen newspaper sources exist that don't add anything besides an adjective about the story. The Donawerth source has a little more material, but it's exceedingly dense to the point of being incomprehensible to anyone who isn't themselves a literary scholar. If you have suggestions on what to add I welcome them, but I'm hard put to think of what I could reasonably lengthen.
- I would link authors in citation templates using the
|author-link=parameter(s).- Done, I believe.
- It's done for some but not all. Pamela Sargent is linked whereas Algis Budrys is not, for instance. None of them are linked in the "Sources" section. And just to be clear, linking authors like this is a matter of preference, not a requirement. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done Budrys and a couple of others.
- It's done for some but not all. Pamela Sargent is linked whereas Algis Budrys is not, for instance. None of them are linked in the "Sources" section. And just to be clear, linking authors like this is a matter of preference, not a requirement. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done, I believe.
The reference to Le Guin's The Wind's Twelve Quarters is apparently to a 2017 edition, which is not a problem in itself, but the|orig-date=parameter should be used as the original date is kind of important to the context of this article.- Added.
This is a matter of preference, but I would include some WP:REDLINKS for e.g. Darren Harris-Fain and Charlotte Spivack, both of whom seem to likely be notable.- Added in the body: I don't want redlinks in the lead, however.
- Lead
"the American writer Ursula K. Le Guin" – the rest of the article uses the construction without the definite article (e.g. "anarchist theorist Paul Goodman" and "Literary scholar Richard Erlich", without any preceding "the"). Either works, but it should be consistent.- Omitted from the lead.
"Le Guin refers to Odo as "one of the ones who walked away from Omelas", a reference to another of her stories in the same volume. Odo is described as exemplifying the ideal of that story" – this would seem to imply that Le Guin is the one who describes Odo as exemplifying the ideal. The body makes it clear that it was Spivack who said that.- This was reworked just about the time you were reviewing, I believe, and is no longer in the lead.
- Background and setting
"In The Dispossessed, she is usually referred to as the historical figure Odo, but in this story, told from her point of view, she is called Laia." – this seems to imply some kind of significance that is not spelled out. I note also that it is sourced to Le Guin herself.- There isn't significance; it's there to avoid reader confusion about the name. As a plot detail a primary source is okay.
- Fair enough. TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- There isn't significance; it's there to avoid reader confusion about the name. As a plot detail a primary source is okay.
- Plot summary
"has had a major stroke" – how is she affected by this stroke? She is later described as taking a walk and discussing matters with others.- It's very difficult to expand upon this without getting into OR. It's implied that her rambling thoughts and her drooling have to do with the stroke, but I don't believe it is stated explicitly.
- I would then question the description of the stroke as "major". TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Omitted the adjective.
- I would then question the description of the stroke as "major". TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's very difficult to expand upon this without getting into OR. It's implied that her rambling thoughts and her drooling have to do with the stroke, but I don't believe it is stated explicitly.
- Is Odo's death implied or explicit? It is mentioned elsewhere in the article but not in this section.
- Implied. See comments above. I cannot say it in the plot without veering into OR, but among commentators it isn't controversial.
- It seems to me that this should be stated explicitly somewhere in the article, then. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed in principle. However, the primary text only implies it, and the secondary sources (Spivack and Slusser) say she died without explaining their inference.
- Alright. Sometimes we have to accept that the sources aren't sufficient for what we want to add to the article. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed in principle. However, the primary text only implies it, and the secondary sources (Spivack and Slusser) say she died without explaining their inference.
- It seems to me that this should be stated explicitly somewhere in the article, then. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Implied. See comments above. I cannot say it in the plot without veering into OR, but among commentators it isn't controversial.
- Publication and reception
New comment: "The story was first published in Galaxy" – might gloss here. I know it's a magazine (and not, say, a book), but readers who don't shouldn't have to follow the link to find out.TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)- A fair point; gloss added.
- ""The Day Before the Revolution" received positive reviews, and multiple commentators noted that it represented a landmark for Le Guin's writing." – source?
- This section has been redone, but in case this is still a concern, this is a summary sentence, of the same sort one would write in the lead; I don't see how it could be a controversial summary of the next few sentences, but if you feel it is, I'm happy to discuss.
- The sentence is now ""The Day Before the Revolution" was critically well received, with multiple reviewers describing it as among Le Guin's best works.", for future reference ("Multiple commentators considered "The Day Before the Revolution" a landmark for Le Guin's writing." appears later and is indeed a straightforward summary of what follows). The second part is fine—multiple examples are quoted—but the first part is rather dubious. Summarizing critical reception for works with more than a handful of reviews in total (as may be the case for comparatively obscure works) easily crosses into WP:ANALYSIS of the overarching critical trends. This seems like the kind of work where there should be sources that can be cited for an assessment of the overall critical reception. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- If there is such a summary source, I'm not aware of it. I don't think this veers into analysis, because the number of sources isn't as low as you'd think; they're just spread over the subsequent four paragraphs, which I think you've to take together. There's also another dozen non-substantive newspaper sources that are also positive. Also, of the sources in this article, I believe only two (the two I cite) have anything negative to say. As such I think this is a headcounting exercise of the sort we permit.
- My point is rather that if there are only (say) six sources in existence that could theoretically be cited to say something about the critical reception, summarizing their contents as e.g. "reception was largely positive" or "mixed" is probably fine—but if there are sixty, it's a lot more dubious for a Wikipedia editor to summarize the overall critical reception rather than deferring to sources that do so for us (with a higher number of sources to summarize, it's starting to look a lot more like editorial WP:ANALYSIS/evaluation). It's a sliding scale both in terms of the number of sources (we are obviously allowed to state "Critic X gave it a positive review", summarizing a single review) and the statement itself. One thing to keep in mind is that a more exceptional/intense/extreme statement is less likely to be okay than a more moderate one: "widespread critical acclaim" versus "largely positive reception", for instance. Another is that a more complex statement is less likely to be okay than a simpler one: "critics from the author's home country were more positive than critics from other countries" versus "reception was mixed", for instance.In summary: I understand your perspective; this seems like a borderline case to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I do recognize your point about moderation, which is why I went with the blandest summary I could conceive of; "critically well-received". Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- For the record and to clarify: It seems that we are largely in agreement here. The current version seems to me to likely be okay in this regard, but I'm not comfortable saying so unreservedly in this case as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic and sources. TompaDompa (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I do recognize your point about moderation, which is why I went with the blandest summary I could conceive of; "critically well-received". Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- My point is rather that if there are only (say) six sources in existence that could theoretically be cited to say something about the critical reception, summarizing their contents as e.g. "reception was largely positive" or "mixed" is probably fine—but if there are sixty, it's a lot more dubious for a Wikipedia editor to summarize the overall critical reception rather than deferring to sources that do so for us (with a higher number of sources to summarize, it's starting to look a lot more like editorial WP:ANALYSIS/evaluation). It's a sliding scale both in terms of the number of sources (we are obviously allowed to state "Critic X gave it a positive review", summarizing a single review) and the statement itself. One thing to keep in mind is that a more exceptional/intense/extreme statement is less likely to be okay than a more moderate one: "widespread critical acclaim" versus "largely positive reception", for instance. Another is that a more complex statement is less likely to be okay than a simpler one: "critics from the author's home country were more positive than critics from other countries" versus "reception was mixed", for instance.In summary: I understand your perspective; this seems like a borderline case to me. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- If there is such a summary source, I'm not aware of it. I don't think this veers into analysis, because the number of sources isn't as low as you'd think; they're just spread over the subsequent four paragraphs, which I think you've to take together. There's also another dozen non-substantive newspaper sources that are also positive. Also, of the sources in this article, I believe only two (the two I cite) have anything negative to say. As such I think this is a headcounting exercise of the sort we permit.
- The sentence is now ""The Day Before the Revolution" was critically well received, with multiple reviewers describing it as among Le Guin's best works.", for future reference ("Multiple commentators considered "The Day Before the Revolution" a landmark for Le Guin's writing." appears later and is indeed a straightforward summary of what follows). The second part is fine—multiple examples are quoted—but the first part is rather dubious. Summarizing critical reception for works with more than a handful of reviews in total (as may be the case for comparatively obscure works) easily crosses into WP:ANALYSIS of the overarching critical trends. This seems like the kind of work where there should be sources that can be cited for an assessment of the overall critical reception. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- This section has been redone, but in case this is still a concern, this is a summary sentence, of the same sort one would write in the lead; I don't see how it could be a controversial summary of the next few sentences, but if you feel it is, I'm happy to discuss.
"Conversely, Algis Budrys, reviewing More Women of Wonder" – "conversely" is analogous to "vice versa" in meaning. Budrys' assessment is not the inverse of that described in the preceding sentence in that sense.- This has been reworked.
- Themes
This section, and the first paragraph especially, relies very heavily on Spivack. That raises the question of whether this is proportional/WP:DUE, and I also think the way it is presented is questionable in terms of presenting opinion/interpretation/analysis as fact.- I've added a lot of in-text attribution per Gog and others above. Spivack devotes more pages to this work than most other source, and as such deserves more length, I'd say, but in any case I've trimmed the usage slightly.
- If Spivack is the central source on this topic, then Spivack should indeed be cited heavily. The section looks much better now in terms of attributing opinion and whatnot. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a lot of in-text attribution per Gog and others above. Spivack devotes more pages to this work than most other source, and as such deserves more length, I'd say, but in any case I've trimmed the usage slightly.
"she replies that she "won't be here tomorrow". Her reply refers to her physical condition, but has a deeper meaning, as she dies after climbing the stairs to her room, and so does not witness the revolution she was responsible for" – what am I missing? "I won't be here tomorrow" referring to her physical condition would seem to me to be about her dying, no?- Spivack intends to imply that Odo didn't mean to say she was dying, only that she was tired/recovering/old; but having re-read Spivack I don't want to interpret her words too far. I've reworked.
New comment: "according to Science fiction critic George Slusser" – Slusser has already been glossed above, and "Science fiction" should not have a capital S.TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)- I made this change myself. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
"Spivack analyzes Odo as an example of a dynamic elderly figure" – I happened to notice that this is cited to White, so just to double-check: does White say this about Spivack?- A valid question, but yes, White's is a summary of critical views (The book is subtitled "Ursula K. Le Guin and the critics") and she is summarizing Spivack's work here more pithily than I can.
- Very well, then. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- A valid question, but yes, White's is a summary of critical views (The book is subtitled "Ursula K. Le Guin and the critics") and she is summarizing Spivack's work here more pithily than I can.
TompaDompa (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- TompaDompa I think that's everything, thank you for stopping by. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Cautious and conditional/preliminary support. I stand by my above-outlined reservations about comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of summarizing the critical reception in the way it is currently done. I would really like editors more familiar with the topic and the sources (perhaps Czar, who suggested a few sources to use above?) to weigh in on these specific points. TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Responding to TompaDompa's comment here: I think the summary of the critical reception is appropriate -- from the listing of other reviews on the talk page, it can be seen some were not accessed but these were often in minor sources such as fanzines or in non-genre sources that typically give only a sentence or two. In the cases where Vanamonde was able to find the review it would sometimes turn out not to even mention this story. So I don't think there's any way there's a body of reviews out there that could overturn the fairly bland summary currently given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Nice article, fits the criteria, etc. I haven't read any Le Guin for years, so this was a nice reminder of her work too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @FAC coordinators: I'm not in a hurry here, and am happy to wait for more comments if you feel it to be needed. However, we have five supports, no outstanding comments, no opposition, and completed image and source reviews; I wonder if perhaps this can be moved off your docket? If nothing else I'd like to return a couple of books to the library. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2024 [21].
Dorothy Olsen[edit]
This article is about Dorothy Olsen, who flew military planes during World War II as a civilian member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots, ferrying newly built fighters and bombers from their factories where they were built to their embarkation points to Europe or Russia. I am grateful to UndercoverClassicist for their extensive comments at Talk:Dorothy Olsen and Wikipedia:Peer review/Dorothy Olsen/archive1. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Kusma[edit]
Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Did you see this source? There are a few nice anecdotes in there that are not yet in the article.
- I did see that. It's more about WASPs in general; was there some specific item that you think would be useful to add?
- I'm not sure. It is mostly cute anecdotes:
- "At the state fair in Salem during the Great Depression, she saw a biplane and spent every cent of the money she had earned picking hops to pay for a ride."
- "Her daredevil stunts once caused damage to a plane’s front-wheel cowling." because she had been "hanging upside down at the time".
- Including some of that would add further colour, but certainly isn't necessary.
- I'm not sure. It is mostly cute anecdotes:
- I did see that. It's more about WASPs in general; was there some specific item that you think would be useful to add?
- Lead: clarify that she preferred the P-51 to the P-38 even if she preferred that one over bombers.
- 40hp Taylorcraft: is that a Taylorcraft B?
- I don't believe I've seen anything which specified the exact model.
- I think the "40hp" was supposed to specify it; not sure whether that uniquely identifies the model.
- I don't believe I've seen anything which specified the exact model.
- WASPs: "Her training began in February 1943, at Houston Municipal Field [..] along with half of her class". Not a fan of the "along" here. Maybe "She begain training in February 1943. Half of her class trained at Houston Municipal Field, the other half ..."?
- "Olsen initially hated her training" do we know why?
- "She encountered difficulties when her fiancé died" do we know anything at all about him or how long they had been engaged? (Did he do anything other than inconvenience her by dying at an inopportune moment?)
- Nothing that I've found.
- "civilian aviation was grounded during World War II" really? Maybe general aviation was, but I think Delta and a few other airlines were operating scheduled civilian flights during WWII.
- Hmmm, I'm unsure what to do here. You're probably right, but the source doesn't say that specifically. I've made it "civilian general aviation", which I think is reasonable even if not strictly supported by the source.
- The Chinook Observer perhaps isn't the greatest source for the history of general aviation during WW2, so it may be better to cite this from elsewhere.
- I've done a bit of hunting and haven't found anything definitive about general aviation being grounded during WW-II. The best I've found is a vague and unsourced statement in History of the Civil Air Patrol#World War II:
On 8 December 1941, all civil aircraft, with the exception of airliners, were grounded. This ban was lifted two days later (with the exception of the entire United States West Coast) and things went more or less back to normal
I'll keep looking, but for now I've put a more generic statement in the article.
- I've done a bit of hunting and haven't found anything definitive about general aviation being grounded during WW-II. The best I've found is a vague and unsourced statement in History of the Civil Air Patrol#World War II:
- The Chinook Observer perhaps isn't the greatest source for the history of general aviation during WW2, so it may be better to cite this from elsewhere.
- Hmmm, I'm unsure what to do here. You're probably right, but the source doesn't say that specifically. I've made it "civilian general aviation", which I think is reasonable even if not strictly supported by the source.
- "delivering brand new planes from the factory and was one of only 12 women certified for night flight" maybe better not to connect these separate facts in one sentence.
- There is a slight abundance of "woulds" in this section.
- I got rid of some of them.
Nice article overall, and she seems cool (I like the photo of her as an old lady with sunglasses). I guess her life outside the WASP episode is so unremarkable that its short treatment does not indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. —Kusma (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Other than as noted, I think I've addressed all of your comments. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy[edit]
- She grew up on her family's farm in Oregon. Link Oregon?
- After training in Texas. Link Texas?
- After the war, Olsen retired from flying and moved to Washington state. Washington state can be changed to Washington by linking it to Washington (state).
- Dorothy Eleanor Olsen was born in Woodburn, near Portland, Oregon. Link Portland?
- Floyd Gibbons's biography of World War I. Link World War I?
- In a 2022 interview, she recollected crowded housing, insects, and poor weather. The interview was done in 2010 not 2022; Olsen died in 2019.
- Opportunity to keep women pilots flying during World War II. World War II should be linked in introduction first.
That's it for now. Comments welcomed FAC here. Volcanoguy 19:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed all those, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Volcanoguy, is there any more to come? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Grungaloo[edit]
Marking my spot, will post comments shortly. grungaloo (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review
- Ref 1 - all uses good
Ref 2/3 - No access so not checked- There's links in the refs to Internet Archive if you want to look at those.
- Ooh, thanks!
- There's links in the refs to Internet Archive if you want to look at those.
- Ref 2- all uses good
- Ref 3 - all uses good
- Ref 4 - good
- Ref 5 - One issue
- [b] - I don't see where "Woodburn Flying Club " is mentioned, I only see a vague "club" reference. Also, it seems that this sentence is actually a quote from her so I'd make sure that's clear in the prose.
- fixed.
- [b] - I don't see where "Woodburn Flying Club " is mentioned, I only see a vague "club" reference. Also, it seems that this sentence is actually a quote from her so I'd make sure that's clear in the prose.
- Ref 6 - all uses good
- Ref 7 - good
- Ref 8 - You cite page 99 inline at one point, but the citation at the bottom only lists pages 102-103. usage is good otherwise
- Ref 9 - good
- Ref 10 - Small issue
- [B] - It's called the Sixth Ferrying Group personnel book in the text, but the source says it's a yearbook, I'd suggest to use yearbook.
- Fixed
- [B] - It's called the Sixth Ferrying Group personnel book in the text, but the source says it's a yearbook, I'd suggest to use yearbook.
- Ref 11 - good
- Ref 12 - good
- Ref 13 - good
- Ref 14 - good
- Ref 15 - Issue
- [A] - I can't find anything in this sentence that this source verifies. I wasn't able to access the WaPo article, but if it covers this off then I'd remove Ref 15 on this sentence.
- Ref 16 - good, it's only sourcing Jennings' title right?
- Yeah. I messed up the ref mapping when I inserted that. Fixed now.
- Ref 17 - Can't validate, AGF that the WaPo article covers this.
- Ref 18 - good
- Ref 19 - good
The sources mostly appear to be from good WP:RS (WaPo, NYT, other recognized news outlets). For those I couldn't access, I'm AGF that they check out considering everything else does (minus some nitpicks). The only ones that stuck out to me are the few that are mostly interviews, namely Ref 6. Wikipedia:Interviews is the closest guidance I found, but even if considered a primary source I think it's still good to use. It's mostly her recollections of her life, so pretty uncontroversial stuff. Overall I'd say the source are good minus those few issues I point out above. grungaloo (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Prose comments
- A petite woman - Ref 1 lists her starting weight (92 lbs), I'd consider replacing this with the actual numbers.
- If you believe the source, she managed to put on 8 lbs to get form 92 to 100 in a week. I doubt that's physically possible, so I'm inclined to think the 92 isn't correct, so safer going with the vaguer "petite", I think.
- Fair rationale. I'd maybe consider a word other than "petite" though. IMO it feels a bit sexist although I'm sure this is not the intent - we don't use this term to describe men so why use it with women? Maybe try something more factual like "Olsen did not meet the 100lb minimum weight upon entry to the program, so she under embarked on..." or something like that.
- I changed it to "small", which is guess is more gender neutral.
- Fair rationale. I'd maybe consider a word other than "petite" though. IMO it feels a bit sexist although I'm sure this is not the intent - we don't use this term to describe men so why use it with women? Maybe try something more factual like "Olsen did not meet the 100lb minimum weight upon entry to the program, so she under embarked on..." or something like that.
- If you believe the source, she managed to put on 8 lbs to get form 92 to 100 in a week. I doubt that's physically possible, so I'm inclined to think the 92 isn't correct, so safer going with the vaguer "petite", I think.
- There were more than 25,000 applicants to the program, of which 1,879 were accepted and 1,074 graduated; Olsen was one of 152 students in class 43-4. - This is missing a source. It seems like Ref 8 and Ref 1 cover it though.
- Hmmm, unless I'm missing something, this sentence and the next few are all cited to ref 8.
- Ok yeah, I think I got confused during the read. On second look it checks out.
- Hmmm, unless I'm missing something, this sentence and the next few are all cited to ref 8.
- Dorothy Eleanor Olsen was born in Woodburn, near Portland, Oregon, on July 10, 1916, to Ralph and Frances (Zimmering) Kocher, and grew up on the family's small farm.[ - there's a lot of commas here, stylistically I think it would look better broken up into two sentences - one for where/when she was born, another about parents/farm?
- Done (not in exactly that way, but split into two sentences).
- She encountered difficulties when her fiancé died; taking time off to attend his funeral put her behind the rest of her class. - I think this semicolon should be a comma since the second clause isn't a complete sentence on its own.
- What comes after is
taking time off to attend his funeral put her behind the rest of her class
. That seems like a sentence to me, but if you feel strongly about this, I'll change it.- On a re-read you're right, the semicolon is good.
- What comes after is
- a practice shared by other WASPs. - This isn't sourced as far as I can tell.
- The WaPo article (ref 2) says, "Sometimes, before sending a plane off to combat, a WASP would leave a note for its next pilot"
- I guess it's a stylistic preference of mine then, so not something that would prevent support. IMO having a citation near the end of the sentence but leaving the tail end without one makes it seem like that tail is uncited. Even though the next cite does cover it, it's not immediately evident that that cite covers the tail end of the previous sentence as well. You could consider moving the tail into the next sentence instead, or maybe putting ref 2/3 at the end of the first sentence instead. Again, this is a stylistic preference so no need to change it if you'd prefer not to.
- I think you're right. This is probably one of those things that's "technically correct, but could be better", so I did that.
- I guess it's a stylistic preference of mine then, so not something that would prevent support. IMO having a citation near the end of the sentence but leaving the tail end without one makes it seem like that tail is uncited. Even though the next cite does cover it, it's not immediately evident that that cite covers the tail end of the previous sentence as well. You could consider moving the tail into the next sentence instead, or maybe putting ref 2/3 at the end of the first sentence instead. Again, this is a stylistic preference so no need to change it if you'd prefer not to.
- The WaPo article (ref 2) says, "Sometimes, before sending a plane off to combat, a WASP would leave a note for its next pilot"
That's all I've got. Looks pretty good! grungaloo (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Support by Pendright[edit]
Placeholder - back soon! Pendright (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Lead'
- Dorothy Eleanor Olsen (née Kocher; July 10, 1916 – July 23, 2019) was an American aircraft pilot and member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) in World War II. She grew up on her family's farm in Oregon, developing an interest in aviation at a young age. She earned her private pilot's license in 1939, when it was unusual for women to be pilots.
- Woodburn, Oregon would be more reader friendly
- When the United States entered the war, she joined the WASPs where she was a civilian employee of the military.
- The U.S. declared war on Japan and Germany on December 11, 1941, but the WASP was not formed as such until August 1943 -> Change the introductory phrase accordingly
- a civilian employee of the military -> the Department of Defense (and other sources) confirm that the WASP members were United States federal civil service employees who were attached to the United States Army Air Forces. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/684700/wasps-were-pioneers-for-female-pilots-of-today-tomotrow/
- After training in Texas, she was assigned to the Sixth Ferrying Group in Long Beach, California where she worked ferrying new aircraft to airbases from the factories where they were built.
- Add a comma after California
- Consider: ferrying new aircraft from factories where they were bulit to U.S. airbases -> gets rid of one where.
- After the war, Olsen retired from flying and moved to Washington, where she raised a family and lived for the rest of her life.
- Washington state is reader freindly
- Funny you should mention that. A previous reviewer asked me to drop the "state", but I've put it back now.
- Drop the comma after Washington
- where she "married and"
- In 2009, she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal honoring her service during the war.
- The medal was awarded to the WASP and she and others were the recipients of it.
- Most of the sources say "awarded". In the body have "along with her fellow WASPs", but I think the shorter form is fine for the lead.
- The medal was awarded to the WASP and she and others were the recipients of it.
- Olsen died in 2019, at the age of 103.
- Drop the comma after 2019
Early life
- Dorothy Eleanor Olsen (née Kocher; July 10, 1916 – July 23, 2019) was an American aircraft pilot and member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) in World War II.
- and " a" member of
- "during" WWII
- She grew up on her family's farm in Oregon, developing an interest in aviation at a young age.
- Could we beef this up a bit more: Did she attend local schools - what high school did she graduate from and when; was she active in school clubs or sports?
- None of the sources I've seen give any of those details.
- What did she do between high school graduation and getting her pilots lic.?
- She decided she wanted to fly airplanes when she was eight, after reading The Red Knight of Germany, Floyd Gibbons's biography of World War I flying ace Manfred von Richthofen.
- In the first nine words of this sentence, the word she is used three time?
- Drop the comma after eight
- Her introduction to flight was when she took a biplane ride at a state fair, which inspired her to take flying lessons;[2][3] the cost of the flight reportedly used her entire savings.[4]
- This sentence has four pronouns referring to Olsen without nemtioning her proper name -> Suggest starting the sentence with her proper name and rephrasing to drop at least one pronoun
WASPs
- Snce the Olsen story revolves around the WASP, why not tell readers a bit about this organization such as - it was formed by the merging of two similar orgaizations and who were the envolved principals, how many miles did it collectively fly, how much were members paid, number of fatalities etc.
- Olsen joined the Woman Airforce Service PIlots (WASPs) in 1943 when the program was created; this was an organization of women pilots who took non-combat flying jobs as civilian employees of the military.
- How about a little context here: how did Olsen learn the WASP was recruiting, where did she sign up, how much was she to be paid per month etc?
- PIlots -> sp
- non-combat -> noncombatan?
- Initial training was in the Fairchild PT-19, progressing to the Vultee BT-13, the North American AT-6, and finally to the twin-engine Beechcraft AT-11.[6]: time index 15:10
- Drop the first comma & add and then
- time index 15:10?
- I don't know what you're asking here.
- Olsen initially hated her training, but stayed with the program to avoid the embarrassment of dropping out;[8] in a 2010 interview, she recollected crowded housing, insects, and poor weather which made the conditions "pretty primitive".[6]: time index 59:54
- but "she" stayed
- Change which to that
- Despite being sick with a cold on her return, she passed a checkride which included aerobatic maneuvers, allowing her to stay with her class although she struggled to catch up.[8]
- Change which to that
- She graduated on August 7, 1943[2][8] and was assigned to the Sixth Ferrying Group in Long Beach, California.[10]
- Add a comma after 1943
- Olsen flew 61 missions for the U.S. Army Air Corps, delivering brand new planes from the factory.
- According to this link, U.S. Army Air Corps, the USAAC became the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) on 20 June 1941.
- Is the word "brand" necessary?
- It's what's in the source. I felt it was important to emphasize how new they were. I've added the "less than a half hour" bit from the source to clarify this.
- A typical assignment was to ferry a P-38 or P-51 from Long Beach to Newark, New Jersey, then get a military transport flight to Niagra Falls, New York, where she would pick up a Bell P-63 for delivery to Great Falls, Montana and then return to Long Beach for another trip.
- A typical assignment "for Olsen" was
- Add a comment after Montana
- Niagra -> sp
- pickup is one word
- When the WASP program ended in 1944, the pilots were discharged at their home bases, with no transportation allowance to get back home.[3]
- Add "but" after bases,
After the war
- After the war, she married Harold W. Olsen of the Washington State Police Department, and moved to University Place, Washington.
- and 'they' moved
- Nerve damage from a dental procedure left her deaf for many years but at the age of 80, she received cochlear implants which restored her hearing.
- Add a comma after years and drop the comma after 80
- Change which to that
This is it for now - Pendright (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed comments. I think I've addressed them all in the article, or commented in-line for items I didn't change. Please let me know if I've missed anything. RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I've got a note to add a bit more background about the WASPs. I'll work on that. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
All comments seem to be addressed - thank you! I support this nomination Pendright (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- "When the war began". For many readers this will mean 1939, while I suspect you mean 1941. And did she join before the end of the year or was it 1942. It may be easier to mention Pearl Harbour and then give a specific date.
- "of which 1,879 were accepted". "of which" or 'of whom'?
- "her fiancé died". Any more detail on this? Ie, was he killed in combat?
- Consider moving "Olsen never flew commercially after the war, and not at all after having children. She is quoted as saying, "Why would I want to fly a Cessna when I've flown a P-51?"[1][3]" to immediately after "... and a son, Kim."
- After the war feels thin. Ie, was Olsen a full-time mother - would that be 'home maker' in modern American - prior to working with antiques? When did she marry, when were her children born? What did her husband do for a living, what did he do during the war, how did they meet?
- Link "flyover". (To flypast.)
- "Alta Thomas, Betty Dybbro, and Mary Jean Sturdevant." Do any of these have articles? If not, are any notable enough to merit a red link?
- References: article titles - not book titles - should consistently be in sentence case. Regardless of how the original appears.
A smashing article - great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I've made all the changes, please ping me if I missed anything. I didn't spot any refs I had mis-cased; was there one (or more!) in particular that you had in mind?
The question about Alta Thomas, Betty Dybbro, and Mary Jean Sturdevant is a tricky one. If you search for them and "WASP", you'll find some material. Largely the same kind of material I found for Olsen, but with a different name. Modulo some personal details, they all have pretty much the same story, as I suppose do the 1,070 other WASPs as well. If you were a woman with a pilot's license in the early 1940s, you were likely to be of the same personality type. So why did I pick Olsen to write about? Only because I saw her obituary in the New York Times and got hooked. If it's OK with you, I'm inclined to skip the redlinks.
Thanks again for the review and the kind words. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
Image licencing and placement seems OK to me. ALT text seems fine too but the file File:WASP Dorothy Kocher Olsen.JPG seems to have a faulty source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus Hmmm. Yeah, the URL on the commons page does seem to be flakey. It was timing out for me a little while ago, but now it's working (and redirecting to https://www.512aw.afrc.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000372466/mediaid/138235/). Could you give it another try? RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Today it seems to work again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
UC[edit]
I did comment on this before, so relatively little to add UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would link née on the first mention in the body, as well as the lead.
- Per MOS:BIRTHDATE, people's dates should only be given in the first paragraph of the lead section, unless there's a compelling reason otherwise. I'd therefore remove them from the first paragraph of the body, especially as her birth date follows immediately. Come to think of it, I can't see what Dorothy Eleanor Olsen (née Kocher; July 10, 1916 – July 23, 2019) was an American aircraft pilot and a member of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs) during World War II is really doing there -- this is a very lead-y sentence in the body.
- Olsen decided she wanted to fly airplanes at the age of eight: better perhaps "at the age of eight, she decided...", as she presumably wanted to wait until she was a little older before actually getting in a plane.
- earned her private pilot's license as a civilian: isn't as a civilian implied in private -- plus we haven't said that she's joined the WASPs yet, and the US isn't at war?
- Reportedly one of only three women in the Portland area to have a private pilot's license, Olsen flew with the Woodburn Flying Club (she recalled being the only woman among 19 men -- per MOS:NUM, better if both or neither of these are in figures.
- towing gliders, towing gunnery practice targets: towing gliders and gunnery practice targets?
- Can we cite the footnotes -- e.g. Sources differ on the exact number, reporting either 1,830 or 1,879.: which sources report which number? Likewise the other two notes.
- I have been unable to figure out how to include a citation inside of a ((efn)). If you can show me how that works, I'd be happy to do it.
- Try the
((refn|1=[citation]))template -- does the same job as ref tags but works within other templates? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)- OK, I've switched from efn to refn. But I don't honestly think this is an improvement. All I've done is duplicated (painfully) the citation that's right there in the text next to the note. I don't see how this is useful. Also, I would give my candid opinion of how confusing the documentation for ((refn)) is, but I don't believe I can do that within the bounds of WP:CIVIL.
- Sorry: I wasn't clear: I mean like this
((efn|This is a footnote.((refn|This is a citation for that footnote)))). You can also use the|name=parameter on the refn tag so that it only generates a single footnote, linked twice, once from the text and once from the note. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)- I've gone back to my original style. I think it works well.
- Having uncited footnotes (or indeed anything else) is a problem for me. Firstly, we have a WP:SYNTH problem: we have two footnotes saying "sources differ on...", for which the evidence base presumably is that the article cites two sources for each, which have different numbers. However, the plural of anecdote is not data, to use a cliché: we've suggested that there's some broad disagreement on this topic, which isn't supported by the sources we've provided. One way to solve this would be to say "Smith says X, while Jones says Y", and there I'd cite them both. More seriously, though, we have the claim Sources say she joined the WASPs but based on the dates it is more likely she joined the Women's Flying Training Detachment, which was later merged into the WASPs, which is uncited. Who says it's more likely that she joined the WFTD? Who are these "sources", and who is the implied additional, better source that allows us to discount them? This reads like OR at the moment: I'm sure it isn't, but we need to cite our sources to show that. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've added citations to two of these. I'm not sure what to do about the third ("more likely she joined the Women's Flying Training Detachment"). That statement basically is OR. I looked at all the sources and determined that despite what they say, it just can't be right. Not sure how to express that other than what I did. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a tricky one, but we can't print OR. We can, however, not print something that we know to be untrue, even if another source says it. Why is it more likely that she joined the WFTD? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have sources that say WASP didn't exist until (depending on which one you believe) July or August 1943. And another source which says she showed up for training in "mid-February 1943", at which point the WASP didn't exist yet. So, something doesn't jive. I think it's incumbent on us to at least alert the reader to this discrepancy. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "not print something that we know to be untrue" if I followed that literally, I would be unable to say "Dorothy Olsen joined the WASPs", which would be silly. RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we just need to remove the note, then: we know that she did (eventually) become a member of the WASPs, and it's at least possible that this happened in 1943. I sympathise with what you're saying, but WP:OR is both policy and pillar -- there is simply no way that we can allow a "fact" in an FA that is based entirely on an editor's own research. If nobody has connected Olsen with the WFTD, we can't either. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding "not print something that we know to be untrue" if I followed that literally, I would be unable to say "Dorothy Olsen joined the WASPs", which would be silly. RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- We have sources that say WASP didn't exist until (depending on which one you believe) July or August 1943. And another source which says she showed up for training in "mid-February 1943", at which point the WASP didn't exist yet. So, something doesn't jive. I think it's incumbent on us to at least alert the reader to this discrepancy. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's a tricky one, but we can't print OR. We can, however, not print something that we know to be untrue, even if another source says it. Why is it more likely that she joined the WFTD? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've gone back to my original style. I think it works well.
- Sorry: I wasn't clear: I mean like this
- OK, I've switched from efn to refn. But I don't honestly think this is an improvement. All I've done is duplicated (painfully) the citation that's right there in the text next to the note. I don't see how this is useful. Also, I would give my candid opinion of how confusing the documentation for ((refn)) is, but I don't believe I can do that within the bounds of WP:CIVIL.
- Try the
- I have been unable to figure out how to include a citation inside of a ((efn)). If you can show me how that works, I'd be happy to do it.
- The Initial training: decap initial.
- Olsen initially hated her training, but she stayed with the program to avoid the embarrassment of dropping out;: half of a long sentence: any reason not to use a full stop here?
- WASP head Jackie Cochran: I'm never a fan of false titles, but this one is particularly unfortunate, and we should be formal about the name: suggest "Jacqueline Cochran, the director of the WASP". We'd hardly use "army head Ike Eisenhower" in the same way.
- Noting that she's still "Jackie" here: our article says that she was "Jackie" to her friends, and I'm not sure that includes all of our readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Noting that she's still "Jackie" here: our article says that she was "Jackie" to her friends, and I'm not sure that includes all of our readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- with less than a half hour on them: a little informal and perhaps unclear to some readers: suggest less than half an hour of flight time or similar.
- In all the dictionaries I can find, pickup is a noun or an adjective: the verb is pick up.
- I originally had it as "pick up", but Pendright asked me to make it one word.
- I don't want to pull you in multiple directions, but see e.g. Merriam-Webster, which is pretty clear that it isn't one word when it's a verb. If Pendright has a different dictionary that says otherwise, it would be good to see it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I originally had it as "pick up", but Pendright asked me to make it one word.
- I'm not totally sure of this one, but single-engine and twin-engine are compound modifiers, so unless HQRS differ, I would drop the hyphen when not using them attributively (so "the aircraft was twin engine" like "the revolver was double action".
- After the war, she : I'd restate Olsen's name, as this is a new section.
- I made it "Kocher" so as to avoid the odd-sounding "After the war, Olsen married Harold W. Olsen"
- Fair enough. Strictly speaking, she should be Kocher throughout the article before her marriage: see e.g. Hilary Clinton. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NAMECHANGES argues otherwise.
- That's not the relevant guideline here: that one's about changing the name of an article when the subject changes its name. The one we need is MOS:NAME, specifically (emphasis mine):
- WP:NAMECHANGES argues otherwise.
- Fair enough. Strictly speaking, she should be Kocher throughout the article before her marriage: see e.g. Hilary Clinton. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I made it "Kocher" so as to avoid the odd-sounding "After the war, Olsen married Harold W. Olsen"
UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)A person named in an article of which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described. For example, Pope John Paul I was known as Albino Luciani before he was elevated to the papacy, so material about the time before he became pope should use that name. In some cases, it is helpful to the reader to clarify, e.g., Albino Luciani (later to become Pope John Paul I). The principle of avoiding anachronistic naming is also usually employed in the subject's own biography (including that of John Paul I), especially when the article is no longer a short stub.
- @UndercoverClassicist I've been cogitating on this for a while and I'm unsure where I want to go with it. I get what MOS:NAME is saying, but I think referring to the same person by two different names in one article is confusing. As a good example, take this paragraph from the lead, post conversion to be MOS:NAME-compliant:
That's just dumb. And, yes, I'm sure there's some way it could be reworded to avoid that, but I really think it makes more sense to leave it as it is now. RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)After the war, Kocher retired from flying and moved to Washington State, where she married, raised a family, and lived for the rest of her life. In 2009, she was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal honoring her service during the war. Olsen died in 2019 at the age of 103.
- Looking at some other FAs, such as Courtney Love, they do use anachronistic naming in both the lead and the body. I can also see a WP:IAR argument here that Olsen married after the exploits that make up most of the article, and therefore that it's better if the article generally refers to her by the name that readers will know, at least from the title. Given that the MoS only has "usually", I'm happy to respectfully ignore it here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. BTW, I also did spend some time yesterday looking through other FAs. My take-home lessons from that were 1) We have very few FAs about women, 2) Of the ones we have, most never married, 3) Of the ones that married, a surprising percentage married other women, and 4) Of the ones that married men and took their names, we are indeed, as you observe, inconsistent in our application of MOS:NAME. Happy Pi Day! RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at some other FAs, such as Courtney Love, they do use anachronistic naming in both the lead and the body. I can also see a WP:IAR argument here that Olsen married after the exploits that make up most of the article, and therefore that it's better if the article generally refers to her by the name that readers will know, at least from the title. Given that the MoS only has "usually", I'm happy to respectfully ignore it here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
- Olsen never flew commercially after the war, and not at all after having children: I think this needs to be and never flew at all after having children: otherwise, it reads as simply repeating the same thing.
- She ran antique shops after raising their children: their is pretty far from its antecedent, so reads oddly. We could perhaps move this sentence before "Olsen never flew commercially..." to mitigate.
- The current arrangement was at Gog the Mild's request.
- I think this would just be a continuation of what I think was Gog's idea -- to get the flying after the kids -- but good to get Gog's input here too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The current arrangement was at Gog the Mild's request.
- Olsen died on July 23, 2019, at her home in University Place, Washington, aged 103 and was given military honors at her funeral: there should really be a comma after 103, but I'd suggest splitting the sentence there anyway.
Thank you for the review. Except as noted in-line, I've actioned all of these. RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- That was quick! A (very) few bits above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support: the antique shops point could perhaps be addressed, but there's nothing remaining that should cause a problem under the standards. Nice work on the article and well done bringing into focus a story that should be better known. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 March 2024 [22].
Nicoll Highway collapse[edit]
The Nicoll Highway collapse was a major construction accident in Singapore which killed four people, and it subsequently led to a revision of safety construction practices in the country. This article has expanded from just a start-class with more information regarding the circumstances of the collapse, the rescue efforts and the subsequent inquiry into the collapse. Despite its significance, there remains few international commentary on the incident (not even a memorial nor further acknowledgement of the collapse), with other independent sources and commentaries only from an engineering perspective rather than a political one. I welcome all to review.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- File:Nicoll_Highway_collapsed_site.png: the unique historic images tag is typically used for cases where the image itself has been the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- How should it be retagged, however? Non-free fair use?--ZKang123 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, the generic tag works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, the generic tag works. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]
Am only able to edit on occassion so apologies for forgetting about your prev FAC lol. Anyway, here are some of my thoughts. I've put invisible comments to divide my comments based on sections.
- So the first three sentences are repetitive: "...leading to the collapse of... The collapse killed... The collapse was caused..." Maybe change the second sentence to "Four workers were killed and three injured"
- "and the Nicoll Highway"-- rm "the"
- In the infobox, the line break between the three officials and the LTA guy leaves an empty space as I see it; feels a bit weird. I suppose it's cuz of the "be"?
- "from the city"-- I don't think 'the city' is accurate wording here? I mean, Singapore is the city. Just writing it as it is ("central business district") should be fine.
- Also suggest linking it to the specific CBD.
- Link cut-and-cover, marine clay
- "The missing included a foreman" --> "They included a foreman", just a sentence ago you effectively established you're talking about the missing.
- Should kV (kilovolt) be linked?
- "After rescuing the three injured people at the site"-- rm "at the site", its repetitive, re: the previous sentence's "at the site."
- "he praised the coordination between the SCDF and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) for the ongoing rescue efforts. While initially shocked by the incident, Goh was relieved by the small number of fatalities." --> "he praised the coordination between the SCDF and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) for the ongoing rescue effort, and expressed relief by the small number of fatalities." I don't think "While initially shocked by the incident" adds much; it would be noteworthy if he's not shocked instead.
- "and grouting"-- there is a redirect for grouting
- "and led to the halting of search operations" --> "and halted the search."
- "a grown-up daughter and a son"-- I remember an FA guy telling me this is an example of being specific at one point and ambiguous at another. I don't think the "grown-up" part is needed, especially when the other kids are not specified.
- Hi Gerald Waldo Luis, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild and ZKang123, really sorry for my late knowledge of this ping, I've been busy IRL and WP notifications often go unnoticed. I see that some have made suggestions, some of which solved some of the comments I was gonna make. My only (minor) suggestion would be to move the "Prime Minister's Office Singapore" and "Channel News Asia" in the citations, from website to pub. Support. GeraldWL 04:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
KN2731[edit]
Reviewing per ZKang's request. I hope I'll have enough time to look thoroughly, will probably focus on criteria 1a/b/c; response times may be longer than usual (time difference + schoolwork) so please ping if I don't reply to something in like >3 days. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Stuff on first read through:
- Infobox 15:30 to 3.30 pm for consistency
- "At the time, the construction project entailed Singapore's most extensive attempt at cut-and-cover excavation in a 40 m (130 ft) layer of soft marine clay." Couple issues: first, specifying the depth of marine clay makes the record sound oddly specific - perhaps move the numbers to the next sentence, since the rest of the geological context is already there; second, "most extensive" gives the impression of horizontal area instead of vertical depth (which I see is what the report asserts) - should probably be reworded
- 'constructed using the "bottom-up" method' - why not simply "constructed from the bottom up"?
- "Gas supply to the damaged pipe was shut off" - as a result of the damage, or as a precautionary measure after it was noticed that the pipe had been damaged?
- 66kV missing a space
- Check Oxford comma use - I see "a wife, two young children, his mother and nine siblings", also "steel king posts, walers and struts"
- Speaking of walers - I suppose it's a type of structural beam (and not the horse) - is there anywhere to link that to? Also king post can be linked. I guess a reader has enough context to infer the purpose of these structures, but it'd probably be appreciated to get a link that leads to diagrams or clearer descriptions as to what exactly they are.
- Adjust rounding for distance conversions in §Incident, to avoid false precision
- "expressed relief by" --> "expressed relief at"
- "For monitoring purposes, [etc.]" This sentence looks too closely paraphrased for comfort
- I was going to ask if the "readings that were still below trigger values at 3 pm" were recorded at exactly 3 pm (which would then need to be written as 3:00 pm), but I see that's Straits Times' issue instead.
- Check currency rounding (everywhere) - like with the distances, too many significant figures
- "Prior to the collapse, [etc.]" maybe this sentence could be split somewhere? I get the information fine, but I think we're in the territory where the lack of commas may be too much for some.
@KN2731: Made the fixes. Also Happy Year of the Dragon to you!--ZKang123 (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, same to you! Unfortunately studying abroad means I don't get the public holiday and long weekend - I'll hopefully be able to take another look at the prose some time this week. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Second read through:
- "The CCL tunnels were realigned with Nicoll Highway station, which was rebuilt underneath Republic Avenue south of its original site and was opened on 17 April 2010" - I feel there's something off with the flow here - probably because reading "realigned" gives me the impression that only the tunnels needed to be rebuilt, when the station also needed to be moved? Something like "The CCL tunnels, along with Nicoll Highway station, were rebuilt to the south under Republic Avenue and opened on 17 April 2010" feels less... jarring(?), perhaps.
- "To prevent the first span triggering the collapse of the 610-metre (2,000 ft) bridge in case of displacement" - I think "To prevent displacement of the first span triggering the collapse of the 610-metre (2,000 ft) bridge" is clearer, unless I'm misinterpreting something
- "Nine SCDF officers [...] were also awarded the Pingat Keberanian" - remove "also" and move the link to Pingat Keberanian (and its definition) up here, it's currently two sentences further down - I suppose this paragraph was rearranged at some point
- Link sumps
- Rounding again - US$150.7 mil should be US$151 mil, 328 ft should be 330 ft
That should be all I have. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 01:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
MyCat[edit]
I'll review once the above comments are addressed, just to make sure I don't duplicate anything already said! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 02:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Heng Yeow Peow, whose body was never recovered - for the lead, I think that clarifying who this is would be helpful: "One of the workers whose body was never recovered, Heng Yeow Peow, was..."
- Conversions from foreign currency to USD usually requires a citation- unless the conversion is in the source, add a citation for the conversion
- On 22 June 1956, Kallang Bridge was renamed Merdeka Bridge to reflect "the confidence and aspiration of the people of Singapore". - how is the meaning of the name relevant to this article?
- as part of the Mass Rapid Transit's (MRT) Marina Line (MRL) - "Mass Rapid Transit" only needs an article if it's referring to the system- here it seems to be referring to the organization, so I don't believe that "the" is needed
- Hence, as a precautionary measure - cut hence
- said the rescue efforts rather than apportioning blame should be the priority. - switch this around for comprehensibility: "said the rescue efforts should be the priority, rather than apportioning blame."
- Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong...President of Singapore S R Nathan... - considering that this event happened in Signapore, I think just "President" would work fine- that is, unless there is some title rule I'm unaware of
- Heng Yeow Pheow, LTA foreman - the rest of the article says "Peow" but this says "Pheow"- is this a typo or a spelling convention?
- There doesn't seem to be a consistent spelling for this guy; some articles use Peow but others uses Pheow (guess it's a transcription thing). Since the Prime Minister Office use Pheow, I will change accordingly.--ZKang123 (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- The COI called for 143 witnesses to provide evidence, including 14 experts - who qualifies as an expert here?
- Delink Monosys- the main contractors are not redlinked either, so why link the subcontractor?
- In paragraph 3 of "Resumption and conclusion", strut-waler support system is incorrectly linked- fix it with a link similar to the one in the lead
- A commemorative stone and plaque have been erected at the former site marking where they believed Heng was buried, and on every anniversary, workers from Kori Construction would visit the site to offer prayers and incense in honour of Heng - tense needs to change to past: "A commemorative stone and plaque were erected at the former site marking where they believed Heng was buried, and on every anniversary, workers from Kori Construction visit the site to offer prayers and incense in honour of Heng"
- charges under the Factories Act, and Ng Seng Yoong, a qualified personnel from LTA, faced charges under the Building Control Act - do the acts have articles, either on English Wikipedia or Singaporean Wikipedia?
ZKang123, that's all from me, great work. I really like the diagram under "Station relocation and opening"- it's very clear and well-organized. Nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support marvelous work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review by Epicgenius[edit]
I will do a source review in a bit.
Note: I was the GA reviewer for this article. As part of the GANR process I reviewed the quality of the sources and spot-checked about 10% of the sources. I recommend that a second source reviewer check this article as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have not forgotten about this. I plan to do a spot-check on one of every five citations. I will have some formatting comments tomorrow as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Formatting issues (most of these were already covered at the GA review):
- I noticed that for some sources, agencies like National Archives of Singapore and Land Transport Directory of Singapore are given in italics. However, since these are not newspapers, magazines, or other works that might normally be italicized, I don't think these need italics.
- How should these be changed tho? Like, to publisher parameter?
- I also noticed that some URLs have access dates, while others (mostly for NewspaperSG sources) don't. This is inconsistent even for NewspaperSG sources, as some of these sources do have italics.
- Fixed. I was initially worried adding access-dates would throw up cs1 issues, but then remembered it was due to url-status=live. Added.
- In the "Sources" section, the sources should be alphabetized.
- Fixed
Spot checks:
- 5: "M212931 - Consumer Price Index (CPI), 2019 As Base Year, Annual". Department of Statistics, Singapore. 23 May 2023. Retrieved 10 September 2023. - It took me a while to figure out how this worked, but there are no issues here.
- 10: "Merdeka Bridge a 7-Lane Highway Soon". The Straits Times. 5 August 1966. p. 4 – via NewspaperSG. - No issues.
- 15: "Stage 1 of the Circle Line". Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original on 10 April 2008. Retrieved 10 October 2020. - No issues.
- 20a: "Incident at Nicoll Highway – Technical Brief" (PDF). Land Transport Authority. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 July 2007. Retrieved 17 July 2007. - This PDF has three pages, so please add page numbers where applicable. The content of the source is fine.
- 25: Chin Lian, Goh (14 August 2004). "Tragedy Unfolds Before His Eyes..." The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 16 August 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - The source mentions flames, but not explosions.
- Attributed to source ref 22. (Loh, Sharon (21 April 2004). "MRT Worksite Wrecks Nicoll Highway".)
- 30: "PM Goh Says Priority is to Find Missing Men in Nicoll Highway Cave-in, Public Inquiry Later". Channel NewsAsia. 26 April 2004. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - No issues.
- 35: Ng, Julia; Cheong, Lain (21 April 2004). "Nicoll Highway Collapse: Dead Crane Operator Tried to Escape but Got Trapped". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 4 August 2004. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - The article says that the victim was 44 years old, but sources say he was 45.
- Fixed.
- 40: "Main contractor told to stop all excavation work". The Straits Times. 24 April 2004. p. H3. - Would you be able to send this to me off-wiki? If not, I will have to check another source.
- 45: Mulchand, Arti (25 April 2004). "Stabilising Ground Is Now Top Priority". The Straits Times. p. 11. - Would you be able to send this to me off-wiki? If not, I will have to check another source.
- 50: "Appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the Cause of the Incident at the MRT Circle Line Worksite That Led to the Collapse of the Nicoll Highway" (PDF). National Archives of Singapore. Ministry of Manpower. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 August 2023. Retrieved 23 August 2023. - No issues.
- 55: "Progress of Committee of Inquiry to Date" (PDF). National Archives of Singapore. Ministry of Manpower. 1 September 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023. - No issues.
- 60a: Kaur, Karamjit (3 August 2004). "'Warning Signs' Noticed Since Last Year". The Straits Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on 23 August 2023. Retrieved 24 August 2023. - No issues.
- 65: Woon, Wui Teck (13 August 2004). "Readings 'Normal 1/2 Hour Before Cave-In'". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 13 August 2004. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - No issues.
- 70: Loh, Dominique (6 September 2004). "Nicoll Highway Inquiry Resumes After 4-Day Adjournment". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 6 September 2004. Retrieved 26 August 2023.
- 75: Woon, Wui Teck (2 October 2004). "Struts Were As Good As Gone, Admits Manager". The Straits Times. p. 10. - Would you be able to send this to me off-wiki? If not, I will have to check another source.
- 80: Ministry of Manpower 2005, p. 7. - No issues.
- 85: "Main contractor offers $30,000 each to grieving families". The Straits Times. 23 April 2004. p. 3. - Would you be able to send this to me off-wiki? If not, I will have to check another source.
- 90: "Recipients". Prime Minister's Office Singapore. 27 September 2023. Archived from the original on 27 September 2023. Retrieved 27 September 2023. - No issues.
- 95: Popatlal, Asha (3 October 2005). "First of Nicoll Highway criminal trials gets underway". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 1 October 2007. - No issues.
- 100: Cheong 2012, p. 85. - No issues.
- 105: Choo, Johnson (25 April 2004). "Nicoll Highway Partially Reopened As Recovery Work Continues at Cave-In Site". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 7 August 2004. Retrieved 25 August 2023. - No issues.
- 110: Choo, Johnson (4 December 2004). "Nicoll Highway reopens to traffic after reconstruction". Channel NewsAsia. Archived from the original on 10 April 2005. Retrieved 29 January 2022. - No issues.
- 115: Tan, Christopher (5 February 2005). "Line linked to Circle line may be realigned". The Straits Times. p. 8. "A planned MRT line meant to join the Circle Line at the original Nicoll Highway station may have to be realigned, the Land Transport Authority has indicated. It did not say which this would be." - Quote checks out.
- 120: "Circle Line stage one likely to be delayed by 2 years: Yeo". Channel NewsAsia. 4 December 2004. Archived from the original on 7 May 2005. Retrieved 30 January 2022. - No issues, though I would probably have said "the completion date of CCL Stage 1 was delayed, first from 2007 to 2009".
I've checked sources 5-30 so far and will check the remainder over the next few days. Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @ZKang123: Only a few minor issues here. There were four I could not spot check because they were offline. Please let me know if you can send me these; if you can't, I will check four additional sources randomly. Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Here are my assessments of the off-wiki sources (I have bolded the source numbers that have been changed):
- 41: "Main contractor told to stop all excavation work". The Straits Times. 24 April 2004. p. H3. - No issues.
- 46: Mulchand, Arti (25 April 2004). "Stabilising Ground Is Now Top Priority". The Straits Times. p. 11. - No issues.
- 76: Woon, Wui Teck (2 October 2004). "Struts Were As Good As Gone, Admits Manager". The Straits Times. p. 10. - No issues.
- 86: "Main contractor offers $30,000 each to grieving families". The Straits Times. 23 April 2004. p. 3. - No issues.
I'm happy to say this passes my source review (subject to the caveat that I was the original GA reviewer, and that another source reviewer can double-check my work if necessary). Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- You consistently avoid using a definite article before "Nicoll Highway". Why? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how to answer the question, to be honest. Is it convention to use a definite article when referring to the highway? Local sources don't use the article (e.g. from a government website and local transport authority).--ZKang123 (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- In so far as the Nicholl Highway is a proper noun, most uses of it require a definite article ('the') to be grammatical in formal English. The rule is explained here.
- Also, the titles of sources which are not books should be in sentence case, see MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let me check that.
- TR putting oar in: I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule even in BrE. I can't speak for Singapore English, but in English English the definite article is decidedly negotiable when it comes to thoroughfares and places. I would write "in the King's Road", "along the Strand", "to the Portobello Road", "near the Regent's Park", "at the Philharmonic Hall", "from the Brompton Oratory" etc but many (probably younger) writers would omit the article for some or all of these. – Tim riley talk 14:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weell, if Mr riley and the HQ RSs agree, who am I to argue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm with Tim, I think there is definitely room for manoeuvre. We wouldn't say "the Main Street", for example, and plucking a road FA at random, we wouldn't say the Interstate 90. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Weell, if Mr riley and the HQ RSs agree, who am I to argue? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- TR putting oar in: I'm not sure there is a hard-and-fast rule even in BrE. I can't speak for Singapore English, but in English English the definite article is decidedly negotiable when it comes to thoroughfares and places. I would write "in the King's Road", "along the Strand", "to the Portobello Road", "near the Regent's Park", "at the Philharmonic Hall", "from the Brompton Oratory" etc but many (probably younger) writers would omit the article for some or all of these. – Tim riley talk 14:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. Let me check that.
- May I know which refs specifically which aren't still in title caps? I thought I had converted all of them to titlecaps. Also added the articles for the highway as requested.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that they are all in title case, which is true. But if the are article titles, eg not book titles, they should be in sentence case. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wait... I converted all of them to title case instead of sentence case. I misunderstood since previously you said title case in a past FAC...--ZKang123 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I did? Could you pause a moment then, while I check this too. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oh wait... I converted all of them to title case instead of sentence case. I misunderstood since previously you said title case in a past FAC...--ZKang123 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you mean that they are all in title case, which is true. But if the are article titles, eg not book titles, they should be in sentence case. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: any further updates or feedback?--02:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the delay, thanks for querying my original comment. After consultations, title case it is.
Harry[edit]
I haven't checked sources; this is mostly a prose review
- We generally don't include legal suffixes of companies (eg "LTD"), though the only guidance I can find on that is from the naming conventions for articles rather than the MoS.
- In 1997, the companies damaged telecommunications company Singtel's underground cables that's quite a confusing sentence as you're explaining what the owner of the subject is before we get to the subject. I'm not sure the ownership is actually relevant so suggest trimming to just "damaged underground cables".
- Fixed to "damaged underground telecommunications cables".
- the result of sea level changes in the Kallang River Sea level changes in a river? (Also sea level might need a hyphen as a compound adjective if you're going to use it that way)
- My mistake. Source did not say Kallang River "Bird et al. (2003) have recently reviewed the age and origins of the Kallang soil deposits based on the history of sea level changes that have occurred during the quaternary period.", but refers more to the sea (Kallang Basin) before the land reclamation.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Time zone is not normally relevant unless the event straddles time zones or time-zone comparison is necessary (ie, as a Brit, I don't need to know what 3:30 pm in Singapore translates to in my time; the reader just needs to know what time the incident happened in local time because it defines the character of the event).
- Suggest working the tea break in after you give the time of day. Where it is it appears to imply a connection between the deaths and the tea break.
- There's some connection, given most of the workers weren't in the site when the incident happened.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- I still think this would be better stated earlier in the paragraph. At the very least, the semicolon needs to be a full stop. As it is, it could be read as one person was found dead because the workers were on a tea break. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's some connection, given most of the workers weren't in the site when the incident happened.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The collapse disrupted traffic on the highway See Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment. Readers can infer that the collapse of a highway will disrupt traffic on said highway.
- The entire second paragraph of the "Incident" section is very confusing. First you say there was an explosion and fire, then you say the gas was cut off as a precaution (so how did it catch fire?), then you talk about some electricity cables, then you go back to the ?explosion and detail eyewitness reports, but conclude with the LTA denying that there was any explosion. I'm confused. What, if anything, exploded? If the electricity cables aren't relevant to the gas explosion, you should discuss them separately. If the gas was shut off but the explosion was residual gas, mention the shutoff first and explain.
- Government reports published much later after the collapse tend to conflict with eyewitness and initial reports... Shifted around the facts so that the cables were mentioned first, then the eyewitness reports of fire and explosions.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Much better. This is purely OR and speculation, but severing high-voltage electricity cables would cause a loud bang and a flash of light which could be what the eyewitnesses thought was an explosion. Of course, we can't say that if the sources don't! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Government reports published much later after the collapse tend to conflict with eyewitness and initial reports... Shifted around the facts so that the cables were mentioned first, then the eyewitness reports of fire and explosions.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The voltage of the cables doesn't seem relevant and we can infer that they crossed the site otherwise they wouldn't be mentioned.
- Explain (briefly) what the LTA is at first mention.
- He added the government would investigate the cause through a public inquiry → would convene a public inquiry (or similar adjective); the purpose of an inquiry is obviously to investigate
- the search for the foreman Heng Yeow Pheow was called off at 3:30 pm the name needs parenthetical commas if you're using a definite article; you could get away with dropping the "the" and use "foreman" as a false title but that would be less good in my opinion.
- I'm not sure the bulleted list of victims complies with WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Their backgrounds and future plans certainly don't seem relevant, and surviving relatives certainly aren't, though their job roles and the circumstances of their deaths/how they were found probably are.
- Singaporean authorities dismissed terrorism and sabotage as causes of the incident How long did this take?
- The COI called for 143 witnesses to provide evidence, including 14 experts That seems like a low ratio of experts to others. Who were the others? Were they all eyewitnesses/people involved?
- The inquiry into the tunnel collapse began on 2 August 2004 We know what the inquiry is investigating, that's what the article is about; and you gave the date immediately above.
- there were "fundamental" design flaw who is this quoting?
- The article never attributed to anyone.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's in quote marks so it needs to be attributed to someone. Or if it can stand on its own, you could remove the quote marks and make the claim in Wikipedia's voice. Or you could just remove the adjective and the quote marks. But you can't have a lingering opinion without telling the reader whose opinion it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- The article never attributed to anyone.--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- More than 170 witnesses were brought in during the 80 days of the inquiry We seem to have gained 27 witnesses but the article does not say where they came from (or much about who they were).
- Consider whether naming the criminal defendants is in keeping with WP:BLPNAME
—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Addressed most of the comments, though I'm not so sure about the bullet point names and also the naming of criminal defendants. Thanks for the review!--ZKang123 (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- After consulting @Epicgenius:, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, removed details of surviving relatives, and per WP:BLPNAME, removed direct mentions of personnel convicted.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- A few replies inline. Once those are addressed I expect to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the issues raised in replies.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- LGTM. Support on 1a, 1b, 2, and 4. Haven't evaluated the other criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed the issues raised in replies.--ZKang123 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 March 2024 [23].
Breakdown (Mariah Carey song)[edit]
This article is about a Mariah Carey song that had a great potential of becoming a number one single, but never even received a chance. I don't really listen to it that often as I haven't lived enough to appreciate the lyrics, but it is definitely a high quality song, and hopefully the article is too ;) I started working on this article in 2022, but then I procrastinated on writing the critical reception section for a year ..... so here we are in 2024! Thanks in advance for any comments, Heartfox (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG[edit]
Recusing to review.
- "The track features rapping by two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone." This is a bit ambiguous at the moment. It reads as if two members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone are four people. Would "features rapping by Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone, members of the group Bone Thugs-n-Harmony,.." make it better?
- Changed to your suggestion
- "Retrospectively, "Breakdown" is regarded as a turning point in Carey's musical direction" - in what sense is it considered a turning point?
- Added that this is in regard to a hip hop musical direction
- "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were provided with cannabis which they passed out from after getting high." "getting high" is too informal and idiomatic. How about: "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis, leading them to become intoxicated and pass out."?
- Changed to "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis which they passed out from after becoming intoxicated"
- @FrB.TG and Heartfox: I think "high" is the better word. Yes, it's not technically formal diction, but it's also universally the word people would use to describe the effects of cannabis (or most recreational drugs). Nobody would ever say, "I got intoxicated on cannabis". WP:FACR requires that writing be "of a professional standard". That does not mean we cannot use informal diction when appropriate. As some examples of professional writing that uses "high" to describe the effects of cannabis:
- Changed to "Upon their arrival, Krayzie Bone and Wish Bone were given cannabis which they passed out from after becoming intoxicated"
- "Are Edibles Safer Than Smoking?". nytimes.com. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
- "How Marijuana Affects Your Mind and Body". WebMD. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
- "Highly Potent Weed Has Swept The Market, Raising Concerns About Health Risks". NPR. 15 May 2019. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
- "A powerful new form of medical marijuana, without the high". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 March 2024.
- These are all high-quality mainstream sources, all of which certainly meet the standard of writing to a professional level. By insisting on replacing "high" with "intoxicated", you've made the article more difficult to understand by using a highly unusual choice of vocabulary. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Some critics thought the song detailed the demise of Carey's marriage" - not sure it's common to refer to the end of a marriage as its "demise" when it's usually used to mean the death of a person. Why not just "end"?
- Changed to "end"
- "Had "Breakdown" been released to retail, the single would have broken Carey's streak of four consecutive number ones on the Billboard Hot 100." Not sure I understand this properly. What does its release to retail have to do with the single's potential failure to reach number one? Was it a sure thing that the song, if released as a single at the time, would not have topped the chart and hence broken Carey's streak?
- Changed "would have" to "likely would have". "Breakdown" had no airplay from pop radio so unless it sold an absurd amount of copies it wouldn't have gone to number one. The Hot 100 was still the "pop chart" until December 1998. I tried to explain this in the following sentence "chart rules stipulated that songs required retail releases to appear and that airplay from R&B radio stations was not a factor"
- Not a fan of the image caption in the music video section. Just saying that a certain scene was analyzed isn't very informative. FrB.TG (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Specified
FrB.TG, thanks for the helpful comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Source review from Vami[edit]
Source review to follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Sources look reliable. I see nothing flagged by Cite Unseen as unreliable except for the interview on YouTube, but that should be fine as a primary source. Spot check will now (finally) follow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Spot-check
- [8]: Checks out.
- [14]: All good here.
- [27]: Ditto.
- [33]: Ditto.
- [49]: Ditto.
- [56]: Ditto.
- [66]: Ditto.
I feel comfortable, with this sample size, in supporting this nomination. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Last comment: You should search the Internet Archive's Books to Borrow library and link any copies of the books you cited. Here's one. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this! All of the books freely available already have an Open Library link given :) Heartfox (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Aoba47[edit]
- I have a question about this part, (Before they wrote and performed their raps). The "raps" phrasing seems a bit off to me. I am more accustomed to seeing this worded as "verses". Is "raps" a common descriptor for this kind of thing?
- In the liner notes their contributions are not listed as a verse but as "rap 1", "rap 2", etc, so I think labelling it as a verse would be inappropriate
- I am not sure about the wording in this part, (after it did not issue a standalone commercial single in the United States). It is not clear what is being referenced by "a standalone commercial single". I'd revise it to something like (after the label did not issue "Breakdown" as a standalone commercial single in the United States). I think the chronology for the lead is a bit odd though as readers would have already seen in the first paragraph that this song was released as a single and now it is being said that it was not.
- Clarified as "after it did not release the song to retail outlets in the United States"
- Did Carey only perform this song on Butterfly World Tour?
- No, but later performances were not mentioned in secondary sources aside from 2006 which I have now added to the article
- I have a question about this sentence: (It received the best critical reviews of her career up to that point.) The current placement seems to imply that Carey's choice to experiment with hip hop music lead to this praise and contributed to her confidence to continue doing so, but is this clearly stated in the source? If so, I think it would be best to more explicitly say this in the prose.
- It is not implied that the hip hop elements in Daydream were the reason for the praise, but the overall reception gave Carey the go-ahead to go further the next album. Shapiro says: "Butterfly was Mariah Carey's coming-of-age album. The creative rush of being out from under the control of her husband and record producers and the critical acceptance of Daydream had given Mariah the confidence to delve deeper into the hip-hop world." I have combined two sentences to establish the link more explicitly in the prose.
- For this part, (and they began studying the rap group's discography), would a link to Bone Thugs-n-Harmony discography be helpful?
- Added
- I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Both he and Combs had already worked with Carey on another Butterfly track, "Honey".) I read this as saying that "Honey" was recorded before any work was done on "Breakdown". Would that be accurate?
- I am not sure what this part, (as they did not comprehend her career), means. Could you clarify this for me?
- "Changed "career" to "level of fame"
- I have a comment on this part, (Affected by reggae and doo-wop,). Would "influenced" be a better word choice than "affected"? I do not think I have heard "affected" in this context (i.e. a musician being affected by different genres).
- Changed to "influenced"
- I am not sure about this sentence: (Columbia did not issue a commercial single in the United States after the song failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio.) It reads like they did not issue a single at all in the US after this, and it is rather vague. I think it should be clarified.
- Rephrased to "After 'Breakdown' failed to garner crossover success on contemporary hit radio, Columbia did not release it for sale in the United States"
I hope this review is helpful. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will read the article again just to make sure I have not missed anything. I will be keeping my review focused on the prose however. I am glad that you nominated this song for a FAC. I do enjoy this song on a technical level, but it is not one of my favorite Mariah Carey songs to be honest. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Carey references "Breakdown in "With You"; she talks about it in this interview with Genius around the 54:40 mark. This reference was also picked up on by NPR and Pitchfork. Is it notable enough for inclusion?
I just have one very minor question, but other than that, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion once it is addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the responses. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
File:Mariah Carey & Bones Thugs-N-Harmony - Breakdown.ogg is representative of the song? I don't have a good feeling about File:Mariah Carey Breakdown Music Video.png - in my experience, WP:NFCC#8 requires non-free images to be central to the article's topic and here it's mostly a subtopic. ALT text is missing or describing the image rather than its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for doing the image review. It's the final chorus, so it includes multiple elements that were previously present at various times, but now they all occur at the same time at the end of the song. It is as representative of the song as a whole as possible (ie background vocals, instrumentation, vocal performance which received critical commentary in adjacent text).
- The music video is central to the "article topic" as the music video is one of the main ways the song was consumed by the public. I am confused by this interpretation of NFCC8; is non-free content not allowed in article sections? I don't understand why the wording "article topic" would exclude an article's "subtopics". An "article topic" naturally includes a series of subtopics, and a music video is one of the key subtopics as it has a two-paragraph section. I wouldn't include a screenshot for a music video that received little commentary, but omitting a screenshot of something that received commentary from three different secondary sources that is described in adjacent text would reduce reader's understanding of the article topic, as marketing/visualization of the song (via a music video) and critical analysis of the song's music video (via a music video) is central to understanding the song as a whole.
- The alt text is present and says "Mariah Carey performing cabaret with two background dancers". Can you clarify what the issue is? Heartfox (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the criterium is "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and it's often debatable whether a single section can satisfy the "significant" part. The thing I see about that ALT text is that there is probably a style or so that needs to be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- I do understand where you are coming from, but I think the image meets the NFCC8 guidance at WP:NFC#CS. The image "is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article", as three secondary sources refer to Carey's cabaret performance in the section. For "where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article" – yes, excluding it would not make clear what the secondary source commentary is referring to. "The significance of the understanding afforded by the" image is present as the music video was a key way the song was promoted. The music video is not a minor aspect; the amount of secondary source coverage in the section (including mention in an academic journal article) indicates that it is worthy of understanding to understand the song as a whole.
- Regarding a "style or so that needs to be described" in the alt text, I am still unclear what you want me to add. Per WP:ALT, "Since it cannot contain inline citations, it must not convey any contentious point, or material not obvious to any reader". I genuinely don't know what "style" I would be referring to here, can you provide an example? Heartfox (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, what information is a sighted reader supposed to get out of the image? That would be needed in the ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that the criterium is "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and it's often debatable whether a single section can satisfy the "significant" part. The thing I see about that ALT text is that there is probably a style or so that needs to be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
OK on the ALT text, but I'd like a second opinion on the NFCC#8 issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the image could potentially be justified; I don't think the current FUR does it. What is the potential misinterpretation it mentions? What's the benefit of an image vs ((external media)), given that the source is freely accessible? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, is this GTG now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Images down the article still need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- What images do not have alt text? Heartfox (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have missed some ALT text. It's OKish, but I think that the sample also needs one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Per Template:Listen the alt paramater is only used if there is an image displayed with the file. Heartfox (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I must have missed some ALT text. It's OKish, but I think that the sample also needs one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
- What images do not have alt text? Heartfox (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
- Images down the article still need ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]
Resolved
|
|---|
Not a bad article overall, your main issue is overlinking terms. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
|
With everything addressed, I support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Elias[edit]
After recently listening to the new "Yes, And?" remix, I find it fitting that I will be reviewing another Mariah Carey article after some time. Expect comments this weekend Elias 🌊 💬 "Will you call me?"
📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?" 03:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Your Power are you still expecting to do a review of this? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- @David Fuchs: yes; apologies. Allow me some time later today Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- A complementary, brief explanation of middle of the road music in the article would help
- Added a note
- To be consistent, mention "Dreamlover" was from the album Music Box ; other mentions of Carey's songs in the article state on which album they were release
- Added
- Optional, but you can connect the sentences about "dreamlover" and daydream so that the transition between them is less abrupt
- Prefer to keep it separate
- Is her choice of incorporating more hip hop on Butterfly a consequence of the rave reviews and the separation ? The way the sentence is written I assume it's that way, but it's a bit ambiguous for me
- Yes that assumption is correct per the cited source
- "in follow-up album Butterfly" the word "her" is missing
- Added
- "recently released Notorious B.I.G./Bone Thugs-n-Harmony collaboration 'Notorious Thugs'" is a cumbersome read in a pretty long sentence. suggest rewriting it to "'Notorious Thugs' by Notorious B.I.G. and Bone Thugs-n-Harmony"
- Reworded
- Include release date for "Honey"
- I think that would introduce timing confusion as it is not evident that "Breakdown" was recorded after the release of "Honey". The release of "Honey" is dicussed in the "release" section.
- nitpick, but isn't it usually "remix of" instead of "remix to" ? i recognise this may be just a matter of writing preference though, so it'sfine to gloss over this
- Changed
More to come soon Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 14:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- More
- Do some trims to the following words or phrases for concision
- "both" from "both he and Combs" and "both Carey and her fans" (this word tends to be redundant from experience)
- Trimmed
- "also" from "She also recorded vocals..."
- Trimmed
- Do some trims to the following words or phrases for concision
- "became apparent" ... at first glance readers won't know what "apparent" is referring to; suggest specifying ("apparent in her discography")
- Clarified
- The timeline presented in the second paragraph is unclear. In relation to the recording sessions for Butterfly, when did Carey learn of "Notorious Thugs" ? sometime during recording? before it started? after it started?
- Clarified
- "after the composing the music" self-explanatory
- Removed "the music"
- "Upon their arrival" the "they" is ambiguous
- Removed; no longer necesary
- On a similar note: this part "where Dana Jon Chappelle and Ian Dalsemer conducted engineering at The Hit Factory and Daddy's House" causes the confusion to arise. I am not sure about the merits of its inclusion in the first part of the paragraph, considering the first sentences focus on Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony and how they began their contributions to the song. Suggest moving to after the sentence "Carey, Stevie J, and Combs produced..."
- Moved
- "The lyrics have a dark tone, and chirping birds in the background elicit an optimistic aura" i dont think "and" is the right conjunction to use here, considering there's a contrast between the lyrics and elements of the music
- I thought "yet" or "while" introduces NPOV issues so I chose "and"
- "all about the rhythmic and melodic flow that I was inspired by" I was confused by what this quotation meant for a second until I read the source and learned it was referring to Bone-Thugs-n-Harmony's musicality. the quotation beats around the bush a bit so paraphrase it to be more direct
- Paraphrased.
- More vague wording imo in "showcasing she is caught between despair and detachment" - perhaps it would be useful to specify this is about the relationship discussed in the song ("Jon Pareles wrote this highlighted how she simultaneously feels despair and apathy about her relationship"
- It is already mentioned that the song is about a relationship at the start of the third paragraph
To be continued Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 06:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- This may just be me, but "a potential success in its own right" feels off and vague. I assume they meant "commented on its potential to be a commercially successful single" ?
- Reworded
- "After the song" ambiguous; switch this with "Breakdown" to avoid confusion with "butterfly"
- Switched
- "acted as the third single" -> "was the third single" (to tighten prose)
- Reworded
- "later that year" is 1998 I assume?
- Changed to " in late 1998"
- "heavy R&B material" should be "heavily" because "heavy" cannot describe a song in this context
- Reworded
- I cast doubt on the relevance of mentioning "The Roof" here. the article is about "Breakdown". as much as possible let's try not veering away from that
- Cut
- "Daily Herald writer Mark Guarino considered the lyrics unusually substantive" I looked at the cited source for this, and they don't quite match: it says "[the song] includes one of the more mature lyrics [...] heavy stuff from the queen of cute". "Substantive" doesn't really say a lot and does not properly convey the intended meaning of the source.
- Changed "unusually substantive" to "surprisingly serious"
- "Several critics thought the composition lacked cohesiveness" the transition to this part of the paragraph is a bit rough and it could use a transition word at the beginning. I get the need for concision, but cohesion is also needed in articles to avoid staccato prose
- prefaced with "in contrast"
- "made the song's quality equivalent to that of her traditional ballads" "equivalent" can either mean "just as bad" or "just as good" or "just as ok" or really anything. the quote "as magical" is pretty useful to use here
- Changed to "as high-quality"
- the archive link of the aforementioned Vulture source is for a Cleveland.com article
- Corrected
- "a pattern of nondescript R&B collaborations" what do you mean by "nondescript R&B collaborations" ? standard for its time? boilerplate?
- There's an explanatory note
- "duplicative" WP:PLAINENGLISH; just say "repetitive"
- Reworded
- Placing "Rather than simply having them appear on the track" before "Sal Cinquemani" gives the impression that Cinquemani had them on the track.can we find a way to move that phrase?
- Reworded
- "embraced her collaborators" rather their musical style?
- Reworded
- "Breakdown debuted and peaked at number four on the Hot R&B Singles chart" hot r&b songs is a separate chart from hot r&b/hip-hop songs, so don't cite the latter and instead use the former page
- Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs was titled Hot R&B Singles in 1998; the citation is correct
- "In one scene performing cabaret" trim to "in one cabaret scene"
- Reworded
- "gave homage" apologies again for this similar nitpick, but i believe this usually is written as "paid homage" ?
- Converted to "paid homage"
- "social standards regarding the attractiveness of female R&B singers are implied" implied because they're female singers? R&B singers? female r&b singers ?
- female R&B singers
So far, I found some WP:ELEVAR issues that I think stemmed from paraphrasing, which caused a large chunk of the ambiguity in the composition and review sections. You may also want to do another sweep of all the sources, as I spotted some inconsistencies in the citations (wrong archive links, and so on), though I won't bother with the spotchecks since Vami already did it. Will continue again soon Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Will get to this on the weekend. Best, Heartfox (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Can you clarify what inconsistencies in the citations you are referring to aside from the one archive link which I have now fixed?
- Your Power, I've now responded to all above. Thanks again for the helpful comments, Heartfox (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: I was referring primarily to how the article faithfully describes the reviews from the song, although I see that it has been fixed now. I read everything else in the music video section and found zero issues prose-wise.
- One last comment --- structurally "Having employed them on remixes..." is used here to describe "Breakdown", when it should be describing hip hop. I recommend moving it to the previous sentence: "...Carey's musical direction toward hip hop, which she previously employed on remixes to her songs...". That's pretty much it, and I think other than that the legacy section is fine. Once this is addressed I will be willing to support. My apologies for the long wait, and thank you for your patience! Elias 🪐 (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 02:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reversed the sentence wording to ""Breakdown" marked the first time she collaborated with rap artists on a song in its original form; she had previously employed them on remixes to her songs "Fantasy" (1995), "Always Be My Baby" (1996), and "Honey" (1997)". Heartfox (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 March 2024 [24].
Ben&Ben[edit]
After tackling a Filipino actor BLP, back again with another musician bio. This time, I decided to start working on a band, instead of the usual solo artist BLP. Ben&Ben started as a duo formed by twin brothers Paolo and Miguel Benjamin Guico. They later expanded into a nine-member ensemble and have released an extended play and two studio albums. Their music is known for its anthemic quality and emotional engagement that appeals to a wide range of audiences. Their songs have been featured in films, television shows, and soon on theater. Regarded as prolific songwriters, they are also the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time on Spotify. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Placeholder[edit]
I will hopefully get time to look at this in the next couple of days....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- "percussions" should be "percussion"
- Fixed
- In the lead you have both "Ben&Ben are" and "Ben&Ben has". I'm not sure whether the norm in Filipino English is for band names to be considered singular or plural, but whichever it is should be used consistently
- I missed this. I've changed it now so that it is consistent with the plural form throughout the article.
- "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers led" => "Their inherent familiarity with music devices, such as fixing loudspeakers, led"
- Done
- "They had been interested at a career in music" => "They had been interested in a career in music"
- Done
- "which infused folk music and its lyrics rooted from kundiman" => "which infused folk music and featured lyrics rooted in kundiman"
- "the duo invited a small group musicians" => "the duo invited a small group of musicians"
- Can't believe I missed this. Fixed
- "Favorite Album of the Year at 2020 Awit Awards" => "Favorite Album of the Year at the 2020 Awit Awards"
- And this...also fixed. Thanks for catching.
- "experimenting with different narrative standpoints" - I don't really understand this and how it relates to the title, which is what the first half of the sentence was about
- I have tweaked this so that the latter statement is specific to the production of the album. Hopefully that provides clarity, happy to revise if needed.
- "regarded its sound a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry" => "regarded its sound as a bold reinvention of Ben&Ben's artistry"
- Done
- "all of whom appeared in the album" => "all of whom appeared on the album"
- Done
- The group photo caption isn't a full sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
- Removed full stop
- "Ben&Ben are active supporters of recycling and single-use products" - surely they are opposed to single-use products, rather than supporting them.....?
- Totally my bad. You're right. Revised the sentence as well.
- "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Spotify has named Ben&Ben" => "Having surpassed more than two billion streams to date, Ben&Ben were named by Spotify"
- Done
- The concerts section is unsourced, plus is there great value in listing just the names of three tours, with no additional context?
- I believe, from another review, that if the concerts are mentioned in the prose, it would be okay to list them without inline citations (I could be wrong). Having said that, I do agree that listing it is unnecessary, so this section has now been removed.
- That's what I got - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your time in reviewing ChrisTheDude! I have actioned all your comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]
Figured I should leave some comments here after coming to the article from your related FLC and seeing it was nominated for FAC. I also have an open FAC if you have time or interest in leaving comments. I hope to get more comments added soon, but here are a couple to start.
- Is there a reason the instruments aren't linked in the lead?
- My guess would be because the instruments are generally simple and easy to understand. I've referenced other FAs of bands such as U2, Pink Floyd, and Pearl Jam, and they all seem to not link the instruments in enclosures. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does high-school need the dash? If that's how it is done when related to Philippine English or something, then never mind.
- Comments part 2
- Flip ref orders unless the later footnote has to be first. Example:
They graduated from De La Salle in 2016 and formed The Benjamins,[4][1]
andreleased their first effort, an eponymous extended play (EP), on December 17, 2016.[8][7]
- Honestly, I'm not sure if it's just a personal preference or if it's even something worth worrying about at FAC/FLC, but mentioning it anyway.
- In my experience, I think it's not an absolute rule, I do however tend to cite my references in the order where the primary citation comes first then the secondary citation(s) that support the sentence. If that makes sense.
- Remove the kundiman link in the Musical style and themes section as it is marked as a DUPLINK.
- Removed
- There's a few instances of long quotes. Is it possible to cut some of them down a little? There's long ones for example in "Formation and early years" and "Breakthrough and success". To be fair, they're not long enough to cause issues with earwig or anything, so if they have to remain, there's no copyvio at least.
- I have paraphrased the longer quote in the "Formation" section. I did keep that shorter one, which was a review. Hopefully that's fine and not a cause of concern.
Filipino musicians Chito Miranda, KZ Tandingan, Moira Dela Torre, Juan Karlos Labajo and Zild
- Comma after Labajo to be consistent with similar instances in the article.
- Added
"It usually starts with a song idea from a single songwriter ... It could be as bare as a single line, or a fully written piece ... After everyone hears it, if the songwriter doesn’t really have any specific ideas for how it’ll be arranged, each person brings in their own ideas to the table.
- Missing a second quotation mark.
- Added
being the most-streamed Filipino artist in 2020, 2021 and 2023
- Add a comma after 2021
- Added. Thanks for catching all those punctuation lapses.
- There is one more instance of high-school towards the beginning of the history section.
- Missed that. Should be fixed now.
Image review from ZooBlazer - Passes[edit]
- File:Ben&Ben in 2018 2.png - Use in infobox looks good, properly licensed, and has alt text.
- File:Ben&Ben official logo (2022).webp - Use makes sense in the article and licensing looks good. However, I don't think "Refer to caption" is very useful as alt text.
.webp){kind=link}
- File:Steve Lillywhite during interview.jpg - Image use works in the article, properly licensed, and has alt text.
- File:Pagtingin (Ben&Ben song - sample).ogg - Although not an image, I'm including it since it is a file. Sound sample, only 20 seconds long so no issues with length, properly licensed and sourced.
- File:Photo featuring Ben&Ben members.png - Use makes sense in the article, properly licensed, and has alt text.
I'll try to add more prose comments soon. The image review just has one issue with the second image's alt text. -- ZooBlazer 19:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your initial comments and the image review ZooBlazer. All actioned and responses provided. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Image review passes and I left a few more comments above. -- ZooBlazer 21:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional comments ZooBlazer. I've provided my response and have actioned them. Let me know if there's anything I might have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Image review passes and I left a few more comments above. -- ZooBlazer 21:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
MyCat[edit]
Two albums and they're already "the most-streamed Filipino artist of all time on Spotify"? That is extremely impressive- let's see how this came to be
- During this time, the duo worked with several different sound engineers and songwriters, including tribal leaders - including tribal leaders? To my knowledge, tribal leaders aren't engineers or songwriters- clarify their role here
- Clarified that the tribe leaders were sources of inspiration. Added another source to support that as well.
- The wordmark logo image should be moved down a paragraph, since the paragraph it's currently linked to details the time that they were still called The Benjamins
- Thanks for catching. I've moved it to the next paragraph
- Six of them have formally studied music - clarify "them": "Six of the additions had previously studied..."
- Revised as suggested
- Meanwhile, Cabugao is the only one - I don't think meanwhile is quite the right word here- "on the other hand" or "conversely" make more sense
- Agreed and revised.
- "Leaves", the EP's single - what EP? I know it's the one mentioned earlier, but it's so many sentence back that it's worth clarifying
- Revised it as Ben&Ben EP (as it was self-titled)
- which signaled that they had attracted a range of audiences - does this need to be said? To me, getting lots of streams sort of insinuates this...
- Makes perfect sense. I've removed it.
- They admire how the group have diversified their sound and explored many musical styles throughout their career: "From the breadth of themes they tackle in their songs, to the contrasts of their musical palette, all the way to making the most of music as a holistic experience" - because it quote isn't a complete sentence, it should not be linked with a colon: perhaps, "They admire how the group have diversified their sound and explored many musical styles throughout their career, including 'the breadth of themes...'"
- Thanks for this, done per your suggestion.
- The full names of the band members aren't needed here since they've been stated before- just using last names is cleaner and declutters the number of names. If anything, it may be helpful to restate their instruments
- Done and used their last names instead.
- Juan Karlos Labajo from the namesake band, - from his namesake band
- Done
- Subsequently, this led to the release of their EP which reflected a similar style - the musical style led to their EP's release? Weird phrasing- rework to make it more about the style, perhaps, "A similar style was implemented into their first EP..."
- Now that I just read it, you're right. I've revised this line as suggested.
- In solidarity, the band dedicated their 2018 single "Maybe the Night", which was - dedicated the single to whom?
- Had a hard time trying not to use the term "LGBT Community" again, since it was dedicated to them. So I did a bit of tweaking, hopefully that reads better.
- They have been known to advocate - why "have been known to"?
- Revised this, in the present.
Pseud 14, that's all from me- excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 15:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words and for providing your feedback MyCatIsAChonk. All comments actioned. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support - got everything! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. I am reviewing this version. What makes Bandwagon, Tempo and Wish 107.5 a reliable source? Other sources are things I have already seen on other Filipino entertainment articles, mostly news sources which I guess are OK as they seem to be pretty mainstream with no indication that they are fake news websites or the like. There are no biographies? Some of the sources sans author seem to be authored by the staff; is it worth noting? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bandwagon is a company/website that covers music as well as entertainment verticals including film/television and gaming across Asia. It has been around for 13 years, and their website does provide an editorial team. Also, they have a pool of independent staff writers, such as Kara Bodegon who have written articles for Billboard Philippines and other publications, which I have referenced in some of my other articles. Their "About us" section also mentions that their work has been referenced by reputable publications such as The New York Times, Elle, and Teen Vogue.
- Tempo is tabloid newspaper published under the Manila Bulletin Publishing Corporation, which circulates the Manila Bulletin, I understand that tabloid newspaper sources should be used with caution, and on a case by case basis so have replaced it with a higher quality source. Ref 71
- Wish 107.5 is a radio station and streaming platform which operates in a similar vein as iHeartRadio. It has been around since 2014 and is considered one of the largest online radio platforms in the Philippines. Its content generally focuses on coverage of music both local and international, album reviews, and live events, among others, and is generally for uncontroversial and non-contentious material. It has also expanded in 2016, and has since held it's annual Wish 107.5 Music Awards (comparable to that of iHeartRadio Music Awards), I believe its circulation and presence within the music space in the Philippines is deemed reputable.
- By biography, did you mean for each member? I generally followed the FA writing style for bands where their History/Formation section would have coverage about the founding members' or notable members' bios/career beginnings and discuss the band's formation. I've sourced out every available information that covered the brothers' bios, as well as any articles I could find about the rest of the members.
- With regard to the news articles without authors, I thought about that and checked other BLP FAs which use news articles too. From what I've checked, I think in cases of news articles without an author name or press releases, it is assumed that it is written/published by the staff writer/correspondent, and the author / first and last name parameter is left blank.
Thanks for taking up the source review Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have provided my response to your questions on the reliability of the citations and changes made, as well as the two last points raised. Let me know if they are to your satisfaction or if anything needs changing. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant "biography" in the sense of whether anyone had published a book about Ben&Ben, either its member(s) or the group as a whole. The thing that makes me wonder about Wish 107.5 is that it's described as "the media arm of Members Church of God International" and I dunno if that is still reliable - sometimes "media arms" of organizations not in the news business serve advocacy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying Jo-Jo Eumerus. From what I've dug online and searching for scholarly or academic sources, there hasn't been a book published that discussed Ben&Ben or its members yet, it could be largely attributed to the fact that the band is fairly new, having been founded around 2016/2017. As for the second point, thanks for that perspective, I agree with the point you raised. I've replaced that source with a high quality article. Hopefully that is much more acceptable. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing more to add from me, with the caveat that this isn't a field where I am deeply familiar with the saucing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying Jo-Jo Eumerus. From what I've dug online and searching for scholarly or academic sources, there hasn't been a book published that discussed Ben&Ben or its members yet, it could be largely attributed to the fact that the band is fairly new, having been founded around 2016/2017. As for the second point, thanks for that perspective, I agree with the point you raised. I've replaced that source with a high quality article. Hopefully that is much more acceptable. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2024 [25].
Mount Edziza volcanic complex[edit]
This article is about a group of volcanoes in British Columbia, Canada. It includes Mount Edziza, one of the highest volcanoes in Canada. The volcanic complex has been an area of volcanic activity for at least 7.4 million years, most recently in the last 2,000 years. It is also the most active volcanic system in Canada, having erupted more than 29 times during the Holocene. It also remains as one of the best-studied volcanic centres in northwestern British Columbia. Volcanoguy 22:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
File:Mount Edziza, British Columbia.jpg or File:Mt. Edziza - 4037992482.jpg might be better off in the vegetation section. Also, given the widely diverging resolutions, I kinda want to check if the Flickr uploader has taken any files from elsewhere. With some of the ALT text, it may need a bit more detail to describe the shape of the objects shown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, I've moved File:Mt. Edziza - 4037992482.jpg to the "Animals and plants" section. I've also improved some of the alt text. Volcanoguy 22:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not a topic that is frequently remarked upon, but the article structure seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would File:Big Raven Plateau.jpg be a problem to use in this article? I'm more concerned about the sourcing since the original source link is dead and I wasn't able to find the original image on https://ava.jpl.nasa.gov/. So I replaced the dead link with the website link since I couldn't find the original image archived anywhere. Volcanoguy 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, it sounds like a plausible source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would File:Big Raven Plateau.jpg be a problem to use in this article? I'm more concerned about the sourcing since the original source link is dead and I wasn't able to find the original image on https://ava.jpl.nasa.gov/. So I replaced the dead link with the website link since I couldn't find the original image archived anywhere. Volcanoguy 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Jens[edit]
- The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them remain undated. – I think this should be "many eruptions" instead of "many of them", since "them" would refer to "the most recent eruptions", and if undated we wouldn't know they are recent.
- Not necessarily true. Geologists can tell they're recent by the lack of erosion by the Cordilleran ice sheet which retreated from the area about 11,000 years ago. This is explained in the Volcanism section. Volcanoguy 04:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, but that was not really my point. My point was that you are explicitly stating that many of the most recent eruptions remain undated. If this really is what you want to say, does that mean that the older eruptions are better dated? Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. Geologists can tell they're recent by the lack of erosion by the Cordilleran ice sheet which retreated from the area about 11,000 years ago. This is explained in the Volcanism section. Volcanoguy 04:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- several species of trees, including pine, aspen and spruce. – You are listing genera, not species. It would be much better to list the most common species; genera are not really informative here.
- A wide variety of animal species inhabit the area. This includes – I suggest to make it one sentence: ", including"
- A large provincial park dominates the MEVC which can only be accessed by aircraft or by a network of trails. – Give name of the provincial park?
- I would add at least a wiki-link to the article of the park. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Consider switching the two paragraphs of "Location" around, because the one with the basic information should come first.
- The Ecosection stuff is hard to understand, and the link does not really help. Add a bit of context/explanation, maybe?
- I'm not sure what's so hard to understand here. Volcanoguy 17:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- What is an ecosection? What are they for? According to the linked article, they exist only in British Colombia? Why? I have no idea what to make out of this. As said, some background here (one sentence or half-sentence should be enough) would help. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- The ecosection article already explains what an ecosection is: a biogeographic unit smaller than an ecoregion that contains minor physiographic, macroclimatic or oceanographic variations. I don't think explaining why ecosections are only in British Columbia is relevant to the MEVC article. That sounds more like something that should be explained in the ecosection article if that's really true. I would like to note that the ecosection article doesn't exactly say that they are only in British Columbia but rather they are virtual ecological zones of that province. Volcanoguy 17:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the reader has to be helped here with an explanation here. Something like this: "… ecoregion (areas that share a distinct combination of climate, flora and fauna, and other environmental factors)". If this is specific for British Columbia (it doesn't seem to be the case, but as said, the ecoregion article is poorly written and not helpful), it should be mentioned as well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've created an article for the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion and redirected the Southern Boreal Plateau Ecosection to this article. I've explained what an ecosection is more clearly in that article. I hope this helps. Volcanoguy 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've created an article for the Boreal Mountains and Plateaus Ecoregion and redirected the Southern Boreal Plateau Ecosection to this article. I've explained what an ecosection is more clearly in that article. I hope this helps. Volcanoguy 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the reader has to be helped here with an explanation here. Something like this: "… ecoregion (areas that share a distinct combination of climate, flora and fauna, and other environmental factors)". If this is specific for British Columbia (it doesn't seem to be the case, but as said, the ecoregion article is poorly written and not helpful), it should be mentioned as well. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- The ecosection article already explains what an ecosection is: a biogeographic unit smaller than an ecoregion that contains minor physiographic, macroclimatic or oceanographic variations. I don't think explaining why ecosections are only in British Columbia is relevant to the MEVC article. That sounds more like something that should be explained in the ecosection article if that's really true. I would like to note that the ecosection article doesn't exactly say that they are only in British Columbia but rather they are virtual ecological zones of that province. Volcanoguy 17:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Temperatures are warmest in mid-summer during the day when they may hit the 30 degrees Celsius – Doesn't that drastically vary with altitude? For which elevation are these temperatures valid? In the next paragraph you give other temperatures according to elevation, so I do not really understand what "30 degrees" is meaning here exactly.
- Link Osborn caribou? (to reindeer)
- The structure of "Animals and plants" is not ideal. You first provide a list of "wildlife" (only encompassing mammals and "several species of birds"), then detailing some large mammals, and then providing a list of birds? I would start with mammals, then birds, and info on reptiles, amphibians, and fish would be great too.
- It still feels a bit repetitive to firs have that list of mammals, and then mention some of these mammals again. Consider to remove that list (the second sentence in "Animals and plants"), and put a sentence "Other mammals include …" at the end, just before the bird sentence, that lists all those mammals that have not yet been mentioned. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Deglaciation of unstable and oversteepened valley walls has caused several landslides, especially along the Mess Creek Escarpment. – Landslides that happened in the geologic past? Should be clarified.
- Is there anything about the effects of climate change? Are the glaciers retreating?
- A bimodal population of volcanic rocks characterizes the MEVC – too technical I think. Try re-writing for general readers?
- More later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I think I've addressed most of your comments. Volcanoguy 20:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- The dominant rocks comprising these volcanoes are alkali basalts and hawaiites but – comma before "but"?
- All four complexes differ petrologically and/or volumetrically from the rest of the NCVP. – A bit unclear; does this mean that these four complexes are more similar to each other than to the rest of the NCVP? Or are they just individually different from the rest (which is what you currently state)? If it is the former, replacing "All" with "The" should solve it.
- MEVC hawaiites are thought to have formed as a result of partial fractional crystallization and the accumulation of feldspar inside rising columns of mantle-derived alkali basalt – Should this be "magma" rather than "basalt"? Fractional crystallization can only occur in a magma, because a basalt is already fully crystallized, right?
- Regarding the sentence above: I assume you are saying that as the magma rises, some components (the fledspar) are removed from it, changing its composition to that of a hawaiite? This is pretty difficult to understand for a general reader, I suggest to try to formulate this in a more comprehensible way.
- Accumulate means to gather, not remove. The magma undergoes partial fractional crystallization and then feldspar accumulates in the rising magma. I'm not sure how to make this sentence simpler unfortunately. Volcanoguy 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a note explaining what fractional crystallization is. Volcanoguy 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- This sentence is the last open issue; when solved I am ready to support. With fractional crystallization, you get 1) the minerals that crystallize and 2) the impoverished magma that is left over (and will crystallize later). Which of these form the Hawaiites? Is it the impoverished magma, or the feldspar rich magma? A second point: When you write and the accumulation of feldspar, should this be resulting in the accumulation of feldspar? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: per source: "Hawaiite is thought to be a cumulate rock, formed by partial fractionation and feldspar accumulation within rising columns of primary alkali olivine basalt." Volcanoguy 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- So it seems that the crystalized feldspar and the magma remain mixed and later form the Hawaiite? But aren't Hawaiites normally formed after eruption, when lava cools down rapidly? Is this the case here, too? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: What if the sentence is reworded to "MEVC hawaiites are thought to be the product of partial fractional crystallization and the accumulation of feldspar inside rising columns of mantle-derived alkali basaltic magma"? Volcanoguy 18:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The issue seems to be that we do not really understand the sentence, and hence are unable to re-write it for a general audience, right? I would, then, consider to just remove it. But either way, I can support now (and yes, please at least add the "magma", as otherwise the sentence seems wrong). Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I have added "magma" to the sentence but I'm still having difficulty understanding what's wrong with the sentence. How I understand it is that hawaiite is the product of basaltic magma that underwent partial fractional crystallization and feldspar accumulated in the magma as it rose to the surface. Volcanoguy 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, in a good Wikipedia article, each sentence makes a particular point that teaches the reader something. But with this sentence here, I do not see this point, and I do not know what to learn from it. MEVC hawaiites are thought to be the product of partial fractional crystallization – sure, but doesn't that apply for other magmatic rocks as well? Isn't fractional crystallization the principal reason why we have different rocks in the first place? If a sentence does not convey such a point, it shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I have added "magma" to the sentence but I'm still having difficulty understanding what's wrong with the sentence. How I understand it is that hawaiite is the product of basaltic magma that underwent partial fractional crystallization and feldspar accumulated in the magma as it rose to the surface. Volcanoguy 20:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The issue seems to be that we do not really understand the sentence, and hence are unable to re-write it for a general audience, right? I would, then, consider to just remove it. But either way, I can support now (and yes, please at least add the "magma", as otherwise the sentence seems wrong). Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: What if the sentence is reworded to "MEVC hawaiites are thought to be the product of partial fractional crystallization and the accumulation of feldspar inside rising columns of mantle-derived alkali basaltic magma"? Volcanoguy 18:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- So it seems that the crystalized feldspar and the magma remain mixed and later form the Hawaiite? But aren't Hawaiites normally formed after eruption, when lava cools down rapidly? Is this the case here, too? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: per source: "Hawaiite is thought to be a cumulate rock, formed by partial fractionation and feldspar accumulation within rising columns of primary alkali olivine basalt." Volcanoguy 17:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- This sentence is the last open issue; when solved I am ready to support. With fractional crystallization, you get 1) the minerals that crystallize and 2) the impoverished magma that is left over (and will crystallize later). Which of these form the Hawaiites? Is it the impoverished magma, or the feldspar rich magma? A second point: When you write and the accumulation of feldspar, should this be resulting in the accumulation of feldspar? Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added a note explaining what fractional crystallization is. Volcanoguy 02:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Accumulate means to gather, not remove. The magma undergoes partial fractional crystallization and then feldspar accumulates in the rising magma. I'm not sure how to make this sentence simpler unfortunately. Volcanoguy 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- that accreted to the continental margin of North America – "accreted" needs at least a link. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The volcanic and sedimentary rocks comprising Stikinia are remnants of a former island arc.[80] – Hard to follow. And it is basically an explanation what you already stated earlier; that these rocks accreted? I would combine it with the sentence "accreted to the continental margin of North America"; the reader would directly know what that means, then.
- The elongated structure of the MEVC is 75 kilometres (47 miles) long and 20 kilometres (12 miles) wide. – Shouldn't this sentence appear under "geography" instead?
- I don't think so since the MEVC is a geological structure rather than a geographical one. Volcanoguy 01:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is more geography than geology. In other FAs (I looked at Mount Berlin and Cerro Blanco, all this information is summarized in a section "Geography and geomorphology", which makes much more sense to me. Why not do the same here? Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The difference is that Mount Berlin and Cerro Blanco are geographic features. The MEVC is a lithodemic unit per the Lexicon of Canadian Geologic Units. Volcanoguy 02:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also see complex (geology). Volcanoguy 02:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure if this convinces me. The article states in it's first sentence that it is "a linear group of volcanoes", which is clearly a geographic feature. It does not mention anything about lithodemic units. If you are correct here, then maybe you didn't correctly define the topic of the article? I guess that it is both, a lithodemic unit and a geographical feature. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- And the source you cite for this clearly speaks about it as a geographic feature. These numbers describe the geomorphological feature, not the lithodemic unit. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- What source are you referring to? Volcanoguy 04:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wojdak, Paul (1993) Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the problem here is that the MEVC can be considered a geological or geographical feature depending on how one views it. The complex can be seen as geographical due to all the volcanoes and plateaus or geological since it consists of layers of lava flows and pyroclastic rocks. The article makes it clear that the complex is subdivided into 13 geological formations. Volcanoguy 23:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wojdak, Paul (1993) Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- What source are you referring to? Volcanoguy 04:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- And the source you cite for this clearly speaks about it as a geographic feature. These numbers describe the geomorphological feature, not the lithodemic unit. Jens Lallensack (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure if this convinces me. The article states in it's first sentence that it is "a linear group of volcanoes", which is clearly a geographic feature. It does not mention anything about lithodemic units. If you are correct here, then maybe you didn't correctly define the topic of the article? I guess that it is both, a lithodemic unit and a geographical feature. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is more geography than geology. In other FAs (I looked at Mount Berlin and Cerro Blanco, all this information is summarized in a section "Geography and geomorphology", which makes much more sense to me. Why not do the same here? Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so since the MEVC is a geological structure rather than a geographical one. Volcanoguy 01:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- A bit awkward to start the section "structure" with composition. I would start that section with the most important, general information. Why not moving the composition info out into a section of its own (named "Composition")? Composition and structure can be considered different things.
- I don't think it's weird at all since it's the rocks that make up the complex. Volcanoguy 01:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- But that is not my point. Every volcano article I looked at had a separate "composition" section. "Structure" and "composition" are separate topics. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Different editors have their own ways of organizing articles. Most of the articles you've seen were probably written by one editor (Jo-Jo Eumerus). Volcanoguy 01:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- But we should aim for 1) consistency and 2) for the best possible layout. Let's wait and see what others think about this point. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a guideline that says article sections should be consistent. The best possible layout of something is quite subjective. Volcanoguy 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is subjective. "Composition" is objectively different from "Structure". Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've decided to move the composition and basement information into its own section. Volcanoguy 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jens Lallensack: I've also removed the structure section altogether and split it up into several smaller sections. Volcanoguy 04:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've decided to move the composition and basement information into its own section. Volcanoguy 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that this is subjective. "Composition" is objectively different from "Structure". Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of a guideline that says article sections should be consistent. The best possible layout of something is quite subjective. Volcanoguy 02:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- But we should aim for 1) consistency and 2) for the best possible layout. Let's wait and see what others think about this point. Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Different editors have their own ways of organizing articles. Most of the articles you've seen were probably written by one editor (Jo-Jo Eumerus). Volcanoguy 01:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- But that is not my point. Every volcano article I looked at had a separate "composition" section. "Structure" and "composition" are separate topics. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's weird at all since it's the rocks that make up the complex. Volcanoguy 01:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- They differ from the central volcanoes in that they are much smaller in size and they are mainly of mafic composition. – You want to say that they differ from the central volcanoes in bouth their smaller size and mafic composition, right? Then I think you need to remove the second "they".
- Under "subfeatures", you give a lot of information that is actually geography. Should these be moved into a section under "geography" that discusses the relief structure of the complex without diving into geology, and keep the bits about geology for the geology section? But I see that it makes sense to mention these geographical features in their geological context, too. But at least the paragraph on "mountain passes" does not have anything to do with geology, right? This should fall under geography.
- Koosick Bluff and Ornostay Bluff are two bluffs – You link "bluffs", but the term is not even mentioned in the linked article. Please add an explanation, or replace with a more common term ("cliff"?).
- The Mess Creek Escarpment is a long laterally continuous, often cliff-like feature – What does "long laterally continuous" mean here? Doesn't it just mean "long"?
- The MEVC was originally subdivided into 15 geological formations – link "geological formations"
- as well as several lesser advances of local alpine glaciers. – "smaller" advances?
- Source uses lesser. Volcanoguy 02:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- of which there are at least 29 of them. – delete "of them"
- Potassium–argon dating of the MEVC has yielded ages ranging from 11.4 to 0.28 million years old.[11] Most of these ages are consistent with the general volcanic stratigraphy, though some of them are anomalously old and most likely result from contamination of lava with older rocks of the underlying Stikinia terrane. – So, this means the "11.4" is probably incorrect? You already stated earlier in the section that it "started erupting at least 7.4 million years ago", which seems to be the better estimate? If so, it feels a bit strange to repeat this again. Maybe combine these, or just remove the part on the potassium-argon dating; if these numbers are not reliable they do not add much to the article and may be better discussed in the main article "Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex".
- Section "Present day status" – I wonder if this title should rather be "hydrothermal activity" since it is exclusively about that? Since you mention inactive springs, not everything in there is precisely "present day status" anyways.
- Parts of northwestern Canada would be affected by an ash column if an explosive eruption were to happen at the MEVC. – The source says "could be", not "would be". That's a big difference. The former does not rule out that a eruption could be much less severe.
- The Canadian National Seismograph Network has been established to monitor earthquakes throughout Canada, but it is too far away to provide an accurate indication of activity under the complex – what precisely is "too far away"? The nearest seismograph? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The seismograph network. Volcanoguy 01:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- That is a network. You certainly mean the nearest seismograph. Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The seismograph network. Volcanoguy 01:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Tahltan people – should be linked in the main text, too.
- Edziza obsidian from the Hidden Falls archaeological site in Alaska has a date of 10,000 years. – "is dated to 10,000 years old"?
- Stratigraphically, it has also been referred to as the Mount Edziza Group or the Edziza Group – Stratigraphy was already linked, but here it makes sense to link it again.
- I think the section "Naming" is ill placed under "Human history". It doesn't fit in there at all. Consider placing it right before "geography" (i.e., as the first section of the article).
- Five students conducted studies at the MEVC in 2007. […] – This whole paragraph seems way to detailed compared to the rest (issue of balance). Are these students really relevant? Are these really the only students who worked on the MEVC recently? Consider to remove this whole paragraph, or reduce to one sentence combined with the previous one.
- That should be everything from me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator comment[edit]
More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
JJE[edit]
- "linear" might be a bit too jargony.
- "highest summit which " sounds like it refers the outlet glaciers to the summit rather than the ice cap.
- "issued" is a weird term for volcanic rocks.
- "Arctic ground squirrels are abundant above the timberline where grizzly bears are occasionally seen" wouldn't that be better off split?
- Why? Volcanoguy 15:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- To me it looks like you are drawing a connection between squirrels and grizzly bears when you discuss them in the same sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Volcanoguy 15:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- This source does not seem to mention Edziza. In general, the sources there are talking about volcanoes in general more than Edziza in particular.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support With the caveat that my prose skills aren't so great, but the prose seems adequate, images and sourcing too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from RoySmith[edit]
This is a long article, so I'll work my way through it in bits and pieces as I find time. Hopefully Gog the Mild can hold off on the archive hammer of death long enough for me to make it to the end. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- I now feel like Thor, wielding the hammer of doom. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Archive this nomination please. I've decided that I'm not going to work on this FAC or have anything to do with FAs anymore. Volcanoguy 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Volcanoguy, if you are sure, then (obviously) I will. But can I suggest a 48-hour cooling off period and then reconsidering? I am personally all too familiar with a review causing me to want to drop kick my monitor through the window. Usually the desire passes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I'm more concerned about your comment above: "More than four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived." There's two supports now but I'm thinking this article isn't going to get many more reviews. Volcanoguy 00:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Volcanoguy, if you are sure, then (obviously) I will. But can I suggest a 48-hour cooling off period and then reconsidering? I am personally all too familiar with a review causing me to want to drop kick my monitor through the window. Usually the desire passes. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Archive this nomination please. I've decided that I'm not going to work on this FAC or have anything to do with FAs anymore. Volcanoguy 16:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I now feel like Thor, wielding the hammer of doom. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- All the images have alt texts, so we're off to a good start.
- "linear group" in lead but not in body
- "2,786 metres (9,140 feet) above sea level" in the lead, but in the body you don't specify that it's above sea level. Maybe just add a footnote saying all elevations are MSL so you don't have to clutter up the whole article with that?
- "formed over the last 12 million years" in the lead (and the infobox) but not in the body. BTW, the infobox has "12,000,000"; standardize on either all digits or spelling out million.
- "Earth's four most recent geologic epochs" in the lead, but not the body; not sure if that's a problem or not.
- Actually they are mentioned in the Volcanism section: Miocene, Plio-Pleistocene (Pliocene and Pleistocene) and Holocene. Volcanoguy 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- What's not mentioned are that these are the four most recent epochs. But, as I said, I don't know if that's really an issue or not. RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Tahltan people used volcanic glass" in the lead. In the body you mention obsidian, but not glass. I guess they're synonyms, but it might reduce some reader confusion to be more explicit.
- Obsidian is a type of volcanic glass. Volcanoguy 00:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know that and you know that, and some of our readers will know that, but some of them won't so this will be confusing to them. My mental model of how a naive reader would approach this is that they start reading the lead and when they get to "people used volcanic glass", they think that's interesting and decide to jump to the section of the article that talks about glass so they can learn more about this. So they search for "glass" and can't find it. If in the body you said, "In prehistoric times, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian (a type of volcanic glass) for the Tahltan people" then they would be able to find it quickly. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "geological work has been carried out at the volcanic complex since the 1950s" in the body you're explicit that it's 1956 and don't mention any other dates before that. Is there a reason for the vague "1950s" in the lead, or could you just say "since 1956"?
- "Coordinates 57°42′55″N 130°38′04″W". A second of latitude is 100 feet (less than 100 for longitude). The area is 40 miles x 12 miles; specifying the location to that level of precision isn't justified, and make it harder to read. I suggest stating it to the nearest minute of lat/long.
- I'm not understanding you here. The coordinates are for the highest point of the MEVC (Mount Edziza), that's why they're in the "Highest point" section of the infobox. The level of precision used is needed to pinpoint the highest point on Mount Edziza, not to mention it's what the cited source uses. Volcanoguy 00:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, that makes sense. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
(that takes me to the end of the lead)
- "Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range complex or the Mount Edziza Plateau[16][17][18]" Either of 16 or 17 is sufficient to verify "Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range", so just pick the better one and use that.
- Most of the "Naming" section is referenced to the BC Geographical Names web site, which in turn cites other sources that you mention here ("A 1927 report by J. Davidson"). Why not just cite the original source directly? I'm also concerned about WP:CLOP in this section. For example:
David Stevenson, University of Victoria Anthropology Dept advised in October 1970 that "kutlves" is actually the Tahltan word for sand or dust
in the source becomesDavid Stevenson of University of Victoria's Anthropology Department advised in 1970 that the actual Tahltan word for sand or dust is "kutlves"
- Simply because I don't have access to the 1927 report. How would you rephrase that sentence then? Volcanoguy 17:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note that close paraphrasing like this is an absolutely critical issue. If you cannot rephrase a sentence to be sufficiently different, then you simply cannot include it in a Wikipedia article. This one is easy, though, you could write something like "According to David Stevenson, "sand" or "dust" is instead translated as "kutlves" in the Tahltan language" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've done some revising, not sure if it's better. Volcanoguy 19:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note that if you come across something that you think is "close paraphrasing", it's because I don't believe it is. Volcanoguy 19:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you think that the example above is actually not close paraphrasing, please have another look at WP:CLOP. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Opinions vary. Volcanoguy 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- You will have to follow WP:CLOP; your opinion is not relevant when it comes to copyright issues. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to write things in my own words but sometimes, as shown above, it's obviously not enough. Nobody is perfect. Volcanoguy 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the above is pretty close paraphrasing, but the thing about CLOP is that there are many edge cases and sometimes you need to factor in whether the formulation is actually creative enough to create a copyright (WP:LIMITED). So concerns about CLOP need to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to write things in my own words but sometimes, as shown above, it's obviously not enough. Nobody is perfect. Volcanoguy 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- You will have to follow WP:CLOP; your opinion is not relevant when it comes to copyright issues. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Opinions vary. Volcanoguy 20:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you think that the example above is actually not close paraphrasing, please have another look at WP:CLOP. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note that close paraphrasing like this is an absolutely critical issue. If you cannot rephrase a sentence to be sufficiently different, then you simply cannot include it in a Wikipedia article. This one is easy, though, you could write something like "According to David Stevenson, "sand" or "dust" is instead translated as "kutlves" in the Tahltan language" or similar. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- As a general note, I'm not a fan of lumping several citations at the end of a sentence because it makes it hard to know which citation is supporting which stated facts. If a sentence states facts from multiple citations, I think it's better to move the citations to wherever in the sentence makes it clear what they're supporting.
- "rises from a base elevation of 760 metres (2,500 feet).[4][21][22]" Ref 4 says 816m. Your 760m figure looks like it comes from ref 21. Why do they differ?
- Demarchi 2011 is available on-line at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/plants-animals-and-ecosystems/ecosystems/broad-ecosystem/an_introduction_to_the_ecoregions_of_british_columbia.pdf, so include that link in the citation.
- "The highest, youngest and northernmost central volcano is Mount Edziza..." join this to the previous sentence with a semicolon and omit "central volcano".
- "It is a large ice-covered stratovolcano rising well above the general level of the Tahltan Highland" This is cited to 3 sources, but Holand 1976 is sufficient to verify everything in that sentence. BC Geographical Names doesn't apply at all.
- "It is a composite stratovolcano that has been reduced to a steep-walled pyramidal peak", it's not clear what the subject is: "it" could be either of Mount Edziza or Ice Peak. I'm guessing Ice Peak, so I'd join this to the previous sentence with a semicolon and then "the later is a composite..."
- In the first paragraph of "Landforms", you keep repeating "central volcano", which reads awkwardly. The introductory sentence says we're talking about the four central volcanoes. I'd try to reword the rest so the reader can infer thats what you're still talking about so you don't have to keep repeating it.
- "cinder cones with reliefs of up to 460 metres", not everybody will know what "relief" means. I'd add a short explanation, i.e. "(height above the surronding terrain)".
They're all short simple sentences, which results in a kind of stodgy cadence. Since these sentences are all talking about the same topic (i.e. the effects of erosion), there's opportunity to combine them in different ways. You could combine the first two:Various stages of erosion have modified these central volcanoes. In some cases, only a few small remnants of their original surface remain.[29] The degree of erosion becomes less pronounced on those that have more recently formed.[22]
which takes advantage of the natural grouping by citation. The varying rhythm makes for more interesting reading.Various stages of erosion have modified these central volcanoes; in some cases, only a few small remnants of their original surface remain.[29] The degree of erosion becomes less pronounced on those that have more recently formed.[22]
- I've gotten complaints in the past about sentences being too long. Volcanoguy 00:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added the semicolon you suggested above and I've added others throughout the article. Volcanoguy 01:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've also merged some sentences together to form larger ones. Volcanoguy 01:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- "contains 10 cinder cones, namely Eve Cone, Storm Cone, Moraine Cone, Williams Cone, Sleet Cone, Twin Cone, Sidas Cone and the three Triplex Cones" There's a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem here. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas of how to fix that. One thing I thought of was to rephrase it as "contains 10 cinder cones, namely Eve, Storm, Moraine, Williams, Sleet, Twin, Sidas and the three Triplex Cones" which cuts down some of the verbiage, but doesn't do anything about the seaofblue. So maybe there's nothing really to do here.
- Note that WP:SEAOFBLUE is only concerned with links placed directly next to each other so that they appear to be a single link. This is not the case here, since the words are separated by commas. I personally don't see any problem here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- "making it the largest of the two lava fields ... The smaller of the two lava fields is" I'd leave that out. People can figure out on their own that 40 sq km is larger than 18 sq km.
- "which covers around 18 square kilometres" I'd leave out the "around". If there's some strong reason to emphasize the uncertainty, be explicit about it, i.e. "Joe Scientist and Bob Scientist give different values)" or whatever makes sense.
- "containing volcanic features such as ..." I'd just say "containing ..." In an article that's all about volcanoes, the reader can assume you're talking about volcanic features, and "such as" doesn't add anything useful.
- "Koosick Bluff and Ornostay Bluff are two bluffs", leave off the "are two bluffs"; the that should be obvious from their names.
- "Kaia Bluff is a steep-sided hill" isn't "steep-sided hill" pretty much the definition of bluff? I'd leave that out. Or maybe it makes sense define the term for the sake of the non-expert reader, but do it once at the beginning of the passage: "The area contains several bluffs (steep-sided hills)..." instead of tieing it to one specific instance.
- "The MEVC is situated within the Southern Boreal Plateau Ecosection", omit "situated", and maybe shorten "within" to just "in".
- "Artifact Ridge is a crescent-shaped mountain ridge" -> "Crescent-shaped Artifact Ridge is east...". The general pattern here is that whenever you've got a phrase of the form "<specific name><type of feature> is a <type of feature>", see if there's a way to rewrite that to eliminate the repetition.
As a general comment, there's a lot of wikilinks in this article to minor geographic features. Many of these are stubs that you've created, i.e. Source Hill, Thaw Hill, Ridge Cone, Keda Cone, Cinder Cliff, etc. I'm unconvinced that most of those meet WP:GEONATURAL, but that's not an issue for FAC. What is an issue is that the extent of the linking is distracting, per the introductory paragraph of MOS:OVERLINK. The key question there is "whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from?" In most of these cases, I'd say the answer is "no".
- I don't see an MOS:OVERLINK problem here. When articles for the mentioned minor geographical features exist, they have to be linked, there is no question about that in my opinion. I furthermore think that the bar set by WP:GEONATURAL is pretty low and (in my interpretation) should cover these articles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- "between the heads of Bourgeaux Creek and Raspberry Creek." I'd make this "between the heads of Bourgeaux and Raspberry Creeks". As a general pattern, whenever you have a construction like "<name 1><type of feature> and <name 2><type of feature>", consider condensing that to "<name 1> and <name 2> <type of feature>s" This pattern shows up in many places where you list hills, bluffs, creeks, cones, etc.
- "all of which lie inside Kakiddi Valley" -> "all in Kakiddi Valley".
- "With the exception of Mowdade Lake, all three lakes drain north into the Klastline River." -> if you rearrange the order of the list, you could condense this to "; the {first/last} three draining north ..."
(this takes me to the end of "Lakes", I'll pick up with "Drainage" next time)
Actually, upon reconsideration, I'm going to withdraw from the rest of this review. I see that I've already written 2500 words, I'm only about 1/4 of the way through, and I'm finding something to complain about in practically every sentence. It's possible that there's just a mis-match here between Volcanoguy's writing style and my personal preferences. If so, I apologise. I'm not going to oppose, but I'm not seeing how I can get to supporting on the basis of "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Just so you know I agree with much of what you brought up. Volcanoguy 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Eewilson review[edit]
Support @Gog the Mild and Volcanoguy:, notes and source changes have been made to my satisfaction and have my stamp of approval. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Notes section[edit]
- In each of your notes, the defined terms are being used as words (MOS:WAW); thus, each term you are defining should be in italics:
- Peralkaline rocks are magmatic rocks that have a higher ratio of sodium and potassium to aluminum.
- Felsic pertains to...
- Mafic pertains to...
- Fractional crystallization is the...
- Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
References section[edit]
The purpose of my reference review is for citation and source formatting, dates, urls, and other parameter accuracies as compared to the actual sources when viewed, as well as to check for duplicates. This is not a comparison of sources to article information.
- Reference "LD" (Wood and Kienle, Volcanoes of North America: United States and Canada): Check your publication year. You have 2001, but I find 1990 for print and 1992 for electronic. If 2001 is correct, is it a newer edition than 1990/1992? If so, add the edition to the citation template and verify the ISBN is correctly identifying that edition.
- Corrected. Volcanoguy 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Corrected. Volcanoguy 18:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reference "AK" (cite bcgnis for "Mount Edziza"...): Not setting
|url-status=makes the archived url the default because it assumes the original url is no longer there (e.g.,|url-status=dead). Unless the original URL is dead, I recommend setting this parameter to|url-status=live, verifying that the source matches what is in the article and updating accordingly, including dates. The original URL takes you to "Mount Edziza" in the BCGN database, which uses minorly different coordinates than the archived page from 2018. Alternatively, you can set|url-status=deviated, which is designed for when the url is still 'live' but no-longer supports the text in a Wikipedia article. This could be an option here since the coordinates are slightly different. It would then, by default, also direct the user to the archived url. It depends on how you want to do it and whether or not the text on the current official BCGN web page supports all of the parts of the article for which it is a reference.- The reason I didn't set
|url-status=for this and other sources with live links is so I don't have to update the article to comply with changes in the sources.|url-status=deviateddoesn't seem to make a difference. Volcanoguy 22:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)- That's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- The reason I didn't set
- Reference "Edwards" (Edwards, Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies...): If you use
cite thesisrather thancite book, and change|type=PhDto|degree=PhD, your result will have a subtle but important difference: after the title of the dissertation, you will have "(PhD thesis)" instead of "(PhD)".
((cite thesis|last1=Edwards|first1=Benjamin Ralph|degree=PhD|title=Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies of magmatic assimilation in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, northwestern British Columbia|publisher=[[University of British Columbia]]|year=1997|pages=6, 10, 11|isbn=0-612-25005-9))
Edwards, Benjamin Ralph (1997). Field, kinetic, and thermodynamic studies of magmatic assimilation in the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province, northwestern British Columbia (PhD thesis). University of British Columbia. pp. 6, 10, 11. ISBN 0-612-25005-9.
- Done. Volcanoguy 17:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I managed to use ((cite book)) instead of ((cite thesis)). Volcanoguy 01:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was in the Volcanism of Mount Edziza... article, not this one. I don't even remember how I came upon it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the one I changed today? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- That one too but I used ((cite book)) instead of ((cite thesis)) in this article and the geological formation articles ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32]) as well. I forgot to change it in the volcanism article so thanks for that. Volcanoguy 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ha! Probably copy and pasted the wrong one. I don't know how many times I've done that.
- Sources are looking good I'll get my updated review Saturday. Friday, I'm booked. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- That one too but I used ((cite book)) instead of ((cite thesis)) in this article and the geological formation articles ([26][27][28][29][30][31][32]) as well. I forgot to change it in the volcanism article so thanks for that. Volcanoguy 02:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You mean the one I changed today? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- It was in the Volcanism of Mount Edziza... article, not this one. I don't even remember how I came upon it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I managed to use ((cite book)) instead of ((cite thesis)). Volcanoguy 01:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reference "Pinti2011", which cites the chapter "Mafic and Felsic" in Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, is using template Citation instead of a template such as Cite book or Cite encyclopedia. It is causing a problem because it is defaulting to CS2 rather than CS1, which is the standard in this article. I think you could change this to use one of the standard templates that I mentioned.
- Changed to ((cite encyclopedia)). Volcanoguy 17:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to see the rest of the report, book, and journal references use shortened footnotes. This isn't a requirement for FA, but if you want to continue to improve the article, it would significantly improve the look and feel (and readability) of the references section. Because the topographic map Telegraph Creek, Cassiar Land District, British Columbia is used in so many places, you could consider doing the same for it.
- I'm not sure if adding a footnote for that topographic map would make much of a difference since there are no page numbers to cite; it would still be one footnote being cited. The reason I added footnotes for the five sources in the Sources subsection is because the article cites multiple pages in those sources unlike the others being cited. Volcanoguy 15:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine. It might be a good idea in the future for stylistic reasons to be consistent (e.g., use shortened footnotes for the whole article or don't), and it seems like I may have read that somewhere... but I see no reason to hold up my FA approval for that. If you want to (or even anybody could after FA) later move this to SFNs, I think it would be cool. I understand your reasoning and it's all good. My stamp approval is HERE. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that's my first run-through. See also the Sources subsection, below. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Sources subsection[edit]
- Demarchi 2011: Each citation references the page number(s) in the book, so here, you don't need to use the parameter
|pages=and can remove it. - Edwards & Russell 2000: Here, use
|pages=1280–1295, the page range of the article in the journal.- Why use page numbers in this source and not the others? Volcanoguy 15:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Because it's a journal article. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Souther 1992: Like for Demarchi 2011, each citation gives the page number(s) used for it, so the page numbers don't need to be listed here. You can remove
|pages=because it is not needed. - Souther et al. 1984: Same here as with the Edwards & Russell 2000 journal article. Use
|pages=337–349, the page range of the article in the journal. - Wilson & Kelman 2021: Set
|series=Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 8790and remove|pages=because it is not needed.
- Hi Eewilson, how are these looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I've sent them an email waiting for a response. Volcanoguy 20:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- These are looking good. Let me do a quick run-through and see if there is anything else. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Eewilson, how are these looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments from GeoWriter[edit]
Introduction
"The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them remain undated."
The eruptions that took place in the last 11,000 years have therefore been (roughly) dated (to less than 11,000 years old). I suggest that this should be changed to "The most recent eruptions took place in the last 11,000 years but many of them still lack precise dates."
- I've changed the end of this sentence to "but none of them have been precisely dated" since the few eruptions that have been dated using geologic techniques aren't precise either; they contain errors. Volcanoguy 00:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Naming
"claims that Edziza means "sand""; "Edziza means "cinders"".
I suggest that when referring to the word rather than the proper name, "Edziza" should be changed to "edziza" (assuming the Tahltan language does not capitalise all nouns).
- This section in the article is about the proper name rather than the word, hence it's capitalized. I've also never seen Edziza lowercased. Volcanoguy 00:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think you might have misunderstood my point, so I'll try to clarify:
- Again, assuming that the Tahltan language does not capitalise common nouns (which does happen in some languages, such as German),
- Mount Edziza volcanic complex – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
- Mount Edziza–Spectrum Range – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
- Mount Edziza Plateau – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
- Mount Edziza Group – proper name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
- ... claims that Edziza means "sand" in the Tahltan language – this is a common noun for the group of particles of a certain composition and size; it is not a proper name because it is not referring to Edziza as the mountain, volcanic complex, mountain range, plateau or group; Edziza should be changed to lowercase and put in quotation marks as "edziza", similar to how you have written: "sand" or "dust" is instead translated as "kutlves" (lowercase), which is OK because you did not write "Kutlves" (uppercase).
- Edziza is a corruption of Edzerza, the name of a local Tahltan family – family name, Edziza capitalised — OK.
- GeoWriter (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to hear from other users about this issue. Volcanoguy 21:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- You may or may not be correct on the capitalization in this instance, but I think more importantly is the reader could (and probably will) see leaving it uncapitalized as a typo (I would) and then change it in order to correct it. I would capitalize it in all the cases in the article. Stylistically, I think this would be the prudent choice.
- Regarding the use of double quotes, follow MOS:WORDSASWORDS. Unless italics are being heavily used in this article (they don't seem to be), you should use them instead of double quotes, except for linquistic glosses (MOS:SIMPLEGLOSS), which should be put in single quotes. So italics are preferred, except when you are saying "X means Y", and in that case, put Y in single quotes ('Y'). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, not to mention having Edziza lowercased looks rather strange and it might not even be a word in the Tahltan language. Thoughts GeoWriter? Volcanoguy 19:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree about MOS:WORDSASWORDS – the article should be changed accordingly.
- I withdraw the lowercase point because I now accept that Edziza could refer to the proper name instead of the common noun. GeoWriter (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, not to mention having Edziza lowercased looks rather strange and it might not even be a word in the Tahltan language. Thoughts GeoWriter? Volcanoguy 19:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- GeoWriter (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
"its nearly-identical summit ice cap".
The cited source reference reports "similar-sized summit ice cap". Although "similar" can be a synonym of "nearly-identical" in some circumstances, there is not enough documented similarity in this case to justify the use of "nearly-identical" - the two ice caps could be different in numerous (even all) ways except for size. I suggest that "nearly-identical" should be removed (It doesn't seem necessary anyway because it is in a list of similarities, so seems to be redundant repetition of similarity).
Climate
"The surrounding area is characterized by warm summers and cold, snowy winters; Mount Edziza itself is covered by snow year-round."
I suggest that the word order should be swapped to "Mount Edziza is covered by snow year-round; the surrounding area is characterized by warm summers and cold, snowy winters."
- I don't think swapping this sentence would work since the Climate section is about the volcanic complex rather than the mountain. Mentioning the mountain first and the rest second would make it sound like it's referring to the area around the mountain rather than the entire complex. Volcanoguy 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Glaciation
"north-northwest ice movement".
Please clarify this direction. Is it "from north to northwest" or "from north-northwest" or "to north-northwest", or some other direction?
"Most peaks greater than 2,130 metres (6,990 feet) in elevation contain glaciers".
I suggest that "contain glaciers" should be changed to "have glaciers".
Geology
Volcanism
"The MEVC has been scoured by regional glaciations at least twice throughout its eruptive history".
I suggest that "throughout" should be changed to "during" because the glaciations were not in every part of its eruptive history.
Hydrothermal activity
"below body temperature".
I suggest this should be changed to "below human body temperature".
Hazards and monitoring
"highest eruption rate in Canada".
I suggest this should be changed to "highest eruption frequency in Canada".
"MEVC trachyte and rhyolite contain silica-rich compositions".
I suggest this should be changed to either "MEVC trachyte and rhyolite have silica-rich compositions" or "MEVC trachyte and rhyolite include silica-rich compositions".
"the volcanic complex posses a potential threat to air traffic".
Typo spelling error - change "posses" to "poses".
"the surrounding area contains vegetation".
I suggest this should be changed to "the surrounding area has vegetation".
"produce floods or lahars that could travel into the Stikine or Iskut rivers".
I suggest this should be changed to "produce floods or lahars that could flow into the Stikine or Iskut rivers".
Human history
Telegraphy
"to send messages from Ashcroft, British Columbia in the south to Dawson City, Yukon in the north".
Unless it was known to be definitely only one-way transmission for some engineering reason or obtuse administrative reason (e.g. banning replies from Yukon!), I suggest this should be changed to a very much more likely scenario: "to send messages between Ashcroft, British Columbia in the south and Dawson City, Yukon in the north".
Geological studies
"A three-month period of earthquake monitoring was conducted at the MEVC in 1968 after geologists of the Geological Survey of Canada suggested that there may still be magma movement under the volcanic complex. About 20 microearthquakes potentially associated with the MEVC were recorded by seismographs installed at Buckley Lake and Nuttlude Lake. They had magnitudes of around 0.5 which typically occur in many areas throughout the Canadian Cordillera."
Did the number and magnitude of the microearthquakes indicate magma movement or not? Either way, I think it should be mentioned, otherwise "after geologists of the Geological Survey of Canada suggested that there may still be magma movement under the volcanic complex" seems irrelevant and could probably be removed.
"a study of aenigmatites".
I suggest that this should be changed to "a study of aenigmatite crystals".
"The project was a collaboration between Ben Edwards of Dickinson College, Ian Skilling of the University of Pittsburgh, Barry Cameron of the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Ian Spooner of Acadia University, J. Osborn of the University of Calgary, Kirstie Simpson of the Geological Survey of Canada and Bill McIntosh of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.[170] Five students conducted studies at the MEVC in 2007, including Chira Endress of Dickinson Collage, Jeff Hungerford of the University of Pittsburgh, Courtney Haynes of Dickinson Collage, Alex Floyd of Dickinson Collage and Kristen LaMoreaux of the University of Pittsburgh."
I think this amount of detail is excessive and should be much reduced. Of the 12 people listed, I found only 4 of them in this article's list of cited source references. Why should readers care about the others? What justifies this long list?
- I don't see anything wrong with mentioning people who were involved with projects and studies at the volcanic complex even though most don't appear in the article's list of cited source references. Not mentioning them would make it seem like very few scientists have been at the volcanic complex since Souther worked on it. Volcanoguy 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have not convinced me but I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this point and let it go. If the above paragraph is kept in the article, I found two occurrences of a typo spelling error: "Dickinson Collage" should be changed to "Dickinson College". GeoWriter (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Recreation
"The weather and climate can change extremely fast along this hiking trail."
Despite this sentence reporting what is claimed in the cited source reference, it is not correct. Weather can change in minutes, which is indeed extremely fast (and can therefore affect a visitor's plans and safety). Climate change is noticeable to people over a period of years, which is not extremely fast (for the purposes and timescales of recreation; it does not increase hazard risk over minute, hour, day or month timescales).
I suggest that this should be changed to "The weather can change extremely fast along this hiking trail."
— GeoWriter (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GeoWriter: My guess is that the trail traverses through different climate zones at varying elevations (e.g. alpine climate above the tree line) since it gradually climbs onto the plateau. Volcanoguy 21:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- A person will experience weather during a visit. Even if there is rain at low altitude in a milder climate zone then snow at a higher altitude an hour later in a colder climate zone, it is still weather to the person, irrespective of different climate zones. I suggest that you should ignore, not repeat, the cited source reference's very poorly worded mention of climate. GeoWriter (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GeoWriter: Have I addressed all your comments? Volcanoguy 18:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy: I have replied to you above on 3 points: (1) weather and climate, (2) uppercase Edziza /lowercase edziza and (3) list of people who have studied the area. All my other points have been satisfactorily resolved. GeoWriter (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Volcanoguy. Have you addressed GeoWriter's three comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I'm looking for more input from other users for their first comment, they have no problem agreeing to disagree on the second point and let it go, and I've addressed their third comment. Volcanoguy 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi GeoWriter, and thanks for your input on this one. Have your second and third points been satisfactorily addressed? And is there anything other than your weather and climate concerns preventing a formal support? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: I'm looking for more input from other users for their first comment, they have no problem agreeing to disagree on the second point and let it go, and I've addressed their third comment. Volcanoguy 19:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Volcanoguy. Have you addressed GeoWriter's three comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Volcanoguy: I have replied to you above on 3 points: (1) weather and climate, (2) uppercase Edziza /lowercase edziza and (3) list of people who have studied the area. All my other points have been satisfactorily resolved. GeoWriter (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- Cite 34 should be pp. (Not p.)
- "... or by a network of trails." Does "trails" imply on foot?
- "In prehistoric times, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian for the Tahltan people." The source you give does not state when sourcing obsidian ceased. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then you need to make what you say a little vaguer, to match the source. Eg 'Historically, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian for the Tahltan people' or whatever. Similarly the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Volcanoguy 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Ok. Now we wait on GeoWriter. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Volcanoguy 17:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then you need to make what you say a little vaguer, to match the source. Eg 'Historically, the MEVC was a significant source of obsidian for the Tahltan people' or whatever. Similarly the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 March 2024 [33].
Leucippus[edit]
- Nominator(s): Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Leucippus was the first person to propose that matter is made of microscopic particles called atoms. What makes this impressive is that he lived over 2,000 years before atoms were actually discovered. Of course, Leucippus's atoms were quite different from the ones we know to exist: he contended that they were totally indivisible, and that they came in infinitely many shapes and sizes. Using his concept of atoms, he developed explanations for the creation of the world and the existence of a physical soul. Despite his importance in the history of philosophy, almost all information about his life and his writings has been lost, and what we know comes from second-hand accounts. He has since been overshadowed by his more famous student, Democritus. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging everyone who provided feedback as I'm now caught up on everyone's comments: PatrickJWelsh, Caeciliusinhorto, Nikkimaria, UndercoverClassicist, Phlsph7. Thanks for all the input so quickly after I nominated this for FAC! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Caeciliusinhorto[edit]
- Comment: I have little experience with FAC, but here are a few comments based on a quick once-over:
- It would be beneficial to add descriptors to philosophers so that readers can, at minimum, easily distinguish between Leucippus' near-contemporaries and much later philosophers like Leibniz and Cassier.
- Quite understandably, much is made of his status as a "precursor" theorist to modern theories of the atom. But could this be developed a little bit more? Specifically, in what ways is our current theory different? Are the similarities anything more than an accident? This might be elaborated, for instance, by explaining why, contrary to what one would expect, Heisenberg considers Plato to provide a more accurate theory of reality than Leucippus.
- Doesn't the MOS require the Life section to appear Philosophy? (I believe I've been chastised for trying to reverse this at some point in the past...) Additionally, should the first paragraph of the Legacy section also precede Philosophy in some form?
- The sources look to be of high-quality and include those I would consult as someone who is trained in philosophy, but not at all a scholar of the period. I was a bit frustrated, however, to have to find n. 44 (Kirk & Raven 1957, p. 412) in the second edition at p. 419, where it finds only qualified support for the claim it is cited to support. Also, is my recollection incorrect (entirely possible!) that it is standard to include the passage number even when citing to the commentary? (This would also make using the first edition less of an issue.)
I will try to check back in later in the process after reviewing the specific FAC criteria. Overall, though, great work! Thanks for doing so much to contribute to the coverage of the history of philosophy —
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's reasonable to include the basics of his ideas in the philosophy section and then the subsequent study of those ideas in the legacy section. I've made edits to address all of your other comments, adding context for some of the names, expanding on the comparison to modern atomic theory, and switching the life and philosophy sections. Regarding your fourth point, I wasn't able to verify some of that information in other sources, so I trimmed it down to what is in the main text of Kirk & Raven without any need for the footnote. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Correction: I verified it with more detail using another source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks on 1-3! I remain concerned about 4, however.
- I cite from a phone-quality text scan of the second edition of the work you cite:
Since there are innumerable atoms and an infinite void, there is no reason why only one such world should be formed; Leucippus and Democritus therefore postulated innumerable worlds, coming-to-be and passing away throughout the void (563 init., 565). They are the first to whom we can with absolute certainty attribute the concept of innumerable worlds (as opposed to successive states of a continuing organism), one which is reached entirely on the a priori grounds described above. The doxographers, however, certainly attributed the idea of plural worlds (whether coexistent or successive) to some Ionians, conceivably by an error initiated by Theophrastus (see pp. 123ff., also pp. 379f.). Democritus, according to 565, seems to have embellished the idea by observing that there is no need for each world to have a sun and moon, and so on, or to have waters and give rise to life: the random nature of the cosmogonical process 563 would not always produce the same result. (p.419, my emphases)
- Shouldn't this qualification be included in the article? Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- One other suggestion: have you considered adding section leads to Philosophy and Legacy? I don't believe this is mandatory, but they might help readers absorb and process the content—especially as it has expanded during this process. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and I forgot to add: the Furley citation is currently generating a Harv error. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- PatrickJWelsh, I fixed the Furley reference and added the part about Ionians. I'm not aware of section leads as a common practice, and I suspect some reviewers would count it against the article for introducing redundancy. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, and I forgot to add: the Furley citation is currently generating a Harv error. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- One other suggestion: have you considered adding section leads to Philosophy and Legacy? I don't believe this is mandatory, but they might help readers absorb and process the content—especially as it has expanded during this process. Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Generally I think that this is pretty inaccessible to non-specialists: a lot of it left me feeling like I was missing some fairly fundamental details. For instance, we are told that Leucippus' atomism followed on from Empedocles' philosophy - but as a reader who has no idea what Empedocles' philosophy actually was that leaves me more rather than less confused! More specific comments:
- Twice the earth is described as a "titled disc"; should they read "tilted" instead?
- Fixed.
- "other worlds must exist as cosmos are formed elsewhere": the minor point here is that I would expect "cosmoses" for the plural; the more substantive point is that I find this whole explanation of Leucippus' cosmology to be hopelessly confusing.
- I rewrote the cosmology section to explain things more simply. Let me know if it's still unclear.
- "Leucippus agreed with these conclusions, but..." This doesn't sound very much like Leucippus agreed with the Eleatics conclusions! I suppose what is meant here is that he thought the Eleatics' reasoning was valid but their premises were false?
- Correct. I reworded it.
- "Leucippus asserted the existence infinite atoms and a void that extends infinitely." - should this read "the existence of an infinite number of atoms"?
- Fixed.
- "He was born in the first half of the 5th century BCE, but the exact dates are unknown. He presumably developed atomism during the 430s BCE" - in the lead he is described as pre-Socratic, but these dates make him pretty much a contemporary of Socrates?
- It took some digging, but I found a source that explains this and I added it.
- "Most historical sources describe Leucippus as ... but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." A lot of words telling us virtually nothing useful. Who are these some sources/other sources? Are the "most historical sources" from antiquity? Why do they think Leucippus was a student of Zeno?
- I went through and attributed what I could. I changed it to "Leucippus is traditionally understood to have been a student of Zeno of Elea", because unless I'm missing something, that's all we really know.
- "One proposal is that he was born in Miletus ..." again, whose proposal is this and why should i care?
- Attributed to some of the people who proposed it.
- "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest such record that still exists in the modern day": repetition of record. Surely there's a more concise way of saying this. How about "Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest surviving source"?
- Reworded.
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
- That should be all of the specific comments addressed. I can't really judge what else might be clear or unclear, but I can do more rewording wherever it's necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Generally looking a lot better. It looks like the dates on some of your citations have got messed up though – all of the Augustin/Pello, Furley, and Kirk/Raven sfns are not correctly linking through to the bibliographic entries. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. A reviewer below had me switch the years to the most recent editions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be something wrong with your citations to Barnes 1982 - none of the page numbers seem to match up with the version on archive.org. I've spotchecked a couple other sources and there don't seem to be the same issues, but I checked several citations to Barnes and they all appear to be wrong. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Caeciliusinhorto, good catch! It looks like the version on archive.org is a reprint. I've matched up all of the cited passages to where they appear in the reprint and changed the page numbers accordingly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Caeciliusinhorto, just checking in to see if you have any more thoughts on the article since it's been a couple weeks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Thebiguglyalien: Apolgies for the delay in getting back to you - I was ill when you pinged me and then real life got in the way. I don't have any more notes for you, so support Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- There seems to be something wrong with your citations to Barnes 1982 - none of the page numbers seem to match up with the version on archive.org. I've spotchecked a couple other sources and there don't seem to be the same issues, but I checked several citations to Barnes and they all appear to be wrong. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. A reviewer below had me switch the years to the most recent editions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Generally looking a lot better. It looks like the dates on some of your citations have got messed up though – all of the Augustin/Pello, Furley, and Kirk/Raven sfns are not correctly linking through to the bibliographic entries. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review[edit]
- Suggest adding alt text
- Note this guidance regarding captioning
- File:Pinacoteca_Querini_Stampalia_-_Leucippus_-_Luca_Giordano.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Leucippus._Line_engraving_by_S._Beyssent_after_Mlle_C._Reyde_Wellcome_V0003528.jpg
- File:Magna_Graecia_ancient_colonies_and_dialects-eu.svg: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear what specific changes you want me to make regarding the map (sidenote, I didn't realize this image was "in the article" or even existed until you listed it). I've made all other suggested changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few options: for example, you could add a non-colour-based marker to distinguish the sections, or you could simply remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Removed. The change affected a few hundred pages, but the image wasn't exactly doing much good, even before the accessibility issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few options: for example, you could add a non-colour-based marker to distinguish the sections, or you could simply remove/replace the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
UC[edit]
Will be along in a bit for a proper review. Generally, I'd echo what Caecilius and others have said above: there are a few places where we need to go a little slower and explain the steps of thought. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
A few quick Parthian shots:
- given its own name in German: die Leukipp-frage: some of our readers don't speak German: I would always translate non-English phrases.
- Added a translation
- Would italicise after the transl. template (honestly, it looks pretty odd to my eyes, but I think that's just a personal reaction rather than anything wrong with the implementation). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Is that common practice? My understanding was that only the foreign language term is italicized, while the English term is not.
- It follows from MOS:WORDSASWORDS, since we're invoking the English word for the problem, not the problem itself. However, there is also the
((gloss]}template, which (per MOS:QUOTE) advises casa 'house'. Note the single quote marks used here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- It follows from MOS:WORDSASWORDS, since we're invoking the English word for the problem, not the problem itself. However, there is also the
- Is that common practice? My understanding was that only the foreign language term is italicized, while the English term is not.
- Would italicise after the transl. template (honestly, it looks pretty odd to my eyes, but I think that's just a personal reaction rather than anything wrong with the implementation). UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added a translation
The stars ignited as they were spinning the fastest, and they in turn ignited the Sun: the fastest compared with what? It sounds like L. thought everything was spinning?- I rewrote the entire cosmology section to simplify it
- I'm still finding it tough going, though probably best to let those with more expertise guide the improvement here. In particular, terms like "the void" and "membrane" might perhaps benefit from some explanation. We seem to explain the void later when we get to the Eleatics.
- The Eleatics are the first point that the void is mentioned in the body. The sources don't go into detail about what the membrane was, partially because there isn't total agreement (like with the bit about the philosophers disagreeing how it was constructed).
- I'm still finding it tough going, though probably best to let those with more expertise guide the improvement here. In particular, terms like "the void" and "membrane" might perhaps benefit from some explanation. We seem to explain the void later when we get to the Eleatics.
- I rewrote the entire cosmology section to simplify it
a disc tiltedon its horizontal axis: typo.- Fixed with the section's rewrite
There is no evidence from Leucippus's own lifetime about where he lived: there are a couple of statements like this: I worry that they give a false impression that we would expect there to be. There is very little biographical evidence about anyone in antiquity that survives from their own lifetime.- I removed this specific instance. No others stood out immediately, but I can change more if needed.
When you have two SFN templates in a row, you can bundle them with SFNM, improving readability.- How did I not know that this existed? I used to to replace the groups of three, I don't see much purpose in going through all of the groups of two just to make them a tiny bit shorter.
A few more:
Most historical sources describe Leucippus as a student of Zeno of Elea, though Aristotle's writings on Leucippus do not support this: What are these sources, and when are they from? What does Aristotle say?- I switched it to "Leucippus is traditionally understood to have been a student of Zeno of Elea", because that's all we really know. I removed the part about Aristotle because as far as I can tell it's simply a lack of evidence rather than saying anything about it.
- Abdera was the home of his student Democritus: we were previously rather cagey about whether this was true. Likewise, later: Leucippus developed atomism along with his student, Democritus
- Which part is cagey? "Leucippus developed atomism along with his student, Democritus" is basically the one thing we're most confident about.
- It seems odd to "confirm" Democritus as a student of someone we're only mostly certain existed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- All of the sources speak to this as a fact without raising any serious doubts about it.
- That isn't the impression I get later on: see In 2008, the philosopher Daniel Graham wrote that no significant work on the historicity of Leucippus has been produced since the early 20th century, arguing that "recent scholarship tends to avoid the question as much as possible" ... Such was the problem's enormity that it was given its own name in German. Avoiding the question is not speaking to his existence as a fact. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- All of the sources speak to this as a fact without raising any serious doubts about it.
- It seems odd to "confirm" Democritus as a student of someone we're only mostly certain existed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which part is cagey? "Leucippus developed atomism along with his student, Democritus" is basically the one thing we're most confident about.
- Aristotle's writings on Leucippus do not support this: explain briefly who Aristotle was and when he was writing (as for other philosophers)
- I added that he's a Greek philosopher, and I put similar descriptions with other names.
- I would clarify ancient Greek, and give a rough date. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I've added ancient Greek and pre-Socratic Greek to names where appropriate. I'm hesitant to add information that isn't covered in the sources, and I think the context makes it clear that Aristotle was after Leucippus.I've added the century.
- I would clarify ancient Greek, and give a rough date. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I added that he's a Greek philosopher, and I put similar descriptions with other names.
Aristotle is first linked on second mention.According to Aristotle, he argued there must be indivisible points in a body, because bodies made entirely of divisible points would not be tangible: I'm not sure what this means or why it would be true.- Reworded, I hope it's a little clearer now.
- Is "dividing points" the same as "divisible points"? Strictly speaking, it's possible for something to be divisible without it ever dividing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changed to "divisible" per the cited sources.
- Is "dividing points" the same as "divisible points"? Strictly speaking, it's possible for something to be divisible without it ever dividing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reworded, I hope it's a little clearer now.
which may have been an effect of Democritus including it among his corpus as the foundation of his work: the meaning of this isn't totally clear to me.- Removed. Not particularly relevant, and the one source that mentions it doesn't give it serious consideration.
- That should be all of the points addressed so far. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
A few more, plus a couple of replies above:
- Transliterated Greek (e.g. Megas Diakosmos) should be in the transl|grc template.
- Done.
I would give an orig-date to McKirahan so that people are aware it's fundamentally a 1994 book, not a 2011 one.- Done.
- "Nothing happens at random, but everything from reason and by necessity": could one of the footnotes clarify whose translation this is, and perhaps supply the Greek text? Presocratic fragments are often laconic and up for interpretation in the translating process.
- The Greek text is in the "Works" section. Several sources repeat various translations, but not a single one that I've seen attributes any of the translations. I've used the one where the same wording appears in two different sources.
- It would be useful to have a link to it here: I wonder if moving the Greek to a footnote (since few of our readers can understand it) and linking it from both places would be a good way forward. A section link would be another option. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- The Greek text is in the "Works" section. Several sources repeat various translations, but not a single one that I've seen attributes any of the translations. I've used the one where the same wording appears in two different sources.
- This was reminiscent of the Greek philosopher Anaximander's argument: as with Aristotle, a rough date would be useful.
- I added the century.
- Simplicius of Cilicia : again, a date would help: we're nearly a millennium after Aristotle and in a very different world.
- Added the century.
- he formed a possible solution to the paradoxes of motion created by Zeno of Elea: we should explain, perhaps in a footnote, what these paradoxes were and how Leucippus claimed to resolve them.
- I added that they "held that indivisibility made motion impossible".
- Along with Democritus, Leucippus was the first philosopher: this is contradictory: unless they published a joint work, only one can be first.
- Fixed.
- vortexes: I'd write the plural as vortices, but this might be an AmerE thing.
- A search suggests that they're both correct but vorticies is more common, so I switched it.
- Aristotle's record of Leucippus and Democritus's philosophy is the oldest surviving source on the subject: again, we really need a date.
- Added.
- Aristotle challenged atomism because he deemed it insufficient to explain why stone falls but fire rises: we need some explanation here as to why it would be expected to explain that, and perhaps why Aristotle thought it didn't (did he think it incompatible, or simply incomplete?)
- Reworded.
- Modern philosophy generally takes more interest in Leucippus's atomism than his cosmology: weren't these pretty much the same thing, to Leucippus at least?
- Changes to "concept of atoms".
- UndercoverClassicist, I've replied to everything and made the appropriate changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your replies, time and changes so far. Just to put it on record, I'm going to leave this one as comments: I don't feel I sufficiently understand the subject matter to put my weight behind a support or oppose. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- UndercoverClassicist, I've replied to everything and made the appropriate changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
I'm happy to see another philosophy article at FAC. I'll get started with the source review.
- Graham 2008, p. 335, 348n12. replace "p." with "pp."
- Vamvacas 2009, p. 127, 133. replace "p." with "pp."
- Graham 2008, p. 333, 348n1. replace "p." with "pp."
- in the section "References", "Gregory, Andrew (2013)..." should come after "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."
- in the section "References", I would suggest splitting "Zilioli, Ugo (2020)..." and "Gregory, Andrew..." into two independent items since other chapters in books also get their own item (like "Graham, Daniel W. (2008)..."). Both can have the same parameters for title, editor, etc. They differ concerning their parameters first1, last1, and chapter.
- the citation-templates are not consistent in their use of title case vs sentence case. I suggest using title case everywhere, for example, "The atomists" -> "The Atomists" and "The founders of Western thought: the presocratics a diachronic parallelism between Presocratic thought and philosophy and the natural sciences" -> "The Founders of Western Thought: The Presocratics a Diachronic Parallelism Between Presocratic Thought and Philosophy and the Natural Sciences"
- the books and journal articles are all from high-quality publishers, such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Routledge
- WP:EARWIG shows one match with https://pantheon.world/profile/occupation/philosopher/country/greece. However, the same page copied the lead sections from various Wikipedia entries, such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates and they also mention Wikipedia once. I guess it's safe to assume that they copied from this article as well rather than the other way around.
Phlsph7 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've made all suggested changes to the references. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi phlsph7, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Gog the Mild, Phlsph7 responded below Special:Diff/1203330591. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks TBUA, apologies Phlsph. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response. Continuing the review:
- Leucippus and Democritus proposed that heat, fire, and the soul are made of spherical atoms, as these are most able to move past one another and cause the others to move.[44] They believed in a material soul that drives motion in living things, and they described respiration as the process of expelling soul atoms and absorbing new ones.[44] you can remove the first reference of [44] since that sentence is already covered by the second one.
- the same applies to:
- The former may have originally been tilted The World System and then later renamed to avoid confusion with Democritus's The Little World System.[22] Leucippus's The Great World System has sometimes been attributed to Democritus, which may have been an effect of Democritus including it among his corpus as the foundation of his work.[22]
- Leucippus's atomism was a direct response to Eleatic philosophy.[30][31] The Eleatics believed that nothingness, or the void, cannot exist in its own right. They concluded that if there is no void, then there is no motion and all things must be one.[30][31]
- when Pierre Gassendi was its most prominent advocate.[75] It was influential in the development of early atomic theories in the 18th and 19th centuries,[75]
- very short spotcheck
- Leucippus and Democritus proposed that heat, fire, and the soul are made of spherical atoms, as these are most able to move past one another and cause the others to move.[44] supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 615–616
- Death then coincides with the last breath, as soul atoms are no longer being replenished. Sleep is a similar state in which a reduced number of soul atoms are in the body.[45] supported by Augustin & Pellò 2021, pp. 617–618
- Among scholars who argue against Leucippus's existence, alternate ideas have been proposed: Leucippus may have been a pseudonym of Democritus, or he may have been a character in a dialogue.[1] supported by Graham 2008, p. 335
- He described the stars as orbiting the fastest, causing them to ignite through friction.[57] the relevant passages from Graham 2008, p. 339 seem to be: The fixed stars move most swiftly... and Democritus’s heavenly bodies are traveling with the vortex, they cannot be illuminated by friction, as Leucippus’s bodies seem to be. The second part of igniting through friction is more weakly expressed in the source than in our article. Maybe there is another source that supports the stronger claim or it could be reformulated.
Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Phlsph7, I've removed the redundant citations, and I changed the sentence about the stars. I removed the bit about friction and replaced it with a description of the stars' formation, which was given more attention by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a reason you use |url= and |url-access=subscription for the publisher’s link instead of just consistently using |doi=? Barnes 1982 could have doi:10.4324/9780203007372 and that would allow you to put a convenience link in |url= like to Archive.org [34] if you so chose. To me it seems redundant to have the URL repeat the destination the DOI provides. In general you seem inconsistent in your use of DOIs. Umimmak (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've added DOIs and Archive.org URLs where applicable, and I removed URLs duplicated by DOIs. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you the DOI for Barnes 1982 above, or are you finding that's not the right identifier for your source? In addition Gregory 2020 is doi:10.5040/9781350107526.0008. Kirk & Raven 1957 has a second edition, which you might wish to consider citing instead? doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813375; Laks 2018 is doi:10.2307/j.ctvc7765p. And Zilioli 2020 is an edited collection; you've already got a separate citation for Gregory 2020 in Zilioli 2020. This citation for Zilioli 2020 really should be for just Zilioli's "General Introduction" doi:10.5040/9781350107526.0006. When linking to Archive.org
|url-access=registrationmight be worth considering if you need to make an account to check out the book. Also you are including an ISBN-13 for works where that's anachronistic; per WP:ISBNHowever, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type.
Is it standard in this field to have the full date when citing journals? Also Augustin and Pellò was published online on July 12, 2021, but in general you should cite the final version when possible, I think, no? So the final published version with page numbers appeared in 2022? But maybe this is field-dependent. Umimmak (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)- I've made the changes, though the references section no longer reflects the versions of Kirk & Raven 1957 and Augustin & Pellò 2021 that are actually used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I mean… can you not just use the most current version of these sources in the article? Don’t cite something you’re not using, but you should use the most current version of a source unless there’s a reason to not do so. Umimmak (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- The danger of citing a different version is that the page numbers may not fit and the text may also be slightly changed. I'm not aware of an FA requirement to always cite the latest version, so I would suggest sticking with the version that was used when writing the article. If it's important to mention the new version in a specific case, what about adding the more recent source in parenthesis in the reference section, something like:
- Barnes, Jonathan (1982). The Presocratic Philosophers. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203007372. ISBN 0-415-20351-1. (later republished in/as: ...)
- Phlsph7 (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is that Kirk and Raven (1957) was revised throughout for the second edition Kirk, Raven, and Schofield (1983). Citing an edition rendered obsolete forty years ago by its original authors raises my eyebrows.
- Also, the page numbers are different, and so citations must be given to the edition actually being cited.
- That said, I'm not going to stand in the way of the nomination on these grounds—especially as there does not appear to be a copy available anywhere online. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- The danger of citing a different version is that the page numbers may not fit and the text may also be slightly changed. I'm not aware of an FA requirement to always cite the latest version, so I would suggest sticking with the version that was used when writing the article. If it's important to mention the new version in a specific case, what about adding the more recent source in parenthesis in the reference section, something like:
- I mean… can you not just use the most current version of these sources in the article? Don’t cite something you’re not using, but you should use the most current version of a source unless there’s a reason to not do so. Umimmak (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've made the changes, though the references section no longer reflects the versions of Kirk & Raven 1957 and Augustin & Pellò 2021 that are actually used in the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you the DOI for Barnes 1982 above, or are you finding that's not the right identifier for your source? In addition Gregory 2020 is doi:10.5040/9781350107526.0008. Kirk & Raven 1957 has a second edition, which you might wish to consider citing instead? doi:10.1017/CBO9780511813375; Laks 2018 is doi:10.2307/j.ctvc7765p. And Zilioli 2020 is an edited collection; you've already got a separate citation for Gregory 2020 in Zilioli 2020. This citation for Zilioli 2020 really should be for just Zilioli's "General Introduction" doi:10.5040/9781350107526.0006. When linking to Archive.org
Comments from JM[edit]
Really fantastic to see this here. Leucippus is the sort of person I don't know about but probably should.
- I know it's obvious to you, but I really think the two images should be clearly captioned so that we're not giving the false impression that they may be accurate likenesses. Maybe something like 'A fanciful 16th century portrait of Leucippus by [whoever]' or something
- There were captions, but they were reduced for the image review.
- I wasn't aware of that guideline. I agree with what it says, but would argue that the need to avoid giving a misleading impression is more important. Or, put another way (to quote MOS:CREDITS) maybe the author of the image is relevant to the subject of the article, precisely because the author is so far removed from the subject of the article. (I could see an argument for saying that we shouldn't use either image in the infobox, but that's not my belief.) @Nikkimaria: Do you have a view on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the simplest solution would be to simply say it was a later interpretation (though I'd suggest a different word than "fanciful"). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Made a change. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the simplest solution would be to simply say it was a later interpretation (though I'd suggest a different word than "fanciful"). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that guideline. I agree with what it says, but would argue that the need to avoid giving a misleading impression is more important. Or, put another way (to quote MOS:CREDITS) maybe the author of the image is relevant to the subject of the article, precisely because the author is so far removed from the subject of the article. (I could see an argument for saying that we shouldn't use either image in the infobox, but that's not my belief.) @Nikkimaria: Do you have a view on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- There were captions, but they were reduced for the image review.
- Why 'cosmos' rather than 'universe'? Is it worth linking to cosmos? (I assume you're using 'world' and 'cosmos' interchangeably?)
- Cosmos is used pretty consistently in the sources. Links added.
- Is it worth specifying in the lead that (probably?) neither Aristotle nor Theophrastus were contemporaries of Leucippus? That really helps underlie how little we know about him for sure.
- Added.
- The first paragraph of the 'life' section is a little choppy. I like short sentences, but perhaps it could be smoother? Working to remove some of the passive voice might help. (Example: 'Epicurus has been described as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus.' to 'x describes Epicurus as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus is recorded by y as denying Leucippus's existence.' (Or maybe you want to avoid s's -- I know some people don't like it!) It might help if you cut back on the passive voice throughout.
- Reworked it a bit.
- "Two works are attributed to Leucippus: The Great World System and On Mind" A 'works' section would be nice. Normally it appears at the bottom of the article. I'd also love to see 'the sentence' prominently, especially as it's so evocative; maybe even in the lead (along with the titles of the works?) I also suspect any classicists reading would expect to see the Greek titles alongside the English titles (as you do with Leucippus's name in the lead); and perhaps even for 'the sentence'. (At least: Whose translation is that?) No doubt there are other translations out there.
- Good idea. I added a works section including the Greek names and I added the titles to the lead.
- I've added ((lang)) per MOS:LANG; I've used 'grc', which is for 'Ancient Greek' (see List of ISO 639-2 codes). There are several other possible candidates at Template:Lang/doc#Private-use language tags. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. I added a works section including the Greek names and I added the titles to the lead.
- ' but he asserted that the void did exist, and he was therefore able to accept the existence of motion and plurality' Philosophers often take an accusation of assertion as a criticism (or, at least, I do). Is it mere assertion?
- I hadn't considered it that way, but I changed it to "said".
- "Simplicius of Cilicia contradicted Aristotle's account, attributing this idea to Democritus" Could you spell this out? What exactly did Simplicius say, and how did it contradict Aristotle? (I also wonder if it might be worth situating Simplicius and others a little better chronologically; I think it's easy for people to imagine that all these ancient philosophers were in a room talking to each other ala School of Athens, rather than referring to each other centuries apart.)
- The source doesn't elaborate; he just attributed it to Democritus instead of Leucippus. I reworded it a little bit.
- "The 20th century philosopher Ernst Cassirer considered Leucippus to be the third and final philosopher involved with the shift from Eleatic analytic logic to causal logic, following Empedocles and Anaxagoras.[42]" This needs spelling out; neither Eleatic logic nor causal logic have yet been mentioned.
- I decided to just remove this one. It's a throw away comment from the one sources that doesn't really go anywhere.
- "a theory of thought and perception" Some wikilinks would be good. We have both perception ad philosophy of perception, but there's only thought (with philosophy of thought redirecting to philosophy of mind).
- Linked.
- "According to Epiphanius, Leucippus said that reasoned knowledge is impossible to obtain and only unreasoned belief exists" That would make him an epistemological sceptic; have you seen him described in those terms? I wonder if that's worth linking (and I assume we'll have a category).
- I have not seen the specific label. I was iffy about including this at all, because I didn't see it in any other sources and some say he didn't have any epistemology.
- "making him the first known philosopher to propose the existence of other worlds besides Earth" This is where the world/cosmos/universe etc. gets confusing; do you mean to say he's the first to propose other planets, or the first to propose other universes? Or neither? (Strictly speaking, his view sounds somewhere between the two.)
- It more or less means other planets, but the sources use the phrase "other worlds". I was hoping that the first half of that sentence would clarify what it meant.
- "Modern understanding of Leucippus's role in the development of atomism comes from the writings of the ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Theophrastus.[" Is it worth saying what writings?
- I thought about this, but I leaned against listing specific texts, especially since none of the sources list them all out like that.
- "It is unclear whether Leucippus's contemporary Diogenes of Apollonia responded to Leucippus or if Leucippus responded to Diogenes.[68] According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Apollonia's interpretation of the void may have been inspired by Leucippus.[69][70]" Interesting, but a bit out of place?
- I removed the first of these sentences, as it's only in the one source and doesn't really add anything. I kept the "interpretation of the void" because it's relevant to how Leucippus's philosophy was applied.
- I don't feel very strongly about it, but my impression is that the use of ((Ill)) is discouraged at FAC. Why would a reader understand [de] to mean 'click here to read about him in German'?
- I hadn't heard of this. If anyone else concurs, then I'll remove them.
- "he is not known to have produced any writings on ethics[77] or epistemology.[78]" Maybe -- though, as above, it sounds like he defended epistemological skepticism, so he at least addressed epistemology, perhaps?
- I'll quote the sources. It's even worse than it seemed:
- Leucippus insists that we have belief, but no more (Epiphanius, 67 A 33) ... The Atomists, however, do not even allow reasonable belief: their arguments against knowledge, in so far as we know them, are equally arguments against reasonable belief. We have beliefs: that is an incontestable empirical fact. Our beliefs do not amount to knowledge: that is the argument of the Abderites. Yet our beliefs are not even reasonable: being atomically caused, they are not founded on reason; and the physics of the cognitive processes assures us that no impressions of external reality are accurate. If there is no room for knowledge, by the same token there is no room for reasoned belief: everything is by belief—but that, far from being a consolation, is only a cause for despair. (Barnes 1982 p.447)
- Nor do [Leucippus and Democritus] accept the Parmenidean position that tangible experiences are but "the opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all".28B1(30) On the contrary, they believe that sense experience, however limited, constitutes objective knowledge of the physical world through which one can approach the truth. (Vamvacas 2009 p.211)
- While we have no evidence to suggest that Leucippus was concerned with epistemological questions, there is abundant evidence of their importance for Democritus. (Taylor 1999 p.189)
- To my eyes, this could mean Leucippus's ideas being attributed to Democritus, Democritus's ideas being attributed to Leucippus, Parmenides's ideas being attributed to Leucippus and Democritus, or any combination thereof. If you have any suggestions for what to do with this...
- Interesting. Maybe you could say something like 'Although [whoever] argues that there is little evidence that Leucippus, unlike Democritus, addressed epistemology, other writers have variously interpretted him as arguing that we can have belief, but neither justified belief nor knowledge, and that objective knowledge can be achieved through sense experience.' We could just spell out the controversy. Probably, as you suggest, this all comes down to the way L and D are 'bundled' (or not), but I think trying to cut through that is going to verge into original research... Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'll quote the sources. It's even worse than it seemed:
- "The 20th century physicist Werner Heisenberg argued that Plato's theory of forms was closer to reality than Leucippus's conception of atoms, saying that modern atoms are more like the intangible Platonic forms than the discrete material units of Leucippus.[81]" 'Reality' is unfortunate here; I assume you mean 'the findings of 20th century physics' or something."
- I assume Heisenberg considered himself to be talking about reality, but I changed it.
- "No significant work on the historicity of Leucippus has been produced since the early 20th century.[63]" I think this needs to be dated. 'In [year], [whoever] observed that...'
- The source for this is "The last 75 years or so have seen no serious contributions to the question; recent scholarship tends to avoid the question as much as possible" (Graham 2008 p.333). I don't see anything beyond that.
- Thanks, good quote. I've made a change to the article; see what you think. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- The source for this is "The last 75 years or so have seen no serious contributions to the question; recent scholarship tends to avoid the question as much as possible" (Graham 2008 p.333). I don't see anything beyond that.
- You often use 'modern' to mean something like 'contemporary'; but historians of philosophy normally distinguish the two." The first person who pops into my head when I read 'modern philosophy' is Hobbes (who, incidentally, would like Leucippus).
- This article uses modern to refer from anything between the 16th century and today. For more specific time periods, the century is used.
- "die Leukipp-frage (transl. the Leucippus problem" Brilliant topic to end on; I even wonder if it belongs in the lead?
- The lead already mentions the dispute, it probably doesn't need the specific German term, at least in my opinion.
- "Most modern philosophers agree that Leucippus existed," Just to clarify: That's what your source says? You're not just citing someone who believes he exists, or mentions lots of people who believes he exists? (That would constitute synthesis.
- The exact wording is "Most recent contributions fall into the third group". In his groupings, the third group is scholars who say "Leucippus is the historical founder of atomism, but is difficult or impossible to distinguish him from Democritus in a systematic way". For reference, the other groups are "Leucippus is an invention", "Leucippus can be distinguished from Democritus in a systematic way", and "the question is undecidable". (Graham 2008 p.337)
- Could I recommend you include a further reading entry or external link for the Leucippus's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? If I get time, I plan to read through that one and see how it compares to this article! (I'm seeing other professional philosophy encyclopedia articles -- e.g., doi:10.4324/9780415249126-A064-1 -- but Stanford is the one I always gravitate to, not least because it's free!)
- Added as an external link. I actually used SEP to check for comprehensiveness while writing the article.
I've genuinely learnt a lot. I have a lecture where I mention Democritus in passing; I'll mention Leucippus next time I do it! Josh Milburn (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- J Milburn I replied to each comment. I made most of the suggested changes, though there are a few that are a little more complicated and I'm curious how you'd approach them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- A few more replies. In cases where you've pushed back/explained and I've not replied, assume I'm happy! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- J Milburn, I'm assuming the epistemology was the only part where a change was needed right now. I made an effort to get it all organized, though I'm not sure if it makes sense as written. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- J Milburn, just checking in. Is there anything else here that needs a closer look? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hoped to take another look at the article (perhaps placing it alongside the Stanford article) before offering support, but the directors shouldn't feel obliged to wait for me; finding a spare hour or two for this sort of thing is increasingly challenging! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Josh, without wanting to nag, I wondered if you have had any further thoughts on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Please don't hold up the review on my account; if there's a consensus to promote, please go ahead. I'm very busy in the dreaded real world at present, so finding a couple of hours for this is proving a challenge. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Josh, without wanting to nag, I wondered if you have had any further thoughts on this one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hoped to take another look at the article (perhaps placing it alongside the Stanford article) before offering support, but the directors shouldn't feel obliged to wait for me; finding a spare hour or two for this sort of thing is increasingly challenging! Josh Milburn (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- A few more replies. In cases where you've pushed back/explained and I've not replied, assume I'm happy! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Shapeyness[edit]
Very interesting article! Some comments below. Shapeyness (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The atoms postulated by Leucippus always hold the same shape and size, but they constantly change their position and their arrangements with one another, and they come in infinitely many shapes and sizes because there is no reason why they should not. This is a slightly confusing wording imo - would something like this work: "The atoms postulated by Leucippus come in infinitely many shapes and sizes, although the size and shape of each atom is fixed and unchanging. They are in a state of constant motion and continuously change arrangements with one another."?
- I used your wording, but I kept the reasoning of "no reason why not" because that's an explicit part of his philosophy.
- Leucippus's atomism applied the ontology of Eleatic philosophy to an empirical understanding of the world being an entirely physical phenomenon I'm not 100% sure I understand what this is saying.
- Honestly I had to read the sources a few times to get a sense of what they were saying. I reworded it to this: "Leucippus's atomism kept the concepts of reality developed by the Eleatics, but it applied them to a physical explanation of the world." Hopefully that's a little clearer, or at least in the right direction?
- It is unclear whether Leucippus's contemporary Diogenes of Apollonia responded to Leucippus or if Leucippus responded to Diogenes... Since Diogenes of Apollonia is not mentioned up to this point in the article, this comes a bit out of nowhere and seems a little confusing - maybe if the sentences were flipped it would make more sense, e.g. "According to Diogenes Laertius, Diogenes of Apollonia's interpretation of the void may have been inspired by Leucippus, although it is unclear which of the two wrote on the subject first."
- I've simply removed the part about who influenced who, since it's redundant and the other sources don't acknowledge it.
- The main practical difference between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory is introduction of non-tangible phenomena such as mass–energy equivalence and fundamental forces. This is supported by the source, but are there any other sources that discuss the differences between Leucippus's atomism and modern atomic theory? I would associate mass–energy equivalence and fundamental forces more with relativity and particle physics than with emergence of atomic theory. If not, then no need to change anything about this!
- This was the source that broke them down and compared them. Personally I think it's relevant to list continued advances after the development of modern atomic theory.
- Modern scholars who have rejected the existence of Leucippus include... Personally I don't think this list is necessary, but feel free to ignore this one :)
- I don't either, but reviewers took issue with people not being named.
- Shapeyness, I've replied to the comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Thebiguglyalien! Looking through the SEP pages for Leucippus and the ancient atomists, this article seems to cover all the same major points. The only other thing I noticed is night was caused by the Sun moving behind the lifted end of the Earth in the lead is not actually mentioned in the main body of the article. Shapeyness (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Shapeyness, I removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Last thing, there seem to be a number of citation errors due to dates not matching up between the citations and source list - specifically for the Kirk & Raven and Hurley sources. Shapeyness (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- That was an effect of a reviewer above telling me to use the most recent years instead of the ones from the versions I consulted. I've updated the years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had one last look to check if there are any other sources that could be used to talk about differences/similarities between Leucippus and modern atomic theory and couldn't find anything better than the source already used. I'm not an expert, but based on the sources I've read, this article seems comprehensive and accurate. It's also well-written and structured, and meets the other FA criteria, so I'll support for FA. Shapeyness (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Have you actually consulted the newer editions? Maybe PatrickJWelsh and I disagree on this, but my sense is that if you're citing an edition, it should be one you actually used. And if there's no difference (e.g., we're talking about a reprinting rather than a new edition) you should cite the original, not the most recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't love using an edition that was superseded forty years ago, but the first edition is still easily a RS. The impetus of my original objection was that there was a qualification in the second edition of a claim made in the article, which I wrongly assumed had only been introduced in the second. Since that has now been sourced to the first edition, which was used in the creation of the article, I no longer see any content-based reason to object to its current state. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree that there are good reasons to favour updated editions over originals all else equal. @Shapeyness: Could you confirm that the article doesn't presently contain references to any sources you haven't used? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Josh Milburn: I think you mean to tag Thebiguglyalien? Shapeyness (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- J Milburn, yes, they all now correspond to the versions that I used. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Understood, and I agree that there are good reasons to favour updated editions over originals all else equal. @Shapeyness: Could you confirm that the article doesn't presently contain references to any sources you haven't used? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't love using an edition that was superseded forty years ago, but the first edition is still easily a RS. The impetus of my original objection was that there was a qualification in the second edition of a claim made in the article, which I wrongly assumed had only been introduced in the second. Since that has now been sourced to the first edition, which was used in the creation of the article, I no longer see any content-based reason to object to its current state. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Have you actually consulted the newer editions? Maybe PatrickJWelsh and I disagree on this, but my sense is that if you're citing an edition, it should be one you actually used. And if there's no difference (e.g., we're talking about a reprinting rather than a new edition) you should cite the original, not the most recent. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had one last look to check if there are any other sources that could be used to talk about differences/similarities between Leucippus and modern atomic theory and couldn't find anything better than the source already used. I'm not an expert, but based on the sources I've read, this article seems comprehensive and accurate. It's also well-written and structured, and meets the other FA criteria, so I'll support for FA. Shapeyness (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- That was an effect of a reviewer above telling me to use the most recent years instead of the ones from the versions I consulted. I've updated the years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Last thing, there seem to be a number of citation errors due to dates not matching up between the citations and source list - specifically for the Kirk & Raven and Hurley sources. Shapeyness (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Shapeyness, I removed it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Thebiguglyalien! Looking through the SEP pages for Leucippus and the ancient atomists, this article seems to cover all the same major points. The only other thing I noticed is night was caused by the Sun moving behind the lifted end of the Earth in the lead is not actually mentioned in the main body of the article. Shapeyness (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
PJW[edit]
I have just re-read the article and made a few minor edits with descriptions. Please revert if they do not make sense.
I have also reacquainted myself with the FAC criteria, and so can offer the following assessment:
(Edit: This is in addition to my comments above, which have been addressed to my satisfaction. I did not realize I was supposed to create a section header for myself, and so it has been somewhat obscured that I did in fact weigh in at the beginning of this process—although, to be sure, not so thoroughly as some of the other editors, who I would encourage to weigh in with their own recommendations. I stand by my own confident motion of support, but am qualified only to be a member of a deciding body, not the decider-in-chief. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC))
The article is well-written, coherently structured, and introduced with an accessible, well-crafted lead. It appears to be neither longer nor shorter than the topic merits. The bibliography is shorter than most of the high-quality articles upon which I have worked — the reason for this, however, is clear from the content of the article itself. What is important is the quality of the sources used, and they are of high quality. The use of a citation template, although not required, is much appreciated.
With respect to its comprehensiveness, I read it against the treatment in a source not used for the article, W. K. C. Guthrie's multi-volume history of Greek Philosophy, in which poor Leucippus receives a meager four pages. Nothing contained in them has been omitted in this article.
For these reasons, I fully support the promotion of this article.
I would also like to add that I am happy to see how an already good article has improved as a result of this review. I don't in general love the GA/FAC processes, but this is an instance of them benefiting Wikipedia. For all of their hard work my thanks to Thebiguglyalien, especially, and also to everyone else who took the time to contribute with their comments and reviews.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley[edit]
- "Leucippus's atoms come in infinitely many forms and exist in constant motion. This creates a deterministic world". This is a non-sequitur.
- Reworded.
- "Epicurus has been described as a student of Leucippus, but Epicurus has also been recorded denying the existence of Leucippus." This is an odd sentence on two counts. As Epicurus lived 100 years later he can only have been a follower of Leucippus, not a student. Also, if he really denied Leucippus' existence, that would surely be decisive as he would have known. Maybe "said to have" instead of "recorded".
- Changed.
- You say that he held that all things are made of microscopic particles and that they came in infinitely many sizes. These statements contradict each other.
- Not necessarily. Infinite doesn't always mean all-encompassing.
- "while Leucippus is credited with the philosophy's creation, Democritus is understood to have applied it to natural phenomena on a larger scale". I am not clear what a larger scale means in this context.
- Reworded.
- I do not think it is correct to describe Constantine Vamvacas as a biographer. A quick check suggests that he wrote about the thought rather than the lives of philosophers.
- Replaced with writer. I could not find another more specific descriptor.
- "that Leucippus disagreed. He wrote that Leucippus". This is grammatically confusing.
- Reworded.
- Vamvacas and Taylor were both born in the 1930s. I do not think it is correct to describe them as 21st century even if you are citing 21C works in this particular case.
- Fixed.
- I suggest linking epistemological.
- Done.
- "Ancient biographers". As above, I do not think it is correct to describe someone discussing philosophical beliefs as a biographer.
- Fixed.
- "Aetius also wrote a history of Leucippus". history is an odd word for a person. Do you mean a study of his thought?
- Changed to "wrote about"
- "since the earliest records". The earliest records date to long before Leucippus.
- Clarified
- "Such was the problem's enormity". "enormity" is an odd word here. I am not sure what is better but maybe "The dispute was considered so difficult to resolve".
- Reworded.
Dudley Miles (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Dudley Miles, I've replied to everything above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2024 [35].
HMS Beaulieu[edit]
- Nominator(s): Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
HMS Beaulieu was a Royal Navy frigate that served in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. She was not a particularly well-thought of vessel, and saw much of her service away from major combat theatres. Nonetheless, in her relatively short career she managed to participate in campaigns in the West Indies, have two mutinies, fight in one major battle, and take part in a celebrated cutting out expedition. This article has gone through GA and A-class reviews and I believe it is now ready to run the gauntlet of FAC. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (image review pass)[edit]
I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of comments
- I know quite a bit about ships, so terms like "fifth-rate", "full-rigged ship", "keel", "beam", "hold", "draught", "fitted out" "laid down", "ballast", "quarterdeck", "forecastle", and so on are all familiar to me, but I suspect somebody who doesn't know anything about ships would find this tough reading. All those words are linked, so somebody can click through to find more details, but see the recent thread at WT:Manual of Style/Linking#A change to NOFORCELINK for an (unresolved) discussion on how much should be explained in-line and how much to rely on click-throughs. There's a bunch of other terms like "tons burthen", "ordinary", and "cutting out" that leave even me mystified.
- I'm currently following the precedent set by HMS Emerald (1795), HMS Bellerophon (1786), HMS Roebuck (1774), and HMS Temeraire (1798), etc, in linking but not going in to too much detail about those aspects. This is an article about one particular ship rather than the anatomy of the ship in general, so I would prefer not to intersperse the article with semi-frequent explanations for what is already linked. That said, this is not a hill I will die on if reviewers deem it necessary.
- Comment from Ykraps - I think this will interrupt the flow excessively - 122 feet 10+5⁄8 inches (37.5 m) at the keel, the first structural element laid in ship construction which runs the length of the ship, with a beam, the widest part of the vessel, of 39 feet 6 inches (12 m) and a depth in the hold, the distance between the underside of the main deck and the top of the limber boards, of 15 feet 2+5⁄8 inches (4.6 m) - seems even more confusing to me. Commonly books/sources overcome the issue with either a glossary or footnotes. I don't mind footnotes but then isn't scrolling to the bottom of the page as disruptive as clicking on a link? --Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fifth-rate says
a fifth rate was the second-smallest class of warships
, yet you call her aA well-armed and large ship
, which seems inconsistent.
- Have removed and reworded to avoid confusion.
- The infobox image is captioned as a "plan". In my experience, "plan" means a view looking down at something, i.e. a deck plan, so it's confusing to see that word used for this drawing.
- Changed to "diagram" but happy to hear any other suggestions.
- Comment from Ykraps - I think it is most commonly referred to as the sheer plan but as I imagine that to be more confusing, I tend to use profile plan which is also the term Lavery uses the most. I am not convinced that plan is a common term for plan view, except among draughtsmen, but Gardiner often uses the terms drawing or draught.--Ykraps (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Also, you're missing MOS:ALT on your images.
- Added.
- @RoySmith: Hi, thanks for having a look. I've replied above, and would be happy to further discuss your first point. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to be able to devote the time to a full review, but I'll toss in an image review so at least I'm doing something constructive :-)
- File:BEAULIEU 1791 RMG J5481-2.jpg CC-BY-SA-4.0
- File:HMS Beaulieu broadsheet.jpg PD, it's an advertisement, so can reasonably be assumed to have been published.
- File:Battle of Camperdown, 1797 RCIN 735057.a.jpg PD based on 100 years after death of artist.
- File:John Christian Schetky (1778-1874) - Cutting Out the 'Chevrette', 21 July 1801 - BHC0531 - Royal Museums Greenwich.jpg PD based on 100 years after death of artist.
- File:Buckler's Hard Maritime Museum 05 - HMS Bealieu model.jpg I need a 2O on this one. It includes the descriptive sign at the bottom, which may be covered by copyright, but perhaps de minimus applies? On the other hand, that whole question could be sidestepped by simply cropping out the sign, which would actually make it a better image, so I suggest doing that.
_-_Cutting_Out_the_%27Chevrette%27,_21_July_1801_-_BHC0531_-_Royal_Museums_Greenwich.jpg){kind=link}
- Agreed, added a cropped version.
Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]
lede/lead
Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to recuperate, - makes it sound like the ship herself needed to recuperate. What about, Later in the year the ship's crew was beset by yellow fever and much depleted. Beaulieu was sent to serve on the North America Station to allow them to recuperate, or similar?
- Done.
"...boats of that squadron completed a hard-fought cutting out expedition against the French corvette La Chevrette in Camaret Bay" - I imagine most cutting out expeditions were hard fought. In what respect was this particularly so?
- Agreed and removed.
- Just to clarify, if the boats had come under prolonged fire or the crews were massively outnumbered, it would be fine to say so.
Design and construction
"Her draught was 9 feet 5+1⁄2 inches (2.9 m) forward" - not sure how the layman would interpret for'ad. I usually use bow and stern simply because a link is available for each but perhaps I'm over thinking here.
- Added links.
"...allowing her to take on around double the amount of water and ballast". - Presumably this is drinking water? (taking on water puts me in mind of sinking). Consider store instead of take on. Also, not sure about 'allowing her to take on more ballast', which would have been more of a requirement.
- Reworded.
In what respect was she a bad sailer? Presumably, with a greater depth in hold, she would have had an increased propensity to drift to leeward. Does Gardiner say anything like that?
- He doesn't. Full quote: "No sailing quality reports on the ship survive, but it is unlikely that she was much of a sailer"
- Shame. I suppose it would be possible to add a bit about how deep ships in general sailed but I don't think it's absolutely necessary here.
The frigate was crewed by 280 men (from 1794 this was lowered to 274) - I suspect this was due to the change in armament. Is there anything that says so or gives another explanation?
- The Admiralty changed all frigate complements in 1794 in reaction to the creation of carronade establishments (274 for 38s, 254 for 36s, and 244 for 32s). Added.
- Do you also have something that says carronades were lighter and therefore required fewer men to operate them?
- I've checked all my relevant sources and can't find anything.
- Page 17 of Henry, Chris (2004). Napoleonic Naval Armaments 1792-1815. Botley, Oxford.: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-635-5. says this. I often also add that the carronade could fire a very heavy shot but had a much shorter range than the long gun (page 13).
- Thanks, added.
Where does the £2,200,000 figure come from and what's it based on, RPI?
- It's Template:Inflation, not my own calculation.
- I think a footnote explaining how the figure is calculated using the consumer price index is needed.
- Added.
Service
"...as part of an expedition containing 6,100 troops for the capture of Martinique" insinuates to me that the expedition was to capture only Martinique. Later you say Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia. Was the plan to always attack Martinique, Saint Lucia and Guadeloupe?
- Yes, a wider campaign against French-held islands.
It wouldn't hurt to mention how important these islands were to France's economy and how, in capturing them, she would be deprived of the wealth generated by the sugar. Howard has a bit on this in his book.
- Have used Brown for this as couldn't immediately find the work in Howard.
- Brown's fine but just for your info, Death Before Glory p. 30.
- Thanks, added a sentence.
Nore mutiny
Despite this her crew went into a state of mutiny – Shouldn’t there be a comma after 'this'?
- Added.
Any idea what happened to Mr Redhead?
- John Redhead was stripped of his warrant by a court martial on 4 December and sent back to the navy as a "common seaman".
- As he is mentioned prominently in the previous paragraph, I think it would be good to mention his fate.
- Had already done so, should have made clearer here.
Might be a good idea to add a Spithead and Nore mutinies main template here.
- Done.
Camperdown
I see you have a link to the battle but I would still be inclined to add a main article template.
- Done.
English Channel
"...she was sailing in company with the 18-gun sloop HMS Sylph" – I would use sloop of war here (and link), to differentiate between Sylph and a sloop
- Added.
La Chevrette action
I am surprised there isn't an article for this action. Perhaps one of us will write it sometime.
- Indeed. Action of 22 July 1801 or Cutting out of the Chevrette perhaps.
Link Plymouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)
- Plymouth in this instance refers to Plymouth Dockyard, which is already linked.
Later service
Link Portsmouth (unless it's linked somewhere else and I've missed it)
- As above.
I'll take another look later --Ykraps (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ykraps: Thanks for the comments so far, have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I think that's all I've got but I'll pass over it one more time when I get a few minutes. --Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Ykraps: That should be everything now! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]
- I'm not a fan of including cost in the infobox, especially since it lengthens infoboxes without adding much value to the reader
- Removed.
- Add links to the guns in the infobox or tell the reader that they're smoothbores
- Linked.
- Link gundeck and keel in the infobox
- Done.
- "as a private enterprise" reads oddly to me; I'd suggest something like a speculative build or venture as an better alternative
- Changed to speculative build.
- island "of" Saint Lucia
- Done.
- "in the start of the invasion" seems awkward, perhaps something like "at the beginning" or "in the initial stages"
- Changed to in the initial stages.
- Delete the inflation calculators, warships are capital costs that don't use consumer price indexes that massively understate the modern costs. 2.2 million pounds might buy the boats aboard a modern frigate.
- Done.
- Link ranks
- Done.
- during "the" campaign
- Fixed.
- fast sailing is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen between the words
- Fixed.
- Was Le Marsouin a fluyt built in the Dutch manner, or was she armed en flûte because she was a transport? If unknown I'd suggest that she be referred to a transport.
- Have gone for plain "ship" to reflect the lack of specific information in the sources provided
- And was her name Le Marsouin or Marsouin as per the article?
- Have removed all "Le"s from the article as it seems to be only Winfield who includes these.
- How can Beaulieu recapture an American ship?
- I don't know for sure, but that's definitely what the source says. My guess would be a ship captured by the French during the Quasi-War.
--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sturmvogel 66: Thanks for your comments, have hopefully actioned everything. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. Reviewing this version, some books have ISBNs and others OCLCs. I worry a little that Glasco's PhD has only been cited thrice since 2001, might not be a very strong source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- ISBNs weren't introduced until about 1972 and no effort was made to give them to books already published. OCLC numbers are considerably older and were given to all published books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Appreciate the review! As per Sturmvogel, I don't think the variation of ISBNs and OCLCs is an issue. I have removed all the Glasco that I can, replacing it with published sources. This leaves five Glasco citations which I can't find replacements for; it is in every case information to improve on existing cited events, rather than providing the basis for any of them. I believe Glasco might be kept for those five instances (he has also been published in International Labor and Working-Class History with another article about the mutiny, so he does have some credentials for the event). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, this passes, with caveats for lack of spotchecks and this not being a topic where I am deeply familiar with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Appreciate the review! As per Sturmvogel, I don't think the variation of ISBNs and OCLCs is an issue. I have removed all the Glasco that I can, replacing it with published sources. This leaves five Glasco citations which I can't find replacements for; it is in every case information to improve on existing cited events, rather than providing the basis for any of them. I believe Glasco might be kept for those five instances (he has also been published in International Labor and Working-Class History with another article about the mutiny, so he does have some credentials for the event). Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie[edit]
"named by Adams in compliment to the local landowner": suggest "as a compliment to".
- Done.
"Beaulieu was launched by Sir Harry Burrard on 4 May 1791 with the following dimensions:" I think it would read more naturally as "Beaulieu was launched by Sir Harry Burrard on 4 May 1791. It was".
- Done.
The dimensions are given to the eighth of an inch, but the converted units are only to the nearest decimetre, or about three and a half inches. I wouldn't insist on a change, but just wanted to check: is this a deliberate policy?
- I'm following the example set by previous FAs of this type, but I don't believe there's any particular policy.
Can we convert tons burthen? And can we inflate the cost to give the reader a sense of the modern equivalent?
- Not sure about tons burthen. I've never come across a conversion before. Per Sturmvogel's comment about RE inflation: "Delete the inflation calculators, warships are capital costs that don't use consumer price indexes that massively understate the modern costs. 2.2 million pounds might buy the boats aboard a modern frigate."
"The unusual proportions of the frigate did negate her sailing qualities, however. While no official report on Beaulieu's sailing survives, the naval historian Robert Gardiner suggests that it is "unlikely she was much of a sailer"." Am I right in thinking that the first sentence is just a summary of Gardiner's opinion? If so I think this could be shortened to "While no official report on Beaulieu's sailing survives, her unusual proportions of led the naval historian Robert Gardiner to suggest that it is "unlikely she was much of a sailer"."
- Done.
Seeing the "bowly" reminded me to ask: do we know if it's pronounced "Bewley", like the village, or "Boh lyoo", more or less as the French would sound?
- The former, as the title Earl Beaulieu is derived from Beaulieu.
"despite her being": suggest "although she was"
- Done.
"Beaulieu continued on with the expedition, arriving off the island Saint Lucia on 1 April to similarly capture that place": the last few words seem redundant, and in any case this makes it sounds as if it was Beaulieu that did the capturing, rather than the whole expedition. How about "Beaulieu continued on with the expedition which arrived off Saint Lucia on 1 April, and captured it on 4 April"? I don't think we need "the island" -- it's linked and in any case we've already said we're in the Leewards.
- Reworded.
Was Spartiate captured in the Leewards? If so I'd connected those sentences: "... returning to the Leeward Islands, where ..."
- Done.
I'm not sure I follow the action that got Littlehales promoted. Was it deliberately grounded by the French to act as a sort of additional battery? That's what "under cover of a battery" seems to imply. Or is the point that the grounded ship was dangerous to approach because it was in range of the battery?- Reworded. The ship had sailed there earlier in the day to receive the protection of the battery, which clearly didn't work!
- Can we add something to that effect, then? I think it would clarify the sequence of events. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reworded. The ship had sailed there earlier in the day to receive the protection of the battery, which clearly didn't work!
- Done?
"Under Skynner the frigate captured the French 26-gun ship Marsouin on 11 March off Guadeloupe while in consort with the 74-gun ship of the line HMS Ganges; she was bought in by the Royal Navy but never commissioned." Needs a bit of unpacking, I think. Is "in consort" a term of art or just a figure of speech here? And "bought in" needs a link if we're not going to gloss it in line; I can guess what it might mean but would prefer a link so I can be sure.
- Reworded.
More tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
More:
I meant to comment above: if we know it's pronounced "Bewley" do we have sources that would let us say so in the lead? Nobody who hasn't been there is ever going to guess the pronunciation correctly.
- Added pronunciation.
"Beaulieu received no casualties while performing her duties": I would guess as a repeating frigate she saw no close action at all, and neither gave nor received fire. Is that correct? If so, and the sources support it, it would be worth saying so, as otherwise the "no casualties" implies she was in close action.
- I do not have the sources to explicitly say that she either did or did not use her guns in anger. I've added a source that includes Beaulieu's log for the battle, but even that doesn't provide any detail.
"Endymion was unable to attack her because of the Dutch ship's well-chosen position": something to do with the wind direction, I would guess, but can it be made clearer?
- Reworded.
"Brutus was one of seven ships to escape Camperdown". Our article on the battle says the British captured 11 ships and there were 15 ships of the line and 6 frigates, so by that account it would appear more than seven ships escaped.
- Oops, that should have been "ships of the line".
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Thank you for the review, certainly some points there I'd not thought of. Have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Support. An interesting read, particularly the Chevette action. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- "a repeating frigate" falls foul of MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Possibly curable by the use of your standard footnote?
- Added the footnote to main text and removed the link, because I think the note is more easily accessible than the jumble of roles linked to at frigate.
- "completed a cutting out expedition against the French corvette Chevrette in Camaret Bay." "cutting out" also raises NOFORCELINK issues. Replacing "against" with 'capturing' would solve it.
- Done.
- The infobox has "Broken up c.1809". Why the "circa", which is not reflected in either the lead or the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Removed.
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for having a look! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Support by Kusma[edit]
Reviewing...
- "Beaulieu did not have good sailing qualities" is this speed or manoeuvrability or both?
- Per Gardiner's comment in the main text, as no sailing reports survive for the ship this has to (annoyingly) remain a general remark only
- Is the Chevrette redlink worthy? frwiki doesn't seem to have an article; I only found a small mention at fr:Anse_de_Camaret#Prise_de_La_Chevrette,_1791 (don't ask me why the header has it in 1791)
- I don't have access to any sources that might demonstrate notability (my French works only go up to 1786), so will leave it as is for now.
- Design and construction: "carronades were lighter" lighter than what?
- Added.
- Service: I like the recruiting broadsheet, but for something as text-based as this, shouldn't the alt text contain the actual text? Currently it is an alternate caption more than something useful for the blind.
- Added.
- "The loss of the colonies would have a severe impact on the French economy" but they regained most of these colonies later? Might be helpful to mention that the loss was temporary.
- This is written to demonstrate the aim of the British expedition rather than the result, I think mentioning the eventual loss of the colonies again would do more to confuse the reader.
- Prizes: "Fate" here is what the Beaulieu did to the ship in question? (To my naive eyes, "fate" looks more like something that was in the relative future: what eventually happened to that ship after whatever the Beaulieu did to it).
- Changed to "Result".
Another well written naval history article, so I only had small comments. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma: Hi, thank you for going through this. I have responded above. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2024 [36].
Ojos del Salado[edit]
- Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is about one of the highest mountains in the Southern Hemisphere, and the highest active volcano in the world. Its geologic history isn't well known, but it has been the candidate highest mountain of South America for a long time and is drawing increasing visits by mountaineers and as a Mars analogue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Support per my pre-FAC review on the article's talk page. Hog Farm Talk 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Kusma[edit]
Planning to review. —Kusma (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Name section: doesn't "ojos del salado" literally mean something like "salty eyes"? The translation should be given so we can understand the theories. I don't quite see why the connection to the river is stated in wikivoice even though the source isn't great and a different theory is at least equally plausible. The French Wikipedia helpfully points out that "ojo" can mean both "eye" and "spring emerging in a plain" in Spanish, following Biggar who perhaps isn't the greatest source for etymology. Fortunately other sources like [37] agree that "ojo" is locally used for "source of a river". I have also read somewhere that there may be several local rivers called "rio salado" so the fact that there is another one further away doesn't really mean anything. Can you clarify this a bit?
- The lead calls the mountain "Nevado Ojos del Salado"; this should be repeated in the name section with a translation of "nevado" (I don't speak Spanish but I think it just means "snowy").
- Mountaineering and tourism: I am not sure this currently qualifies as "comprehensive". The German Wikipedia article contains a lengthy discussion of various "highest point reached with a motorised vehicle" type records that were all set at Ojos del Salado, and I think this is worth mentioning, perhaps with just a single paragraph like on the Spanish Wikipedia.
Will read the rest later. —Kusma (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- Will respond to the rest later, but wrt name, the frequency of toponym false friends in the world makes me wary of relying on translations. Good sources for that stuff are hard to come by, even for prominent mountains. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your reluctance, but the naming section should contain information about what the name means, and these particular false friends are discussed at least in moderate quality literature. Without knowledge that "ojos del salado" could mean "salty eyes" the sentence "the volcano was named after mineral deposits on its flanks" makes little sense; without the information that "ojos del salado" could mean "source of the river Salado", it is unclear why we should care that "the river Salado does not originate on Ojos del Salado". The bit with 1937 is even harder to understand: in 1937, the mountain was given a name that it already had before?? —Kusma (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- And did the Polish expedition use the es:Río Salado (Chañaral) to get from the coast to the general area of the mountain, or was it a different es:Río Salado? —Kusma (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as my knowledge of Spanish grammar goes, "ojos del salado" means "eyes of the salty", not "salty eyes" (which would be "ojos salados"), hence I guess they thought it meant "spring of the Salado river". I think the problem is that Carter 1957 is not entirely clear on whether the boundary commission used the name OdS - Google Scholar and Google Books do not display any use before 1903. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, they are hardly comprehensive. I've consequently rewritten the text a bit. As for the river, it's a different Salado river which runs from the Tres Cruces-Ojos del Salado range to Laguna Negra, Catamarca (specifically, the northern lake known as Laguna Verde) SW of Ojos del Salado; this river currently doesn't have an article on either Wikipedia.
Do we need a source for the Nevado translation?
WRT records Guinness World Records list several records encompassing the mountain, including transportation-wise. I figure there are many more, in sources of varying reliability (some of the German Wikipedia sources seem to be blogs by little-known people). If we are OK with using the Guinness World Records website as a source, I can write up a paragraph with [38][39][40][41] as sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- It would be useful to mention the name of the river in the main text, so the reader doesn't think it is about a Rio Ojos. The footnote could explain better which Rio Salado is meant and how far away Cerro Solo is. For translating "nevado", I don't think we need a source; generally self-made translations are acceptable. The Guinness records sources seem acceptable to me, although a source that explicitly says that it is a popular spot for altitude records for vehicles would be nicer. —Kusma (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Added the river name and put a source for "nevado" and "cerro" anyway.
This webpage is the closest thing to such a source we have, but it is a private website of the company Motorex so not really an ideal source. That's really the problem with these records; they are recorded mainly on such private websites and other low-quality sources. I figure that car magazines or the like might exist, such as this one by Are Media, but that's a type of source I know absolutely nothing about. I've written up a small section. That said, on WP:RSP it is noted that some folks worry about paid coverage in GWR, so I've been scanty about details.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Added the river name and put a source for "nevado" and "cerro" anyway.
- As far as my knowledge of Spanish grammar goes, "ojos del salado" means "eyes of the salty", not "salty eyes" (which would be "ojos salados"), hence I guess they thought it meant "spring of the Salado river". I think the problem is that Carter 1957 is not entirely clear on whether the boundary commission used the name OdS - Google Scholar and Google Books do not display any use before 1903. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, they are hardly comprehensive. I've consequently rewritten the text a bit. As for the river, it's a different Salado river which runs from the Tres Cruces-Ojos del Salado range to Laguna Negra, Catamarca (specifically, the northern lake known as Laguna Verde) SW of Ojos del Salado; this river currently doesn't have an article on either Wikipedia.
- And did the Polish expedition use the es:Río Salado (Chañaral) to get from the coast to the general area of the mountain, or was it a different es:Río Salado? —Kusma (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your reluctance, but the naming section should contain information about what the name means, and these particular false friends are discussed at least in moderate quality literature. Without knowledge that "ojos del salado" could mean "salty eyes" the sentence "the volcano was named after mineral deposits on its flanks" makes little sense; without the information that "ojos del salado" could mean "source of the river Salado", it is unclear why we should care that "the river Salado does not originate on Ojos del Salado". The bit with 1937 is even harder to understand: in 1937, the mountain was given a name that it already had before?? —Kusma (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Continuing general review.
- You have three different heights in the body, but only one of them in the infobox. Is that one more reliable?
- Could be, it's the one most commonly cited in academic sources anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I find it a bit confusing that the body seems to give the three heights equal prominence, but lead and infobox ignore two of them. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's because infoboxes don't accept multiple values. 6893 is the most common height given, 6887 is less common and 6879 is rare. That said, we only have a Google Test so I am not sure how to express the frequency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I find it a bit confusing that the body seems to give the three heights equal prominence, but lead and infobox ignore two of them. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could be, it's the one most commonly cited in academic sources anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are two "[convert: unknown unit]" errors in the Geography and Geomorphology section.
- Apparently no longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "appears to feature a buried caldera" why the hedging? Source (better with the vtab I think, to get directly to the info) says "The summit complex [...] overlies a largely buried caldera".
- Because it's the only source that mentions a caldera at Ojos del Salado; this one, and reviews about regional calderas, don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lakes footnote: I assume these are other water bodies elsewhere?
- Aye, there are mostly frozen lakes all over the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Surroundings: "highest volcanic region in the world" does this mean anything, given that the OdS is the highest volcano?
- It does, as other record-high volcanoes are also there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning the Wheelwright caldera here? —Kusma (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure. The source mentions it, sure, but from what I know Laguna Amarga is more significant and a bit more prominent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wheelwright himself is mentioned later, so I was wondering... —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's a person. Different topic than the caldera named after him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wheelwright himself is mentioned later, so I was wondering... —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure. The source mentions it, sure, but from what I know Laguna Amarga is more significant and a bit more prominent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning the Wheelwright caldera here? —Kusma (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- It does, as other record-high volcanoes are also there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Young volcanoes have conical shapes and often feature summit craters" this sounds like a general statement; are there any young volcanoes in this area?
- Some like Nevado Tres Cruces and Incahuasi that were active during the Pleistocene. Generally, activity history in the region is very poorly understood. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
More soon I hope! —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies for not returning to this so far -- I've been busy at work and spent all my wikitime firefighting at DYK. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ice and glaciers: "The melting of the ice is expected to produce an increased discharge at first, but eventually ice diminishes to the point that runoff will decline." this seems to be a prediction for the future, do we know over what kind of timescales? Months to years? Years to decades?
- Decades, per the source, but it was in 2014 and I am not sure what a "timeless" formulation would look like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Geology: "Ojos del Salado is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire" this sentence comes in the middle of describing the CVZ, which seems a somewhat awkward place, especially as (correct me if I am wrong) all of the South American volcanoes are part of the Ring of Fire. Suggest to either drop this or explain the Ring of Fire in the context of the section.
- You are wrong - Trindade and Martim Vaz are not part of the Ring of Fire, for example. That said, the main reason for this formulation is that while "Ring of Fire" seems to be a topic commonly mentioned in lay sources, the source here only attaches it to Ojos del Salado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Should have said "western part of South America", but anyway, my concern is mostly the awkward placement of this factoid. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Even there, there are the Desventuradas Islands and others. Moved it up to a slightly better location and changed its source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Should have said "western part of South America", but anyway, my concern is mostly the awkward placement of this factoid. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- You are wrong - Trindade and Martim Vaz are not part of the Ring of Fire, for example. That said, the main reason for this formulation is that while "Ring of Fire" seems to be a topic commonly mentioned in lay sources, the source here only attaches it to Ojos del Salado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- It would be nice to gloss words like "Miocene" on first use.
- Done for the geological periods, but you'll need to list any others that need explanation - as a connoisseur of geological literature, it's not obvious to me what needs glossing and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the periods are the most important technical terms that need glossing. I appreciate that they are standard terminology (and the fact that I forget what they are a few weeks after each time I review one of your articles does embarrass me a bit) but non-experts will also want to read this article. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I got all the geological periods? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think the periods are the most important technical terms that need glossing. I appreciate that they are standard terminology (and the fact that I forget what they are a few weeks after each time I review one of your articles does embarrass me a bit) but non-experts will also want to read this article. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done for the geological periods, but you'll need to list any others that need explanation - as a connoisseur of geological literature, it's not obvious to me what needs glossing and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Climate: "Compared to sites farther north falls primarily during winter although snowfall is common in summer." Something is missing in this sentence.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is some redundancy between the glacier content here and the "Ice and glaciers" section above.
- Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Human history: "there is no evidence of them building any archeological sites" sounds weird to me. Would anyone build an "archeological site"? I would expect people to build houses or temples or tombs that become archeological sites centuries later.
- Reformulated. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would be nice to be told the height of Aconcagua for comparison.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This pass done, happy to take another look if needed. —Kusma (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good fixes in general. There is now an editing mistake "The belts are part of Where volcanic activity occurs", probably very easy to fix. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Vami[edit]
Quid pro quo. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- The name Ojos del Salado refers to a Río Salado ("Salty River") river Feels clumsy ("River Salty river"; recommend "The name refers to a river, Río Salado..."
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear whether the name was already used before by a Chile-Argentina boundary commission. Vague. My assumption is that the source found evidence for this?
- It says "They placed on their maps an Ojos del Salado to which they gave the altitude of 6100 meters (20,013 feet).* I have not seen the records of the commission personally but I understand that they had bad weather when they were in the region." which is not clear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reportedly, the summit is separated by a deep gap into two separate peaks. [...] The massif appears to feature a buried caldera, We don't know for certain?
- Again the source for the first sentence is pretty vague. For the second, GVP states it as a fact but other sources don't mention a caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- while the vast desert plains begin below 5,000 metres (16,000 ft) elevation. "vast" here is vague unto meaninglessness.
- Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Travellers have compared the region to a "moonscape". This may just be useless pedantry but perhaps "compared... to the surface of the Moon" would be better. To call something a moonscape is, after all, to compare that something to the landscape of the Moon.
- They used the exact word "moonscape". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "described the region as a "moonscape"." –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changed then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ice buried beneath sand[78] and encased in moraines is more important than surface ice at Ojos del Salado. Important how?
- "present today to a greater extent". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- What's with all the duplinks???
- Removed save for penitentes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mean winds at Laguna Verde reach maximum speeds of 8–10 metres (26–33 ft) in winter, Missing qualifier here; next sentence clause uses "per second".
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nevado Tres Cruces c. 67,000 years ago produced extensive deposits on, around Ojos del Salado and in the valley between the two volcanoes Reads weirdly, suggest "on and around Ojos del Salado".
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- In 1989, Francesco Santon of the University of Padua in Italy and with Argentine assistance, Perhaps "in Italy, with Argentine assistance"? Would read more smoothly.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
SC[edit]
Putting down a marker for now (got one to do first, but should be here shortly). - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Name
- The name "Ojos del Salado": italics and quote marks? I'm not sure both are needed and you don't italicise the name anywhere else
- Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Has this section (or at least the opening sentences) been moved here from somewhere else on the article? It seems to be jumping into the middle of things with a pre-supposition that we're aware of some other bits. Examples: "Ojos del Salad refers to a river[a] that the 1937 Polish expedition" (What Polish expedition? As it hasn't been introduced at this point it should at least be "a 1937 Polish expedition"); "used before by the Chile-Argentina boundary commission": which commission ("the" or "a" again) and a date would be helpful.
- I don't think so, but it can be shifted down I guess. WRT commission, there have been several commissions to delimit borders in the region; I figure it's the one in 1955 mentioned here but I don't know what it is called in Spanish. I've changed to "a" in both cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Geography
- "High Andes": our article on the Andes has it as "high Andes": is it a formal name or just a description?
- "Andean High Cordillera"; sometimes "High Andes" is used as a formal term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- "4,000 metres (13,000 ft) metres": second 'metres' can go
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Basalt, gravel, pumice and scoria crop": I think it's worth checking your comma usage is consistent – there are a places with serial commas and places without.
- I am pretty sure this isn't supposed to contain any serial commas. Where is there one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just one (I thought I saw more, but my mistake): Image caption "Shown are Nevado Ojos del Salado, Cerro El Cóndor, and Peinado". - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Removed that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just one (I thought I saw more, but my mistake): Image caption "Shown are Nevado Ojos del Salado, Cerro El Cóndor, and Peinado". - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure this isn't supposed to contain any serial commas. Where is there one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Down to the start of Lakes; more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Surroundings
- There's an error message at para 2: "The volcano lies in the middle of an over 80-kilometre 80-kilometre ([convert: unknown unit])" which produces "([convert: unknown unit])"
- Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Eruption history
- "cubic kilometres per kiloare": per what? is there a measurement that people have heard of that can be used here instead? Failing that, can you add a footnote explaining what it is? (It's not a word in the OED or Websters – or even Wiktionary – so people will need a hand to understand what it means or they'll assume it's a mistake)
- That's interesting - "kiloare" is supposed to be "kiloannum" or "millennium" but the template's rendering as "kiloare" instead. I don't see where on Template:Convert the issue is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Holocene
- "observed on the June 13, 2015": no need for the definite article here
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what variant of English you're using, but "reconnoitered" is wrong in BrEng (where it would be "reconnoitred") and correct in AmEng, while "unfavourable" is the other way round (as are metres, travellers, etc).
- BrEng, corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ascents
- "After the Polish expedition, the mountain remained unclimbed,": it may be better to put the "in 1955 after "unclimbed" – it feels a bit unconnected and disassociated from the point where it is.
- Is it this what you meant? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
That's my lot. Interesting article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. All good from me, with the one reservation about the template that's putting out the wrong unit. As long as someone fixes the template, there's no reason why that shouldn't stop this going through. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Volcanoguy[edit]
Geography and geomorphology
- "flank the 1.3 by 0.5 kilometres (0.81 mi × 0.31 mi) wide summit crater". 1.3 by 0.5 kilometres (0.81 mi × 0.31 mi) wide should be 1.3-by-0.5-kilometre-wide (0.81 mi × 0.31 mi).
- "A second 300–400 metres (980–1,310 ft) wide crater". 300–400 metres (980–1,310 ft) wide should be 300–400-metre-wide (980–1,310 ft).
- "Thick short dacitic lava flows make up the core 13 by 12 kilometres (8.1 mi × 7.5 mi) area of the volcano but pyroclastic fall material covers much of the summit area." I think pyroclastic fall should link to pyroclastic fall.
- "The massif rises about 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) above the surrounding terrain and covers an oval area of about 70 square kilometres (27 sq mi)-160 square kilometres (62 sq mi)". The last two converts would be better off as 70–160 square kilometres (27–62 sq mi).
- "and/or a 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) wide depression". 2.5 kilometres (1.6 mi) wide should be 2.5-kilometre-wide (1.6 mi).
Problem is both values come from two separate sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure why that matters? Volcanoguy 16:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
In these cases, I prefer to attach each value to its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)- Except the current text is grammatically incorrect. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done; the comment about each value to its own source was supposed to apply to your next comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Except the current text is grammatically incorrect. Volcanoguy 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why that matters? Volcanoguy 16:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Lakes
- "it lies at 6,480 metres (21,260 ft)-6,500 metres (21,300 ft) elevation". 6,480 metres (21,260 ft)-6,500 metres (21,300 ft) should be 6,480–6,500 metres (21,260–21,330 ft).
- Problem is both values come from two separate sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Surroundings
- "The volcano lies in the middle of an over 80 kilometres (50 mi) long east-west trending chain of volcanoes". 80 kilometres (50 mi) long should be 80-kilometre-long (50 mi) and there should be an en dash between east and west instead of a hyphen.
Geology
- "The shallow angle may be a consequence of the subduction of submarine topography, such as the Copiapo Ridge at the northern and of the Juan Fernández Ridge at the southern margin of the gap." Should "such as the Copiapo Ridge at the northern and of the Juan Fernández Ridge" be "such as the Copiapo Ridge at the northern end of the Juan Fernández Ridge"?
Local
- "Between 8-5 million years ago". En dash.
Eruption history
- "3.3-1.5 million years ago". En dash.
- "3.5-3.4 million years old". En dash.
That's it from me. Volcanoguy 23:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done, save as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Image review: pass[edit]
- Alt text is added to some images but not all: suggest making universal.
- File:Ojos del Salado looming big on the horizon.jpg: licensing checks out.
- File:Relief Map of Chile.jpg: checks out.
- File:Volcanic Landscapes, Central Andes labelled.jpg: checks out.
- File:Ojos penitentes 2020-02.jpg: checks out.
- File:Sand-covered snow field on Ojos del Salado (4320990586).jpg: checks out.
- File:Boulders on Ojos del Salado (4320255611).jpg: checks out.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Alt text isn't strictly required for the FAC, so the image review is a pass, but I would still recommend it for accessibility and consistency. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added some ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- Some books have publisher locations, some don't ...
- Standardized this so that only conferences have 'em. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Ojos del Salado can be ascended from both countries, but the first ascent was made in 1937 by ..." Why is their a "but" there? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Removed that "but". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Jo-Jo, that looks good to me. I probably won't be doing a full review, but things seem to be ticking along nicely anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Update[edit]
@FAC coordinators: This is waiting on a source review and more input, isn't it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'll go ping the people who commented on my previous FAC if that is no issue. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 11:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (comments)[edit]
It looks like this has a full quota of supports, so I'll just drop a few random comments.
- "Due to its location near the Arid Diagonal of South America..." implies a causal relationship. I'm not sure that's justified. "Arid Diagonal" is descriptive, not causal.
- Changed that a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead you say "Despite the arid climate, there is a permanent crater lake ... desiccated climate". I know you go into more detail later, but I was immediately struck by the oddity of having a lake in an arid/desiccated climate, so maybe add some very short explanation here of how that's possible.
- 'fraid that this can't be explained easily; it's not too dry for waterbodies to exist but it's not a conclusion that you can explicitly source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the infobox, the "Location on the Argentina–Chile border" is zoomed in a little to far to give the reader a good sense of context. Maybe using File:Chile location map.svg for the base image would be better because it makes the country boundary more clear.
- Tried that, didn't seem to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- "The name Ojos del Salado refers to a river, Río Salado[c] ("Salty River")", I'd drop the "a river", since that's obvious from the English translation.
- I believe someone above said that it was unclear. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think there's a bit of overlinking in general. Do you really need to link highway and dirt roads?
- Yanked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have sublimates linked in multiple places.
- Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Antarctic Plate subducts, rearrange to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE
- Currently not seeing a way that doesn't make it overly wordy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe "are subducted"? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- " the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone", rephrase this as "the Northern, Central, Southern, and Austral volcanic zones.
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- 'volcanism is absent in the "Pampean flat-slab"' Why the quotes? If this isn't a well accepted term, attribute it to whoever coined it.
- To mark that it's a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Annual precipitation consists mostly of hail and snow", drop the "Annual"
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- "with no vegetation occurring above 4,600 metres" and then you go on to describe some vegitation, so maybe "little vegitation occurring..."
- Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know how much it matters, but MOS:MINUS recommends using
±instead of the unicode ±.- That's the first time I've heard this. Is this new? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Source review - pass[edit]
- References look high quality. Nice to see someone making good use of non-English sources.
- Formatting:
- Álvarez, Buchroithner, Kereszturi, Mpodozis: only ones linking location (why bother?)
- 'cause they are conferences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Aszalós (2016), Baez, Grosse, Haselton , Kaufmann, Legienis, Marek, Nagy, Roig, Seimon, Seynova ISSN?
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bertin, Gspurning, Siebert: linking publisher. Location?
- Not sure what you are asking for here - the publishers here are mentioned & linked because these aren't prominent publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Carter (1957), Lliboutry, Nagy, "Nevado Ojos del Salado", Rundel, SERNAGEOMIN Access date?
- Added, but I suspect some of them will be wrong - this article has a complex history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Echevarría Only book with an OCLC (because it has no ISBN?)
- It actually has one, so added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Marti, Saunders, Secor, Veress, Vincent Location?
- These are based on books, even though they began as conferences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nagy Date?
- Can't find one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Nevados Ojos del Salado". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. Access date? Also: appears to be out of Alphabetic order.
- Moved and added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reinhard Publisher? Location? ISBN or OCLC?
- Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- ZOIT Publisher? (Also: out of alphabetic order?)
- Added (don't think so?) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Williams: V normally comes before W.
- Álvarez, Buchroithner, Kereszturi, Mpodozis: only ones linking location (why bother?)
- Spot checks:
- fn 46a, 72a, 115a, 182 - okay
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC) All good then. Passing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2024 [42].
1907–08 New Brompton F.C. season[edit]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, here's the deal, everyone. I tried really really hard to come up with a different type of article to bring to FAC, honest I did, but for whatever reason I just couldn't get enthused, so I am afraid you get yet another article on a season in the history of Gillingham F.C. In this particular season the team (still under the original club name of New Brompton) started the campaign with the heaviest defeat in the club's history to this point, recovered to be roughly in the middle of the league table at the midpoint of the season, and then collapsed utterly in the second half, losing almost every game and finishing dead last, after which almost every player left the club. Along the way a player had to be restrained by the police from attacking fans who threw mud at him. Oh, and somehow in the FA Cup they managed to achieve the club's greatest victory to date. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Pseud 14[edit]
- winning 11, drawing 8 and losing 23 -- I see you've used the serial comma in the body. Might need adding here for consistency.
- the match finished 9–1 to the home team, the highest number of goals New Brompton had conceded in a competitive match in the club's history. -- I think this is better as a separate sentence.
- Against Swindon Town in the first match of October a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin -- comma after October
- I recently learned this from another review, I noticed that the reporter mentioned at least five times, if there is no name that can be attributed, I believe we should not use a definite article, so it should be a reporter from. Also to avoid being repetitive, perhaps use some variation i.e. a writer or a journalist from...
- The final game of the season was took place on 25 April -- the final game of the season took place
- At this stage of the competition they were drawn to play -- comma after competition
- and forced to leave the game inside the first ten minutes -- Perhaps it should be: in the first ten minutes or ten minutes into the game
- Optional: Perhaps equaliser should be wikilinked
- Martin made, the most, -- I think the first comma should be dropped
- In the case of the former player it was his only appearance for the New Brompton first team. -- comma after player
- That's all from me. Great works as ever. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Pseud 14: - many thanks for taking the time to review the article. All points addressed, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Support on prose. Also, if you happen to have the luxury of time and interest, would appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Hope all is well. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Teratix[edit]
the heaviest defeat in the club's history to date
this reads like it's the heaviest defeat Gillingham has ever suffered, but I think all you mean is that it was the heaviest defeat suffered up to that time? I'd replace "to date" with something less ambiguous.the team were in 6th place out of 20 teams in the league table in mid-November
is there a particular significance to this point in the season? I understand highlighting the team's standing at the end of December, as that's the end of the year and around the season's halfway point, but this is a bit more cryptic to me. Was 6th perhaps their peak placing for the season?- Not sure if you saw this?
- As far as I can work out it was their peak position, but short of ref-bombing it with their position after every single game I don't know how to address this. I do feel that it's worth noting that they climbed as high as 6th before falling away by Christmas, but not sure how to proceed. Take it out of the lead altogether but leave it mentioned at the appropriate point in the body (i.e. after the third of the three straight wins).......?
- No, if it's there because you've worked out it was their peak position, that's OK, you don't need to take it out. I was just wondering why it was there in the first place, because the mid-November timeframe seemed a bit arbitrary.
- As far as I can work out it was their peak position, but short of ref-bombing it with their position after every single game I don't know how to address this. I do feel that it's worth noting that they climbed as high as 6th before falling away by Christmas, but not sure how to proceed. Take it out of the lead altogether but leave it mentioned at the appropriate point in the body (i.e. after the third of the three straight wins).......?
- Not sure if you saw this?
which was seen as the greatest win in the club's history to date
"to date" is not as ambiguous as it is in that first instance, but it's still not idealIn the preceding eight seasons
I'd split this sentence in twoSimmons of The Sporting Life wrote that New Brompton "always appear[ed] to be struggling against an adverse fate"
is this a general reflection on the club or a particular reflection on last season?- The wording is quite vague but it doesn't seem to refer solely to the previous season
all left after a single season
anything known about why all three left at once? Was this unusual or normal for the time?- I don't have any sources that say anything specific on this. At the time players were only contracted to a club for one season at a time so three players leaving at once was not unusual and it was probably just coincidence that they has all only been there for a year
- Fair enough, just inquiring.
- I don't have any sources that say anything specific on this. At the time players were only contracted to a club for one season at a time so three players leaving at once was not unusual and it was probably just coincidence that they has all only been there for a year
had to continue with a reduced number of players
→ "fewer players"would tie as the largest in front of which New Brompton played during the season
awkwardly worded- Still needs some work.
- Had another go
- Still needs some work.
a forward called Barker made his debut in place of Pickering and Fred Mavin, a half-back who had been a regular in the previous two seasons, made his first appearance
this jarred on a first look, it initially reads as if Barker is replacing both Pickering and Mavin before you reach "made".saying that he had given spectators ... that "few wing men in the country could have equalled his placing
drop "that" x2- I believe the second "that" is needed for the sentence to be grammatically correct
- Eh, might be a BrE thing. Not terribly important.
- I believe the second "that" is needed for the sentence to be grammatically correct
A week after Marriott scored the team's first hat-trick of the season, McGibbon repeated the feat
doesn't make sense to talk of McGibbon repeating the feat if someone else performed it the first time.who were in 20th and last place in the league table
why not just "who were in last place"?another team near the foot
I think the implied first near-bottom team is Leyton, but they were not "near the foot of the table" – they were at it.- Not sure if you saw this?
- I changed it to "a team below them in the table" which I think covers all bases
- Not sure if you saw this?
Smith made what would prove to be his final appearance
why didn't Smith play any of the remaining matches, especially considering he was the player-manager?- I don't have any sources to confirm that. The full-length book about Smith's life mentions that game and then in a very perfunctory manner says something like "it turned out to be the last game he played". He may have been injured, but I can't confirm that
- OK.
- I don't have any sources to confirm that. The full-length book about Smith's life mentions that game and then in a very perfunctory manner says something like "it turned out to be the last game he played". He may have been injured, but I can't confirm that
Cunliffe, who had left New Brompton at the start of the season, scored both goals
ouch!The result meant that New Brompton
drop "that"- Not sure if you saw this?
- In British English either is valid and I think the use of "that" would probably be preferred by linguistic purists but I have changed it anyway
- Not sure if you saw this?
generated significant interest, resulting in a new record attendance for the ground
"generated significant interest" is a bit vague and I'm not sure it really adds any information to the article. Why not just "drew a record attendance for the ground" (not "new record", redundant) and let readers infer the match must have generated a lot of interest?The Daily Telegraph noted that New Brompton were of "very ordinary ability" and that they would need
drop "that" x2set another new attendance record
drop "new"and late in the game the First Division team scored a second goal
I think your inner Gillingham fan slips out a little bit here, highlighting City's First Division status feels a little bit defensive – the subtext seems to be "sure, we lost, but they were in another league to us and we'd done well to hold them off for this long!"- Is there some reason the "Results" header in cup matches is not a table caption, like every other table in the article has?
21 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton
→ "21 players appeared for New Brompton"fewer than five appearances of whom two
comma after appearances?In the case of the latter player, it was his only appearance
→ "it was McLachlan's only appearance"- Follow-up: "McLachlan's one appearance" → "McLachlan's appearance"
Eleven players scored at least one goal for the team
→ "Eleven players scored for the team"- The Aftermath section feels a bit thin – I would expect people to have more to say about the team's worst season in its history to that point. Any insights into why the team was so weak?
- I searched all available newspaper sources and didn't really find any commentary on why the team had been so bloody awful in the second half of the season
- Hmm, OK.
- I searched all available newspaper sources and didn't really find any commentary on why the team had been so bloody awful in the second half of the season
New Brompton were reprieved from relegation to Division Two
why?- Relegation was not automatic but voted on by the other clubs
- Was it unusual for teams to be reprieved? Was there a particular reason they were saved in this case?
- Relegation was not automatic but voted on by the other clubs
Smith left the club, choosing to retire from professional football
For sheer age or another reason?- Sources don't say. Presumably age, as he was 34 and that was old for a footballer in that era, but no source explicitly confirms it
- Alright
- Sources don't say. Presumably age, as he was 34 and that was old for a footballer in that era, but no source explicitly confirms it
the playing squad was almost completely overhauled
Because they'd performed so badly or were there other reasons?- Sources don't explicitly say, I'm afraid. The closest I could find was an article stating that "it is not surprising that the directors decided to make extensive changes to the New Brompton team", which wouldn't really add anything to the article IMO
- Fair enough!
- Sources don't explicitly say, I'm afraid. The closest I could find was an article stating that "it is not surprising that the directors decided to make extensive changes to the New Brompton team", which wouldn't really add anything to the article IMO
- That's all from me. – Teratix ₵ 14:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - thanks for your review. All points addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have to say this article left me with more questions than answers at times – but I totally understand that when we're talking about a football season from more than a century ago, some things are just going to be lost to history, and there's only so much you can do when the sources you're relying on aren't talking. Just had a last follow-up on relegation but that's about it. – Teratix ₵ 15:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - I added a chunk more which hopefully explains the situation..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- The relegation chunk is all good and very helpful for explanation – I just had a last look-over and there were a couple of points from the original review you might have missed, and a couple you've had a pass at addressing but need just a little more work in my view. – Teratix ₵ 16:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - I added a chunk more which hopefully explains the situation..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I have to say this article left me with more questions than answers at times – but I totally understand that when we're talking about a football season from more than a century ago, some things are just going to be lost to history, and there's only so much you can do when the sources you're relying on aren't talking. Just had a last follow-up on relegation but that's about it. – Teratix ₵ 15:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Teratix: - thanks for your review. All points addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- SC
- Comments to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 13:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, no comments after a read through this evening. Straight to support from me. - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt[edit]
- To follow hopefully Tuesday or Wednesday, time permitting.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is it worth mentioning in the first paragraph of background, that New Brompton was based in the South of England? It may not be obvious.
- "Corp of Royal Engineers" Corps, perhaps?
- " They repeatedly attacked the Manchester City goal in the second half but could not score, and late in the game City scored a second goal and went on to win 2–1 and eliminate New Brompton from the competition." too many ands.
- That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Wehwalt: - thanks for your review. Points 2 and 3 are addressed. Re: point 1, I am struggling to see how to elegantly work that into the prose, but I moved another sentence to an earlier point which may cover this off, at least by implication.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Eem dik doun in toene[edit]
- "Charlie McGibbon was the club's top goalscorer with 22 goals" ==> you could indicate he scored 14 in the league and 22 in all competitions
- In infobox: "Lowest home attendance 2,000 vs Crystal Palace (15 February 1908)" ==> Gillingham also played Swindon in front of 2k fans at Priestfield Road
- "victory.[12][47] After that victory" ==> twice "victory" in a short span, maybe replace one of them with "win" (or something like that)?
- "they were drawn to play Sunderland of the Football League First Division" ==> you could indicate that this First Division was the top flight of the English football pyramid. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review, all addressed! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Nice work! Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Image and source review[edit]
Is the kit sourced somewhere? The licence of File:First match at White Hart Lane - Spurs vs Notts County 1899.jpg seems OK but do we know when Bob Goodwin lived? The ALT text does not seem to add much to the information in the caption. Image placement seems OK. Source-wise, reviewing this version and spot-checking upon request. With these local newspapers, I always must wonder if they are high-quality reliable sources - from what I know, the British press doesn't have the best reputation either today or in the late 19th century. You sure that "citizen" in #38 is the author? I don't know much about the books cited but nothing jumps out to me as inappropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: - the kit is sourced in the last sentence of the "Background and pre-season" section. Re: "the British press doesn't have the best reputation", this seems like a bit of a generalisation. Yes, there are some newspapers which have a less than stellar reputation, but I would never use any of them. I am confident that the papers which are used as refs in this article are/were well-regarded (The Observer, Telegraph, etc, are broadsheet papers comparable to The Times) and I have no reason to believe that they would not be considered reliable sources for sports reporting. Bob Goodwin is the author of the book from which an editor scanned the Tottenham image. He isn't the person who actually took the photo in 1899. Hope all of this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: can I quickly check if you need anything further from me on this? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, not really. I throw my usual caveat about not having run a spotcheck, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: can I quickly check if you need anything further from me on this? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Co-ordinators query[edit]
- @FAC coordinators: - with this one at the position it is, may I nominate another article? Amazingly it's not about New Brompton/Gillingham F.C.!!!!!!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- In which case I shall say "yes" as I am agog to see what else could be worthy of such an honour. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- Davies should be before Eligate.
- Davies is the only book for which you give a publisher location. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: - I moved Davies and for consistency removed the location (I don't think locations are mandatory) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2024 [43].
George Town, Penang[edit]
- Nominator(s): hundenvonPG (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the capital city of Penang, one of the most urbanised and economically-developed Malaysian states. I've substantially rewritten the article & improved citations, with meticulous selection of government statistics, academic literature, economic studies, news sources and other official websites. Following that, a peer review was initiated and amendments incorporated, leading to this nomination. Looking forward to further feedback to eventually elevate this article to FA status. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a full review, but...
- The infobox is a real doorstopper and it is causing the images in the history section to sandwich, contrary to MOS:IMAGELOC. Try to see if some of the images or less important fields in the infobox can be removed and ensure that any image sandwiching is eliminated. Some of the infobox fields are not cited in the article (or in the infobox) meaning that they may not be important. (It's essential that they are cited somewhere, per WP:V).
- Done Infobox is trimmed & citations added, and photo & caption arrangements are less cluttered. I did what I could to reduce image sandwiching in the history section by cutting down images.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are sandwiching elsewhere in the article, such as between the "Historical population" and "Ethnicities of George Town in 2020" tables.
- Done Likewise, images have been trimmed throughout the article and most are aligned to the left. Hopefully this should take care of the sandwiching in most parts.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd advise against image collages such as the one captioned " Clockwise from top left: Tanjong Bungah Floating Mosque, Kek Lok Si, St. George's Church and Arulmigu Sri Mahamariamman Temple". Additionally, why are these buildings so important that they must be pictured in the article? Two that I checked aren't even mentioned in the prose. If it is included, probably an architecture section would be more relevant.
- Done Collage is removed.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- Citation style in the lead is inconsistent
- Done Citation styles in the lead amended where possible and more citations added for good measure, although I'm unsure if there are any more inconsistencies that exist and if this is consistent with MOS:LEADCITE.hundenvonPG (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- (t · c) buidhe 04:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Brachy08[edit]
Hi!, Brachy08 here. Since the nominator asked me to come, I’m here! I have two GA reviews I’m in (Alaska Thunderfuck and Perfect graph). I will leave comments.
- Great to see you here @Brachy0008:! Will be making needed amendments as you go. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are citations in the lead. No citations in the lead (per WP:LEADCITE)
DoneConcurred. The earlier feedback above pointed to inconsistent citation styles for the lead, but I was unsure if lead citations are in accordance with WP:LEADCITE. Clearing citations from the lead for the time being. hundenvonPG (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Citations are not required in the lead, but the lead also can't have novel information. The current situation is worse, as there is now unsourced information. The optimal course of action would be to transfer all information (and associated citations) into the body, and then reappraise the lead based on the entire article rather than just whatever information was cited there before. CMD (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm I see. Thanks for pointing out @Chipmunkdavis:. It's rather grey, the subject of lead citations. All information in the four paras are further delved into in the body further down, so basically the current paras are as intended: an introduction to the rest of the article.
- But I'm also looking at Manchester, another FA of a secondary city. Would limiting citations to just one per sentence (as in the Manchester article) be just the right middle ground?
- Meantime, previous good version restored for the time being while further amendments to the lead paras are being figured out. hundenvonPG (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's mostly there, just not completely. Having a closer look, the points that stand out are "George Town now serves as the economic centre for northern Malaysia and has been rated a 'Gamma −' level global city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network in 2020" and "George Town remains the financial centre of northern Malaysia and a high-tech manufacturing hub", in both cases the importance to northern Malaysia does not seem covered, the Gamma level is not covered, and the high-tech hub is mentioned as a future goal. CMD (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, got it now. It's more about the coverage further below than the citations.
- Done I've made the following amendments:
- Prose about Gamma level global city has been moved to the economics section, with a shortened mention in the lead.
- Prose about the city's role as the financial hub of northern Malaysia is similarly moved to the economics section, while the sentence in the lead para is combined with the global city ranking for more concise paraphrasing.
- The mention about the high-tech hub in the lead is removed. The following prose about the hundreds of multinationals in its technology sector should sufficely cover its significance in high-tech manufacturing. hundenvonPG (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's mostly there, just not completely. Having a closer look, the points that stand out are "George Town now serves as the economic centre for northern Malaysia and has been rated a 'Gamma −' level global city by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network in 2020" and "George Town remains the financial centre of northern Malaysia and a high-tech manufacturing hub", in both cases the importance to northern Malaysia does not seem covered, the Gamma level is not covered, and the high-tech hub is mentioned as a future goal. CMD (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Coordinator note[edit]
This has been open for three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Adding this to WP:FACURGENT in the hopes of getting more participation. Following up with involved editors @Buidhe:, @Brachy0008: and @Chipmunkdavis:. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I kinda wonder about the prevalence of one-two line long paragraphs. Some of them might be mergeable or expandable? Also, reviewing other people's FAC nominations is often a way to draw attention to your own. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. This is my first FA nomination & to be honest, I'm still in the process of learning the ropes. But if this gets passed, rest assured, from the experience gained, I would make an attempt to review others.
- Done Merged & expanded one-two line paras. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. This is my first FA nomination & to be honest, I'm still in the process of learning the ropes. But if this gets passed, rest assured, from the experience gained, I would make an attempt to review others.
Comments by Epicgenius[edit]
I hope to have a few comments in the next few days. I do notice that this article is about 8,500 words long, so it may take a while for me to get through the whole article. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, I'll get to this on Monday. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hey User:Epicgenius. Glad to see your feedback too. Will be making amendments as per the recommendations here. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Here are my initial comments.Lead:
- Paragraph 1: "was home to a population of 794,313 as of 2020." - This seems redundant. If George Town has a population of 794,313, by definition it is home to 794,313 people.
- Done Point taken. Rewritten to: "had a population of 794,313". Much simpler for the lead, I reckon. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "Initially established as an entrepôt by Francis Light in 1786" - Is he the founder of the British settlement alluded to in paragraph 3?
- Yes, Francis Light is the founder of the settlement. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "It exhibits the highest potential in Malaysia for revenue growth and contributed nearly 8% of the country's personal disposable income, second only to Kuala Lumpur." - It may be helpful to add the date when the 8% figure was taken (i.e. "contributed nearly 8% of the country's personal disposable income, second only to Kuala Lumpur, as of 2015").
- Done Added "as of 2015" in the sentence. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Etymology:
- Para 1: "Tanjung Penaga" - Is this the Malay language name?
- Yes, but not for the settlement itself. Tanjung Penaga was the name of the cape, believed to be in use before the arrival of Light, thus it was more of a name for a geographic feature. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Establishment:
- Para 2: "George Town was the first of British colonial possessions in Southeast Asia" - This should be either "George Town was the first of the British colonial possessions in Southeast Asia" or, if it was the absolute first British colonial possession in SEA, "George Town was the first British colonial possession in Southeast Asia".
- Done Rephrased to "George Town was the first British colonial possession" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "After the area was cleared, Light instructed the construction of Fort Cornwallis" - Maybe it's an WP:ENGVAR issue, but usually I would use a word like "oversaw", rather than "instructed", in this context.
- Done Noted on the nuances too. Changed to "oversaw". hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- British rule:
- Para 5: "More investments were also made on the settlement's health care and public transportation" - The wording implies that there had been previous investments in transportation and health care. Is this correct?
- Yes indeed. Prior to the elevation to crown colony status, the Straits Settlements only had "a rudimentary health care infrastructure" (to quote from Giok Ling's cite) and it was after political reorganisations in Malaya that more hospitals and urban sanitary boards were established. Ditto to transportation where trolleybuses and rail lines like the Penang Hill Railway were only introduced by the municipal government after the elevation. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- World Wars:
- Para 4: "making it first settlement in Malaya to be liberated from the Japanese." - This should be "making it the first settlement in Malaya to be liberated from the Japanese."
- Done Ah, missed this error. Fixed. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, did anything of note happen between the two world wars?
- From available sources (especially Barber's book on Penang during the two world wars), nothing major. There was a rise of political consciousness among the Chinese (which was covered somewhat in the preceding section on Chinese migrants) and military preparations (proven inadequate during the course of the Japanese invasion). hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Post-war:
- Para 1: "A petition at the time warned that hitching Penang to Malaya" - Per MOS:IDIOM, I'd personally use a synonym of "hitching". Does "annexing" carry the same connotation?
- Done "Hitch" was the word used in Barber's book (where the quote was sourced). Though yes, being outside the quote, it could be rephrased. Changed to "incorporation of Penang into Malaya", to avoid repetition of "annexation" already used in the preceding sentences. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "By 1956, George Town became Malaya's first fully-elected municipality" - Do you literally mean by 1956 (i.e. George Town may have become Malaya's first fully-elected municipality at some point before 1956) or in 1956 (i.e. George Town became Malaya's first fully-elected municipality that same year)?
- Done You're right. Should be "in". The British had planned for a semi-elected government structure and I've yet to discover if the transition to a fully-elected local government was pre-planned. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Post-independence:
- Para 3: "when the Malaysian federal government rescinded George Town's free port status" - Any specific reason why this happened? It would be interesting to know why, given that George Town had been a free port for over a century at that point.
- I'm personally curious as well. Available sources didn't adequately delve into the "why", but from Daniel Goh's and Prema-chandra's citations, the revocation coincided with a larger federal government shift in development priorities as they sought to channel resources for the capital Kuala Lumpur and the adjacent Port Klang. The revocation itself, coupled with a regime change in Penang the same year, prompted the new state government to engage Robert R. Nathan Associates (as per Prema-chandra's cite) in a massive economy restructuring, so in hindsight, this revocation was not something that was pre-planned and the state economy took a substantial hit in consequence of that. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I see. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm personally curious as well. Available sources didn't adequately delve into the "why", but from Daniel Goh's and Prema-chandra's citations, the revocation coincided with a larger federal government shift in development priorities as they sought to channel resources for the capital Kuala Lumpur and the adjacent Port Klang. The revocation itself, coupled with a regime change in Penang the same year, prompted the new state government to engage Robert R. Nathan Associates (as per Prema-chandra's cite) in a massive economy restructuring, so in hindsight, this revocation was not something that was pre-planned and the state economy took a substantial hit in consequence of that. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "setting the stage" - This is also something that could be reworded per MOS:IDIOM.
- Done Replaced "setting the stage" with "leading to" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 4: "outside the city's periphery" - This phrase implies that Bayan Lepas FIZ was not even in George Town's metropolitan area. I think you meant to say "at the city's periphery" or "outside the city".
- Done Indeed. At that point, the zone was outside the city limits. Rephrased to "outside the city". hundenvonPG (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Renaissance:
- Para 1: "and a brain drain" - I would say "and brain drain" without "a".
- Done Agreed & rectified. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "led to George Town's inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008" - I would link Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca somewhere, as that was the listing that was actually inscribed. In addition, the Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca article implies that only George Town's city center was inscribed.
- Done Indeed that was the case: only a portion of the city centre was inscribed. Rephrasing to: "Following subsequent heritage conservation efforts, a portion of the city centre was designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008" & a link added to Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Geography:
- Para 1: "In comparison, George Town" - I don't think you need the linking phrase "In comparison". You could just say "George Town is only slightly more than two-fifths the size of Singapore" (I recommend "two-fifths" rather than the fraction 2/5, as MOS:FRACTIONS recommends spelling out fractions if both numerator and denominator can be spelled as one word, which is the case here).
- Done Thanks for pointing out MOS for fractions. Amended as per recommendation. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "touted as the smallest national park in the world" - This wording begs the question "who touted it?". I think you can just say that it is the smallest national park in the world, or that Time Out Penang said that.
- Done Amended to "the smallest national park in the world". Quite a few sources mentioned this extremity in size (eg. a government journal and The Star back in 2006). hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 4: "Like most island cities," - I'm nitpicking at this point, but do the sources actually say that most island cities actually have this problem, or is this just a guess? If it's the latter, I'd remove it.
- Done Removed said prose & amended sentence to "As land scarcity is a pressing issue in George Town" hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 4: "As of 2015, George Town expanded by 9.5 km2 (3.7 sq mi)" - Compared to which starting date?
- Done Rephrased to "Between 1960 and 2015", as per Su Yin's citation. hundenvonPG (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Climate:
- No issues.
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Epicgenius, not wishing to nag but enquiring as to if and when the more is likely to arrive? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry about this, I forgot all about it. I should have more new comments by Monday (I will be celebrating my birthday this weekend so I may have limited internet access). – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Epicgenius, not wishing to nag but enquiring as to if and when the more is likely to arrive? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Local governance:
- Para 2: It took a few seconds for me to realize what the India Board was. I think adding a short description of the board here (e.g. UK governmental department) would be helpful.
- Done Agreed. Added short description: "an administrative body of British India" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "were suspended since 1965 and have not been reinstated since" - The word "since" is repeated here, and the first use of the word is not entirely grammatically correct. This can be fixed in one of two ways. You can change "since" to "in", or you can change the entire thing to "have been suspended since 1965".
- Done Rephrased to "have been suspended since 1965" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: Is the mayor part of the city council?
- Yes, and the Mayor heads the city council. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 5: "which would have paved the way for the return of city government elections for the first time since the 1960s" - The phrase "paved the way" is idiomatic, and I think it can be reworded (e.g. "would have allowed city government elections for the first time since the 1960s".
- Done Point taken. Rewritten to "would have allowed city government elections" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- State and national representation:
- Para 1: "Penang's legislature is convened in the State Assembly Building in Light Street since 1959." - Instead of saying "is convened", I'd say "has been convened",
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "In the 2023 state election, PH successfully retained 17 of George Town's state constituencies" - It seems like "successfully" may be redundant here (unless it is possible to unsuccessfully retain constituencies).
- Done True, "retained" already carries the meaning. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Judiciary:
- Para 1: I'd remove the duplicate link to "Light Street" here.
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Demographics:
- No issues with the first paragraph.
- Ethnicities:
- Para 1: "As of 2020, the Chinese formed more than half of the city's population" - For some reason, the phrase "the Chinese" makes it sound like actual citizens of China formed more than half of the city's population. I would go with "people of Chinese descent" or even just "Chinese" (without "the").
- Done Indeed. The Chinese being referred to here are Malaysian citizens. Removed "the" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "Peranakan Chinese culture still thrives in the city to this day" - I would remove "to this day" as it is redundant to "still".
- Done Removed "to this day" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "In recent years" - I would add a date (e.g. as of 2022), as this info is liable to become outdated.
- Done Noted. Replaced "In recent years" with "As of 2022" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 4: I think it can be clarified that expatriates specifically includes non-Malaysians.
- Done Replaced "expatriates" with "non-Malaysian citizens" for better clarity hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 4: "It has also been described by news outlets such as CNN as one of the best cities for retirement" - One of the best in Malaysia, or in the world?
- Done Added "in the world", as per the CNN cite that lists cities for retirement worldwide. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Languages:
- Are there any data on how much of the population speaks each particular language, e.g. English or Hokkien?
- To my knowledge, the Department of Statistics Malaysia doesn't enumerate language groups (in contrast to censuses from the British era that did). There is another citation from Think City that includes language groups, but it only covers one portion of the city. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "distinct English-speaking groups within the Chinese and Indian communities" - I suppose this means they have different English dialects.
- In this case, it is more to the existence of English-speaking Chinese and Indians that are in stark contrast to those who received vernacular education (and who typically use their mother tongues). There is even the pejorative term "banana" being used to describe Chinese who prefer English above their mother tongues (here is a casual article for additional context). hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "Like the rest of Malaysia, Malay is currently Penang's official language." - I would say "Like in the rest of Malaysia".
- Done Rectified to "Like in" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Economy:
- Para 1: "The city's economy is largely driven by manufacturing and services" - It may be useful to briefly summarize the specific types of manufacturing/services (e.g. electronics) in which the city specializes.
- Done Added the largest subsectors by GDP into the sentence (as per DOSM cite): electronics and optical manufacturing, hospitality, wholesale and retail trade, logistics, finance, and real estate. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that all three images in this section are in the left. I have no problem with that, but MOS:IMAGELOC does recommend that most images be on the right side of the page, as "Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity". At the very least, I recommend moving File:Northam Road, George Town, Penang 2023.jpg to the right; on any screen larger than 1280x1024 (which is what I use on my primary monitor), this image pushes down the image in the "Services" section.
- Done Thank you so much for pointing this out. Shifted all photos after the history section to the right side for uniformity. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Manufacturing:
- Para 2: "technology players" seems a bit informal, unless that's what the source says; I'd just use "technology firms".
- Done Noted, rephrased to "technology firms". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "In 2022, the Penang International Airport, which lies adjacent to the zone, saw an estimated RM385 billion worth of exports, making it the highest export contributor of all ports of entry in Malaysia." - Instead of "highest export contributor", would it make sense to say just "largest exporter"? Or is this wording used for a specific reason?
- Done Indeed, "largest exporter" works just as well. Rephrased. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- In general, does the city specialize in manufacturing a particular item? Or does the city specialize in manufacturing a lot of different types of electronics?
- Now DOSM has never drilled down to city-level economics, but from their cite, Penang produces a range of electronic and industrial components. Major ones are: integrated circuitry, piezoelectric crystals, spare parts, and a separate category of "other electronic and electric components" (based on said DOSM cite). hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, are electronics the only or main product that George Town exports?
- Scientific and measuring equipment, and telecommunications tools as well. Though electronics form the bulk of Penang's exports. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Finance:
- Para 2: "Apart from banking and ancillary services, the CBD is also home to federal financial institutions" - "Also" is redundant to "apart from" here.
- Done Removed "also". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Services:
- Para 1: "George Town is traditionally regarded as one of Malaysia's most popular tourist destinations" - The phrasing "traditionally regarded" might need a secondary source, if this is an opinion held by specific people. Otherwise, you could just say "George Town has traditionally been one of Malaysia's most popular tourist destinations".
- Done The latter prose works just as well. Rephrased to "George Town has traditionally been one of Malaysia's most popular tourist destinations". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "the Penang International Airport (PIA)" - Three points here. The airport is already linked above, in the Manufacturing section. The abbreviation PIA should be used where it's first mentioned, which is in Manufacturing. Finally, I'm wondering if people actually say "the PIA" in Malaysia, because in the US we would just say "PIA" (without "the").
- Done Abbreviated to PIA and removed redundant linking. And you're right, it's just "PIA" with no "the" (as per this news report). PIA is the abbreviation commonly seen in news reports (here's another from Singapore's Straits Times). hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "Measures to promote economic diversification has led to George Town" - This should just be "measures ... have".
- Done Thanks for pointing that out. Rectified. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "with the industry generating an economic impact of about RM1.3 billion" - The phrase "generating an economic impact" sounds a bit strange to me. In my view, it either generated RM1.3 billion directly, or it had an economic impact of RM1.3 billion.
- Done Rephrased to "had an economic impact"; I reckon it accounts for indirect economic spillover. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 5: Does "Global Business Services" refer to Global Business Services? If so, I'd link it; if not, I'd lowercase the term because it seems to be a common-noun phrase.
- Done In this case, nope it's not a division of IBM, but rather a business concept where multinationals shift some services to overseas locations. Rectified to lowercase as it's a noun phrase. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture:
- Para 3: "The tallest skyscrapers in the city include the Komtar Tower, Marriott Residences and Muze @ PICC." - Out of interest, how tall are these buildings?
- Komtar is 249 metres tall, followed by Marriott Residences at 223 metres (believed to be the first Marriot-branded hotel in the city) and Muze at 205 metres. There hasn't been a supertall in Penang yet (although from observation and the most recent photographs, more skyscrapers/high-rises are being built). hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "Demand for residential high-rises at the suburbs has also surged," - As of which date?
- Done Rewritten to: "There has been a surge in demand for residential high-rises at the suburbs since 2016", as per the Edgeprop cite. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Does George Town have a local heritage designation? I notice that paragraph 2 says, "The Penang Island City Council has officially identified 3,642 heritage buildings inside the UNESCO-demarcated zone", but it's not clear whether the city council has identified these buildings as having been designated by UNESCO, or whether the city council gave these buildings additional city-landmark status.
- I believe it's a local heritage designation. The 3,642 buildings in the city council's local plan are further divided into Categories I and II, which according to the state-linked George Town World Heritage Incorporated, serve to differentiate the structure's use and levels of legal protection. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Parks:
- Para 3: "It is divided into four distinct sections" - "Distinct" seems redundant here.
- Done Removed "distinct" hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know how many parks George Town has, and/or the total amount of space currently devoted to parks?
- According to the local plan, 629.7 hectares for recreational facilities, equivalent to 2.1% of the city's land use. Almost every neighbourhood has some sort of pocket-sized parks so accounting for all the parks within the city is a tall ask. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Arts:
- Para 2: "In 2018, the George Town Literary Festival won the International Literary Festival Award" - Since you mention the starting date of the George Town Festival, it may also be helpful to mention the starting date of the George Town Literary Festival.
- Done Added in "Held annually since 2011". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "George Town's arts revival has left a significant impact on its cityscape." - Was there a significant art scene in the 19th and 20th centuries? The examples mentioned in this section are all from the 21st century.
- Done Interesting question. I think the arts scene only really took off in the last few decades; the city wasn't particularly known for arts when compared to its past reputation in print media and as a centre for political movements. Removed prose about arts revival for a more direct para on the arts scene. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Cuisine:
- Para 1: "Described by CNN as "the food capital of Malaysia", George Town's unique culinary scene" - Two things here. The sentence should be reworded so that it's clear that George Town, not its culinary scene, is what was described by CNN as "the food capital of Malaysia", e.g. "George Town's culinary scene, which led CNN to describe it as "the food capital of Malaysia"...". Second, "unique" is one of the words to watch and might not be necessary, anyway (if it weren't unique, the Wikipedia article would likely have already said as much).
- Done Point taken. Shifted "Described by CNN as "the food capital of Malaysia" to the next sentence together with other media mentions. Sentence now reads "George Town's culinary scene incorporates Malay, Chinese, Indian, Peranakan and Thai influences, evident in the range of available street food that includes char kway teow, asam laksa and nasi kandar". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "The 2024 edition of the Michelin Guide features 53 eateries throughout George Town, including two with one-star ratings" - Two restaurants with one Michelin star? There is a major difference between a restaurant with one Michelin star (which is one of the best in the world) and a one-star rating (which in the US is a low rating).
- Done I see. Admittedly I'm not entirely familiar with Michelin Guides. Removed the mention on one-star ratings as it sounds awkward in this case. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- It may be helpful to mention what types of dishes are often served in Penang.
- Done Added as per above. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sports:
- Are soccer (football) and equestrian sports the main sports in the city? I ask because Penang F.C. and Penang Turf Club are the only specific sports teams or clubs mentioned in this section.
- There's more, to be sure. It's just that only those George Town-based sports clubs have WP articles. Racket sports like badminton (large dedicated facilities are being built) and squash are arguably very popular in the city too. Fun fact, former squash queen Nicol David was from this city. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is interesting. I guess you could briefly mention badminton and squash if they're also significant sports. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done Thought so too. Added a sentence on the dedicated training facilities for badminton and squash. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's more, to be sure. It's just that only those George Town-based sports clubs have WP articles. Racket sports like badminton (large dedicated facilities are being built) and squash are arguably very popular in the city too. Fun fact, former squash queen Nicol David was from this city. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I should finish this off by Friday. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Education:
- Para 2: "heralding the birth of Malaysia's modern Chinese education system" - I would use a more formal wording than "heralding the birth"; my suggestion is something like "marking the start".
- Done Agreed, sounds more formal that way. Rephrased as per suggestion. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 2: "that cater to the city's expatriate community" - Not 100% sure if this is redundant to "international and expatriate schools", but I personally would be surprised if expatriate schools weren't for expatriates.
- Done Point taken. Summarised sentences to: "12 international and expatriate schools that offer either British, American or International Baccalaureate syllabuses" hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Healthcare:
- Para 1: Usually, hospitals are referred to as "1,100-bed", "81-bed", etc. facilities.
- Done Rectified to "bed" hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 1: Are Penang General and Balik Pulau hospitals the only public hospitals?
- Yes, these are the only public hospitals within the city. Private hospitals far outnumber the public ones. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Media:
- I suggest splitting the first two paragraphs into a "Newspapers" section.
- Done Created a "Newspapers" section for the two paras. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- More in a bit. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Transportation:Land:
- "serves as an important thoroughfare" - How about "is an important thoroughfare"?
- "George Town Inner Ring Road is earmarked to function" - Similarly you can just say "George Town Inner Ring Road functions".
- Public transportation:
- Para 1: Do you know when the tram system was abolished?
- Done According to Ric Francis's cite, the last trams were phased out by trolleybuses in 1936 (those buses were in turn replaced by motor buses in 1961). Rewritten sentence as such: "Although trams became obsolete by 1936".
- Personally I find this quite a pity; the trams could've been a great alternative transport in a city now packed with cars, and the only reminders of their existence are the tracks themselves that were uncovered just about two decades ago. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: I suggest linking funicular railway
- Done Added link. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "average daily traffic reaching as high as 64,144 vehicles" - In this context, "as high as" is redundant.
- Done Removed "as high as". hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: "The Bayan Lepas LRT ... is being prioritised for construction" - As of which date? If it's being developed, there is a chance that this would become outdated later, so adding an ((As of)) template would help.
- Done Added "as of 2023". hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Air:
- No issues.
- Sea:
- Para 2: Does the ferry service also operate out of Swettenham Pier? If so, it should be clarified. If not, then the ((Main)) template probably should be ((See also)).
- Done The ferries run out of a separate facility - the Raja Tun Uda Ferry Terminal. Swettenham Pier only serves cruise ships. In this case, I think it'd be better to remove the "main" template and rewrite the sentence on ferries (by adding in a mention of the ferry terminal) for better clarity. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Utilities:
- Para 2: "In a bid to reduce energy consumption, the Penang Island City Council and TNB have replaced all 33,101 street lights throughout George Town with LED street lighting by 2023." - Two things here. I would remove "in a bid" as redundant. I would also change "have replaced" to "replaced" as the completion of the project is mentioned further in the sentence (and has already happened).
- Done Removed "In a bid" and "have". hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Para 3: By the way, is there any public wi-fi in the city?
- There used to be this "Penang Free Wi-Fi" service since 2009, but it was suspended in 2019 (likely already obsolete by then, as 5G connectivity was being developed at that stage). Turns out the free wi-fi was replaced by "smart poles" with 5G capabilities around 2022/2023. ([44] and [45]) hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Notable people:
- Does this list include anyone who wasn't born in George Town?
- Done Nope. All 12 names in the list were born somewhere within George Town. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Overall, this is a great article. Thanks for your patience over the past month - it was quite long, but I found only relatively minor issues. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for thoroughly looking through too Epicgenius
Should be much improved now, having addressed all the points. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. I support this article for promotion to FA status. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Epicgenius hundenvonPG (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Epicgenius
- Looks good to me. I support this article for promotion to FA status. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Many thanks for thoroughly looking through too Epicgenius
SC[edit]
Putting down a marker for me. (Same comment as Epicgenius about the length and the time it'll take). - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks SchroCat. Will be making amendments as we go along the rest of the article. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sources (although this is not a source review)
- There are a few shouty refs in there, which should be changed
- Done Rectified all caps titles in citations.
- There is also inconsistency in whether you use sentence case or to capitalise each word for web references (compare, just as one example, citations 233 and 234).
- Done Amended to title cases for all citations (capitalising each word).
- Check that page ranges are pp, not p (#140) and there is a close to the page range (#45, 66, 110, 111, 182, 311)
- Done Rectified pages.
- Lead
- Any need for so many citations in the lead?
- Done Now there is some back-and-forth about the lead citations, as can be seen in the earlier discussions above. Some have suggested that citations be removed from the lead, but editor CMD argued that the lead shouldn't contain novel information. Going by all the feedback thus far and using Manchester as some sort of an example, information in the lead paras have also been covered in the lower sections, thus I've trimmed citations in the lead paras to just a few. Would this be sufficient?
- Etymology
- 'Penang': double quote marks, rather than single
- Done
- "which in actual fact is the name" -> "which is the name"
- Done
- "that includes mainland Seberang Perai": I'm not sure what this is saying – partly because it's not clear what "Seberang Perai" is without having to go elsewhere to find out, and it's not clear (at this point in the body) that George Town is an island...
- Done The sentence has been trimmed to "which is the name of the larger state" (as Penang is indeed larger than just George Town). I've also amended the lead para to add a brief mention of George Town's jurisdiction encompassing the island and surrounding islets.
- Establishment
- "and the new settlement of George Town – the first of British colonial possessions in Southeast Asia – was established in honour of King George III": you told us in the previous sentence that it was founded in honour of George, so everything after the second dash is superfluous. I'd suggest you reword to make the point of the sentence that this was the first British colony in SE Asia
- Done. The sentence has been split and I've added in some context of George Town's establishment being the beginning of British colonisation of Malaya.
- "The first streets": -> "The first roads" (which means you don't duplicate the word "Streets" so closely)
- Done
More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- British rule
- " also composed of Singapore": -> "also comprised Singapore..."
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "However, the capital was then shifted to Singapore in 1832, as the latter had outperformed George Town as the region's preeminent harbour" -> "As Singapore outperformed George Town as the region's pre-eminent harbour, it was made the capital in 1832."
- Done Rewritten to: "In 1832, the administrative centre was relocated to Singapore, as it outperformed George Town and became the preeminent harbor in the region." hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "pre-eminent", with a hyphen, as this is BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, corrected to "pre-eminent". hundenvonPG (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "pre-eminent", with a hyphen, as this is BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "playing second fiddle": Avoid MOS:IDIOM's wherever possible. Add to your reading list Orwell's 1946 essay "Politics and the English Language". It contains six rules to follow for writing better English (if you don't have time for the whole essay, its rules are codified here. Number three is if it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
- Done Rephrased to: "Despite its secondary importance to Singapore". hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "attracting international banks to its shores" -> "attracting international banks." (Also Orwell's rule number one)
- Done Rewritten sentence. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "within a mere four decades": -> "within four decades". hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "was beefed up" MOS:IDIOM
- Done Removed as per the following point. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "plagued" MOS:IDIOM (and it may be worth making clear if there were secret criminal societies. Secret societies in themselves may not be a problem
- Done Rewritten as such: "Law enforcement and immigration control were gradually strengthened to suppress organised crime." hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "George Town was perceived as being more intellectually receptive than Singapore": I think you'll need to attribute that perception to someone or some group – it's a bit of a broad brush statement otherwise
- Done I've rewritten parts of the para. The prose about George Town being more intellectually receptive than Singapore is attributed to Mary Turnbull, thus a quote from a citation of Turnbull's is also included. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- "became a magnet for English authors" MOS:IDIOM
- Done Removed as per the preceding point. hundenvonPG (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Next section. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Continuing:
- British rule
- "flocked to the settlement": MOS:IDIOM. Try "as mercantile firms and international banks were established". Less words, more formal and says the same thing.
- Done This indeed sounds better. hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- World Wars
- "at the mercy of the impending Japanese onslaught": A little heavy handed, I think. Maybe, "leaving the settlement's Asian residents undefended against a Japanese invasion"?
- Done with slight changes to "the Japanese advance". hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Japanese military police notoriously imposed": -> "Japanese military police imposed"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Post-war
- "Penang's absoprtion": -> "Penang's absorption".
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Renaissance
- "Whilst": -> "While"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- "declared a city by Queen Elizabeth II in 1957": -> "been declared a city in 1957" (You've already told us by who)
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Done to the end of history. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Local governance
- "is listed as a national monument": -> "has been listed as a national monument"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Today, the": Per MOS:DATED, avoid "today" and similar. "As at 2024" is the bettr route
- Done Thanks for pointing this out. "Today", "current" and "now" have been removed where appropriate, but do let me know if any such phrasing still exists. hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The current mayor", "present-day ruling coalition": MOS:DATED again
- Done As per preceding point. "Present-day ruling coalition" rephrased to "incumbent Pakatan Harapan". hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- State and national representation
- "Komtar, the city's tallest skyscraper": you've already mentioned it's the city's tallest skyscraper, so delete
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- "located at Scotland Road. ... Building at Light Street": "in", not "at"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Judiciary
- "Penang High Court at Light Street": "in" (twice in text and once in caption)
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Done to the end of Demographics. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Manufacturing
- "startup" -> "start-up"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Services
- "its famous culinary scene" -> "its culinary scene"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The airport not only handles the highest export value of all Malaysian ports of entry but also ranks as the third busiest airport in the country in passenger volume". You've already told us about the export value in the section above, but not had the link there. I suggest you move the link up and rephrase here slightly along the lines of "In addition to its use as a freight exporter, the airport also ranks as the third busiest airport in the country in passenger volume."
- Done Rephrased to "In addition to its role as a freight exporter, the PIA ranks as the third busiest airport in the country in passenger volume." hundenvonPG (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Architecture
- "carving its niche": WP:IDIOM
- Done Rephrased to "expanding tourism offerings in specific areas"
- 'notable for the "unique architectural and cultural townscape without parallel anywhere in East and Southeast Asia".' As this is an opinion you need to say whose it is
- Done Rewritten prose: "Recognised for the British-era cityscape, the city centre is notable for its "unique architectural and cultural townscape without parallel anywhere in East and Southeast Asia", according to UNESCO". The quotation came from the UNESCO citation on George Town's listing. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Done to the end of Economy. - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Final blast:
- Parks
- "a new iconic waterfront destination for Penang": as it contains an opinion, you need to say whose it is
- Done Prose rewritten as such: "Touted as "a new iconic waterfront destination for Penang" by then Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, Gurney Bay is a 24.28 ha (0.2428 km2) park being built on reclaimed land off Gurney Drive" hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Arts
- "tabla": not a common word (at least in the West), so best to wikilink
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Arts
- Zacharevic caption: italicise The Guardian
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cuisine
- The paragraph beginning " Popularly regarded as..." has several publications in it that need italicising (ditto for Michelin Guide the following para
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sports
- "SPICE Arena at Bayan Baru is also a major venue": As it's in a caption (out of context with the rest), you don't need the "also")
- Done Removed "also" hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
That's the lot from me. - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks alot SchroCat for taking the time and all. Pretty sure the points have been addressed, so hopefully this should be good to go for FA. hundenvonPG (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Good luck with the rest of the review. City FAs are always slow to pick up reviewers (like this one, they are long and take time to do), but they are one of the more important type of article that is under-represented here, so kudos for you for taking this on. If this nomination times out, please bring it back again in the future and ping me when you do. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again. Much appreciated the feedback you've put in. Will keep you posted too. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley[edit]
- Hey there @Dudley Miles: Great to see your feedback. Will be making needed amendments as we go through the article. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- As other reviewers have pointed out, the lead should be an unreferenced summary ot the main text. Cites are only needed for quotations, and as you have none, I would delete all citations.
- Done This has been a source of some confusion lately, but glad that this feedback clears it up somewhat. I've removed citations, except for the last lead para as per the fourth point below. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that you need a cite for the first sentence of the fourth paragraph as it includes a quote, not for the second sentence. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done Removed cites in the second sentence. hundenvonPG (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "and has been ranked a "Gamma −" level global city". Does this tell us anything? Presumably almost all large cities are global to some degree and the global city article does not give the requirements for gamma status. I would delete here and in the main text.
- Done Prose about the global city ranking removed from the lead. But would it be more feasible for it to be in the economics section instead (as in the Manchester article)? For additional context, George Town is the only other Malaysian city ranked Gamma and above in the 2020 GAWC rankings apart from Kuala Lumpur (ranked Alpha). hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- If you put it in the economics section, I think you need to give the crieria for gamma rank as I cannot see this explained anywhere on Wikipedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done I've rewritten the prose on its GAWC rating in the economics section and added citations from GAWC on their ranking criteria (largely based on each city's integration with the world economy in "advanced producer services" – accounting, advertising, banking and law). hundenvonPG (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Swettenham Pier has emerged as the busiest cruise terminal" "has emerged as" is verbiage. I suggest just "is".
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The city is renowned for its unique architectural styles that are shaped by centuries of intermingling between various cultures and religions. It has also gained a reputation as Malaysia's gastronomical capital for its distinct culinary scene." These are expressions of opinion not statements of fact. You should name the source inline - the UNESCO citation?
- Done An exception to the first point. I've placed citations from UNESCO, CNN, Time and The Independent for this para. The part about the unique architectural townscape is actually from UNESCO, while the culinary reputation was cited from the news sources. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- You have "Kedah's ruler Sultan Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II" followed by "Sultan Abdullah Mukarram Shah of Kedah". It would be better to show Abdullah as the successor of Muhammed. Maybe "Muhammad Jiwa Zainal Adilin II, Sultan of Kedah" and then "Muhammed's successor, Abdullah Mukarram Shah".
- Done I'm slightly unfamiliar with naming conventions of the Malay royalty, but I hope adding the prose "Muhammad Jiwa's successor" should suffice. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "It was only in 1786 when Light was finally authorised to negotiate the British acquisition of Penang Island." This is ungrammatical. Maybe "Light was finally authorised to negotiate the British acquisition of Penang Island in 1786."
- Done This sounds better indeed. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "a centre of spice production". Was spice produced on a large scale actually in George Town?
- From available citations, spices were harvested at various locations throughout the island, including what appears to be the early settlement.
- An excerpt from the Penang Monthly cite: "Shortly before this last period a government spice garden was established, embracing 130 acres of land lying on the slopes which skirt the base of the hill near Amie’s Mills, a romantic spot well watered by the running stream now called Ayer Putih"
- This from the "Streets of George Town" cite (page 37): "Not far from Light's own Suffolk estate was the East India Company's 130-acre spice plantations in the valley itself. In 1822, the first Government Botanic Gardens were started in the vicinity. It supplied seed for the Company's plantations and vegetables for the officers' tables until 1834."
- Here's another from Zhao's citation (Universiti Putra Malaysia, page 67): "In the meanwhile, Light expected to sell the local agricultural products to China, Penang was soon dotted with small estates, using Chinese labor (Lynn, H.L., 2017: p. 22), 1,000 hectares of land was developed for growing crops, which would produce 340,000 kilograms of rice per year and a variety of fruits, coconuts, peppers, sugar cane and betel nut for the world market. At this time, the townscape of George Town was farming landscape plus natural landscape" hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- So would it be better to say in Penang rather than George Town? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- True too. Or an alternative paraphrasing could be along the lines of: George Town as a spice trading port, as was its role in those early years when the settlement depended on spice trade.
- Done Rewritten prose: "George Town grew rapidly as a free port and a conduit for spice trade" hundenvonPG (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "relocated to Singapore, as it outperformed George Town". How did it outperform George Town? This needs clarifying.
- Done Rewritten sentence to "relocated to Singapore, as it surpassed George Town in commercial and strategic prominence", as per the Jaime Koh (Singapore National Library Board) cite. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Following the opening of the Suez Canal". I would add "in 1869".
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "quadrupled its population within four decades". Which four?
- Done Rewritten sentence: "Between 1797 and 1830, an influx of immigrants from all over Asia quadrupled its population", based on the numbers in Keat Gin's cite. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "comprising Chinese, Malay, Indian, Peranakan, Eurasian, Siamese". Eurasian covers all the others. Do you mean European?
- Not European, in the context of Malaysia and Singapore. Eurasian (or Serani in Malay) refers to a person of mixed European and Asian descent (here is one such article about the Eurasians in Penang). The Kristang appears to be the closest equivalent to the term Serani in WP, but the article is angled more towards the Eurasians in Malacca (with significant Portuguese influence in contrast to British-held Penang). hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- This not the usual definition of Eurasian. You need to clarify that you mean mixed race. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done Agreed, for better clarity. Rewritten prose: "Chinese, Malay, Indian, Peranakan, Siamese and migrants of mixed European-Asian lineage referred to as "Eurasians"". hundenvonPG (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The settlement was a centre for reformist press" This does not sound right. "reformist newspapers" or "a reformist press"
- Done Rewritten sentence: "The settlement was a centre for reformist newspapers" hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "influx of Chinese migrants continued to pose security concerns" "continued" implies that you have previously discussed security concerns. I would just write "migrants posed security concerns".
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Sun, in particular, chose George Town". "in particular" is meaningless verbiage. I would delete.
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Historians have since contended that "the moral collapse of British rule in Southeast Asia came not at Singapore, but at Penang". This should have the author named inline.
- Done Added citation, qoute in the sentence is attributed to historian Raymond Callahan. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Meanwhile, municipal elections were reintroduced in 1951". "reintroduced" implies previous elections, but you have not mentioned any.
- Done Rewritten sentence: "municipal elections, which had been abolished in 1913, were reintroduced in 1951". Added citation about the development of municipal government. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The period of relative prosperity vis-à-vis the rest of Malaysia came to an end in 1969, when the Malaysian federal government eventually rescinded George Town's free port status." As you have given the date, you should not also say "eventually"
- Done hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- "newly-elected Chief Minister Lim Chong Eu". You should add "of Penang".
- Done Added "of Penang" in the preceding para that mentioned Wong Pow Nee. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The city faced additional challenges like incoherent urban planning, poor traffic management and brain drain, lacking the expertise to regulate urban development and arrest its decline." This is clumsy. Maybe "The city also suffered from incoherent urban planning, poor traffic management and a brain drain which left it without the expertise to regulate urban development and arrest its decline."
- Done Noted, rephrased as per recommendation. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Efforts to preserve the city's heritage paid off when in 2008, a portion of George Town was inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. I would delete. It is covered below and the nomination must have long predated the opposition victory, which you are discussing here.
- Done Indeed the nomination predated the opposition victory (as per Li's citation). Still the UNESCO designation is something of a monumental milestone in the context of the city. Would it suffice to move this sentence to the preceding para on civil societies' role in heritage conservation? It's been rewritten to: "Subsequent heritage conservation efforts led to George Town's inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2008". hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "boosted by an influx of foreign investors and the private sector". This is unclear. Do you mean a growth in the private sector?
- Done Yes there is a growth in the private sector as well. Rephrased to "boosted by a growth in the private sector". hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "While George Town had been declared a city in 1957, the city's jurisdiction was expanded". This is ambiguous. Do you mean that the city boundaries were changed or just that the local government covered a larger area. Also, you do not need the word "While".
- Done Trimmed the sentence to "George Town's jurisdiction was expanded". Addressing the jurisdicion in the next point. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- A simmilar comment applies to the first two sentences of 'Geography'. The distinction between the city and its jurisdiction needs clarifying.
- There was an expansion of the city proper in 2015. In 1957 when George Town was granted city status, the city proper was about 19sqkm at the northeastern tip of the island. There is this 1961 map of George Town that shows the city limits at the time (which I had replicated in this map of the city centre). The city council was merged with the rest of the island in 1974, creating its successor the Penang Island Municipal Council (with its administrative centre within the downtown area and functions de facto unchanged). At that point the island was around 297sqkm. In 2015, the federal government granted this municipality city status, which extended the city proper to 306sqkm (as per The Edge's citation), and necessitated the city council's expansion in functions and manpower as well. Hope this clarifies. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "the latter committee made history as the first political election ever held in the settlement". This is ungrammatical and unclear. A committee is not an election. Do you mean that it was elected by a section of the residents?
- Done Upon closer inspection of Koay Su Lin's citation, indeed that was the case: "leading inhabitants elected a Committee from among themselves". Rephrased to: "The latter committee was assembled through an election of ratepaying representatives, making it the first political election ever held in the settlement." hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "In 1856, the Legislative Council of India passed Act No. XXVII". This needs clarification. You have a box which says that George Town was affiliated to the East India Company, but did it own or control Penang or the whole of Malaya? Was the Leg Council a body of the EIC?
- Done Thanks for pointing out the oversight. The EIC governed Penang (and the Straits Settlements) up until 1858, when (according to Jaime Koh's citation), the Straits Settlements were transferred to the India Office. Thus between 1858 and 1867, Penang would've been under the administration of the British Raj. It also follows that India Board (in 1856) would've been a body of the EIC. Retified the box in the history section to include the period of British Raj control. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "However, following the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation," When?
- Done From Koay Su Lin's citation, since 1965. Added in the sentence. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- The local government section is unclear. Are all councillors and officials appointed by the central government? What is the distinction between the Penang Island City Council and the Penang state government? Do they cover different areas or just have different powers?
- To clarify, there are three tiers of governance in Malaysia (here is one source from the Commonwealth Local Government Forum) – federal (or central government), state and lastly, local governments. Local governments are under the purview of the respective state governments (in this case, Penang). The mayor and all 24 councillors are appointed by the state government. Local governments, being the lowest tier of governance in Malaysia, typically carry municipal/city governance functions, whereas state governments have broader powers (eg. land, forestry, state-level laws, local governments, etc). hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Padang Kota is the least populated state constituency by absolute population". What does absolute mean here?
- Done It means total population in this case. Removing "absolute" for clarity. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Judiciary sub-section. This is all historical and belongs in the history section.
- Done Shifted the historical paras to the history section. hundenvonPG (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- "During British rule, the Chinese in George Town were categorised based on their dialects, such as the Hokkiens, Cantonese, Hainanese and Teochews". This is doubtfful on two counts. First you refer to dialects, but they are separate languages, second you link to peoples, not dialects. Were there no speakers of Mandarin, which has the most native speakers of any language? I see that you list mandarin as a language later.
- Done Thanks for pointing out the links for said dialects. Links have been changed. But to clarify:
- Hokkien, Cantonese, Hainanese and Teochew are largely seen as coming under the umbrella of the wider Chinese language, thus they are grouped as "dialects".
- Regarding Mandarin, the sentence was actually based on the 1891 Straits Settlements Census cite from Merewether. In it, the Chinese were categorised into "Cantonese", "Hokkiens", "Hylams", "Kehs", "Straits-born", "Teochews" and "tribe not stated"; there was no mention of "Mandarin". hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "natural destinations". What does this mean?
- This was a paraphrase from Saieed (Sraits Times)'s cite, which mentions that the city "lures foreign expatriates with beautiful beaches and seafront properties". hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "It has also gained acclaim by news outlets such as CNN as one of the best cities for retirement." "also gained acclaim by" is POV. Maybe "has been described by".
- Done Rephrased to "It has also been described by". hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "diversified tertiary-based economy". This is MOS:SOB. Also tertiary-based economy is an unfamiliar technical term. Why not "service sector"?
- Done Noted on the technical tone. Rephrased to "diversified service sector" instead.
- ""Gamma −" level". As I said above, this means nothing to the reader without explanation.
- Done Rewritten & added new citation on the "advanced producer services" in Southeast Asian cities (Zeyun, Li), which showed the city's connectivity in banking & insurance. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "northern banks of the Pinang River". Why banks plural?
- Done Rectified hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Throughout history, it has attracted influential personalities like Somerset Maugham, Rudyard Kipling, Noël Coward, Lee Kuan Yew and Queen Elizabeth II." Throughout history is gross exaggeration.
- Done Removed "throughout history" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The city is renowned for its rich heritage and architecture, a cosmopolitan society, natural attractions such as beaches and hills, and its culinary scene.". This is unencyclopedic sales talk.
- Done Rewritten as such: "The city is recognised for its architecture and diverse cultures, natural attractions like beaches and hills, and its culinary scene". Hope this should suffice? hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "As the primary shopping destination of northwestern Malaysia, George Town has a vibrant retail scene". More puffery. The services section reads more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia.
- Done Rewritten as such: "As the main shopping destination of northwestern Malaysia, George Town's retail scene includes shopping malls". Similarly hope this should be suffice. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "growing need for strata housing". What is strata housing?
- Strata housing refers to multi-level apartments and condominiums. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Gazetted in 2003, this forest reserve has been earmarked as a key eco-tourism destination within the city." What does gazetted mean here and who earmarked?
- Done Added citation (Kaffashi, Sara) & rewritten as such: "Gazetted by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks in 2003, this forest reserve has been earmarked by the Penang state government as a key eco-tourism destination" hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- More to follow. Done to the end of cityscape. A general comment is that there is much that is good about this article, but I am not sure that it is FA standard, especially because of the frequent unencyclopedic sales language. Also, I think that you have too much technical language and too many abbreviations for non-expert readers.. Spelling out each time would be much easier for readers than having to keep track of abbreviations. Eg Multinational not MNC and foreign investment not FDI. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Noted on the feedback on the tone. My take is that revisions are not final in any case & there is always room for improvement. I greatly appreciate your feedback thus far on the specific prose that needs to be worked on. hundenvonPG (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- "one of the world's most iconic street art". This is ungrammatical.
- Done Rewritten as such: "This mural was featured in The Guardian's compilation of graffiti destinations worldwide in 2013." hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The Penang variant of the Chingay procession has a deep-rooted history that dates back to 1919 when it was first introduced in George Town. This variant is characterised". This is wordy. Maybe "The Penang variant of the Chingay procession was introduced in George Town. It is characterised".
- Done Rewritten as per recommendation. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Although formerly infused with elements from the Chinese underworld, Chingay parades are now held annually in the city as a tourist attraction". Why "although"? There is no contradiction between the two statements. Also, what elements?
- Done Rewritten as such: "Formerly infused with rituals from the Chinese underworld", as per Daniel Goh's citation that mentioned " ritual symbolisms and martial arts" by Chinese secret societies. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Since its inception in 2010, the yearly George Town Festival has been touted as one of the major arts events in Southeast Asia." I would delete "touted as" as unencyclopedic.
- Done Removed "touted as" hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "further contributing to its vibrant art scene". More sales talk.
- Done Shortened to: "art exhibitions are held at event spaces like the Hin Bus Depot and Sia Boey". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Popularly regarded as "the food capital of Malaysia" Ditto.
- Done Shortened to: "Described as "the food capital of Malaysia"". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The city has received acclaim by". Ditto.
- Done Shortened to: "The city was listed"". hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "In 2015, George Town became the first Malaysian city to provide public automated external defibrillators (AEDs), with the installation of the first device at Komtar.[262] As of 2023, 48 AEDs have been installed by the Penang Island City Council at various locations throughout the city.[263] Public-private partnerships are in place with the aim of improving public access to AEDs and increasing the survival rates of cardiac arrest cases." I think this is too minor for the article.
- Done Removed para. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "George Town was once the centre of Malaysia's print media." "was once" implies a later decline, which you should cover.
- Done Expounded slightly, providing additional context & added another citation on Kuala Lumpur (KL)'s importance to media companies. While there indeed has been an implication of "decline", the underlying factors behind said decline are not adequately covered. Perhaps it's just a case of dailies being commercial enterprises gravitating towards national administrative centres, somewhat analogous to much of the British press being centred in London. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "daily traffic reaching as high as 64,144". 64,144 what?
- Done Rectified to "64,144 vehicles" hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- As you several times give figures in Malaysian currency, it would be helpful to have a conversion in the notes - say to dollars as of February 2024. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done Added a new note (with 2021 conversion value as the Template:To USD only uses 2021 rates). hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Dudley for the detailed feedback on prose. I reckon the points have been addressed too. Very much appreciated the time taken. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dudley, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Further comments.
- Refs 70 and 240 have error messages. (If you do not see error messages then you need to install the relevant script, but I cannot remember which one.)
- Did you mean
- Chet Singh, Rajah Rasiah, Yee Tuan Wong (2019). From Free Port to Modern Economy: Economic Development and Social Change in Penang, 1969 to 1990. George Town: Penang Institute. ISBN 9789814843966.
- "Venues of the Games". Official Website. Archived from the original on 20 December 2001?
- I looked for errors using the visual editor layout & there wasn't any. Is there another way to spot such errors? I don't seem to have the reftool. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Described as "the food capital of Malaysia". Described by who? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done Described in the CNN cite. Added into the sentence. hundenvonPG (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have fixed the errors with your edit. For tools to display the errors see w:Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors.
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much Dudley! Much appreciated your kind effort too. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Source and image review[edit]
Some images are forming sandwichs, with the text being encased between the files. Image placement seems reasonable. Regarding File:Flag of Penang Island City Council.svg, I trust the logo hasn't changed since 1856? Is File:Penang from Penang Road on rainy day-1 (15955759379, closeup).jpg from Penang or from Singapore, as the Flickr account seems to imply? File:Penang - Little Children on a Bicycle.JPG needs a FoP-Malaysia tag. I see no ALT text.
.jpg){kind=link}
Spot-check upon request and reviewing this version. Given how broad the topic is, I'll have to AGF that we've covered all essential aspects. What makes #75, #96, #97, #154, #155, #159, #159, #198 a reliable source? It seems like you are often using italicized parameters for publishers, which isn't correct (e.g 84).#164 and #218 I think has a reputation for unreliability, going by MDPI? Regarding #177, I think instead of using company websites you probably should look for a general source that discusses companies with seats in Penang. Given the sheer amount of sources, I am not sure that I caught everything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Jo-Jo Eumerus. Thanks for your feedback on the sources. Let me address by points.
- Sandwiched images: Done I have removed another photo down in the transport section and shifted a few others. Hopefully these should reduce the sandwiching effect. But particularly for those in the history section where it encases the text with the infobox, I'm uncertain how to further reduce the sandwiching. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- City logo: The present-day emblem is in fact in use since 1974. The original city government logo was File:Coat of Arms of the City of George Town Penang.png, before the merger of George Town with the rest of the island that year.
- On another note, I've replaced the city flag, as per the latest photo I had taken (File:Flags at the City Hall in George Town, Penang.jpg) and this source that depict a yellowish background with a disc surrounding the emblem. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- The thing I am wondering is the copyright of the logo. If it changed since 1856, there might be a new, non-lapsed copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- From the Commons file itself, it appears to be available for public use.
- And if there are restrictions for use of Malaysian emblems, most (if not all) on Commons would also be subject to the same copyright issues (the latest iteration of the Malaysian coat of arms was only made official in 1988); the coat of arms being in use throughout the country's governmental institutions which are in WP as well, ie File:Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia.svg and File:Flag of Putrajaya.svg). hundenvonPG (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Going by that, it seems like government logos published before 1973 are fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- The thing I am wondering is the copyright of the logo. If it changed since 1856, there might be a new, non-lapsed copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- File:Penang from Penang Road on rainy day-1 (15955759379, closeup).jpg: Yes, this is in George Town, as can be seen from the Rapid Penang bus and the Komtar Walk signage to the right. Here is the street level imagery of the exact road. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Little Children on a Bicycle: Done I've replaced it with File:Motion And Stillness (243518115).jpeg, a (more visually vibrant) close-up of the mural, and added FoP-Malaysia template to the Commons page. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Following up, ALT text has been added for all images. Feel free to advise if there is anything else that needs to be addressed, Jo-Jo Eumerus. hundenvonPG (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think some of these ALT texts could describe a bit more what it shown. Generally, the ALT text is supposed to replace the image for people who can't see the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. I've just amended the alt text. Hopefully providing more context to the photos. Do let me know if there is any that needs more tweaking
hundenvonPG (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Noted. I've just amended the alt text. Hopefully providing more context to the photos. Do let me know if there is any that needs more tweaking
- I think some of these ALT texts could describe a bit more what it shown. Generally, the ALT text is supposed to replace the image for people who can't see the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- 75: Done Thanks for pointing out this non-official source. It's removed. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 96: Buletin Mutiara (Facebook page here) is the official publication of the Government of Penang and being a local news provider, they tend to have more in-depth coverage of developments within Penang than national news platforms like The Star or Malaysiakini. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 97: Done It's removed and sentence rewritten to avoid mention of extremity. Penang National Park being the smallest in the world was mentioned in this article from The Star in 2006, but doubtful if this reputation remains now. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 154: Kajian Malaysia (Journal of Malaysian Studies) is published by Universiti Sains Malaysia, one of the major public universities in the country (more info available at this government website). hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 155: Penang Monthly (more info here) is a publication of the Penang Institute, a think tank funded by the Penang government. There is a consistent focus from this magazine on the state's policy-making and initiatives, as well as socioeconomic data not otherwise highlighted by the Department of Statistics Malaysia. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 159: Done Sufficient doubt raised on the actual publisher. Replaced with an existing book cite. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 198: Done The Malaysian Insight (Facebook page here) is an online news portal, similar to Malaysiakini and Free Malaysia Today. From personal observation though, it is not as prominent (and not as active too). Replaced with a more credible news source. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- 177 : Done Removed hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- MDPI sources: Done Thanks again for pointing out about MDPI's reliability. Both #164 and #218 removed. hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Italicised font for publishers: The references display publishers in italics by default. Are there other ways to have them display as normal text? hundenvonPG (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi hundenvonPG, have you finished addressing Jo-Jo's comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Gog the Mild, I believe I did around last Monday (as per above), asking if there's anything more that need to be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus, just making sure if there is anymore that needs tweaking? hundenvonPG (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey Gog the Mild, I believe I did around last Monday (as per above), asking if there's anything more that need to be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus, just making sure if there is anymore that needs tweaking?
- Hi hundenvonPG, have you finished addressing Jo-Jo's comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- Thanks for the feedback Gog the Mild hundenvonPG (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- "It has the highest potential of any city in Malaysia for revenue growth". Could it be made clear that this is one organisation' opinion. rather than being presented in Wikipedia's voice as a fact.
- Done Sentence amended to include mentions of Euromonitor International and the Economist Intelligence Unit. hundenvonPG (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- "second only to Kuala Lumpur." Suggest 'second only to the national capital, Kuala Lumpur.'
- Done Added suggested phrasing. hundenvonPG (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- References: publisher locations are inconsistently provided. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done Removed publisher locations for uniformity; not all locations have been determined. hundenvonPG (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2024 [46].
Boundary Fire (2017)[edit]
- Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC) & ♠PMC♠ (talk), Guerillero Parlez Moi
This article is about another Arizona wildfire from 2017, a busy year. In this particular fire, high winds, high temperatures, low/no humidity, and the crispy remnants of a fire 17 years before were combined by lightning into a blaze that scorched almost 18,000 acres of the Coconino National Forest. Also, this is another really short article at 828 words as of time of writing. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Quick comment: I was wanting to review the climate change content here. It seems to be missing; would be good to at have half a sentence mentioning that it's affecting the fire regime in the South-West of the US. Saying it's natural is missing half of the picture. A quick Google Scholar search found a paper about something obscure to do with this fire's ecological impact, mentioning this as key background in the introduction. A higher-quality source about the climate impacts (but not mentioning this one) is the Fifth National Climate Assessment (section about wildfires in the west) —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Note
As Vami has passed away, Guerillero and I will be taking over this nomination. I don't want to replace Vami as nominator, so I've put our names down as shepherds instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- No question of replacing Vami as nom, I've just made you co-noms, which is consistent with how we've handled other instances of editors taking over a nomination. This is part of Vami's legacy, but credit where credit's due, I'm sure he'd be pleased that you've seen it through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Kusma[edit]
Will try to do a full review later. For the moment, just one question: why is it called "Boundary fire"? —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I cannot recall a reason being given in the sources I read. If I were to guess, it was because the mountain on which the fire began is on the boundary between the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. —Kusma (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [47] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Guerillero, very nice. I made it display slightly larger by removing the fixed px width in Template:Infobox wildfire. A scale on the map or some information in the caption on how large the area is that we are looking at would be helpful, but other than that this works nicely. Further context is probably only really feasible via something like an interactive map, which is already accessible in the coordinates template. —Kusma (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma: I made File:Boundary Fire (2017).png. I guess I could make a second map that showed the area, but I think there is more EV from showing the area burnt -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- Great to see that you as a mapmaker are helping with this. Although it is technically already linked via the coordinates template, I think something based on at least annotating the OSM map [47] (one zoom level in you find Kendrick Mountain, but you lose Flagstaff on my monitor) would already be very helpful. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am going to see what I can do without an ArcGIS pro licence -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- The other Boundary Fire article (btw is one of them the primary topic?) just tells us it was near an international border. Maybe you can just state the "on the boundary" somewhere in the article, letting the reader conclude what they want from this information? A map showing the two National Forests would be really helpful to contextualize this, and a map showing the National Forests and the extent of fire damage would be perfect. Not sure whether you'd need WP:MAPREQ for this. —Kusma (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
A couple of review comments:
- Background: perhaps explain here that the city of Flagstaff is nearby? In the "Fire" section we have that "Smoke [...] drifted into communities such as Flagstaff, 17 mi (27 km) west of the fire." Looking at a map, Flagstaff appears to be to the southeast?
- It's basically smack dab between Kaibab to the north and Cococino to the south. I've added a ref with a map and noted the location.
- "expected a typical season in the state's northern forests" I know zilch about Arizona; are these two forests "northern forests"?
- They're towards the north end of the state, so I would assume so
- Fire: how far away is the Grand Canyon?
- About 65 miles north, more or less, now noted
- Is "decided to confine the Boundary Fire to a 15,000-acre (6,100 ha) area" really the same concept as the source's "allow the fire to burn out from within a 15,000-acre planning area"?
- I've clarified the intention to let it burn out from within its confines.
- Aftermath: "was closed in July 2018 again" I'm not a native speaker, but isn't "was closed again in July 2018" more natural?
- Yes
- Potential sources seemingly not used but worth checking out:
- https://swfireconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/40_Working_paper_Wildfire-Smoke_WEB.pdf air quality deterioration in nearby communities.
- The Boundary Fire is mentioned largely to discuss the benefits of communicating with the public about air quality advisories. I didn't find anything I felt was particularly useful.
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925857421003682 (wikimail me if you can't access) experiments about the soil, quote "The Boundary Fire was fully contained on 03 July 2017 and burned 7200 ha primarily in heavy downed fuel within the perimeter of a previous burn, the 2000 Pumpkin Fire." seems interesting for comparison to Pumpkin Fire.
- We already mention how the Pumpkin Fire and its effects on the fuel. Otherwise no relevant new info in this one.
- https://www-tandfonline-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/09640568.2020.1817730 connection to a later wildfire, the Government Fire.
- Added in response to JoJo's review, below --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1509979 fuel use by firefighters.
- added as en environmental impact --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- https://swfireconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/40_Working_paper_Wildfire-Smoke_WEB.pdf air quality deterioration in nearby communities.
Overall a nice little article; perhaps it is worth out checking a few more sources, but it shouldn't be too hard to get it over the line. —Kusma (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I've responded to the comments, but haven't gone through the sources yet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from ZKang123[edit]
A rather short article to review! Some grammar nitpicks:
- "have been increased in" – do you mean "have been increasing"?
- Fixed
- For the sentence beginning with "Arizona State Forester Jeff Whitney" – I would also mention the date of the Forester's report (April 2017 would do).
- Fixed
- "on the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak, within the Kaibab" – remove comma
- Fixed
- Wouldn't it be more succinct to just mention boundary fire in the first sentence of the fire section? (e.g. ...and started the Boundary Fire on the northeast slope...)
- Revised sentence
- "US 180 was closed overnight as firefighters monitored the fire's spread,[13] then was remained until further notice along with the vicinity of the fire on June 9." – I'm a bit unsure about how the latter clause is necessary; I mean, was it planned to reopen the highway on June 9? Something is also rather awkward about the sentence. Maybe like: "As firefighters monitored the fire's spread, US 180 was closed on that night until further notice."
- Revised sentence, removing the redundant clause
- "drifted into communities such as Flagstaff" – are there also other reportings from other towns?
- Yes, but there's enough of them that it's better to sum up, and Flagstaff works as a representative as it's the largest/most significant town in the area
- "Again fanned" – "Further fanned"
- Left it as "fanned" instead
- "was being managed by 261 firefighters." – I'm unsure if "managed" is the proper verb for this sentence. Also would just say "was managed"
- Managed works as a verb here. I think "being managed" sounds smoother so I'm going to leave it
- "because of a civilian drone flown over the fire." – "because a civilian drone flew over the fire"
- " Four evacuated civilians suffered injuries related to the fire." – curious, was it said about where the civilians from? Like are they residents or rangers?
- The report doesn't say
- "said in a statement that the closure" – "in a statement" is unnecessary
- Trimmed
- "because of the potential for landslides" – "due to risks of landslides"
- Revised
The lead is rather short, though understandably the article is also short itself.
- Expanded slightly including aftermath
- "leftovers from a previous wildfire" – there's this mention in the lead, but where else in the body?
- "Owing to the danger posed to firefighters by difficult terrain and leftover dead trees from the Pumpkin Fire in 2000"
- Maybe I would also briefly mention the aftermath in the lead as well.
- Is this fire also part of the general 2017 Arizona wildfires?
- Yes
I think that's all for me.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
- ZKang123, responses above, let me know how you're feeling. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review - pass[edit]
The sole image in the infobox is free-use, with alt-text. No other outstanding issues. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC) Image re
- Do you think File:Boundary Fire 2017 (34583638403).jpg should be PD? The author seems to have been an employee of the Forest Service when he took the photo, and seems to still be one today. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Eddie891[edit]
I will review this. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Having some trouble reviewing this at the moment... the loss of Vami hasn't really hit until now. I will circle back here, hopefully by the weekend. Eddie891 Talk Work
- " This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires." I get the intention to link the wildfire season, but this feels awkward to me-- of course a wildfire in 2017 in Arizona was part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires. Could the link be placed in some other sentence?
- This was added in a copyedit by another editor; I've moved it so the lead reads "The Boundary Fire was a 2017 wildfire in Arizona" instead
- "Damage to the areas's foliage increased the risk of landslides for the next few years." In the article, you only establish this in the following year.
- Tweaked
- "Between The Boundary Fire was one" something doesn't flow quite right in this sentence, also T probably should be uncapitalized
- Looks like that was a typo
- " and was being managed by 261 firefighters" Do we generally describe fires as being 'managed' rather than 'fought'?
- Yes, it's extremely common. See Drones in wildfire management and Wildfire emergency management for onwiki examples. Offwiki examples: Arizona's relevant dept. is called the Department of Forestry and Fire Management.
- "block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread" is that what containment means? I thought it was just the percentage of the perimeter that had been stopped -- which isn't necessarily the same as the sentence in the article.
- Yeah, I think Vami misread this source, I've revised this bit entirely
- "Aerial firefighting assets were temporarily grounded on June 25 because a civilian drone flew over the fire" why would this have led to the grounding?
- Risk of accidents. When you have some jackwagon flying his unregistered drone around inside your airspace, not coordinating with you and your assets, it causes a huge risk for collision. You see it at airports and stuff too, if you have a drone sighting at an airport, that airport is gonna lock down for a bit until the drone is gone.
That's a first pass here. Nothing crazy. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Serial[edit]
Placeholder for review. ——Serial 20:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Serial Number 54129: Are you going to review this soon? — VAUGHAN J. (TALK) 09:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Link Coconino National Forest on first usage.
- Link Kaibab National Forest.
Nice article, bro. See you. ——Serial 12:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
NightWolf1223[edit]
Placeholder. I hope to get around to this by the weekend, ping me if I haven't. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
- My deepest appologies for not getting to this sooner. Vami's passing in adition to the fact that I have not had much time ment that this slipped of my radar. Overall, a well-written article. Just some nitpicks:
- "Visibility along US 180 had improved enough": US 180 needs to be hyphenated.
- That does not appear to be standard formatting for US roads
- " After June 12, the winds abated" I would change to "winds had reduced"
- I've revised it to avoid both phrasings because I don't like either
- "the 2017 season; on July 4th": the semicolon should be changed to a period.
- I don't think so, the clauses are related.
This is my first-ever time reviewing a FAC. Let me know if I made any mistakes. I may have more comments later. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- NightWolf1223, I've replied, one change made but the others no. I've also reformatted your comments here into a bulleted list to make them easier to respond to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for your diligence in sheparding this article to FA. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
UC[edit]
My path and Vami's never really crossed, but he is clearly a huge loss to the project. Thank you to PMC and Guerillero for taking this one on.
- Suggest getting the year of the fire into the first sentence, per MOS:FIRST. I would also suggest getting in the words "United States" from a more WP:POPE angle.
- This fire is part of the 2017 Arizona wildfires: not sure about the tense here, and I suspect there's a more elegant way to get it in (as we have in the Background) section
- Yes and no, respectively. Adding United States feels clunky --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Let me think on this: I'll have a look at some other US FAs and see what they do. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and no, respectively. Adding United States feels clunky --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I would consider adding an inflation-adjusted equivalent to the dollar amounts per WP:ENDURE: as time goes on, people's instinct for how much money those represent is going to be increasingly out of whack.- Yup. Fixed below to add a date --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- human-induced climate change has caused them to increase in number, destructiveness, duration, and frequency: does the cited source give a sense of "since...", and if so, could we bring that in?
- Just an 8-fold increase between 1985 and 2023, which isn't helpful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd stick that in: it's a much more concrete statement both of the scale and the timeframe of the problem. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just an 8-fold increase between 1985 and 2023, which isn't helpful --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In a report released April 2017: suggest making explicit that this was a month or so before the fire. Possibly an EngVar thing, but in April to me.- Yup, seems reasonable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
at about 2:02 pm (MT) : my understanding is that we don't usually specify the time zone when it's local time.- I removed it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- {
{green|That night, fire managers closed US 180 until further notice)): I would cut until further notice, as that notice was eventually given.- Sounds reasonable --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- By June 9, the Boundary Fire had grown to 1,550 acres (630 ha) and was burning along US 180 and within both National Forests: perhaps I've missed something, but my understanding from the preceding paragraph was that it was always burning within both national forests?
- My understanding of this map is that the fire was only in Coconino NF until the 9th. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, we need to adjust The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- To me, "within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests" modifies Kendrick Peak, not the place of ignition. However, I see your point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, we need to adjust The Boundary Fire was sparked when lightning struck the northeast slope of Kendrick Peak within the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests at about 2:02 pm on June 1, 2017.. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of this map is that the fire was only in Coconino NF until the 9th. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Can we link and explain aerial ignition?
- I will write a stub --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- It got merged, but the link should be helpful -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
soil burn severity: this might be a good candidate to rephrase in plain language.- rephrased --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
- Low wind speeds allowed ground crews and aerial assets to continue with controlled burns from June 15 to June 19: are all four citations really needed for this?
- The next day brought light precipitation: I'd go with light rain as clearer (it was nearly 50 degrees C: clearly not snowing!)
- Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- to reopen the road to the public : would cut to the public as implied.
- Fixed in another review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- firefighters raised containment of the Boundary Fire to 42 percent: I'm not sure exactly what this means, nor, earlier, for allowed firefighters to block 30 percent of the fire's possible spread (does that mean it only affected 70% of the area it would have without human intervention?)
- ($11.2 million, adjusted for inflation: needs a date.
- done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- three percent suffered total foliage mortality: could this be linked or explained?
- Vami said "That's the severity of the burning" when he was asked about it in 2022 by PMC. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Kaibab National Forest Supervisor stated that: I think we're missing a The or A at the start here.
- Fixed in another review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- In the bibliography, I think Williams-Grand Canyon News should have an endash, not a hyphen.
- Done --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Newspaper titles are inconsistent between title case and sentence case.
- Fixed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Area burnt by the Boundary Fire according to the National Interagency Fire Center: I would put a comma before according to.
- Fixed in another review --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
As usual, a parade of nitpicks: I hope at least some are useful. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- They all sound reasonable to me. I will talk a look tomorrow. Thank you, UC, for your review -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
SC[edit]
Placeholder. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Not much from me; all minor stuff.
- Progression
- "Fanned by strong winds on June 10 and June 11": Just "June 10 and 11" would be fine
- "secure fire lines": is a fire line the same as a fire break? If so, it would be better to call it that, given you've used and linked it above
- "reopen the road to the public with": -> "reopen the road with"
- "On June 23 the USFS": comma after 23 for consistency?
- Aftermath
- "Kaibab National Forest Supervisor": Needs an article (either definite or indefinite)
- "at risk for landslides": is this correct in AmEng? (I'm more used to seeing "at risk of landslides").
- Tbh I'm not sure (you know me and Engvars...). It doesn't read incorrectly to me but it's also not anything I'll fight about if it's wrong.
I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- All the rest done, with just that one comment. Thanks, SchroCat. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Source review[edit]
Spot-check upon request. Is it correct that the name of the national forest here is used as a publisher name? The Arizona Daily Sun seems to be sometimes accessed via Newspapers.com and sometimes marked with a closed access thingy. One or two articles here may be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Premeditated Chaos, Guerillero, can you check this pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am working on it -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Timberlake et al. 2020 looks like the only listed high-quality RS with some meat. It is an ethnography, so it is going to take a bit to parse -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I added how Boundary changed how the Government Fire was managed. The rest of the five mentions are covered by other sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I guess this passes, then, with caveats about no spotcheck and not being familiar with the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. I added how Boundary changed how the Government Fire was managed. The rest of the five mentions are covered by other sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Timberlake et al. 2020 looks like the only listed high-quality RS with some meat. It is an ethnography, so it is going to take a bit to parse -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am working on it -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 March 2024 [48].
Beulé Gate[edit]
- Nominator(s): UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
This article is about the last major monument to be uncovered on the Acropolis of Athens, and indeed one of its last classical structures to be built. Constructed from the dismembered remains of the Choragic Monument of Nicias, the Beulé Gate was built to fortify the Acropolis in the Late Roman period, fiddled around with over the ensuing centuries, and rather ignominiously buried under an Ottoman cannon emplacement until 1852. Its discovery -- complete, as all good nineteenth-century archaeology was, with frankly irresponsible quantities of gunpowder -- led to celebration in France, indignation in Greece and a new hat (and possibly new trousers) for Kyriakos Pittakis.
Ancient buildings are not well represented at FA: I believe this would, if passed, be the third such article to be promoted and the first from classical Athens. From a rather selfish point of view, it's also my first go at a Four Award. The article went through a GA nomination with Ppt91 and a recent peer review with Tim riley, SchroCat and Choliamb -- it is probably fair to be upfront that it has changed significantly (I hope for the better) over the course of the latter. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (support)[edit]
I may come back and do a full review, but for now, just a couple of quick comments about some of the images. In both File:Open street map Central Athens.svg and File:2496 - Athens - Acropolis - Beulé Gate from outside - Photo by Giovanni Dall'Orto, Nov 09 2009.jpg, I can't find the features described in the captions. In the first one, there's just a map with no visual indication of where I should be looking. The fact that the labels are in Greek doesn't help. Could you add some sort of visual marker highlighting the gate? Likewise with the other one. The caption talks about "part of the dedicatory inscription", but I don't see any writing at all. Please add some visual aid to guide the reader to where they should be looking. RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Roy -- the OSM image won't display the location when outside the infobox (it works in tandem with the coordinates: you should be able to see a - fairly small on my display, granted - three-dots ancient site symbol slightly SW of centre). I've added a label to that one, so it's now the same as the equivalent map in Temple of Apollo Palatinus. The inscription on the second image isn't easy to see, but I've added a note to help guide the reader in. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be a pain about this, but I keep coming back to this to take another look and I'm still getting hung up on the inscription image. I get that there may not be anything better to use, and that it's important to show what does exist, but in it's current form, I just don't see it being of any value to most readers. The inscription is darn near impossible to read or even make out that it exists. I ran it by my standard judge of wiki-things (my wife), who couldn't see the enscription even after I pointed out where to look.
- Short of dispatching somebody to Athens to take a better picture, maybe there could be a companion image showing the inscription traced out, as a visual key to assist the reader in finding it on the original photo? RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good idea: I'll have to make that traced image myself, but I might be able to do something to pick out the visible letters. I think it's also worth remembering the image isn't just showing the inscription: it's also the entire area described (now above) as The area above the central doorway is decorated in the Doric order. It consists of an architrave in Pentelic marble, topped with marble metopes and triglyphs made from a variety of limestone known as poros stone. Above the metopes and triglyphs is a geison with mutules, itself topped with an attic. Assuming that at least some readers exist who care about the architectural details (and I think for the FA criteria, we need to cater for those), it has quite a lot of value to them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Lead[edit]
- You explain here that spolia are repurposed materials, but need to also say that in the body.
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "the Post-Herulian Wall, a late Roman fortification which reinforced the Acropolis as a military stronghold": Probably a nit, but while the body mentions the Post-Herulian Wall, it doesn't say anything being a "military stronghold".
- There's a current in the sources about how the PHW is a (big) part of the transition between the Acropolis basically being treated as a religious sanctuary on a hill to basically being treated like a castle with a few temples in it, but I can't immediately find that phrased in a concise way. Fixed for now. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "by the Germanic Heruli people in 267 CE", maybe "approximately 267", since it doesn't sound like that date is certain.
- It's either 267 or very early 268 (which would have been the same year to people at the time). Practically every source goes with 267, but then adds the "early 268" caveat: I've tried to make the level of uncertainty clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "During the medieval period...", if I'm following right, you later talk about this as the "Middle Byzantine period". Are those two terms synonymous?
- Middle Byzantine is a subset of medieval. Some of this stuff happened in the Early Byzantine period (also medieval) too (specifically, the Justinian stuff); some of it happened after the Byzantine period (under the Franks), but still within the medieval period. We've got space in the lead, but I'm not sure if the level of granularity is helpful yet? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a fan of short leads, so I'd suggest leaving the lead as is, but expanding the body to something like "during the Middle Byzantine period (c. 843 - c. 1261) of the medieval era ..." RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to leave the lead, but I'd prefer to leave the body as it is: they're really two slightly different dating systems, so I can't think of a formulation close to "the Middle Byzantine period (c. 843 - c. 1261) of the medieval era" that doesn't sound wrong. We already have the dates of the M-B period so that anyone who's interested can see how that fits with whatever chronological scheme they're used to. "Medieval" is, almost by design, a pretty vague term (especially in Greece): we've only used it in this article by necessity, when dates are pretty uncertain. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Description[edit]
- "monumental staircase". Does the source use the word "monumental", or is that your own categorization?
- Cited a source which uses the word (worth noting that it means something closer to "consciously elaborate" than "really cool"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "23 m (75 ft) in width" (and other similar examples). It would be more concise to say 23 m (75 ft) wide" (as I slink off to check that I haven't done the same in my own articles).
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "are in turn joined": likewise, you don't need "in turn".
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The gate is ... The gateway itself is" what's the difference between a gateway and a gate?
- "The area above the central doorway" how does a doorway differ from a gateway or a gate?
- In both cases here, the whole structure is pretty big (it's a doorway, set into a wall, set between two big towers), so I'm trying to draw a distinction between that whole composite monument and the (far smaller) hole in it that people can walk through. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Is your use of "door", "doorway", "gate", and "gateway" standard terminology? Either way, it would be useful to have some explanation similar to what you just wrote here, even if it's just a footnote along the lines of, "The literature is inconsistent in the use of the terms ...; in this article they are being used as follows ..." RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything so standardised in the archaeological literature (bearing in mind that we can't even agree on what to call the wall it's built into!). I've gone and standardised to "gate" when we mean the whole monument (matching its name) and "doorway" (initially with itself) when we mean the hole in it. I've also made a move which hopefully clarifies how we're moving around the structure. Do you think it's clear enough in context? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The area above the central doorway is ... and consists of ... and made from ..." run-on sentence?
- Split. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "It reads as follows:" Perhaps include both the original Greek and the English translation, as you do for the quote in Excavation further down?
- Done (and slightly improved the referencing). This one does require some epigraphic symbols, but I think that's fine. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "prostyle hexastyle pronaos" WP:SEAOFBLUE
- Not sure there's a lot that can be done here: I've added a comma after prostyle, but the alternative -- something like "a pronaos that is both prostyle and hexastyle" -- doesn't seem great. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
(I'll come back and do more later)
Date[edit]
- "Date" is an odd title for a section. Is there a better way to say that? "Dating of artifacts", maybe?
- It's the date of the construction (there aren't really any discrete artefacts in the way you might elsewhere have for an archaeological site): it's fairly standard to talk about the date of an old building, artefact, etc, though I appreciate it might be more at home in specialist literature. See Benty Grange hanging bowl, which we passed recently with the same section title. "Date of construction" is possible but perhaps a bit redundant? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "...erroneously believed" seems egregiously harsh. Let the guy have his moment of fame before bashing him: ".. Beule believed the gate to have been ... Later research, however ..."
- He was pretty clearly wrong, even at the time: see Dyer's contemporary criticisms a little later in the article. Appreciated that I might be being harsh, though. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "established it as ... but scholarly opinion remains divided" If opinion is divided, then "established" sounds like the wrong word.
- Everyone agrees it's Late Roman, but not precisely which bit of Late Roman. I've tried to make this clearer. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- You have "the archaeologist Paul Graindor", "the archaeologist Wilhelm Dörpfeld", "the architectural historian William Bell Dinsmoor", etc. In all these cases, I'd leave off the definite article (i.e. "the"). I'd probably leave off the "archeologist" as well. I get the style of introducing people with what they do, but this is an archeology article so the reader can reasonably assume anybody not explicitly introduced is probably an archeologist, If there's doubt, they're all linked to their own articles so the reader can click on that.
- I know there are plenty of distinguished reviewers who would agree with you: personally, I like to err on the side of not assuming the audience knows who someone is, or more generally striking a tone that implies they're expected to know these names (The Economist have a policy of introducing everybody, so "the singer Elvis Presley", which is perhaps a bit too far, but the idea is reasonable). Purely stylistically, I'm not a fan of false titles ("archaeologist Dinsmoor says"), though again I know that's a matter of taste on which many of us disagree. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Butting in: it's also a matter of MOS:COMMONALITY - false titles are just wrong in British English, but merely tending to journalese in American English, where you still won't find them from the best publishers. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- I know there are plenty of distinguished reviewers who would agree with you: personally, I like to err on the side of not assuming the audience knows who someone is, or more generally striking a tone that implies they're expected to know these names (The Economist have a policy of introducing everybody, so "the singer Elvis Presley", which is perhaps a bit too far, but the idea is reasonable). Purely stylistically, I'm not a fan of false titles ("archaeologist Dinsmoor says"), though again I know that's a matter of taste on which many of us disagree. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "A stone later reused": leave out "later"; it's implied by "reused".
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
History[edit]
- "Fourth Crusade, the Byzantine Empire was partitioned" WP:SEAOFBLUE
- Improved. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Link Venice to Republic of Venice
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- "British antiquary William Gell": link antiquary -> Antiquarian
- Done (generating a mild sea of blue, but I think it's OK in context: the capital letters make pretty clear that there's a name and a job here.). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Excavation[edit]
- As a general comment, all the maps should have some indication of orientation. I'm guessing unless otherwise noted, they're all "North at the top", but that's not always true. If there's no North arrow, note the orientation in the caption (as you did for the one in this section).
- The only one I can see that this might apply to is the street map in the infobox -- is that the one you're talking about? I haven't seen a caption to the effect of "north is up" for any of those elsewhere: the convention is so strong (especially in what's clearly a "proper" big-data map rather than a hand-drawn plan) and space is at such a premium that it doesn't seem like a good trade to me. Beulé's plan is noted in the caption and the Acropolis plan has a north arrow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is frightening that the Greek authorities in the 19th century considered the Acropolis to be a practical military fortification.
- They weren't totally wrong; they'd had to fight the Turks off it twice during the War of Independence, only forty years or so earlier. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- " inscribed in Ancient Greek and reading", you can drop "in reading"
- Have done so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, that's a compete read-through from me. RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's all done -- let me know if I've missed anything or said anything outrageous. Thanks, as ever, for your time and sharp eyes. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
One last thoughtTwoThree last thoughts: in the image caption "Reconstruction of the Acropolis in the 3rd century ...", I tend to think of "reconstruction" as building a physical model. I assume this is a drawing, so maybe "artist's rendition" would be a better description? Also, I think it would be better to use this image in the Description section, where it would give visual context to "at the bottom of a monumental staircase" and "The gate includes two pylon-like towers". It might complicate the layout, but I think it's worth it.- Also, some of your images are missing MOS:ALT texts. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed alt texts -- thanks for spotting those. I think "reconstruction" is quite common for a drawing or diagram (though must admit I'm struggling to find a dictionary that gives the definition of reconstruction as object/image): to me, rendition would give the impression that the facts were much more settled, whereas reconstruction highlights that the act of drawing is also an act of making educated guesses about what things looked like. Agreed that it would work nicely in the description section -- we're already out of space there, though, at least on my display, and I think we really need to keep the image of the entablature inscription next to the text of the same inscription. Almost all of what's described is visible in the main infobox image, and on my display at least I can get the main two paragraphs of Description on screen at the same time as that photograph. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I don't see the value of the inscription image. Even when you pointed out to me where to look, I had to struggle to find anything that looked like an inscription. And much the same applies to the infobox photo; it's from an odd angle and crops out many of the significant features. MOS:PERTINENCE says an image should be "an important illustrative aid to understanding"; I don't think either meet that. The reconstruction drawing gives the reader a much better understanding of what this structure is/was, so that should get top billing. Maybe deleting the photo from the infobox and putting it in the gallery will give you the space you need to include the reconstruction drawing in Description.
- If you still need more room, perhaps it would make sense to move the Entablature inscription section into History. I can see why it makes sense as part of Description, but since the main point that's being made is that material from a previous structure was recycled to build this, it also makes sense in History. RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate I'm being difficult here: a few things:
- I do see the value in the entablature image: it doesn't just show the inscription, but also the architrave, metopes, triglyphs and geison, as well as what Pentelic marble looks like. In other words, it's a visual demonstration of the (quite dense and technical-term-heavy) textual description of probably the most important part of the monument. I appreciate that most readers won't know or care what any of that stuff is, but a significant subset will know what some of it is and want to understand the whole: I think it's particularly helpful for them.
- It does seem strange, to me, for the infobox picture not to be a photograph of the article's subject when we've got one. The reconstruction image has value, but also a great deal that isn't the Beulé Gate: how are readers to know exactly which bit is which? MOS:LEADIMAGE seems to be the key relevant guideline here: see in particular [lead images] should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see. It would be a very odd modern encyclopaedia that used a nineteenth-century engraving over a digital photograph in an article about a building. On the other hand, if there's a better photo, I'm all ears (eyes?).
- Perhaps it would make sense to move the Entablature inscription section into History Your point is well taken, but to me, the main point here is how the objects are currently arranged and visible on the Beulé Gate (which is the point of "Description" -- what does this thing look like?) rather than how they were arranged on the Monument of Nikias. "History" is also specifically about the gate, not the monument: it would be odd to start the history of a monument's "life" half a millennium or so before it was built.
- I don't think any of these are really big points, but for the moment I think we've currently got the best compromise between quite a few competing priorities: happy to keep discussing, and would be interested to know what other reviewers think on these points. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I believe reviews should be suggestions, not commandments. I've made my suggestion, which discharges my duty, so I also will let other reviewers weigh in and then you can proceed as you see fit. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist just one more nit I noticed today. You mention "high explosives" in the lead. Later on, you say it was gunpowder, which according to Explosive#By velocity doesn't fit the definition of "high explosive". I suggest using the more generic term "explosive". RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oops - I should have known that. Nit well picked: fixed. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist just one more nit I noticed today. You mention "high explosives" in the lead. Later on, you say it was gunpowder, which according to Explosive#By velocity doesn't fit the definition of "high explosive". I suggest using the more generic term "explosive". RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- I believe reviews should be suggestions, not commandments. I've made my suggestion, which discharges my duty, so I also will let other reviewers weigh in and then you can proceed as you see fit. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- I appreciate I'm being difficult here: a few things:
- Fixed alt texts -- thanks for spotting those. I think "reconstruction" is quite common for a drawing or diagram (though must admit I'm struggling to find a dictionary that gives the definition of reconstruction as object/image): to me, rendition would give the impression that the facts were much more settled, whereas reconstruction highlights that the act of drawing is also an act of making educated guesses about what things looked like. Agreed that it would work nicely in the description section -- we're already out of space there, though, at least on my display, and I think we really need to keep the image of the entablature inscription next to the text of the same inscription. Almost all of what's described is visible in the main infobox image, and on my display at least I can get the main two paragraphs of Description on screen at the same time as that photograph. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Support from Tim riley[edit]
Booking my place. By a pleasing coincidence I was in the British Museum this afternoon – and, what's more, in the Graeco-Roman rooms, including the Acropolis displays. I shall reread and review the article with the pleasing images from the BM in my head. More anon. Tim riley talk 19:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Happy to support. A pleasure to revisit the article. My quibbles at peer review were few and were thoroughly attended to. After a final perusal I have one minor query about a Greek word and one entirely ignorable suggestion about layout:
- In the Entablature inscription section, "choregos in the boys' chorus" seems strange to me. As I dimly remembered it from schooldays, and as our Wikipedia article makes clear, the choregos wasn't a performer in the chorus but the plutocrat who paid for it. The Greek original in your Inscriptiones Graecae source hasn't got a separate preposition, and I wonder if "of" or "with" or "for" or "over" rather than "in" would be a more accurate English rendition. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
- I wondered at first why you hadn't offered a translation of the inscription beginning "Η Γαλλία ...", but then realised you had. The big gap between the Greek and the English momentarily misled me, and I think it would be easier to follow without the double line break between the two.
That's my lot. I'm happy to support the elevation of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 09:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim -- done on the choregos. I've tried something here with the inscriptions: realised that I was trying to jerry-rig the
((text and translation))template, so I've just gone ahead and swapped that in. It works well for the Beulé inscription but seems to add the awkward double-break in the Nikias one (at least on my display). My thinking here is that it's probably still the "right" way to do things: presumably it's more amenable to different sorts of screen? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)- The new side-by-side layout and inclusion of the Greek text for the first inscription strike me as excellent. Tim riley talk 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Just a trivia point, ((text and translation)) automagically switches between side-by-side and top-and-bottom layout depending on screen width (and maybe some other magic). RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- The new side-by-side layout and inclusion of the Greek text for the first inscription strike me as excellent. Tim riley talk 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- SC
Will be along shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support, after a further readthrough following my input at PR. I mad one small alteration to punctuation, but nothing contentious. This meets FA standards in my eyes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Choliamb[edit]
I emptied my quiver in the peer review, so you will be glad to hear that I don't have anything new to add about the content of the article. But your recent work on Alison Frantz reminded me of her article about the bema of Phaidros in the Theater of Dionysos, which, although you would never guess it from the title, opens with a discussion of the Marcellinus inscription and the date of the Beué Gate. There's nothing there that you haven't already got from other sources, but it does provide a good summary of Graindor for those who can't read French, and because of your interest in Frantz you will probably want to look at it in any case. (The expansion of the Frantz article is excellent, by the way.)
I don't usually comment on style, but since the issue has already been raised above on this page, I'll make an exception here to note my agreement with User:RoySmith regarding the little thumbnail descriptions of sources ("the archaeologist Paul Graindor", "the architectural historian William Bell Dinsmoor", etc.). He politely declined to push you further on the matter, but I think he's right and the article would be better off without them, for two reasons:
(1) For ordinary readers, I don't think such labels add much value. Most of the scholars you mention in this article are characterized as "archaeologists", but as Roy has already observed, in an article about an archaeological topic, most readers will assume that the authorities you cite are archaeologists of one stripe or another, and the differences between "archaeologist" and "art historian" and "architectural historian" and "ancient historian" and "classicist" are not differences that a general audience is likely to understand or care about. Obviously it's a different matter if you're reporting the opinion of someone from outside the field: when discussing Peter Rockwell's work on the column of Trajan, for example, it makes sense to identify him as "the sculptor Peter Rockwell", because the whole point is that he was not a trained archaeologist or art historian, he was a professional sculptor, and as someone who actually worked with marble on a daily basis his observations about techniques and tool marks differed from the observations hazarded by those of us who have never put a chisel to a piece of stone. The same would be true of "the botanist X" or "the professional boxer Y" or "the ukelele virtuoso Z". But in the great majority of cases, where it can be assumed that the scholars you are citing work in a field directly related to the content for which you are citing them, such labels just seem like unnecessary clutter to me.
(2) Worse still, by doing this, you run the risk of mischaracterizing the scholars in question, or at least raising the eyebrows of those readers who are familiar with their work and who disagree with the pigeonholes you have chosen for them. You label Jeff Hurwit an "archaeologist", but he spent forty years in the Art History department at the University of Oregon, teaching art history courses and publishing almost exclusively on Greek art, and I am willing to bet that if you asked 100 people in the field which term better describes him, archaeologist or art historian, 95 of them would say "art historian" and the other five would say "Who's Jeff Hurwit?" You call Graindor an archaeologist too, but he is better known as an epigrapher and historian; his most frequently cited works are a series of historical monographs on Athens during the Roman period, which rely on a detailed analysis of literary and epigraphical sources. And then there are gratuitous space-fillers like "the writer and philhellene Jean Baelen", a description that does nothing to distinguish Baelen from every other author cited in the article, all of whom are, by definition, writers (they couldn't be sources otherwise!), and most of whom would surely claim to be philhellenes as well. That one in particular looks as if it was added for no other reason than your conviction that every name mentioned in the article must have an accompanying epithet.
Such labels aren't particularly important, and arguing about which is the most appropriate in any given case is as silly as edit warring over the genre labels in music articles (which I gather is a thing that people do with inexplicable ferocity here). It is precisely because they are not important that I think you're better off just omitting them. Readers who are unfamiliar with these scholars don't care about the labels, and readers who already know the names don't need them. If you insist on using them anyway, you're just inviting the crankier members of the latter group to find reasons to disagree with your descriptions and question your judgment. Either way, it's an unnecessary distraction. I don't spend much time on Wikipedia and there's no reason why you should listen to me regarding matters of style, but if other experienced editors are also suggesting that labels like these are not very useful, my advice is to listen to them. (I can't remember where, but I'm pretty sure I've seen User:Caeciliusinhorto argue against them as well, although presumably in more measured tones and with less indignant arm waving.)
Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for all of this -- I'm familiar with Caeciliusinhorto's essay and there's certainly a good deal of good sense to it. At the same time, there's another school of thought among many other reviewers -- with whom I'd generally situate myself -- that dropping in a name with no introduction is assuming the reader's prior knowledge, or inviting the question "why should we care what they think?".
- I've tried for a solution which I hope will be satisfactory: where the epithet is simply "the archaeologist" and/or adds little value, I've removed, but I've kept it where either it's important (for instance, to note in the lead that Beulé was French, since otherwise the excitement in France makes little sense) or whether they're not specifically archaeologists (in other words, where we might view their testimony a little differently). Baelan certainly fits that bill, and I've slightly adjusted his description. By your leave, I think "philhellene" is significant here: he was particularly known for his philhellenism (see the title of his biography: Jean Baelen (1899-1989): ambassadeur, ecrivain, artiste et ami de la Grece), and it might otherwise be a bit unclear what a French diplomat is doing weighing in on archaeological history.
- Appreciate that compromises usually end up upsetting everyone: I hope that this at least remedies the issues you raise above! UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful? RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- Precisely so. One particular piece of good sense from there is They don't fundamentally provide any new information that isn't already obvious from the context; all they do is make the article less concise: I think I can plead that all the descriptions still remaining do add new, useful information that isn't obvious in context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 23:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assume you're talking about User:Caeciliusinhorto/Context considered harmful? RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Gog the Mild[edit]
Recusing to review.
- In the bibliography, several works lack (available) OCLCs. Eg Hoppin - 1062172, Agrigoroaei - 1249679876; there are others.
- Done for Hoppin, and the others I could find (took the opportunity to fix some formatting inconsistencies as well). Agrigoroaei is a journal article, and this oclc doesn't come up with anything in WorldCat: not sure if I've misunderstood you here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- [49]
- OK, I see that the record exists. Is there a particular reason to include an OCLC for an article (and only one article), though? I haven't included ISSNs for journals, but if we want to make absolutely crystal-clear that the journals themselves exist, I'd suggest that that's a better way to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to use whatever identifier you prefer. I don't personally even insist on consistency, just that if an identifier of some sort exists, at least one is given. (Agrigoroaei was not the only journal article with an OCLC which was not given, hence the "eg" above.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK: I'll go through and get ISSNs for journals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- And done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK: I'll go through and get ISSNs for journals. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Feel free to use whatever identifier you prefer. I don't personally even insist on consistency, just that if an identifier of some sort exists, at least one is given. (Agrigoroaei was not the only journal article with an OCLC which was not given, hence the "eg" above.) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I see that the record exists. Is there a particular reason to include an OCLC for an article (and only one article), though? I haven't included ISSNs for journals, but if we want to make absolutely crystal-clear that the journals themselves exist, I'd suggest that that's a better way to do so. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- [49]
- In the lead perhaps link the sack of Athens? Sack of Athens (267 AD)
- This is done, on the words "the city's sack".
- Is there a way of reducing the double line space in Entablature inscription?
- I don't think so: there are no actual spaces in the code, so this is simply how Template:Text and translation works when it doesn't think it's got enough space for a side-by-side. I think it's probably the "right" way to display this text: it's certainly the only one that's agnostic to monitor size (on a wider display, it goes side-by-side). UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Under Demetrios of Phaleron, who governed Athens between 317 and 307 BCE, sumptuary laws to control aristocrats' ostentatious spending meant that no further choragic monuments were constructed." This doesn't explain why none were built after 307 BCE.
- The point is that choragic monuments were an example of ostentatious spending, which was (I think specifically, but I'd need to look this up) limited under Demetrios's laws. Do you think that needs to be made more explicit? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, understood. But once Demetrios was off on his travels, why didn't they start being constructed again?
- Changing fashions, I assume. To quote Camp (the source) directly: Demetrios passed various laws, among them sumptuary legislation designed to control ostentatious displays of wealth by aristocrats. The effect was immediate in two areas. The little gems of architecture put up as choregic monuments ceased. The two latest, built near the theater, both date to 320-319, a few years before the legislation was passed. (Camp 2001, p. 161). The Blackwell Companion to Greek Art is equally (un)enlightening, though it does suggest that fashions changed in favour of statues of rulers as public artworks. I suppose, from a philosophical view, it's a dangerous game to try to explain why people didn't do something: it's much intellectually safer to suggest reasons for change rather than for continuity. As the Marcellinus inscription (and indeed many other Roman-era monuments) tells us, Athenian aristocrats didn't stop their ostentatious public spending: they just found new ways of doing it, as aristocrats tend to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking on this, I think I've found a better way to frame it now: that is, only fully giving Demetrios and his laws credit for stopping the construction of choragic monuments. I've added a brief sentence about where fashions went next. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Neat, that works.
- Thinking on this, I think I've found a better way to frame it now: that is, only fully giving Demetrios and his laws credit for stopping the construction of choragic monuments. I've added a brief sentence about where fashions went next. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Changing fashions, I assume. To quote Camp (the source) directly: Demetrios passed various laws, among them sumptuary legislation designed to control ostentatious displays of wealth by aristocrats. The effect was immediate in two areas. The little gems of architecture put up as choregic monuments ceased. The two latest, built near the theater, both date to 320-319, a few years before the legislation was passed. (Camp 2001, p. 161). The Blackwell Companion to Greek Art is equally (un)enlightening, though it does suggest that fashions changed in favour of statues of rulers as public artworks. I suppose, from a philosophical view, it's a dangerous game to try to explain why people didn't do something: it's much intellectually safer to suggest reasons for change rather than for continuity. As the Marcellinus inscription (and indeed many other Roman-era monuments) tells us, Athenian aristocrats didn't stop their ostentatious public spending: they just found new ways of doing it, as aristocrats tend to. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, understood. But once Demetrios was off on his travels, why didn't they start being constructed again?
- "beginning with that Paul Graindor in 1914". Typo?
- Fixed (though it took me a while to see it!) UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- In the lead you have "repurposed materials (spolia)", in the article "spolia (reused material)". This being the English Wikipedia I much prefer the former.
- We could rephrase to "marble reused material (spolia)", but that doesn't read very well to me, and gives potential ambiguity as to the word "spolia" (does is it mean "reused material" or "marble reused material"?) I'd say that spolia has a slightly more restricted meaning than "reused material" (specifically, it's identifiably-big bits of reused material, preferably used out of context), so there's an argument for using the technical term first and then glossing it with the pretty-much-but-not-quite equivalent layman's term. Or is there a better way to do it, do you think? UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ho hum. Maybe "from repurposed materials (spolia)" to 'from repurposed marble (spolia)' in the lead, and "constructed almost entirely from marble spolia (reused material)" to 'constructed almost entirely from reused marble (spolia). Note that this is not saying that spolia is reused marble, just that in this case the reused marble was spolia. (If it were my article I would take out "spolia" entirely, but it's not.
- Being difficult, I've gone for something else, but it's got spolia into the brackets. Hopefully works? UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ho hum. Maybe "from repurposed materials (spolia)" to 'from repurposed marble (spolia)' in the lead, and "constructed almost entirely from marble spolia (reused material)" to 'constructed almost entirely from reused marble (spolia). Note that this is not saying that spolia is reused marble, just that in this case the reused marble was spolia. (If it were my article I would take out "spolia" entirely, but it's not.
Thanks for these, Gog. Replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Plan of the Acropolis of Athens". As of when?
- I suppose that's the whole question of the Date section! Changed to something hopefully sufficiently accurate and hedge-y. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps 'Plan of the Acropolis of Athens when the Beulé Gate was in its original position'?
- I don't really follow here: the gate has never moved. What are we trying to correct in the current caption? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I am expressing myself badly. It is not important, so let it pass. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really follow here: the gate has never moved. What are we trying to correct in the current caption? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps 'Plan of the Acropolis of Athens when the Beulé Gate was in its original position'?
- "Nikias's monument was demolished at an uncertain date: in the 1880s ..." Any chance of a full stop instead of a colon. Honestly, I read that three times before I realised there was a colon. I thought one of us was going mad.
- Full stop added. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "More precise proposed dates for the gate". Maybe 'More precise proposed dates for the construction of the gate'?
- Done (the same came up in the helmet fragment FAC, as I remember). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble, with the Post-Herulian Wall, built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268.". Umm. Try 'The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities with the Post-Herulian Wall - built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268 - such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble.'
- I don't have any major problem with this, but I'm not really seeing the improvement (or, really, a significant difference) here -- what's the thinking? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option B says that two things are similar, states what they are, then states what the similarities are. Option A states that two things are similar, states what the similarities are, which a reader has to carry in their head before finding out what is being compared. That is not really too bad, but then there is that "built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268" stuck on the end: you're casting your mind back to the main part of the sentence trying to think how this is relevant to the comparison. It is probably an over-busy sentence. 'The Post-Herulian Wall was built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268 and the Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble.' would also work better IMO. Or split into two sentences. If you really don't care, change it for one of those options. Or take a straw poll.
- I've gone for a split after "Post-Herulian Wall": how does that look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, as far as it goes, but any chance of "The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble, with the Post-Herulian Wall" → 'The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities with the Post-Herulian Wall, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble'?
- PS You sure about "Post-"? (As opposed to 'post-'.)
- Done. Capitalising "Post-" is indeed the universal norm in HQRS. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- PS You sure about "Post-"? (As opposed to 'post-'.)
- Fine, as far as it goes, but any chance of "The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble, with the Post-Herulian Wall" → 'The Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities with the Post-Herulian Wall, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble'?
- I've gone for a split after "Post-Herulian Wall": how does that look? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Option B says that two things are similar, states what they are, then states what the similarities are. Option A states that two things are similar, states what the similarities are, which a reader has to carry in their head before finding out what is being compared. That is not really too bad, but then there is that "built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268" stuck on the end: you're casting your mind back to the main part of the sentence trying to think how this is relevant to the comparison. It is probably an over-busy sentence. 'The Post-Herulian Wall was built around the Acropolis about two decades after the sack of 267 or 268 and the Beulé Gate shows architectural similarities, such as the use of alternating courses of differently coloured marble.' would also work better IMO. Or split into two sentences. If you really don't care, change it for one of those options. Or take a straw poll.
- "the structure's geisa were numbered while still in situ". Could you help out a reader with an in line explanation of geisa.
- Hm: not really: the (good) explanation in the eponymous article is The geison is the part of the entablature that projects outward from the top of the frieze in the Doric order, which I think is going to be quite stubbornly resistant to condensing. I remember thinking that most readers will parse this as "some component of the monument", and that's all they really need. We could gloss it as geisa (cornices), but I suspect that's explaining the obscure with the obscure for most readers. A footnote would also be an option? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Let me think on't.
- So how about '... some parts of the structure - the geisa - were numbered while still in situ ...'?
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- So how about '... some parts of the structure - the geisa - were numbered while still in situ ...'?
- Let me think on't.
- Link architrave?
- Done on first mention (in "Description"). UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oops.
- "Between the 13th and 15th centuries, the city's Frankish rulers gradually refortified the Acropolis;[40] the Beulé Gate was closed off during the reign of Othon's descendants, the de la Roche family, which lasted until 1308; a vaulted structure was also built in the gate's north tower to brace it during the same period." Over long? (Two semi colons!)
- Agreed; first is now a full stop. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- "When Beulé excavated the bastion, he found evidence that the gate had been damaged by bombs prior to the bastion's construction." I think this would fit better in the next section.
- I'm not sure; the reason it's here is to get the historical detail that the gate was damaged by bombs at some point in its history. Annoyingly, there's precisely one good candidate for that (the Venetian attack of 1687, which also badly damaged the Parthenon), but I don't think Beulé or anyone else has actually made the connection in print (pinging User:Choliamb, who I'm sure will know if anyone has.) UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- (Responding to ping) Hi there. I don't know of any source that makes a connection between the supposed marks of bullets or cannon balls (not bombs, see below) and the siege of 1687, and if anyone did make such a connection, they would be wrong. Tanoulas's source is a single brief comment made by Beulé in the first (1853) edition of L'Acropole d'Athènes (vol. 1, p. 101), which was not repeated in the second edition. What Beulé says is "les traces des balles qui se sont aplaties sur le mur attestent qu'il a servi au moins jusqu'à l'invention des armes à feu." Balles can be either cannon balls or bullets, and in Tanoulas's original Greek text (1997, vol. 1, p. 131) they are translated as ἴχνη βλημάτων πυροβόλων ὅπλων ("traces of missiles from firearms"), which again could refer to either bullets or cannon balls. In the English summary of Tanoulas's text (vol. 2, p. 293) this becomes "bombs," an unfortunate choice because it implies an explosive device, when in fact both Beulé and Tanoulas are clearly talking about solid projectiles (not explosives) fired by the use of gunpowder. If you decide to keep this in the article, perhaps it would be better to use Beulé himself as the source rather than the misleading English summary of Tanoulas. I've never seen anyone else discuss these marks, but even if Beulé's observation was correct, they could not have been related to the Venetian siege of 1687, since the Turkish bastion covering the gate was already in existence by the time, as contemporary drawings show. Tanoulas speculates that it was probably built fairly early in the Ottoman period to strengthen the defense of the Acropolis in response to the spread of gunpowder-fueled artillery in the late 15th or 16th century (Tanoulas, vol. 1, p. 321), and that makes sense, but of course there's no proof. All one can say is that it certainly existed by the second half of the 17th century. That doesn't mean that Beulé was wrong about the marks, of course, since there were plenty of other opportunities for the gate to be struck by artillery fire before 1687. But I've never seen anyone else mention them, and it's odd that Tanoulas, who has been all over the gate himself, does not document any such traces on his own authority; instead, he relies entirely on Beulé's statement. Do with this what you will. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I've done a hedge similar to the one below, with "Beulé reported finding..." and a change to "damaged by gunpowder weapons". Not sure I'm happy making the full jump to say it's probably not real, given that Tanoulas reports it (albeit at second hand, as you note): to me, that's too close to OR for here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- That seems perfectly reasonable. I didn't mean to imply that the marks are probably not real. Their existence doesn't seem unlikely. It's just strange that, if they are there to be seen, Tanoulas didn't see them, or if he did see them, he didn't mention or illustrate them in his magnum opus. In any case, Beulé's conclusion, that the ancient gate remained at least partly exposed until after the invention of firearms, was almost certainly right. There was little need to replace it with a big new bastion and cannon platform before the use of new artillery made the upgrade necessary. Choliamb (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I've done a hedge similar to the one below, with "Beulé reported finding..." and a change to "damaged by gunpowder weapons". Not sure I'm happy making the full jump to say it's probably not real, given that Tanoulas reports it (albeit at second hand, as you note): to me, that's too close to OR for here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- (Responding to ping) Hi there. I don't know of any source that makes a connection between the supposed marks of bullets or cannon balls (not bombs, see below) and the siege of 1687, and if anyone did make such a connection, they would be wrong. Tanoulas's source is a single brief comment made by Beulé in the first (1853) edition of L'Acropole d'Athènes (vol. 1, p. 101), which was not repeated in the second edition. What Beulé says is "les traces des balles qui se sont aplaties sur le mur attestent qu'il a servi au moins jusqu'à l'invention des armes à feu." Balles can be either cannon balls or bullets, and in Tanoulas's original Greek text (1997, vol. 1, p. 131) they are translated as ἴχνη βλημάτων πυροβόλων ὅπλων ("traces of missiles from firearms"), which again could refer to either bullets or cannon balls. In the English summary of Tanoulas's text (vol. 2, p. 293) this becomes "bombs," an unfortunate choice because it implies an explosive device, when in fact both Beulé and Tanoulas are clearly talking about solid projectiles (not explosives) fired by the use of gunpowder. If you decide to keep this in the article, perhaps it would be better to use Beulé himself as the source rather than the misleading English summary of Tanoulas. I've never seen anyone else discuss these marks, but even if Beulé's observation was correct, they could not have been related to the Venetian siege of 1687, since the Turkish bastion covering the gate was already in existence by the time, as contemporary drawings show. Tanoulas speculates that it was probably built fairly early in the Ottoman period to strengthen the defense of the Acropolis in response to the spread of gunpowder-fueled artillery in the late 15th or 16th century (Tanoulas, vol. 1, p. 321), and that makes sense, but of course there's no proof. All one can say is that it certainly existed by the second half of the 17th century. That doesn't mean that Beulé was wrong about the marks, of course, since there were plenty of other opportunities for the gate to be struck by artillery fire before 1687. But I've never seen anyone else mention them, and it's odd that Tanoulas, who has been all over the gate himself, does not document any such traces on his own authority; instead, he relies entirely on Beulé's statement. Do with this what you will. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Tanoulas has described it as the". Suggest deleting "has".
- I'm treating Tanoulas as "live" scholarship, so would prefer the present (OK, stative) tense. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- 'Tanoulas describes it as' then? Which would be fine by me.
- Changed as suggested. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- 'Tanoulas describes it as' then? Which would be fine by me.
- "Beulé also reported having inscribed a French translation of the same inscription below the Greek text." Why "reported having", is there doubt about this?
- Yes - it's not there! Nobody else, as far as I can see, reports having seen it: it's possible that it was removed, or that it's become illegible, or something, but it's very definitely not just written underneath the Greek one on the stone, as Beulé seems to say. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- In which case you need to big up those caveats.
- Sadly, same problem: because it isn't there, I haven't been able to find any sources (other than Beulé) that discuss it (a few from the time, simply cribbing Beulé's report, talk about him installing it, but no later ones seem to talk about seeing it or its removal). See this contemporary source, which says the stone is inscribed only in Greek. There's an account at this very well-researched website, which I don't think will do for FA, but gives us the background. St Clair's book does talk about the inscription being moved (though not exactly where it originally was), but doesn't mention the French text. I suppose I'm pleading WP:PRIMARY here: as Beulé is a primary source for his own actions, we can say that Beulé said he did something, but shouldn't really step beyond that to vouch that he did it (in other words, we shouldn't assume the accuracy of the primary source for anything except its own content). This one feels pretty tricky to me: any advice gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Having dug a bit further into this, I am now pretty satisfied that the French inscription never went up, or at least came down again quickly enough that practically nobody saw it. I've searched for the text in French-language sources, and they are almost unanimous that the text was only ever in Ancient Greek: there's one by Proust here on Wikisource, who claims to have seen it written in French in 1857 but he also misquotes the text: Proust also doesn't pass WP:HQRS muster, having neglected to get his work peer reviewed.
- I would feel foolish making a definitive call here without calling on User:Choliamb, but I think that leaves us in the right place at the moment: the French inscription is mentioned enough in sources that we should include it per WP:DUEWEIGHT, but we would also be wise to give it as absolutely minimum credence as we can from those sources (that is, to say that Beulé reported fixing it there, but not to vouch that it stayed for any length of time). I must admit, purely from OR, that I cannot imagine the fiercely nationalistic Kyriakos Pittakis permitting someone to write in French on a stone from the Acropolis: my first thought was that doing the inscription in Ancient Greek was a way of getting him to agree to its being there. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're right to be wary. I don't have access to any more information than you do about this, but I did a quick search for the text of the French inscription in Google Books and the Internet Archive, and every mention I saw seemed to be pretty clearly derived from Beulé's own publications, not from autopsy. I did, however, find something else that I know you will enjoy: more acerbic comments about the inscription's "petty display of national and personal vanity" from your pal Ludwig Ross, in a review of the first edition of Beulé's L'Acropole d'Athènes. Ross dismisses Beulé's Greek as mediocre, and makes fun of him for printing the drachma sign (𐅂) instead of the numeral one when giving the date in the Greek version of the inscription (an embarrassing gaffe which is true of the text printed in the book, although sadly not the one on the stone). He continues: "Beulé hat nun seine Inschrift so gut wie Kritios und Strongylion, wie Kresilas und Leochares und andere alte Werkmeister. Gewiss wird fortan der französische Gesandte daruber zu wachen haben, dass in alle Ewigkeit diese Ruhmestafel Galliens nicht wieder von der Akropolis verschwinde. ... Eine solche Probe kleinlicher nationaler und persönlicher Eitelkeit an der Spitze eines ernsten wissenschaftlichen Buches ruft gewiss kein günstiges Vorurtheil hervor." His warning that the French ambassador will have to keep watch over the inscription to ensure that it doesn't vanish forever could, I suppose, support the idea that one of Beulé's disgruntled contemporaries made off with or destroyed the French version shortly after it was created, although that wouldn't explain why the Greek version was left in place (unless it was protected from vandalism by the decent obscurity of a learned language). Choliamb (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for this: I'll stick Ross's criticism in alongside Dyer's. It does sound from Beulé's account like he had/ it inscribed directly below, and certainly the stele is big enough for that. If I had to guess, I'd suggest that Pittakis either vetoed it or had it erased. I vaguely remember there being a similar controversy when Ross was Ephor General (or possibly early Pittakis) when someone wanted to put up a German inscription commemorating King Otto, and the result was that it didn't go up. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- I think you're right to be wary. I don't have access to any more information than you do about this, but I did a quick search for the text of the French inscription in Google Books and the Internet Archive, and every mention I saw seemed to be pretty clearly derived from Beulé's own publications, not from autopsy. I did, however, find something else that I know you will enjoy: more acerbic comments about the inscription's "petty display of national and personal vanity" from your pal Ludwig Ross, in a review of the first edition of Beulé's L'Acropole d'Athènes. Ross dismisses Beulé's Greek as mediocre, and makes fun of him for printing the drachma sign (𐅂) instead of the numeral one when giving the date in the Greek version of the inscription (an embarrassing gaffe which is true of the text printed in the book, although sadly not the one on the stone). He continues: "Beulé hat nun seine Inschrift so gut wie Kritios und Strongylion, wie Kresilas und Leochares und andere alte Werkmeister. Gewiss wird fortan der französische Gesandte daruber zu wachen haben, dass in alle Ewigkeit diese Ruhmestafel Galliens nicht wieder von der Akropolis verschwinde. ... Eine solche Probe kleinlicher nationaler und persönlicher Eitelkeit an der Spitze eines ernsten wissenschaftlichen Buches ruft gewiss kein günstiges Vorurtheil hervor." His warning that the French ambassador will have to keep watch over the inscription to ensure that it doesn't vanish forever could, I suppose, support the idea that one of Beulé's disgruntled contemporaries made off with or destroyed the French version shortly after it was created, although that wouldn't explain why the Greek version was left in place (unless it was protected from vandalism by the decent obscurity of a learned language). Choliamb (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly, same problem: because it isn't there, I haven't been able to find any sources (other than Beulé) that discuss it (a few from the time, simply cribbing Beulé's report, talk about him installing it, but no later ones seem to talk about seeing it or its removal). See this contemporary source, which says the stone is inscribed only in Greek. There's an account at this very well-researched website, which I don't think will do for FA, but gives us the background. St Clair's book does talk about the inscription being moved (though not exactly where it originally was), but doesn't mention the French text. I suppose I'm pleading WP:PRIMARY here: as Beulé is a primary source for his own actions, we can say that Beulé said he did something, but shouldn't really step beyond that to vouch that he did it (in other words, we shouldn't assume the accuracy of the primary source for anything except its own content). This one feels pretty tricky to me: any advice gratefully received. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Very nice. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks again: another batch of replies. Mostly sorted, though I'm afraid I've been difficult on a few. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- Impressively prompt. Unfortunately RL will intrude into my responses, so they will probably be in bits and pieces over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- After that couple of quick replies I am going to be away again for a few days. Apologies, but it will be Monday before I am looking at this again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just my caption query left to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for all your work and wisdom on this one, Gog -- very much appreciated as ever. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just my caption query left to be addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- After that couple of quick replies I am going to be away again for a few days. Apologies, but it will be Monday before I am looking at this again. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Impressively prompt. Unfortunately RL will intrude into my responses, so they will probably be in bits and pieces over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]
Hello UndercoverClassicist, just a few very minor nitpicks and questions from me...
top matter
- short description - move to top
- nominate Engvar
- and dmy date
lede
- and excavated between 1852 and 1853 - is "between" normal word here?
Description
- which led to the Proplyaia approximately- typo Propylaia
- The gate includes two pylon-like towers - why italics on pylon?
- In conversions eg "1.89 m (6.2 ft) wide at its base" I often wonder if they mean 6.2ft is 6 ft plus 2 tenths of a foot or 6 ft 2 inches. There is an option for formula to include inches eg ((Convert|1.89|m|ftin|abbr=on)) which gives 1.89 m (6 ft 2 in). No problem though, it may just be me.
Entablature inscription
- Nikias, son of Nicomedes, of - Choragic Monument of Nikias has "Nikias, son of Nikodemos", as does Camp p. 162?
Date
- between the Beulé Gate and the Proplyaia to which it led - typo Propylaia
- carried out by Leo, the Metropolitan of Athens between 1060 and 1069 - Leo II? per List of archbishops of Athens
- The gates' previous role as an entrance - plural apos not intentional?
Excavation
- excavating the approach to the Proplyaia under the direction - typo Propylaia
- The historian Jean-Michel Leniaud has - link and authorlink
- remaining parts of the Propylaea in - link the plural or not intentional?
- Beulé fixed a commemorative stone, recovered during the excavations, to right of the gate's entrance - to the right?
- Jean Baelan [sv] has written that Beulé's work turned him into "the standard-bearer for national honour in the field of archaeology" - ambiguous? turned Beule or Baelan
Bibliography
- Chase, George H. - is George Henry Chase?
- Leniaud, Jean-Michel - authorlink
- Makri, Efterpi - tweak alpha order
- St. Clair, William - remove dot, authorlink William St Clair
- Hornblower, Simon - editorlink
- Wycherley, Richard Ernest - authorlink
- for some authorlinks you have multiples (Beule, Frantz, Setton) but Dinsmoor only for his second?
Captions
- The commemorative inscription erected by Beulé in 1853 [65] - remove space before ref
- Detail of the wall over the doorway, constructed from blocks reused from the Choragic Monument of Nikias, with part of the dedicatory inscription (centre, below the vertical triglyphs) - maybe add 'faintly visible' after inscription?
- First image in gallery, alt "showing the Temple of Athene Nike above" - Athena?
Infobox
- add ref for UNESCO https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/404?
Consistencies
- centuries - words/numerals eg "built in the fourth century BCE" v "in the later 1st century CE", "the early second century CE" v "the mid-4th century CE", etc - are these intentional?
- date formats eg access-date=22 March 2022 v access-date=2024-01-29
No more from me JennyOz (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Jenny - good to see you and always grateful for your sharp eyes. Almost all going to get a straightforward "done": two queries/replies:
- Did you have an alternative in mind for "between"? I think it is normal, though I can see a potential ambiguity as to whether this is the frame of the excavation or a kind of bracket (e.g. "the Battle of Hastings took place between 1060 and 1070")
- On pylon: it's italicised because it's the Greek word (technically, pronounced pie-lohn) meaning "gateway", and to differentiate it from the English word meaning "skinny tower". UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- @JennyOz: Other than the two points above, all actioned as suggested. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two minor tweaks...
- On the Jean Baelan comment tweak, the apos s was left behind ie "turned Beulé's into"
- at "demolition may have dated to the late 3rd or early 4th centuries CE", numerals missed.
- Leaving those two with you, I'm happy to s'port now. Thank you for the interesting read. JennyOz (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Sorted - sloppy on my part, but now fixed. Thanks for the support and for your time with the review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two minor tweaks...
Image and source review[edit]
Image placement seems OK to me. I'd prefer if File:Plan Acropolis of Athens colored.svg indicated how the map was drawn. ALT text is OK-ish. On the source review, spot-check upon request. It seems like the sources are adequate, but I can't speak of completeness. I figure the varying source formats are due to different sources having different available information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- for the image, do you mean a source for the data? It isn't my image, but it should be easy enough to find a source which has the same information in and append it to the Commons page to vouch for the accuracy. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, mostly an explanation of whether the underlying graphics were copied from somewhere or in general how it was drawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah -- that I can't provide, I'm afraid, not being the author. Pinging @Tomisti: would you be able to add a note to that effect? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- This touches on one of my pet peeves. While we require WP:RS for text, we seem to be willing to accept images with unknown provenance. If I wrote in the text, "The Theatre of Dionysus dates to the Archaic period", we'd require a RS for that. But if User:Tomisti draws a picture and makes the same claim graphically, we accept it without complaint. It's difficult for me to get my head around that. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I had put the sources to the non-colored version File:Plan Acropolis of Athens.svg but had forgotten them from the derived file File:Plan Acropolis of Athens colored.svg; now added there as well. So the map combines material from earlier SVG files in Commons and details from few maps published in books. I have written articles for all the buildings marked in the map, and the coloring by periods is based on the construction years mentioned in the sources in those articles, but I don't remember using any single source for the periodization. Tomisti (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus and RoySmith: I am happy to track down citations for the dates and append them to the Commons page if you think it would be helpful and necessary? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK: won't be a quick job, but I'll get to it piecemeal over the next week or so. I don't think there's anything controversial about the periodisation of any of these monuments, but I'll make any changes that need to be made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: All dates now cited where given in the diagram. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seems good, but note that I can't spotcheck these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, your caveat immediately above notwithstanding, are you satisfied with the image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Not a topic where I am deeply familiar with sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, your caveat immediately above notwithstanding, are you satisfied with the image and source reviews? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Seems good, but note that I can't spotcheck these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: All dates now cited where given in the diagram. UndercoverClassicist T·C 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- OK: won't be a quick job, but I'll get to it piecemeal over the next week or so. I don't think there's anything controversial about the periodisation of any of these monuments, but I'll make any changes that need to be made. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus and RoySmith: I am happy to track down citations for the dates and append them to the Commons page if you think it would be helpful and necessary? UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah -- that I can't provide, I'm afraid, not being the author. Pinging @Tomisti: would you be able to add a note to that effect? UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- No, mostly an explanation of whether the underlying graphics were copied from somewhere or in general how it was drawn. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Johnbod[edit]
- This has had a very good going-over, so I doubt I will have much.
- "During the medieval period, ..." doesn't work well for Athens, as it is barely mentioned there - History_of_Athens#Middle_Ages much better! The next, Ottoman link, might be better going there too. Also, something more precise for "Later research, beginning with that of Paul Graindor in 1914, established it as belonging to the late Roman period (c. 284 – c. 476 CE)," perhaps?
- Agreed and done on the links. On the second, things weren't established all that precisely, but I've trimmed it a bit to be clear that everyone is pretty much talking a few decades on either side of 300. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok - at "precise" I meant the link rather than the period itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, gotcha. Linked that one to "History of Athens" too. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok - at "precise" I meant the link rather than the period itself. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed and done on the links. On the second, things weren't established all that precisely, but I've trimmed it a bit to be clear that everyone is pretty much talking a few decades on either side of 300. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Do sources talk of a "attic" storey? I'd expect a bit more than a single course of large stones.
- They do -- Dinsmoor for instance: Probing in the joints of the attic of the gate, however, disclosed what appears to be a dowel cutting for the tympanum face, and therefore a joint, about 0.83 m. from the original centre of the facade. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- You might as well mention the later lintel up in the description, as well as lower down.
- Done. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is there any talk of a pediment in either incarnation of the buildings? It seems a bit odd for a Doric entablature to stop this way. Can they tell if there ever was one, I wonder. I see the reconstruction pic at Choragic Monument of Nikias has one.
- Definitely not on the gate: there was certainly one on Nikias' monument. We'd consider the pediment part of the pronaos, which is mentioned, alongside the fact that the monument was built in the form of a Greek temple in the Doric order (emphasis mine). There are a whole bunch of other architectural features that come as standard in that template, but I don't think we should test the reader's patience any further by enumerating the ones that weren't carried over to the gate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe spell this out a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite seeing exactly what you want spelled out. We've said that a) Nikias' monument was shaped like a temple, b) Nikias' monument was demolished and its bits used to build the Beulé Gate, c) the Beulé Gate is shaped like, well, a gate. I'm not sure where the reader is likely to become confused here. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Just that, although they went to some trouble to move over elements of the entablature, and put them in the right places relative to each other, they didn't include the pediment - at least we don't think so - whether we can actually be sure it wasn't there after the initial move, but lost in a later development, I don't know, and I wonder if the experts can really tell. There was presumably room for it along the top. Whether built in the form of a Greek temple in the Doric order immediately conveys to the average reader that there was a pediment I also don't know. Perhaps we could ask User:Roy Smith, who has been playing the man on the Clapham omnibus here? Obviously there was no easy way to incorporate columns and so forth without a complete redesign. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- We've mentioned that it had a pronaos: that article (now) includes In Greek and Roman architecture, the pronaos of a temple is typically topped with a pediment.. If nothing else, I'm uncomfortable saying anything that isn't defined in the sources: unless we actually have one saying what the Beulé Gate doesn't have, this is going to run into WP:SYNTH pretty quickly. For instance, what you say in whether we can actually be sure it wasn't there after the initial move, but lost in a later development, I don't know, and I wonder if the experts can really tell makes intuitive sense to me, but to even mention that as a theory, we need a WP:HQRS that has entertained it, if only as speculation. We haven't said or implied, as far as I can tell, that they used all the blocks of the Choragic Monument. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thinking on this, there's an easy fix: I've changed the gloss on pronaos to (that is, a front porch with a pediment and six columns) How's that? UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Johnbod TIL another quaint British phrase! I'd be happy to help, but I'm not sure what question you're asking. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- We've mentioned that it had a pronaos: that article (now) includes In Greek and Roman architecture, the pronaos of a temple is typically topped with a pediment.. If nothing else, I'm uncomfortable saying anything that isn't defined in the sources: unless we actually have one saying what the Beulé Gate doesn't have, this is going to run into WP:SYNTH pretty quickly. For instance, what you say in whether we can actually be sure it wasn't there after the initial move, but lost in a later development, I don't know, and I wonder if the experts can really tell makes intuitive sense to me, but to even mention that as a theory, we need a WP:HQRS that has entertained it, if only as speculation. We haven't said or implied, as far as I can tell, that they used all the blocks of the Choragic Monument. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe spell this out a bit more. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely not on the gate: there was certainly one on Nikias' monument. We'd consider the pediment part of the pronaos, which is mentioned, alongside the fact that the monument was built in the form of a Greek temple in the Doric order (emphasis mine). There are a whole bunch of other architectural features that come as standard in that template, but I don't think we should test the reader's patience any further by enumerating the ones that weren't carried over to the gate. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- "Throughout the remainder of the Hellenistic period, fashions in public art changed to favour statues of rulers and monumental buildings constructed by those rulers themselves" seems a bit of an odd way of putting it - less "fashion" than nobody else having enough money, perhaps.
- I don't think that's quite the whole picture: yes, few people could afford to build something like the Stoa of Eumenes, but there were plenty of aristocrats with enough money to construct something smaller (indeed, something like a choragic monument). In other words, poverty doesn't explain why choragic monuments didn't come back. The source gives a two-pronged social expectation: if you're a ruler, you build a monumental building, if you're not, you hold fire on building anything grandiose in public and stick up statues of those rulers (but may, of course, use your wealth in other ways, such as building your own house, collecting books, patronising artists, outrageous feasting, etc etc). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but I think money became tighter, even for the very rich. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are you thinking of a specific source here? I have found very few that attempt to explain the death of the Choragic Monument as anything other than a simple consequence of Demetrios's sumptuary laws, but I'm happy to integrate another source if you've got it. A priori, the existence of a sumptuary law suggests that people could afford the ostentatious forbidden spending: otherwise, there would be no reason to ban them from it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, but I think money became tighter, even for the very rich. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's quite the whole picture: yes, few people could afford to build something like the Stoa of Eumenes, but there were plenty of aristocrats with enough money to construct something smaller (indeed, something like a choragic monument). In other words, poverty doesn't explain why choragic monuments didn't come back. The source gives a two-pronged social expectation: if you're a ruler, you build a monumental building, if you're not, you hold fire on building anything grandiose in public and stick up statues of those rulers (but may, of course, use your wealth in other ways, such as building your own house, collecting books, patronising artists, outrageous feasting, etc etc). UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's it. Johnbod (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, John -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I think we're there - supporting above. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you -- and thanks for your time, advice and wisdom on this article: it is very much appreciated. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I think we're there - supporting above. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, John -- replies above. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 1 March 2024 [50].
Horned sungem[edit]
- Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Arguably one of the most beautiful birds on earth – and a notorious nectar robber. I was lucky enough to find some of them a few weeks ago in Brazil, and even made a nice video, which is included in this article. The species is poorly known, but I did an extensive literature review, and now think that the article is as comprehensive as it could be. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments from Grungaloo[edit]
I reviewed and promoted this to GAN just a few days ago, so no comments on prose or sources from me. Just two things:
- Some images are missing alts
- added.
- Distribution map needs a label
- added.
grungaloo (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Both added; thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Comments[edit]
- "only few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range" => "few other hummingbird species have recently expanded their range"
- fixed.
- "Even though this mistake has been pointed out in 1999" => "Even though this mistake was pointed out in 1999"
- fixed.
- "The female is somewhat similar to the female black-eared fairy" - link the latter
- Already linked earlier, but since it appears for the first time in a major section, I linked it again now.
- "in the east from southern Maranhão south to São Paulo (state) " - showing the disambiguator in the article title looks wrong. Try "the state of Sao Paulo"
- Right, fixed.
- "and its range extends into northern state of São Paulo" => "and its range extends into the northern part of the state of São Paulo" (also no need to link the state again)
- I removed the second mention of São Paulo to avoid being repetitive.
- That's all I got. Wonderful video BTW!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Funk[edit]
- Marking my spot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- The external links seem a bit random, like leftovers from the early days of the Internet?
- I had already sorted out a few … now removed entirely. They do not really add anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps binomials could be given in parenthesis after the common names in the cladogram?
- Added.
- Do those genera mentioned under taxonomy and the cladogram have articles to link?
- Linked.
- "The species is considered to be uncommon,[1] though other sources have described it" This sentence seems a bit odd, as you don't initially mention a source.
- Indicated source.
- Link Wildlife trade?
- Linked.
- "The horned sungem has recently expanded into Espírito Santo" When is "recently?
- No information. The source really only has a single sentence on this, I can't be more specific unfortunately.
- Not a big deal, but the intro strikes me as quite long for an article of this length. Usually it would be two rather than three paragraph for this length, and the included text is almost as detailed as that in the article body.
- I condensed the lead, and yes, I think it's much better this way. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Nouveaurecueild4Temm_0168.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added, hope it's the right one. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Support from Cas Liber[edit]
Looks fine comprehensiveness and prose-wise..only slight quibble for me is the lead but a non-dealbreaker as some prefer the flow of the lead contents to mirror the article subheading order - namely sentence 2 in lead is slightly jarring after the first sentence and I'd slot the description material after the range materal (and also allow melding of sentence 1 into where it is found in south america). But this is minor really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I reworked the lead accordingly, hope it is better now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Support by Esculenta[edit]
Lead
- "The sexes differ markedly in appearance" link to sexual dimorphism?
- Done.
- possible useful links: crest, buff; if savanna is linked why not also grassland?; nomadic, migrate, Amazonia directs to "Amazon rainforest" – is that intended? (same link later in Dist + hab)
- All done, except for "nomadic", since the article is only about humans, but I explained in-text now. Link to Amazonia was incorrect, thanks for the hint!
- since the page is also about the genus, Heliactin should also be bolded in the lead
- Done
Taxonomy
- there's no explanation in the text about what lapsis means in the synonym list
- That's legacy from the old article version. I don't actually think these are spelling mistakes; they instead are suggested emandations. Removed.
- shouldn't the basionym be in the synonym list?
- Added.
- since Temminck's original publication had an image but no description, I'm wondering if it would be more appropriate to unlink the piped link from "named" and instead link it a couple of sentence later ("In the description of the new species that followed a few years later…")
- Done.
- I think Principle of priority is a more relevant target link than the current scientific priority
- Done, thanks.
- please include non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials to avoid unsightly line breaks
- Done.
- Done.
- shouldn't all of those bird common names be lower case?
- Yes, done.
- what type of information is the cladogram based on?
- Molecular. Added.
Description
- "1.6 centimetres" the abbreviated "cm" was already used earlier
- Done.
Distribution and habitat
- following the example of our own articles on the topics, it seems that Cerrado and Caatinga don't need italicization
- Done.
Ecology and behavior
- link breeding season, lichen
- Done
- the idea of "subordinate species" is interesting; is this an established biological phenonemon? Are they subordinate just because they are physically smaller?
- Apparently, size is not the only criterion. In many hummingbird species, the male is dominant and the female is subordinate – unless they form a pair, when the female is granted access to the flowers guarded by the male, which allows her to brood and raise the chicks.
Status
- CITES is spelled out for the reader, who I guess already knows IUCN (in the lead too)?
- Spelled out IUCN as well.
- link protected area
- Done.
- "The horned sungem has recently expanded into" any timeframe for "recently"?
- Unfortunately not. I don't have any more information on this.
References
- link author "BirdLife International"
- Done.
- page # and link to page for Wied-Neuwied, M. 1821? trans-title?
- Done.
- make isbn hyphenation consistent throuhgout
- Done
- FN#11 "pp. 187, 72" unusual to give the page order this way, no?
- Done
- FN#15 this one has title case for a book title, but some other book titles are sentence case
- Done
- "p. 40, 167." -> pp.
- Done.
- FN#22 Machado 2014 actually has a Portuguese title, so that should be given along with the English translation. Here's a link to a PDF of the article
- Done.
Thank you for the review, especially all those wiki-link suggestions I would never have thought of. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Source and prose review from AK[edit]
- Will do in a day or two. AryKun (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Some initial notes:
- One mite known from the species, seems worth mentioning.
- Thanks, added.
- "Heliactin bilophus (Horned Sungem) - Avibase". Avibase is already the publisher, so you don't need it in the title.
- removed.
- The Temminck and van der Mije refs need a more specific page range.
- Done.
- The BOW ref needs the retrieval date updated.
- Done.
- Update the IOC and BirdLife checklist refs, they're both several versions out of date. Also applies to their archives and retrieval dates.
- Done.
- The Vitorino ref link and doi both lead to a Brazilian casino website?
- Very ugly, apparently the doi has been usurped; I already removed it once but citation boot keeps adding it back. I have now added a comment that should keep the bot from adding it in the future.
- Shouldn't the titles of books be in title case?
- Puh, done.
- Glad to hear.
- The Marini et. al. link is broken (SORA link) and it also has a Spanish title (maybe subtitle translation?).
- I added the "dead url" parameter, but the archive link is still working. I don't think it has a Spanish title; that is just the translation of the abstract.
- In the Wied-Neuwied ref, either expand "Frankfurt a.M.: H.L. Brönner." to Frankfurt am Main or just put Frankfurt.
- Spelled out (since there is another Frankfurt in Germany …).
- "female will build the nest, incubate the eggs, and rear the chicks" to "female builds the nest, incubates the eggs, and rears the chicks"?
- Done.
- "classified as least concern" to "classified as being of least concern"?
- Sure? Google Scholar gives me 3,280 hits for the former but only 104 for your suggestion.
- Don't need the IUCN's initialism in the lead since you don't use it there.
- removed.
- Maybe link species, Suriname, and nomadic in the lead.
- Linked species. Suriname is a country and we are not supposed to link them. For nomadic, I can't find an appropriate article (see also the same point by the reviewer above).
- The way you've linked the Colibri and Anthracothorax groups makes it seem like they're the only genera in those groups; any way to make it clearer that they include others?
- I didn't link them originally for this reason, but FunkMonk above requested the links. But the text states that there are 12 genera, not only 3, and the cladogram also shows that a group has multiple genera. I will think about a solution, but at the moment nothing comes to mind.
- "upper side" Single word (has slightly different implication than just entire upper side of the bird) and link to birdgloss using the template.
- Changed, but the birdgloss does not have this entry (it lacks so many terms …).
- "can be identified based on its yellow-green" to "can be identified by its yellow-green"?
- Done.
- You use "female" to start two successive sentences here; maybe reword one of them to avoid the repetition.
- Changed.
- "nectavivorous" typo.
- Corrected.
- "usually feeds singly" to "usually feeds alone"
- Done.
- "blossoms from close to the ground" to either "blossoms that are close to the ground" or "blossoms from plants close to the ground"
- Changed.
- "studied Cerrado area" cerrado should be italicized.
- I had them italicized but the reviewer above asked me to un-italicize them (not that I have any issue with both ways).
- Link cup nest.
- Done.
- "swallow-tailed hummingbird where this species" "This" feels kind of ambiguous here in terms of what it's supposed to refer to.
- Added "in areas".
- An external link to the Macaulay Library would be useful; their photos are much better than the ones we have on Commons. I'd recommend distinct links for a couple of these photos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), which I think illustrate several important stages of the hummingbird's lifecycle very well.
- In an "external links" section? Done.
- @AryKun: Many thanks for the detailed review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Cool, excellent work otherwise, support on prose and Pass source review from me. AryKun (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Drive-by comments[edit]
- "Nectar Robbing Behavior of the Horned Sungem Hummingbird (Heliactin bilophus) (Birds: Trochilidae) in Two Species Plant the Genus Amphilophium kunth (Bignoniaceae) and Sinningia Nees (Gesneriaceae)" needs an identifier. (Hint, the OCLC is 6916894431).
- Thanks, added!
- Ridgeley et al needs a publisher location.
- Also added.
- From the lead "The sungem may also consume small insects." The main article does not have the qualifier "may". So is it "may", or 'does'?
- I wanted this to mean "can", but "does" is much better; changed.
- "The chicks are naked and black after hatching, and can fly after 20 to 22 days." Is it possible to avoid using "after" twice in the sentence? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Reformulated.
- Thank you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Rodger 2004, p. xix.