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) 29 September 2023 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey vs. Eminem round 1... this is my favourite song article I have written so far, let me know what you think ;) Thanks to Ippantekina who kindly conducted the GA review. Heartfox (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This article references Carey as both a singer and a songwriter, while other articles, such as "Never Forget You" and "Sweetheart", only use singer to describe. I believe this should be consistent along all of the song articles.

  Adjusted

• I am uncertain about the wording in the both the lead and the article about Andre Harris and Vidal Davis and Dre & Vidal. It is not immediately clear in the prose that Dre & Vidal is a title used by Harris and Davis when they produce together so it could be misread as these three being separate entities. I would find a way to clarify that.

  Added a note

• For this part, (Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001), I would add a link to the Glitter soundtrack since an article for it exists.

  Added

• For the audio sample, I do not think it is necessary so specify what part of the song is being played in the title. From my experience, it is more common to include just the song title (or the artist's name if more is added), and I do not see this additional information as particularly beneficial.

  Done

• For this part, (According to Marcia Alesan Dawkins), I would clarify who Dawkins is in the prose to give readers a better understanding on why she is cited here. I have the same comment for Vincent Stephens.

  Added

• Is it worth noting in this article that "Obsessed" was also said to be directed at Eminem?

  I would prefer to leave that to the background section of "Obsessed"

  I was leaning in that direction as well, especially if critics or sources do not explicitly make connections between these two songs. I could see this quickly spiraling into tangents and it is best to keep the focus on this specific song, but I wanted to ask anyway as it did come to my mind while reading the article. I agree with your choice and I appreciate your response.

• I would be consistent with how possessives are done in the article. I see both Nas's and Pet Shop Boys' when the s's or s' should be more consistent throughout the article.

  Done Removed for Pet Shop Boys as "Boys" is a plural noun per MOS:PLURALNOUN

• The Jaan Uhelszki review is dead so it should be marked as such. I would also revise the wording for her (Amazon.com critic Jaan Uhelszki). From my experience, Amazon.com reviews are not considered reliable or high-quality enough for inclusion in a FA, but it would be appropriate because of the author's background so I would find a way to better incorporate that into the prose as this did catch my attention. The wording makes it out to be just a Amazon.com critic and nothing else.

  It is a live link for me. Reworded.

  Thank you for rewording it. I had a massive brain fart while writing this review. Instead of saying that the link was dead, I meant to say that I get an error screen when I try to reach the page. I get the following message: "We're sorry, an error has occurred. Please reload this page and try again." The page no longer has the Uhelszki review at least on my end. I see the product and I see consumer reviews, just not the review being cited. Apologies again for wording my initial comment poorly and incorrectly, and I hope that this clears it up, but let me know if further clarification is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you see the review in the archived link?

  I can see the review in the archived link. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times just to make sure I have not overlooked anything. Best of luck with this FAC and great work as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Aoba47. Heartfox (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have clarified my point about the Amazon source above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for adding an additional comment, but I had noticed this and wanted to post it before I forgot about it. I have a quick question about Note B. I was curious if the bit on Carey's 2001 breakdown would need more context for unfamiliar readers. When I was thinking about how to best approach this, I noticed that the primary Wikipedia article on Carey uses a link (breakdown) and I think having that here would be beneficial to provide some context without adding undue weight or making it unnecessarily wordy. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Added the section link

  Thank you for the responses to everything. Unfortunately, I found out today that I have COVID so I cannot complete this review at this time. If the FAC is still up when I am feeling better, I will look back, but I am not mentally or physically in a place right now to finish this review. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies for the delay in my follow-up message. Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hope you are feeling better! Heartfox (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the message. I am getting there. Hopefully I feel 100% in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ""Clown" received analysis from scholars who thought Carey is contending that Eminem's masculine persona is fake" => ""Clown" received analysis from scholars who thought Carey was contending that Eminem's masculine persona was fake"

  Done

• "the Pet Shop Boys's "The Night I Fell in Love"" => "the Pet Shop Boys' "The Night I Fell in Love"" (you don't put apostrophe + s after a plural noun ending in s - see eg this headline)

  Done

• "Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, Mariah Carey suffered" => "Before the release of her film Glitter and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, American singer Mariah Carey suffered" (you introduced her as such in the lead but it probably needs to be in the body too)

  Agreed

• "a purported romantic relationship with Eminem gone awry" => "a purported romantic relationship gone awry with rapper Eminem"

  Done

• "The Philadelphia Inquirer critic Tom Moon regarded Carey's "rap-inspired heat" superior" => "The Philadelphia Inquirer critic Tom Moon regarded Carey's "rap-inspired heat" as superior"

  Done

• "Robinson viewed "Clown" as inferior to his efforts" => "Robinson viewed "Clown" as inferior to Timberlake's efforts" (for total clarity, as technically "his" could refer to Robinson himself)

  Adjusted

• "Stephens likened it to the Pet Shop Boys's " - as above

  Done

• "Carey has not acknowledged "Clown" is about Eminem" => "Carey has not acknowledged that "Clown" is about Eminem"

  Added

• Note d uses UK spellings rather than US, is this because the original source does so.....?

  It is a quote from a journal published by Cambridge University Press (uses UK spelling)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks so much for the helpful comments. Heartfox (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, this is a pretty short article so there's also only a few minor comments here, hope they're useful! GeraldWL 08:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* "of her film Glitter"-- "her film" is a possessory credit for directors/producers, but Carrey only starred in it, she doesn't hold any "a film by" attribution. Suggest "of Glitter, a film she starred in, and its accompanying..." Incorporated the suggestion "A media circus ensued"-- isn't this an idiom? AFAIK, Wikipedia generally discourages idioms. Changed to "ensuing media coverage" "Tatum. She produced it"-- might as well just combine these two, having them separate feels awkward with them being equally short sentences. Combined "in Capri, Italy, Right Track Studios in New York City, and The Studio in Philadelphia." Should they be separated by semicolon, acknowledging the comma in "Capri, Italy?" Done per MOS:COLON "Lorenz and"-- "Lorez, and" to give distinctions, this sentence has three and-s Done Shouldn't answer song be linked in the first mention of it at BG section--"She responded further with the song "Clown""? Added ""Clown" received scholarly analysis" sounds kinda awkward, suggest adding "several" between received and scholarly. Added Why is ref 17 dup? There used to be an intermittent sentence with a different ref; removed Perhaps linking hypermasculinity and genderphobia? Linked Why is footnote g in a footnote? I thought it can be a wonderful extension to the prose. Ditto fn h. Converted to prose Italicize roman a clef Italicized Why is there a comma after roman a clef but not 'Youre So Vain', wherein the sentence transitions to a whole other review? Added a comma Perhaps linking jersey? Would cause a sea of blue "The live performances received reviews"-- should probably add that it's "generally negative reviews" Added

Thanks for the very helpful comments! Heartfox (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you resolved the comments pretty well! This is an easy support -- well done! Also if you have time and are interested, I have a film PR open. GeraldWL 04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clown Mariah Carey.ogg – Fair use rationale is good and sample length is fine per WP:SAMPLE (10% of the song length is 19.7 seconds and the sample is 20 seconds; even if rounding up isn't okay under SAMPLE, the length requirement is just a rule of thumb, not a strict requirement).

Can any images be added to the article? Photos of Mariah Carey or the co-writers? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the media review! I did think about adding a photo of Carey or Eminem (none seem to exist for the co-writers), but they would mostly be decorative in my opniion. The reader is not really going to learn anything from a basic side-by-side of them. If there was a usable picture of them together in 2001 "in a relationship" then that would definitely add context and illustration to the adjacent prose, but that's unfortunately not the case. Heartfox (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also no photos from tour performances of the song seem to be available, although there are some for others. Heartfox (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. This passes. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I'm reviewing this revision

• "She likens Eminem to a liar, a puppet, a transitory figure, and a clown whose private personality contradicts his public image." pretty lengthy for the lede. Did she really compare Eminem to all of these?

  All of the references are given in the composition and lyrics section. Removed "transitory figure" for flow.

• "They compared it to [a plethora of songs]" I think this could be connected with the bit about scholarly analysis of the lyrics

  I didn't see this connection in any of the sources except the Pet Shop Boys song

• Optional but do we have a YouTube URL for an official audio?

  Added

• "Before the release of Glitter, a film she starred in, and its accompanying soundtrack in 2001, American singer Mariah Carey suffered an emotional and physical breakdown" quite a few commas! I'd suggest "American singer Mariah Carey suffered an emotional and physical breakdown before she starred in the 2001 film Glitter and released its accompanying soundtrack"

  Honestly I just removed everything to do with Glitter as that level of specificity is better suited to the Charmbracelet album article

• A photo of Eminem with a caption like "Eminem, the song's subject" would help the "Background" section imo.

  As the article already passed a media review I would prefer not to annoy the other reviewer

• "Eminem opined about Carey"; eh, quite literary. I'd go for something simple like "Eminem said about Carey"

  Changed to "Eminem spoke of Carey"

• "It features background vocals by Carey and Trey Lorenz,[10] and lasts for three minutes and seventeen seconds" no need for a comma here

  Removed

• "the composition,[12] which Carey sings over" shouldn't it be "over which"?

  Done

• "The first of her songs alluding to a feud,[14] "Clown" aligns with a pattern of Carey's musical output becoming more personal as her career progressed" I would split into two sentences: " 'Clown" is the first song in which Carey alludes to a feud. It is a blueprint for Carey's musical output..."

  Reworded to remove the comma

• "as did Jim Farber of the New York Daily News, who remarked" I think it should be "New York Daily News' Jim Farber, who remarked"

  Done

Overall a solid article. Happy to support once my comments are addressed. Ippantekina (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ippantekina, replied to all above. Heartfox (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Great work as always. I personally would like to see the inclusion of Eminem's photo but that shouldn't influence my support. Ippantekina (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The citations are reliable and high-quality, particularly for a music article. There are a good mixture of web sources, newspaper and print sources, and academic sources. A consistent citation style is used and there are not any errors in the citation structures. I have just have a few quick clarification questions below:
• For the Charmbracelet citation, shouldn't Monarc Entertainment be included alongside Island Records?

  Added

• Do Dateline NBC episodes have titles? The IMDb entries for the show has episode titles (here), but that is not a particularly reliable source, and TV listings like the one here do not include an episode title. Do you have a clearer answer for this one?

  Factiva only includes the transcript from the interview portion of the episode and doesn't give an episode title

  Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense to me. I would not imagine that a show like Dateline NBC would use episode titles anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why this citation is upside-down?

  An error on Newspapers.com's part

  That's what I had thought, but I wanted to make sure. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done a brief spot-check and most of the information from the sources that I have checked match the citations and what is cited in the article. I do have a comments about this below:
• The Joshua Klein citation points to an unrelated article by Chris Richards (with a different title than the one in the citation). The archived version has the correct article.

  Thanks for catching that

• The Tom Moon citation has the title, They're Back, and Up-Front, but based on the Newspapers.com clipping, the title appears to be: Houston, Carey back to making music. That being said, the clipping is a continuation of a review from another page so feel free to let me know if the title used in the citations is from the previous page. I've been having issues with accessing Newspapers.com (as I seemingly have to log on to the Wikipedia Library to access it rather than going to the site directly like in the past). Otherwise, I'd check it myself.

  The title is from H1 but the clipping is H13 because only H13 is cited

  Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this. Hopefully, this will help to bring this FAC across the finish line and get promoted in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for doing this! Heartfox (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help. Thank you for the responses. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2023 [2].

---

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Griffiths won the professional World Snooker Championship at his first attempt. Like other players of his era, he often found his progress in tournaments ended with defeat to Steve Davis; Griffiths's determination to match Davis led to changes in technique which commentators have said cost him his natural flair for playing. Griffiths retired the year after he dropped out of the world's top 16 players, and developed a successful career in coaching. I can provide relevant extracts from the offline sources to reviewers. Thanks in advnce for your improvement suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)a[reply]

Image review

• Are there any images of the subject that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for taking on the image review, Nikkimaria. I have searched for, and failed to find, any free-to-use images. Given that Griffiths is still active in coaching and other enterprises, I think it would be difficult to justify a fair use image - I can't see any points that would require an image to illustrate them. There are free-to-use images of some of other players such as Steve Davis and Ray Reardon, but I'm a bit cautious about adding those when there isn't one of the subject; but let me know if you think adding some other player images (with captions relating them to Griffiths) would be worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link grammar school?
• "future Welsh national-team members" => "future Welsh national team members"
• "Griffiths, now a bus conductor, had more time available to practise" - this reads a bit oddly. Suggest changing to "Griffiths subsequently began working as a bus conductor, a job which gave him more time to practise"
• "Defending champion at the World Championship," - for total clarity, I would retain the "1980" which is currently piped out
• The section heading "professional career" implies that his pro career only started at that point, but you already covered a big chunk of it in the previous section. Is there an alternative title that could be used?
• "after the first of two-days' play" => "after the first of two days' play"
• Note a needs a full stop
• So does note n :-)
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the aticle. I moved the part about Griffiths becoming a professional into the Early professional career section (and added the opponents and scores for his English Amateur Championship wins into "Early years"). Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @BennyOnTheLoose: sorry to be a pain, but I'd still rather not have the two section headings "Early professional career" and "Professional career". The former implies a subset of the latter, which just doesn't seem right, especially given that the section currently headed simply "professional career" covers only his "declining" years. Maybe it would be as simple as changing the latter to "Later professional career (1983–1997)"? Or even just having all of his pro career as one level 2 section subdivided into 1978–1982, 1983–1989, etc......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, ChrisTheDude. I've gone for pro career as level 2 but happy to amend again if you think the other option is better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, "Griffiths became world champion when he won the 1979 World Snooker Championship" feels redundant. The lead also makes so mention of Griffiths's lengthy amateur career, even though he did not turn pro until he was 30 and won significant titles before that point. I'd suggest this as a revision: After winning several amateur titles, including back-to-back English Amateur Championships in 1977 and 1978, Griffiths turned professional in June 1978. He qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship, his second professional tournament, and went on to defeat Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16 in the final, becoming the second qualifier to win the world title after Alex Higgins in 1972; only Shaun Murphy has emulated the feat since, in 2005.

• Full stop needed after Ding Junhui in the last sentence of the lead.

• I'd suggest that the section heads under Professional career should be formatted as 1978–82, etc. — the second year in a date span does not need four digits unless it falls in a different century (e.g., 1992–2002).

• "was also playing in his first world-championship final" --> "was also playing in his first World Championship final" (caps, no hyphen).

• "His first appearance at the Masters, it was his only win there." This could be confusing, as it may suggest Griffiths never again won a match at the Masters, when of course he did. I'd suggest: It was his first Masters appearance and his only Masters title, although he was runner-up at the event three times in the subsequent four years.

• I might elaborate on the Crucible curse in the context of Griffiths, as he was the first. Suggested edit: With this first-round defeat, Griffiths became the first victim of the so-called "Crucible curse," a term later adopted to describe the failure of any first-time champion to defend their title at the venue.

• No need to hyphenate team-mates — teammates is fine.

• He also won the 1982 Irish Masters, defeating Davis 9–5. --> He also won the 1982 Irish Masters, his third consecutive title at the event, defeating Davis 9–5 in the final.

• "After Davis was unexpectedly defeated by Tony Knowles in the first round of the World Championship that year, Griffiths became the bookmakers' favourite for the title he also lost in the first round, however, to Willie Thorne." Needs fixes for grammar. Would suggest: After Tony Knowles's surprise 10–1 win over Davis in the first round of the 1982 World Championship, Griffiths became the bookmakers' favourite for the title. However, Griffiths also exited in the first round, losing 6–10 to Willie Thorne.

• I've amended thae article per the points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Griffiths never again won a ranking event." This was actually true since his first world title — Griffiths won only one ranking title in his career — so I'm not sure why it's dropped in at this point in the article. It may misleadingly suggest that the previously described wins were at ranking events.

• I've moved this up in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The narrative of the 1986 World Championship could be fixed for chronology. How about: Two months before the 1986 World Snooker Championship, Griffiths began working with coach Frank Callan. After eliminating Higgins 13–12 in the last 16, he praised Callan for helping his game: "I tried to do the right things myself for three years ... Frank has knitted it all together for me. I didn't think anyone knew that much about snooker." He led eventual winner Johnson 12–9 in their quarter-final match, but Johnson won four consecutive frames, two with century breaks, for a 13–12 victory.

• "Griffiths again reached the final of the World Snooker Championship in 1988, defeating Steve Longworth, Willie Thorne, Neal Foulds and Jimmy White, to reach the final before losing to Davis 11–18." No need to say twice in the same sentence that Griffiths reached the final. Suggested revision: At the 1988 World Snooker Championship, Griffiths defeated Steve Longworth, Willie Thorne, Neal Foulds and Jimmy White to reach his second world final, but lost 11–18 to defending champion Davis.

• "After a 4–1 lead against John Parrott, Griffiths saw his opponent level the match at 4–4 by the end of the first session." Overly wordy? Suggested revision: Although Griffiths won four of the first five frames, Parrott tied the scores at 4–4 after the first session.

• "Griffiths moved back into sixth place after the 1991–92 season, reaching two ranking tournament semi-finals and the semi-final of the 1992 World Championship with victories over Bob Chaperon, Neal Foulds and Peter Ebdon before losing to Stephen Hendry." This is a bit confusing as the World Championship is itself a ranking event. Suggested revision: Griffiths moved back into sixth place after the 1991–92 season, during which he reached three ranking semi-finals, including the semi-finals of the 1992 World Championship, where he scored victories over Bob Chaperon, Neal Foulds and Peter Ebdon before losing to Stephen Hendry.

• I've amended the article per the four points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the presentation of Griffiths's retirement confusing. The article suggests that he retired after the 1996 World Championship when he was ranked 23rd in the world. Then it notes that he went on to play Mark Williams in the first round of the 1997 World Championship and says he retired at the end of the 1996–97 season, a year later than previously stated. Some clarification could be useful here.

• Hopefully a bit clearer now; he announced his retirement in 1996, ranked 23rd, but came out of retirement for the 1997 World Championship. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As winner of the world championship, UK championship and Masters during his career --> As winner of the World Championship, UK Championship and Masters during his career

• "He has coached a number of top players, including Mark Williams, Marco Fu, Mark Allen, Ali Carter, Joe Perry, Barry Hawkins, Ding Junhui, Stephen Hendry and Stephen Maguire." Maybe put this list of players in alphabetical order?

• I've amended the article per the two points above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! HurricaneHiggins (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for identifying those improvements, HurricaneHiggins. Let me know if there's anyhting else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for making the changes, @BennyOnTheLoose! Looks good now and happy to support. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lede

• current snooker coach and pundit. - we could probably avoid "snooker" here, as it's obvious from the context. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• He qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship, his second professional tournament, and went on to defeat Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16 in the final, becoming the second qualifier to win the world title after Alex Higgins in 1972; only Shaun Murphy has emulated the feat since, in 2005. - this is somehow one sentence. I'd rewrite In his second professional tournament, he qualified for the 1979 World Snooker Championship. He reached the final of the event where he defeated Dennis Taylor by 24 frames to 16. This was only the second time a qualifier had won the World Snooker Championship, after Alex Higgins in 1972 (and since only emulated by Shaun Murphy in 2005). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended to something similar to your suggestion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think it's worth noting that this was Terry's only ranking event win (I know the rules were different back then). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

• "his power screws and long potting are second to no one's ... it will not be in the least surprising, if very soon he becomes a serious challenger for Snooker's top professional titles." - bit of a long quote - also no need for caps in snooker. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "I'm in the final now, you know."[ - I've seen this a couple times, if it's not a full sentence, the punctuation should go after the quote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• first try[13][3] - perhaps "appearance" or "debut" rather than "try". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Griffiths offered to split the prize money. Virgo declined and later won the match, 14–13. - should probably explain it better that Virgo won, and there's probably a bit more to say about this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lee Vilenski. Ive made amendments to the lead. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski, is there more to come? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To come. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good, and the sources are high quality, except for my notes below.

• For citing books, instead of repeating the cite each time and changing the page number parameters, why not use the ((sfn)) and list the books in a separate section in the references?

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes BBC and its sub-outlets (e.g., BBC Sport) are italicized and sometimes not. This should be consistent.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the publications are wikilinked (e.g., Snooker Scene) and others are not (e.g., BBC and The Times). This should also be consistent.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "Sixth ed.", "Seventh ed.", etc. to "6th ed.", "7th ed.", etc.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The publisher and location for Snooker Scene is not necessary.

• Removed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Turner's Snooker Archive is an SPS and I'm not sure it meets the "high quality" requirement for FAC. In any event, the citations to that source are inconsistently formatted (compare, e.g., ref 34 and ref 67 to refs 62–66).

• This site has been discussed on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard a few times, most recently at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_382#Chris_Turner's_Snooker_Archive where I think there was a consensus that it is reliable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The cites to Snooker Database are inconsistent. Also, the original site appears to be down. Finally, it appears to be an SPS.

• I've used different sources instead. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Snooker.org is also an SPS and I have the same concerns about quality.

• I've changed the source as it was easy to do so. It would be interesting to hear more about your concerns, as snooker.org is often used, e.g. it was for Cliff Thorburn. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• Ref 1: I'm not sure if Snooker Zone is an RS. There's no editorial policy and it's run by just one person, but he has been covering Snooker for a long time. Also, the title needs fixing, as it is displaying as follows: "Three Top Tips from the Master Snooker Coach "Griff" Terry Griffiths…". (Note the double quotes for Griff and the random characters at the end.)

• I've removed this from Template:Infobox snooker player/nicknames as it's certainly not a widely applied nickname. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 2: I'm a bit confused by the structure here; is this a cite to an article about the Queen or about Griffiths?

• It's essentally a list of the awards from the 2007 Birthday Honours, with some commentary. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 9: Use the edition parameter.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 13: Needs cites to page numbers.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 37: Needs a page number.

• Unfortunately, NewsBank doesn't always provide a page number, as in this case. I've added a via NewsBank parameter. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 39: Needs a publisher.

• It's a self-published source - see here for something on Downer, including a claim that the annual Almanac has "become a key resource for commentators and journalists alike". Snooker journalist Dave Hendon wrote (about the 2010 edition) that it was "A major undertaking for Downer, whose efforts should be applauded. The almanac has become indispensible during the championship and is as comprehensive a reference resource as any sporting event could hope for."(Hendon, Dave, "New Almanac ready", Snooker Scene, September 2010, p.30) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 42: Title needs to be capitalized.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Voorts. Let me know if anything else is required. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I will get to this today or tomorrow. Please ping me if you don't hear from me after 48 hours. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: Ref 73 should use bullets for multiple sources, like ref 94. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Voorts, I've amended that. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed. If you have time, BennyOnTheLoose, would you mind taking a look at this FAC? In particular, it needs a source review and spot check. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Benny, thanks for this bio. I have a few comments...

Lede

• It was his the only ranking event victory - remove his
• reached the final of the 1989 European Open - tweak link
• tournaments, Griffiths' determination - Griffiths' s

Professional career 1978–1982

• potting the pink ball and went in off, - in off link needs fix
• and Jim Meadowcroft 9–6 - add link
• and the first to win it at the Crucible - add location?
• in front of a 2,323 spectators - remove a
• His first appearance at the Masters,[26] It was his first Masters appearance - something awry here
• so-called "Crucible curse," a term later - move comma outside quotes
• Griffiths and his Wales teammates retained the 1980 World Challenge Cup for Wales, - are both "Wales" necessary? or maybe, 'and his Welsh teammates'?
• he moved up four places in the rankings to 10th - no ranking previously mentioned
• after Davis recovered from 3–8 to 8–8 - after Davis had recovered?

1983-1989

• I tried to do the right things myself for three years ... Frank has - format ellipsis
• He took the Pot Black title in 1984 - this one out of chronological order?
• defending champion Davis.[19][41]The players had - add space

1989-1997

• to sixth, at the end of the season.[45]The - add space
• fell from sixth to 11th place at - mos:num, make both same format
• he reached three ranking semi-finals, including the semi-finals of the 1992 World Championship - no need to repeat semi-finals? perhaps 'including that of the 1992'
• His best performance at a ranking tournament the following season was the - link 1992–93 snooker season
• "natural flair."[55] Burn - move full stop out of quote

Later career

• Griffiths resigned as the WPBSA director - add this acronym at first mention of World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association

Career finals

• Sources for the ranking and ron-ranking final - typo non

Notes

• note k Snooker Scene reported - add italics

References

• cite 13 Everton 2012, p. 73–74. - pp
• cite 34 Everton 2012, p. 95–96. - pp

Template

• BBC Cymru Wales Sports Personality of the Year - mention this accolade in prose?

Misc

• no available bio info on marriage, family? (only mention is "His son, Wayne Griffiths, is head snooker coach...")

I have not checked the various tables. Pls let me know if you need clarification on any of my notes. JennyOz (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks, JennyOz. Hopefully I've addressed everything from above, but please let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Benny. I have just made a few minor tweaks, pls check. I am happy to s'port promotion. JennyOz (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2023 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about, when you think about books bound in human skin? Some people think of the French Revolution, the rumoured revolutionary tanneries spreading in propaganda; others think of Nazi Germany, the same grotesque mass dehumanization as the supposed lampshades made from human skin; yet others think of serial killers, individual evil, one-off aberrations of a society that knows better. They're all wrong. The nineteenth-century fad of anthropodermic bibliopegy (I assure you that's what the author calls it) was a practice of respected doctors, high-profile and high-status men acting with the approval of their peers and doing things they never doubted the virtue of for a moment. Medical ethics is a recent creation, a historical aberration; even in the middle of the previous century it wasn't a given that medical school cadavers gave their consent beforehand. Earlier? Do what thou wilt.

Dark Archives is an absolutely fascinating book on this subject. Our article on it, as a minor side effect, actually provides more and clearer background on anthropodermic bibliopegy than the article at that title does. (It's on the list! I'll get to it!) I wrote this explicitly intending FAC, and have gotten it as far as I can on my own; it recently passed a highly complimentary GAN by Premeditated Chaos and survived a solid-views DYK without major issue. Over to you. Vaticidalprophet 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Dark_Archives_cover.png could use a more expansive purpose of use statement, and is the author also the cover designer?

• File:Cruelty4.JPG needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cover designer and US tag have been added respectively. The purpose of use statement is the one the upload wizard fills in for book covers (which can't be edited in the wizard) -- is there anything particular that's missing to add now? Will bring it up at the FUW's talk to get that fixed in the future if so. Vaticidalprophet 04:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's interesting. The version provided by the book-specific template is more comprehensive. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with the infobox version from the book template and will see who to poke about possibly expanding the FUW version. Vaticidalprophet 04:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. A fine example of Wikipedia's best work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will have comments tomorrow. Working on something else at the moment. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest linking first use of "DNA testing" in Background section to Genetic testing.

• Since this is an article about a book by an American author, shouldn't "rumour" be "rumor"? Ditto for any other British English uses that I missed.

• Suggest changing link appearance of "New York Times" to "The New York Times".

Support pending comments are addressed. Excellent article. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Bneu2013! I believe these should all be addressed. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Lending my full support now. I'd appreciate if someone else would be willing to take a look at one of my FACs. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing coord duties to review, it's a fascinating topic and the article reads well. Copyedited per my usual practice, pls let me know if any concerns. I'm leaning support but will await a source review before committing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, the article has had a source review now if you're still interested -- thanks so much for being willing to review! Vaticidalprophet 15:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I would normally be thinking about looking at this with a view to closing, but your comment is outstanding. Is it still your intention to review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the source review had finished and was considering the Archeota thing -- I not sure how we'd class a student publication as a HQRS so I'd be more comfortable ditching it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been able to replace that one between two other cites (the NYT review by Hamblin and an LA Times article). Vaticidalprophet 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good show, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only have two small comments:

• I suggest providing a brief description of the Anthropodermic Book Project and its activities.
• In the Scholarship section, the term Anthropodermic bibliopegy is linked for the second time in the article body. — Golden ^talk 14:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give some context on the ABP in the synopsis -- they're mostly involved in PMF testing (I assume they do some kind of...outreach?, but I can't find much details on it). Is there any particular context in the background you'd like? I tried to think of ways to revise it, but I ended up with clunky sentences when I did. Regarding the duplink, WP:DUPLINK now permits one-link-per-section rather than one-link-in-the-whole-body. Vaticidalprophet 02:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That provides sufficient context. I had just expected to see it mentioned at the first reference to the project. — Golden ^talk 10:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support, following the source review. Very good article. — Golden ^talk 23:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting down my marker for a source review. I reviewed this at GAN and found all my prose concerns resolved by the end, so I'm also a support on prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Optional, but author-link may be useful in refs 2 (and 8, 10, 12, 13, 14), 5, and 17
• All refs are appropriately archived where useful
• Refs to the primary source are limited and appropriate - referencing things discussed in the book, for example
• The majority of the sources appear suitable - for the most part, the article relies on scholarly journals, reliable newspapers, and science magazines. A couple of outliers:
  • Archeota is a student publication from San Jose State University. Although it's only used once, it seems to be backing up something non-contentious that's already referenced by a reliable source. Is it necessary?
  • Nerdist is more blog than anything else. Can you sub it for a better source?

That's all I have. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped out Nerdist for a primary interview with UCLA and a conference paper, which is hopefully good enough (coverage is weirdly sparse of exactly what she does even though everyone's enthusiastic to talk vaguely about the connection). Archeota is hard -- I couldn't actually find anyone else clearly say "she went to Europe and America, and nowhere else" rather than vague allusions. Vaticidalprophet 05:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonable. I'm a full support on sourcing and prose. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting down a marker for now. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, soz. Been hectic at work for a week or two - will be here shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "A book on the human soul merits that it be given human clothing". I'm not a fan of this at all. It's got no context and, according to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, a blockquote should only be for forty words or more. We don't tend to have pithy quotes at the start of chapters or sections – that's for books. As a quote box to the side, it may be OK, but not at the start of the body of an article. This would probably be better a bit lower in the description of why some people did this.
• I presume this is in AmEng? If so, it may have fallen out of favor, not "out of favour"
  • I have...disfavored-the-'favoured' :) (I'm not sold on the interpretation of STRONGNAT that includes "if a work is first published in X country you must use X English even if it doesn't colloquially have 'strong national ties'", but it's the tendency I've been asked for here before, so trying to work to AmEng here.) Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

• "librarianism": is that actually a word? Even if it is, is there a way to rephrase it to something that doesn't sound made up?!
  • I ended up removing 'in librarianism' -- it wasn't a great phrasing in the first place. Not sure if it's necessary, as I thought while originally writing that, to specify "other librarians, rather than specifically only members of the Anthropodermic Book Project" (who come from multiple backgrounds). Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "discourage their public reveal": is this OK in AmEng? It jars my BrEng ear, but is it's fine in the US, then no problem
  • My native engvar is too internationalized to make a good call, but that sentence has been copyedited multiple ways by multiple people. I ended up expanding this (and splitting it into a new sentence) to make it clear what it's actually trying to say. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Research and publication

• "disagreed with Rosenbloom's attitude": I'm not sure you've made her point of view clear yet. You've done excellent work outlining the contents, but not her position or thoughts on the practice.
  • Ye-es, will work on that. The Rosenbloom-Needham juxtaposition is the biggest example, but a little hard to fit into the already-very-full synopsis; I'll take a look at what can be revised.
• This section has only one very short paragraph on the publication. Is there nothing else available to discuss? (Any second editions or reprints, in audiobook format, sales details, book lists, etc. Probably not, or you would have already included them, I'm sure, but worth asking.
  • Certainly worth asking. Book sale numbers tend to be very sad, and accordingly not well-publicized. Even getting much on the agency is unusually good. It's possible this can be expanded over time (we're not so far from publication for the book to have many editions yet), so I'm looking towards it from a future-proofing/living-document perspective. I like your suggestion about combining the recommendations, and will see what can be done there. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

• I have a bit of an issue with the first paragraph here. It's broad and sweeping in the claims it makes, but bases those claims on only two reviews. The opening sentence "Dark Archives received generally positive reviews" needs a citation as it's OR at the moment. The rest of the paragraph has a series of claims (such as "Commentators discussed", "Several reviewers", "stances were also a subject of reviews" etc) that make this look like a meta review of reviews of the work, but the two sources are just two standalone reviews for the book.
• "The book was praised by reviewers for its depth of scholarship and its reckoning with ethical issues." Again this is OR and needs a source (even if the sources you use elsewhere in the paragraph are dropped in here to justify it, it still needs a citation)
• "The writing style, aesthetic sensibility, and philosophical leans of Dark Archives attracted attention from reviewers": Another introductory sentence to a paragraph that is OR without citations
  • Yes, all of these are tricky. I've had the opposite query in the past re. "subsections have insufficient context" and am trying to find the neither-decontextualization-nor-OR middle ground. I've cited the first sentence of "Scholarship" and have currently commented out the other two while deliberating what to do with them. I really wasn't happy with the introductory paragraph myself, so am mulling over it a little, but expect it'll probably be removed. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "Rosenbloom is a high-profile member of the death-positive movement": the first part of this paragraph would be better suited to the background section. You can then start with "Sheilah Ayers at the University of Lethbridge..."
  • Good idea, will rearrange. (The background was written about a year and a half before the rest of the article due to...editing hiatuses.) Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved this and cited the 'intro sentence' on the writing style (Special:Diff/1174719709). Vaticidalprophet 07:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "criticised" x 2 -> "criticized"

Recommendations

• Is it worth moving this up to the "publication" paragraph? It's a topic that straddles both reception and publication and you're thin on one and full on the other. Just a thought and I'll leave it to you.

Interesting piece – I'll have to get hold of a copy of the book now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your comments! I've given first replies to most of them and will work towards resolving the lot soon. Vaticidalprophet 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working updates: I've tweaked the reception section somewhat to cite more clearly (if creating a bit of a taxi-cab ref rank effect) -- this and other changes can be compared in this diff. I'm still thinking about a good way to make Rosenbloom's stances clearer in Synopsis, but should hopefully get that sorted soon. Vaticidalprophet 16:26, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vat - just let me know when you're ready for another look and I'll pop back. If you need any suggestions or thoughts, just ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet, how are you getting on with addressing SC's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm alright for the reception now and should hopefully have the synopsis resolved in the next couple days for another look (am drafting revisions offwiki). Vaticidalprophet 17:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vaticidalprophet, it has been nearly a week, how is this going? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the reception somewhat to make the links between citations and statements clearer, and back up some trickier things (e.g. the generalized "positive reception" statement is now sourced to the aggregator Book Marks). This also saw it trimmed a little, which I hope is okay. The synopsis has been expanded to explicitly mention the range in views on this topic -- I think it's still okay on length. I'm struggling with the quote -- I don't see a good place for it much further down, and I think it genuinely works where it is. SchroCat, what are your thoughts at the moment? Vaticidalprophet 00:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support OK. This is much better now and I'm happy to support. I'm still not on board with the quote where it is, but aside from that, it's a great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2023 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American university president and Jesuit who had a fascinating life story. While in the Navy, he converted to Catholicism because he happened to recover a book that had fallen into the sea, read it, and began thinking about his religious beliefs. He then became a university professor and later the president of Georgetown University. Should this FAC pass, it will raise the presidents of Georgetown University good topic to featured topic status. Ergo Sum 14:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am fond of university president articles (see here if you fancy giving my college president FAC a look) so I'm happy to review this. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to give that a look this week. Ergo Sum 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "that accidentally came into his possession, and prompted him to become a Catholic" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "vice president of Spring Hill College in Alabama, before being appointed president of Georgetown University" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "including the completion of Gaston Hall, the construction of the entrances to Healy Hall" → remove comma and add "and" after "Gaston Hall"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "for several years as treasurer, before doing pastoral work" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Recommend linking Prefect, maybe specifically to the "Ecclesiastical" section of that article
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• "was a devout Congregationalist, and he was raised in that faith" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "His conversations with his shipmate convinced Whitney to consider" → pronouns are used for the first part of the sentence before switching back to his name - I'd keep it pronouns all the way through ("...convinced him to consider...")
  • When there are two people in a sentence who are referred to by the same pronouns, I find it is often best to be clear when there is potential ambiguity. Here, I think specifying Whitney is helpful to the reader. Ergo Sum 18:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Given what is said about him in the article and for his presidency of Hobart College, I think a redlink for James Kent Stone would be reasonable
  • I agree. Done. Ergo Sum 18:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "He taught mathematics for a year, before returning" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "in Grand Coteau, Louisiana from 1893" → comma after "Louisiana" per MOS:GEOCOMMA
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think the dual link to Fordham University is necessary - in these sorts of cases, I usually leave the old name unlinked and just link the current name, but if you want to do the opposite that's fine
  • Fair point. I've removed the first link. Ergo Sum 18:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University

• "was opened, and the first patient" → remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "That year, he also received a donation" → this may be picky, but did Whitney receive the donation or did Georgetown?
  • Fair point. I've clarified that it was the university. Ergo Sum 18:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any reason given as to why the dental school was eventually accepted into the school of medicine?
  • I am not able to find any explanation for the faculty's decision. Ergo Sum 18:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "It would eventually become" → "It eventually became" per WP:WOULDCHUCK (which is an essay, but one that I particularly like)
  • I think there is a place for "would." In this instance, it suggests that it happen in the distant rather than immediate future, specifically outside the timeframe of Whitney's presidency. Ergo Sum 18:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Later years

• "Whitney became the treasurer of Boston College in 1902, and held this post until 1907" → remove coma after "1902"
  • Done. Ergo Sum 17:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

• In the academic offices box near the bottom of the page, is there a reason why no successor prefect of St. Ignatius is listed?
  • The source does not identify who succeeded Whitney as prefect and I am not able to find any other source that does. Ergo Sum 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now, I'll circle back for another look when you're ready. As a note - I will likely be quite busy with real-life stuff tomorrow so I might not be able to get back to this until Thursday, but I will try to avoid keeping you waiting for too long. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PCN02WPS: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple more things I spotted on my second read-through: "Whitney's tenure as president came to end" should be "came to an end", and I'd link Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians as part of the citation for George 1972. Also, the fact that he was specifically the 32nd president is not mentioned in the body of the article, so I think it would be good to include that with a source. All of my spotchecks looked good so it's just these things as far as I'm concerned, though I would fix the link to Easby-Smith so that the reference doesn't automatically open to pages 226-227; I'd say either have it open to the start of the book or to p.211 since that's the beginning of the page range mentioned in the citation. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed phrasing. Added journal link. The Easby-Smith link for me does already go to page 211. As for the number of his presidency, this has been a discussion on other FACs I've done for university presidents. It's often difficult to find a source that states the number of a particular presidency, and I'm of the opinion that it's one of those minor but useful details that need not be cited because it's evident and can be inferred from e.g. the List of presidents of Georgetown University. Ergo Sum 14:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes are good and the book link is fine since I realized it just opens to whichever page the user was last on, rather than going to 211 by default. I only brought up the ordinal of his presidency because it was brought up at my last FAC, where I was able to find a source but only because the source was specifically about her in its entirety, rather than just giving her a mention or a blurb. I'm okay with your reasoning (and might adopt your opinion on the subject as my own should I ever run into that on a nomination of mine in the future). Happy to support the FAC. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add Template:Use shortened footnotes
  • Done. Ergo Sum 14:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ...where he became prefect of St. Ignatius Church. - not too familiar with religious titles, but is this missing "the" before prefect?
  • I think it's one of those titles that can have an article in front of it or none. Like "he was elected president" or "he was elected the president." I've added an article in the article. Ergo Sum 14:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove wl from London per MOS:OL
  • Since there is little link context here, I think it is useful to link the first mention of the city. Ergo Sum 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wl wikt:spendthrifty
  • I'm not sure this qualifies as "technical terms, jargon or slang expressions or phrases." Ergo Sum 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• His funeral was held in the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Boston, and he was buried at the... - remove comma
  • Done. Ergo Sum 14:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is Easby-Smith the only source with an OCLC? Not having ISBNs makes sense, but I'd be very surprised if the others didn't have OCLC numbers.
  • I insert OCLC identifiers only when an ISBN is not available. ISBN is a much more useful identifier but, in my opinion, the next best thing is OCLC. Ergo Sum 14:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo Sum, that's all I got, nice job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, @MyCatIsAChonk:. Ergo Sum 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Jesuits" article is linked twice in the lead.
  • The reason I did that is because one is linked from "Jesuits" and the other from "Society of Jesus". To those not familiar with the Jesuits or Catholicism, generally, it is not obvious that those two terms refer to the same thing. Ergo Sum 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps writing "Society of Jesus (Jesuit Order)" would resolve the issue? — Golden ^talk 14:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My inclination is to leave it as is. Adding parenthetical asides in the lead, in my opinion, breaks up the flow of what is meant to be an overview section. I think the reader should be able to infer from the fact that he was a Jesuit (first sentence) and that he entered the Society of Jesus (later), in conjunction with those two links, that the two are the same organization. This is the setup I have used in other FAs. Ergo Sum 14:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair. — Golden ^talk 14:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we have any information at all about Thomas G. Whitney? What made the family prominent?
  • I am not able to find any additional information about this. Ergo Sum 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "His mother was a devout Congregationalist and he was raised in that faith." - To avoid repeating "his mother" in close proximity, you could rephrase the sentence as: "Esther was a devout Congregationalist and raised John in that faith."
  • Done. Ergo Sum 14:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you provide a brief description of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd?
  • Added a brief description. Ergo Sum 14:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further suggestions. This was a brief but pleasant read. Well done! — Golden ^talk 09:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Golden: Thank you for your review. Ergo Sum 14:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes. Support. — Golden ^talk 14:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cough! Gog the Mild (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, you still onto this one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay on this. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Most citations are formatted consistently in an appropriate format for a FA, with just a couple of minor issues:
• Does "Easby-Smith, James Stanislaus (1907)" needs the middle name written out; the source itself appears to just have "Easby-Smith, James S." Your call though. Also, there is no need for the page range to be given here, although again, it is no biggie.
  • I just put the middle name here because it seems like elsewhere, the author's name is usually written with the middle name. Ergo Sum 14:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In "Delany, Joseph F.; Farrelly, Stephen; Meehan, Thomas F., eds. (December 1917)" the "S.J." needs to be spaced out to "S. J." per our MOS.
  • I'm not familiar with an MOS provision concerning this. In the source here, S.J. contains no space, and the convention for post-nominal letters for Catholic religious orders, generally, and the Jesuits, in particular, generally do not put a space between the letters. Ergo Sum 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter, the MoS requires a space. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the change, but can you point me to a spot in the MOS? I'm genuinely curious and would like to know for future reference. Ergo Sum 02:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't twigged that they were post-nominals. In the case of post-nominals, the MOS says they should only be included "at relevant places in the main body of a biography subject's own article, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour". However, I gather they are part of the title of the article, so I would suggest that they should remain, but be styled as post-nominals normally as, such as in the lead of this article, without full-stops at all: "Necrology: Rev. John Dunning Whitney, SJ." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All the sources used individually appear to meet our criteria as reliable sources. However, I have a slight concern that the article is heavily based on sources which could have bias. The subject of the article was a Catholic priest and Jesuit notable as president of Georgetown University. The most heavily used source is the Woodstock Letters, a periodical publication by the Society of Jesus. Following that is what appears a history of Georgetown University written by someone from Georgetown University and an article from a journal published by the United States Catholic Historical Society. A further history of Georgetown University was published by Georgetown University Press, leaving only the "Catalogue of Loyola College, Baltimore" and "Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians", both of which support a single sentence each as independent sources. @FAC coordinators: I would appreciate some guidance on whether it is felt that this meets our requirements for sourcing. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 15:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to register my two cents here: I have used the Woodstock Letters extensively in many other FAs and GAs without issue. With rare exception (which primarily only occurs in some of the very earliest WL issues), I have found them to be entirely neutral and balanced when it comes to factual accounts and I am frequently able to verify the facts with other sources. Of course, WL also contains some degree of eulogy in those articles that are obituaries, but I have not observed any of the factual portions to be inaccurate or slanted. Plus, in an article like this and other historical Jesuit academics I have written about, there are just very few sources that go into a lot of detail, so WL is usually the most detailed and extensive. Ergo Sum 14:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias (and @FAC coordinators: for information), I take your point and share your concern. Can I just check that we are all agreed that the sources used are all "high-quality". If so, then the MoS and the FAC criteria have little to say about how a series of individually acceptable sources may raise concerns in the aggregate. Assuming that there are no other HQ sources which could be used instead - especially for any more subjective parts of the prose - or which contradict - however subtly - the sources used, then ES has done the best they can with what there is. Which is what Wikipedia and FAC is about. Many academics have axes to grind, but we trust the editorial processes of the works in which they publish to keep them in check.

I generalise broadly here, so feel free to come back for further guidance/opinion/waffle. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many sources could be considered biased one way or another, but it is certainly not typical to source most of the material for a FA article to sources that are not independent or have a COI with the subject. I would not nominate an article for FAC if I could not source it from mostly independent sources. However, the difficulty with university related subjects is that a lot of the available sources are published by the university and/or its university press, etc. (t · c) buidhe 14:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe and Gog the Mild: my reading of the above is that although a legitimate question has been raised we're not seeing it as a barrier in this case to the source review passing (and leaving the way open to promotion, all other things being equal) -- is that a fair observation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I was attempting to communicate in my response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias, this is probably ready for you to revisit. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, with that coord confirmation, I'm happy to mark this as a pass for sources. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 07:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:John D. Whitney.jpg - 1906 image. So old it is PD in the United States.
• File:Gaston Hall, Georgetown University 4a11816v.jpg - 1904 image from the Library of Congress. Copyright expired - PD

All images are appropriately licensed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2023 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little-known dinosaur whose carcass underwent a long and complicated journey before being deposited in the open ocean. As the first description of this genus is in German, this article is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive account of the topic in English. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

• Any chance of a location map show where the specimen was found?

Found and added one. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the only species is Ohmdenosaurus liasicus." Could that be 'the only known species' or similar?

Fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "3–4 m (9.8–13.1 ft)". The conversion seems to be spuriously accurate.

Yes, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and contained abundant and well-preserved fossils". 'contains'?

Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "transported by predators or water currents by at least 100 km". i am unsure that "by" is necessary.

It isn't, removed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1862, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen". You sure about that date? (Seventy-four years before he opened the museum.)

Oops! I made a mistake, it was 1892! Good spot! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "small remains of fish", Does this mean the remains of small fish, or small fragments of the remains of fish?

The latter, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "This makes it one of the earliest sauropods known at the time." Known at what time?

The time of first description. I hope I made it clear now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was also the only fossil of a terrestrial saurian known from the Toarcian". Is this still the case?

No, as above, hopefully fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing, Gog. I hope I addressed all your comments so far. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good stuff, thanks. A fascinating article. I don't actually have anything else to query, so supporting. Fine work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thank you very much! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Exhibited in a local museum, the Urweltmuseum Hauff, it caught the attention of... Perhaps rephrase to "While being exhibited in local museum,.."

I fear that "while" implies that there was a time when the fossil was not exhibited, but it always was. I tried to formulate it differently, please see if this works. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ..and later also to extract oil. "and later to also extract oil."

Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wild recognised the specimen as a misidentified dinosaur fossil, borrowed the specimen for study, and carried out additional preparation. He recognised it as a dinosaur fossil, "misidentified" is redundant here.

Yes of course, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The fossil, which has no specimen number, consists of .. Is it still the case that it has no specimen number?

Still no specimen number as far as I know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It had long been part of the museum's collection and was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.. Suggest rephrasing to "It had long been part of the museum's collection after it was collected from one of the early quarries near the village.."

I prefer "having been", and changed accordingly, what do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Having been" works even better, thank you. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This rock indicates that the fossil stems from the Unterer Schiefer.. "comes from", or "was found in". "Stems" has a different connotation that doesn't fit here.

fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ..and in this case might have been preserved thanks to the impregnation of calcium salts. Impregnation? What is that supposed to mean here?

Ah, "impregnation with", probably. Changed. Impregnation means that the fossil is soaked with calcium salts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume impregnation is the technically correct term here, although it carries vastly different meaning for most people. Since I can't think of a good way to rephrase it, though, I won't suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "absorption" which I think should mean the same, does this work better? Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ..the area of the ankle that experienced the highest stresses in the living animal,.. "the area..that experiences the highest stresses in living animals,.."

Changed to "in life", hope that works as well (as I'm not sure it should be generalised to other living animals). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, if its meant to refer to sauropods specifically there... well, I don't know enough about how certain that is a hypothesis to really suggest changing it further. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wild only said it would have been the area of highest stress in the living animal, so I am careful with implying that it is the same in every other animal. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae has been demonstrated to be polyphyletic (does not form a natural group) and therefore fell out of use. -> "Later, however, the Vulcanodontidae was demonstrated to be polyphyletic (not forming a natural group) and therefore fell out of use."

Changed accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are there no cladograms in the Classification section?

There is only a single published cladogram that would qualify. All other studies decided to not include this taxon because it is too fragmentary, and this still seems to be consensus (one other study included it but found it to be instable). I think not including the cladogram would maybe better reflect the scientific consensus, and more honest to our readers. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a cladogram, both for the normal reasons and also because the Classification section as it currently is, is something of a wall of unrelieved text. A cladogram adds variety and illustration. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Can we have your opinion please? I am undecided. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, if I had written the article, I would have included it just for completism/context, but I can see it may be a bit "undue", as most readers would just see that as the final word. Is it this "In 2020, Oliver Rauhut and colleagues included Ohmdenosaurus in a phylogenetic analysis, but found it to be unstable as it was placed in different positions in the tree by different variants of the analysis"? If so, could be interesting to at least state the different positions in prose? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the cladogram from the 2022 article (the last mentioned in the "Systematics" section). I think I will include it, then, also because this study has a whole paragraph of discussion on Ohmdenosaurus, so it is clearly relevant. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now added the cladogram, but it looks a big ugly. Any ideas for a better layout? Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some close-ups or other angles of the fossil that could be used to fill up the white space? FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Not very good ones because the specimen is behind glass in poor light. I will see what I can come up with later. Alternatively, I wonder if it is possible to get the cladogram in a box so that it behaves like an image, with text flowing around? Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure someone at WP:treereq should be able to do what. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ..the tibia and ankle were found in articulation,.. I suggest "the tibia and ankle were still articulated when found," and link articulated if there is an appropriate article/section.

Yes, did that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The life restoration needs alt-text.

Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overall, good work. It is comprehensive, which (IMO) is the most important thing when it comes to obscure fossil genera. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to hear that! Thank you for your review. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since all that is left is the cladogram, which I do not consider an absolute requirement, I am going to Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just leaving a quick note here that I'm stepping in to review the article. Currently working through it, and should be able to provide my comments within a day. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...it might have been close to - I'd change this to something akin to "it might have been closely related to", I think it would read more clearly

Fixed, and also updated to reflect the most recent study. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It is the only dinosaur fossil known from the shale. - Paleobiota of the Posidonia Shale seems to indicate otherwise. Maybe you're referring to the fact that it’s the only named dinosaur fossil from the shale?

That article is highly problematic because it contains huge amounts of WP:OR. The other dinosaur fossil listed there is based on a study from 1956, which predates all Ohmdenosaurus sources (which clearly say Ohmdenosaurus is the only dinosaur fossil so far). While I do not have that 1956 article (which is somewhat obscure), the WP article states this alledged dinosaur fossil is a sauropodiform, but that clade was only named much later, so this information cannot possibly be in the cited 1956 soure. I therefore want to ignore it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the problematic nature of the article, apologies!

• ...that preserves - Should "preserves" not be in past tense here?

Hmm, I don't think so, since the geodes are still present? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course! Oversight on my end

• ...determined the dinosaur fossil - I'd add "that" inbetween "determined" and "the"

Added, thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...the Lias, an old name for the Lower Jurassic of Europe - Was this term used unilaterally or only in certain areas? Might be a nice addition to include if it was specific to a certain area.

Hmm, yes, only in Europe, but I already mention that? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider this fixed then

• Between tibia and astragalus… - “Between the tibia and astragalus”?

Of course, fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...cartilage covering - I think this would read better if changed to “cartilaginous covering”

OK, changed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sauropodomorpha consists of the quadrupedal sauropods, - Were some early sauropodomorphs not bipedal? I might be misremembering, but if so it might be good to include something like “of the mostly quadrupedal sauropods”.

Yes, but I only say "quadrupedal sauropods", and all sauropods were quadrupedal as far as we know. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pose an issue in clarity either when reading through it again, so thats good!

• ...probably needs to be - Should “needs” here not be in past tense?

I don't think so, because this is what Wild stated, and from his perspective, it should be present tense. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohmdenosaurus is the only known dinosaur fossil from this formation - Same concern as listed in my second comment.

See reply above.

Here are all of my comments so far. I should mention that this was an absolute joy to read! The Morrison Man (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review, and that is great to hear! I addressed all of the above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comments on your replies, but overall I do believe that everything has been addressed properly. Good work! The Morrison Man (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is not literally ripped off the source, yes? I wonder if File:Ohmden in ES.svg can be made a little larger. Only one image has ALT text. Image disposition appears to be reasonable.

Regarding sources, reviewing this version. I presume the inconsistent identifiers (DOIs, bibcodes etc.) are due to the sources having different identifiers (e.g not all sources have an ISSN?). It seems like all sources are reliable and suited for their tasks. Were these sources consulted and ruled out before application? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! To your points:

• File:Ohmdenosaurus-holotype.png is my own work, based on a photograph I took myself.
• The map size looks ok on my screen, do you think that the text is too small to read? I am worried that this map in larger will look ugly, but it is not a strong opinion of course.
• I added some more ISSNs where I could find them. But aren't these redundant for journal articles anyways if we have a doi? From my understanding, only (newer) journals have ISSN, so the book chapters don't.
• Yes, I believe I incorporated all available sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo ? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it's a pass, noting that I didn't do much spotchecking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "world's major fossil Lagerstätten (fossil deposit of exceptional importance)." I have always seen Lagerstätte used to mean fossil deposits which are important specifically because of their exceptional preservation, rather than important generally. Is this wrong?
  • Yes, the definition is "fossil deposit of exceptional importance". However, there is a type of fossil Lagerstätte called "Konservat Lagerstätte", and their importance indeed lies in their exceptional preservation (and incidentally, the Posidonia Shale is one of them).
• "In 1892, Hauff presented an ichthyosaur specimen that preserves the original body outline, revealing that ichthyosaurs possessed dorsal fins." This does not seem relevant.
  • This is what made the Hauff collection and the Posidonia Shale famous. It was a big discovery in Paleontology. This is why I included it to provide the reader with some background. But if you think it should be removed, I will do.
• "As all sauropods, Ohmdenosaurus was a quadrupedal (four-legged) herbivore". "As all" sounds wrong to me. Is it USEng?
  • Changed to "Like all", hope that works.
• "Based on this evidence, Wild concluded that the specimen must have been transported and deposited twice: once from its place of death to the first site of deposition near the coast, where the weathering took place". I do not understand the logic here. Why should the specimen not have died at its site of deposition near the coast? This needs clarifying.
  • Hmm, the source doesn't say this explicitly, but the point is that the specimen was partly covered by sediment. This means it was at a place where active and significant sediment deposition takes place, maybe somewhere in a river, but certainly not a place where the animal would spend its day voluntarily. So it probably died somewhere else and was washed to this place, if only by a relatively short distance. I added a hint to the sediment cover, but I guess this will not be enough, but I can't think of a way to put this that does not go too much into WP:Synth. I will try to think tomorrow about how to write this more clearly.
• No change needed, but it seems extraordinary that a predator dragged its prey 100 km. Do you know whether there are definite cases of this behaiour?
  • I agree that it seems a bit unusual. I do not now about other examples. But apparently, Wild thought that transportation of the heavy bone by water currents was even more unlikely (and he did not discard that option). Since it is the only dinosaur found in the Shale, while hundreds of complete skeletons of marine reptiles were found there, it must have been an extraordinary process that brought it there.
• Looks fine. Just a few minor niggles. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, thank you for your review. One point I still need to solve, the rest are adressed! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope I now solved the remaining issue. All addressed now. Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I am sceptical on two points. I do not see why the body had to be moved twice. Plenty of land animals hunt in intertidal zones. I also find both explanations for the movement of the body 100 km dubious. A storm surge as a result of the collapse of a natural dam of a large lake seems more likely. Of course, you have to go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2023 [6].

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From Victoria to Victoria via Bedlam and Broadmoor, Edward Oxford's life was an interesting one. The first failed assassin of Queen Victoria before incarceration and then relocation to Melbourne for a new life with a new name. He died a respected member of the church and a published author with a wife and family—without anyone in Oz knowing of his old life and crime. A hugely useful PR saw excellent critical commentary from UndercoverClassicist, Tim riley and JennyOz which has helped immeasurably, but any further comments are most welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagging a spot now. I would have participated in the PR, but time got away from me. Not making the same mistake twice. Review soon(ish). Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First comments:

• the private secretary to the Prime Minister - is the link to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom needed? Seems like a bit of an overlink to me.
• Prime Minister - Per MOS:JOBTITLES, shouldn't "prime minister" be lowercase? I do see a lot of similar cases too, like "Earl of Uxbridge" and "Lord Chamberlain", so they'd need to be consistent. Either way is fine to me; the MoS is a bit strange sometimes.

  I too am often confused by the unclear and seemingly contradictory nature of the MOS on this point. I take the use here to be "a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" because we're referring specifically to Peel. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• At around 6:00 pm Queen Victoria - maybe just "6 pm"?

  MOS:TIME seems to suggest the minutes should be included. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• four months pregnant with her first child, Victoria, the Princess Royal - two commas disrupt the flow a bit: how about "four months pregnant with her first child"?

  I think if we just refer to "her first child", someone will complain about not having the name, but if someone else comments on the name and commas, I'll happily swap it over. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Victoria recorded in her diary - as there are two Victorias mentioned in the preceding sentence, you could do "The Queen recorded in her diary" or something similar.

  Yes, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The trial took place on 9, 10 and 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey, central London - Maybe "The trial took place from 9 to 11 July 1840 at the Old Bailey in central London"?

  Yes, done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that some quotations begin with capital letters in the middle of sentences, like: "They concluded "We find the prisoner, Edward Oxford, guilty of discharging the contents of two pistols, but whether or not they were loaded with ball has not been satisfactorily proved to us, he being of unsound state of mind at the time."". This looks a bit strange to me; I know that if the full sentence is quoted, then the start will have a capital; however, I think lowercase quotations throughout might not look quite so out of place.

  That quote is a full sentence, so the MOS says we should keep the capital. I've been through the rest and I think we're in line with the MOS strictures, but please let me know if I've missed any! - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Soon after his arrival at Broadmoor ... - what's happening with the spacing just above that paragraph?

  Fixed - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Arthur O'Connor worth a redlink?

  Yeah, why not. There doesn't seem to be as much on him as on Oxford, but there is certainly enough for something for him. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I've got for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just realised: forgot to ping SchroCat. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Tim, that's very good of you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Further comments tomorrow, just so you know that I've not forgotten to "vote" for either support or oppose. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Not today, alas. My apologies. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely busy in real life, I'm afraid. I've read the article and the PR fully, I take it in good faith that the refs match the content, and I don't take issue with the images. Support as an FA. (By the way, I believe that I've only ever participated in FACs or FARs on people called Edward: III, Dando and Oxford. Weird.) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size

  Ah, didn't realise it's finally been deprecated for IBs: now swapped out. - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edward_Oxford_c_1856.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Edward_Oxford's_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg, File:Edward_Oxford_in_the_dock_for_regicide.jpg, File:John_Freeman-Edward_Oxford_(1889).png

• File:Edward_Oxford_tries_to_shoot_Queen_Victoria_in_1840_by_JR_Jobbins.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Updated. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the 'when first published' question:

• File:Edward_Oxford_c_1856.jpg: Unknown, but should be free, according to this
• File:Edward_Oxford's_assassination_attempt_on_Queen_Victoria,_G.H.Miles,_watercolor,_1840.jpg: Unknown
• File:Edward_Oxford_in_the_dock_for_regicide.jpg: Sold as a contemporary print in the 1840s
• File:John_Freeman-Edward_Oxford_(1889).png As it's a carte de visit, it would have been given out in the 1880s/90s

Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That National Archives chart refers to UK status; my question is more on the US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok: it is free, if I have read this right: anonymous work becomes free at 120 years post-creation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I see 120 years in that flowchart is for material not created before 1978; am I missing another one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if I had read it properly and followed the right lines. Expiry of 31 December 2002, I think. - SchroCat (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of my comments were satisfactorily addressed at the peer review, but I'd still like an answer to my question about the line in the Incarceration: 1840–1867 section: "Grey ignored the request"– did Grey literally ignore the request, or did he consider and reject it? Over to you, but it isn't enough to stop me adding my support in any case. A balanced, well sourced and highly readable article, nicely illustrated. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 17:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reviews, Tim. I checked previously about Grey ignoring the case, but then forgot to update the PR with my findings. The source actually uses the word “ignored” on this.

Fair enough. Tim riley talk 11:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No spotcheck needed, looking at formatting/reliability. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Source to the site Queen Victoria's Journal Entry need "registration" in the access parameter

  Does it? I don’t think registration is needed to access it, does it? - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unrelated, but why does fn b have wls to the currencies but none of the others do?

  Because LSD is something alien to most people, even in Britain. I was alive when we still had the Carolingian system, but never used it or had to deal with it, and many people younger than me won’t even have heard of it, or know how it worked. - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of locations of publication is inconsistent. Andrews 1997 says just the city, while Eigen 2003 names the city and state, while Charles 2014 names the city and county, while Garvey 2020 has no location at all.

  Should now be consistent, as far as is possible. Some cities in the UK don't have counties, so that’s the best that can be done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Queen Victoria 1963 needs the editor- and, since there's no ISBN, add an OCLC

  Yep, both added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wallis 1892: I think the publisher and location are backwards

  Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Webb 2012 is listed as dead, but the orig link works fine for me

  I’m not seeing where is says it’s listed as dead. The |dead-link=| parameter isn’t there. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Some links could be added to the journal section for better verifiability; there's likely a JSTOR article for the ones with no DOI

  There were two with no link: I’ve added a JSTOR link to one, but the other doesn’t have anything I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Bethlem Museum of the Mind sites are also not dead for me. Same for Berkshire Record Office 2009 and The British Museum

  Same as the Webb comment above. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Two of the sources under "Websites" are news articles with no URLs- don't these go under "News"?

  Yep, should have been there all along. Now moved. - 08:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

SchroCat, all done, great work! Universal sfn use is painstaking but very visually pleasing. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk? All sorted as far as I can, with a couple of questions above. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat:

For QV's journals, it displays a login page for me, and I've never visited the site before, so I'll assume it's the same for other first-time viewers.

Ah: I see the problem: it's registration for non-UK and some non-Commonwealth users, which is why I've never had to register for the site and there is no facility for me to register or login. Fixed. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Webb 2012 and others: this citation is still displaying as dead for me. It probably has something to do with the url-status= parameter; if "live" is not in the parameter, then it will continue to put the archive link where the orig link should be.

Ah, I see - I was confused by you saying the link was showing as dead when it's not. I'm not sure that's really an issue (both links will still remain in the same position), but I've now added this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks MyCatIsAChonk. All sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - also, if you get time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC. Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 10:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review - it's much appreciated. I'll try and make time to to visit your FAC (RL is hectic, but I'll do my best!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting myself down here, ping to remind me if I forget :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor quibble that you use "seedier" and "seedy" in successive sentences in the lead; may want to sub one to prevent repetitiveness
• "in Hounslow, then in Middlesex" - I realise that what's happened here is that Hounslow is now under another administrative division, but "then in" makes it sound like the city itself moved. No big deal but maybe "then part of" might be better
• "annoyed at the attention being on someone else" incredible
• "Numerous others" - I'm not sure about this phrasing. It makes it sound like there were previous people described as visiting the station just to see him, but these are the first ones mentioned.
• No gripes through the trial
• "doctors considered him to be sane" - does anybody say why?

  Just that he didn't exhibit any behaviour they considered 'mad' - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wonderfully subjective, isn't it, madness? I'm reminded of the Rosenhan experiment, only in reverse. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The letters Oxford sent to Haydon were kept." passive voice. Could we activate and clarify that it was him and his family who kept them?
• Really enjoying the way everyone is riffing on the "Lights and Shadows" title
• As a minor quibble, the image under Legacy is shoving the "Later attempts" section header to the side, can we put it on the right side so it doesn't do that?

  The Leach cartoon? The figure is looking into the article (like the photo further up), so the MOS says it should be on the left. I've dropped it down a paragraph: does that sort the problem? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mm, that section says it's often preferable, but doesn't mandate it. Fine enough where it is though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure some of the last paragraph and block quote of the "Later assassination attempts" section is really necessary in this article. I understand up to the establishment of the M'Naghten rules, because his case weighed on those, and the comment about Maclean's verdict, but the rest seems more pertinent for an article about assassination attempts on the Queen than about Oxford. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

  Possibly a little too much, but Oxford ties them all together - certainly in Victoria's mind, as she was always a bit miffed that the light treatment Oxford received meant that it was open season for people to claim insanity if they failed to knock her off. She was still complaining about it forty years later when Maclean had his attempt. I'm minded to leave it in for the moment, but if others find it odd, I'll trim it down a bit. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see where you're coming from, that's fine by me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "One of the book's characters is Sim Tappertit, described as a "vainglorious apprentice" by Murphy and a "sinister and darkly-comical figure" by Hurst, who was modelled on Oxford." - I might move the last clause to be second, so we know he was modelled on Oxford before we start describing him

That's all I have! Nitpicks mostly. Another interesting figure from English history, well-written and -researched as always. Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PMC, as always. All done, except where I've commented otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I'm happy to support; my comment about the legacy content isn't such an obstacle to me that it overcomes the excellence of the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks PMC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to lay claim to this spot. ~ HAL333 05:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and fired an arrow at another boy, injuring him in the process" -- Isn't "in the process" somewhat redundant?
• "drew up a document of eleven rules, signed by the fictitious A. W. Smith; the first of these was You do not talk about Young England". Sorry I couldn't resist.
• We have a sea of blue with "pathologist Thomas Hodgkin"
  • I think both links are needed, but there’s no real way to separate the, without some semantic gymnastics. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• and those incarcerated there had committed crimes while judged to be insane Is a comma needed before "and" to link the two independent clauses? As always, if this is a Br/AmEng issue, disregard.
• Maybe link opium dens

That's all I got. Very well-written. ~ HAL333 19:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HAL, that’s very good of you. I’ve demurred on one, it followed through on the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support. ~ HAL333 17:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will review here once others have had their say; as above, please do ping me if I'm "up" and taking too long. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: the M'Naghten rule, the legal aphorism is "bad but not mad", I believe. Shove that in somewhere. Cheers! SN54129 14:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UndercoverClassicist, I think the others are all clear now. No rush - I’m happy to wait until you’ve de-trussed yourself! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful what you wish for, SchroCat. There may be over 30,000 bytes of comments coming your way ;) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - I like UC’s reviews. They’re one of about five reviewers who really know their stuff. - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a member of this inner circle? By the way, will review Gordon-Cumming soon; sorry you've had to wait a week. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! No problems on the delay - I know you've had your hands full of Liz Truss (a horrible thought, I'm sure). - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In my eternal quest to find the smallest nit to pick... the alt text for the image isn't all that helpful to people who can't actually see it, given that the main point of the image is to tell us what Oxford looked like. Suggest including a brief physical description.
  • still to do Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• he was detained at Her Majesty's pleasure at the two State Criminal Lunatic Asylums: Bethlem Royal Hospital and Broadmoor Hospital. : consider a brief explanation of "at HM pleasure" (detained indefinitely "at Her Majesty's pleasure")? Also suggest putting the two more explicitly in sequence, as he wasn't detained at both simultaneously: perhaps first at Bethlehem... and then, after 1864, in Broadmoor. As there's a long gap, it might be good to say so, but appreciate the demands of brevity in the lead.
• He worked as a decorator, became a respected figure at his local church and married: cadence is better if "married" is moved to the beginning, but appreciate that this might be a chronological list.
• The Oxford and the later M'Naghten cases: not quite sure about the grammar here with cases agreeing with both Oxford and M'Naghten but only one of those being later. Perhaps "Oxford's trial, and the later M'Naghten case..))?
• Why link Birmingham in lead and infobox but not in the body?
• His parents were George Oxford and Hannah (née Marklew): it's fairly obvious, but I'd be explicit about his wife Hannah (theoretically, she could have been Hannah Smith, née Marklew).
• The couple met in the Hope and Anchor tavern,: consider Birmingham's Hope and Anchor tavern: it would not be surprising for someone to be born elsewhere than where their parents met.
• His parents' relationship was abusive: I think we mean George and Hannah's relationship here, but it reads as if we mean George's parents.
• fits of unprovoked, maniacal laughter: could restructure this sentence a bit so that the reader is clear that the quote, as well as the judgement, is Murphy's (I'm assuming it is?)
• I see the inflation figure for Oxford's fine: is there any way to contextualise this via cost of living (that is, how far did 150 2023 pounds actually go?) I imagine we can find some sense of what that much money would represent in terms of daily/weekly wages for a low-paid worker like Oxford? Indeed, from the following sentence, this sounds like about two and a half weeks' wages.
  • still to do Done - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street: we need a verb after the semicolon.
• Oxford took a series of other bar jobs: I worry that bar may be anachronistic (or possibly American): particularly in the Victorian period, a public house was more than what we'd think of as a bar. Separately, we move around London a lot in the next few sentences, so I'd suggest a series of jobs in other London pubs to ensure that readers understand the link between Marylebone, St Luke's and Oxford Street.
• Link shooting gallery to shooting range? Potentially an obscure term, especially to non-native speakers?
• About a week after he moved in, he hit his mother for no reason: "for no reason" doesn't sound great to me. Presumably, there was a reason for it, even if that reason only existed in Oxford's head or would be considered absurd by most of us. Suggest "apparently for no reason" - or did he actually say that he had no reason for it? If the latter, I'd state as much: it would be interesting if Oxford acknowledged/asserted his own irrationality in light of what follows.
  • Done. A footnote added with Hannah's testimony of the occasion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Over the next month Oxford also spent his time: also isn't right here; we haven't said anything else he spent his time doing. Perhaps simply "Over the next month, Oxford invented..." - we can take as read that he also did other things?
• Wikilink brace to brace#Noun at Wiktionary, or consider the more international "pair"?
  • It's a quote, so went with the dictionary. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• He drew up a list of principal members: none of these members existed, right? I found myself having to look back up the page to make sure.
• Oxford walked to Constitution Hill, near Buckingham Palace, and waited for two hours.: did Oxford have any reason to believe that the Queen would be coming past here?
• It seems a little odd to explain "drosky" but assume that readers know "postillions".
• When that missed: that doesn't really have an antecedent: When his shot missed? Stylistically, a slightly buried lead: you might consider "His shot missed: he said...".
• Is drew out the same as drew? If so, there's a maxim about this....
• Suggest replacing the & with and in the diary entry per MOS:CONFORM, and adding a comma after equally loud for the same reason. The quotation conforms so closely in all other respects that these don't really read as period features, if indeed they were.
• What's the logic as to when the first letter of a quotation is capitalised?
  • Whereabouts are you looking at with this? - SchroCat (talk)
    • It was Onlookers apprehended Oxford—some shouting "Kill him!"—and disarmed him that caught my eye, vs for example he charged Oxford with "maliciously and unlawfully discharging two pistols at the Queen and Prince Albert" UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 22:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah: "Kill him!" is a single sentence shouted by an onlooker (ie. "Kill" is the opening word of the sentence), "maliciously" not the first word in the sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        OK, so should the same apply in Victoria's diary to "my God! Don't be alarmed"? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        Yes, - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• openly admitted his culpability: suggest cutting openly here: you can privately admit something, but not by shouting it.
• Police were soon on the scene: a little bit of cliché.
• and Oxford was arrested and taken into custody at the nearest police station: double and reads a little awkwardly: could replace the first with a semicolon, or perhaps "police soon arrived and arrested Oxford, who was taken into custody...".
• I'm not sure exactly what showing the public that they had trust means: is it the same as "showing the public their trust [in them]"?
• Why quote Murphy rather than paraphrasing here? Seems like a fairly uncontroversial statement of fact, which should generally not be directly quoted.
  • I've cut it entirely - it doesn't really add much beyond the 'trust' part of the sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oxford hinted that he was not acting alone: had not acted?

As ever, mostly small points and extremely quibbleable in almost all cases. More to follow (hopefully not 30,000 bytes, but you never know...) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No quibbles on any of these. All done to some extent in these edits, although there are still two that I need to do. Many thanks as always! - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• All now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More follow:

• I like the three images of the assassination: give a date for Miles?
• Per WP:POPE, suggest amending Ernest Augustus, King of Hanover., to Ernest Augustus, king of the German state of Hanover.
• Murphy considers him...: this is interesting, but somewhat beside the point unless Murphy also considers that people in Victorian England would have agreed. Any thoughts here?
  • Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. The first part of the sentence partly covers what people thought of Augustus, but now reinforced this. - SchroCat (talk) 09:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Although there was some initial doubt about whether his pistols were loaded: put Oxford's name back in, as we've just been talking about Ernest Augustus.
• were loaded ... he admitted that they were: tense is off here: should be had been (at least the second time) since, when he was asked, the pistols were not loaded (he'd fired them).
• he said they were only charged with powder, not shot: phrased as if these two things are alternatives: suggest "with powder but not with shot".
• Among those who were summoned: among those summoned?
• This carried a possible punishment of hanging, drawing and quartering: I looked this up, expecting to find that it had been centuries since that sentence was actually carried out, and was unpleasantly surprised. I gather that by this point it was practically a sentence of hanging (the corpse was beheaded after death), but not sure that's worth much more than a footnote.
• A great many witnesses against me: this is only a fragmentary sentence, but I'm happy with that as long as the grammatical error is Oxford's.

• Yes, according to the source, it is. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could consider adding [are] after witnesses: would perhaps help non-native speakers for whom copula-dropping isn't as natural as it is for Anglophones. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• all he would admit to was firing the pistols at the Queen: as distinct from what? Was he denying firing them at Albert?
  • Looking into. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the point is that he only said he fired at the queen. He didn't admit to anything else (Young England or anything else). I've struck the last three words in case they cause confusion to others. - SchroCat (talk)
• by Sir John Campbell, the Attorney General and Sir Thomas Wilde, the Solicitor General.: how many men are involved here? If two, would put a comma after the Attorney General. Was it usual to hyphenate in those days?
  • Comma added, but not sure of the hyphenation. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Military ranks like major-general and lieutenant-general were generally hyphenated until the 1980s or so: my thinking was that if we're going to use the capitals for the actual title, we might consider putting the hyphen in if it would have been used at the time. On reflection, MOS:CONFORM would weigh against that anyway, so I wouldn't advise a change. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Positive inaction from me on this! - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Although when he was first questioned Oxford had said he had loaded the pistols, the arresting officer said he may have misremembered Oxford's exact words: the way that the first part is worded, it sound as if Oxford's admission is a fact whether or not the arresting officer reported it accurately. Do we have some other testimony than the officer's? Otherwise, would rephrase.
  • Looking into. - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about changing this. There were several witnesses on the day when he made the admission, but (and this is a bit of OR), it looks like only the arresting officer that was present in court to be questioned about it. Taylor looks like he was a good enough lawyer to get a policeman tied in knots over a question of the exact wording he later wrote into his notes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Capitalise the beginning of the long blockquote on Oxford's sanity?
  • done as an ellipsis instead - SchroCat (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Would spell out the abbreviation &c to et cetera (I assume these remarks were made orally?)
• a lecturer at Charing Cross Hospital on medical jurisprudence: more usual the other way around ("a lecturer in Mathematics at Oxford"), which also removes the grammatical ambiguity as to whether the lecturer or the hospital was focused on medical jurisprudence.
• You find him not guilty, or he was [guilty], but for his insanity: this reads as question, but isn't reported as one. Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

  It was a statement that the judge meant to clarify the decision of the jury. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider using SFNM to group consecutive SFNs
  • Still to do. I don't mind seeing two refs together (or two and a footnote), but will combine where there are three of more: does that suit? (There are some where there will have to be three, which is where there are some sources that don't work with SFNM). - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can always use the REFN template and then HARVNB to make the footnote read whatever you like: I recently had to do that a few times in Henry Biard when multi-citing sources that use slightly unorthodox SFN references. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Excellent - thank you! - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865. They described: appreciate that the journalist is anonymous: can we rephrase to avoid the singular they (and described...)? Perhaps I'm being old-fashioned, but it reads as unstylish unless consciously used as someone's preferred pronoun.

  We don't know the gender of the reporter. (In all likelihood a man, but it's not recorded who wrote the piece). - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course: I was suggesting A journalist from The Times visited Broadmoor in January 1865, and described... as a way of avoiding a pronoun altogether, or perhaps A journalist from The Times, who visited Broadmoor in January 1865, described... UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep: works for me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• who was leading a group of inmates who were decorating the premises: can we get rid of a who here?
• with the support of the Chairman of Broadmoor, the deputy superintendent, the hospital's resident doctor and the prison surgeon: odd capitalisation here. I think MOS:PEOPLETITLES would decapitalise chairman here.
• although they were ranked above nurses, attendants and keepers, who were more like servants (footnote): two things: were keepers more like servants, or were nurses and attendants also more like servants? Secondly, what exactly does were more like servants mean: do we mean something like were afforded a similar status to domestic servants or similar?
  • Still to do - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, done - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• an organisation "aimed to improve their members' minds with debate, supplementing the push of the time to create public libraries and other institutions to illuminate the working man's world".: we should always be able to infer the source of a quotation from the text and citation: this sounds like it's quoting some kind of charter or constitution of the club, but that isn't spelled out.
• Does John Francis rate a redlink?
• Sinclair notes that "John Oxford" was unlikely to be Edward Oxford: notes implies that this is certainly true: if John Oxford has nothing to do with Edward Oxford, I'm a little at a loss as to what he's doing in Edward Oxford's biography.
• Sinclair showed that: minor, but I'm a little uncomfortable with showed that being applied to primary research in a PhD thesis: it's very common for scholars to pick those apart and say that, while she may have argued it, the matter is still not settled. I would be more reassured by a secondary source giving its seal of approval that Sinclair had indeed finished the conversation.

  I've softened to "considered" for the moment, but will look further. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Oxford's name thereafter would be associated with the insanity defence, and the divisive medico-legal debate regarding criminal insanity that would continue over the course of the nineteenth century.": perhaps not really quote-worthy, at least not in full: seems to be making a fairly simple point.
• that the force of the law is entirely put into the Judge's, hands: remove the comma per MOS:CONFORM.
• The matter of the insanity defence was raised in the House of Lords, which put pressure on the government, which suggested the Lords should ask the judges of the Law Lords to clarify the situation.: can we rework around the double which (in particular, I'm not overly clear whether it was the HoL itself or the raising of the insanity defence there that put pressure on the government).
• Shortly before his trial Oxford was visited: I know that we disagree on commas, but surely we need one after trial here?

  I'd still demur here, I think. Five words is my trigger point on introductory commas ("From the beginning of September, etc), but I know people differ on when to include. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink French Revolution.
• The events took place while Dickens was writing Barnaby Rudge (1841): while the brackets are fairly standard usage, in context it's a little unclear whether we are glossing the publication date of Barnaby Rudge or explaining "while Dickens was writing...". Suggest ... writing Barnaby Rudge (published in 1841).
• sinister and darkly-comical figure: remove hyphen per MOS:CONFORM.
• Suggest giving months for the publication of Barnaby Rudge and The Old Curiosity Shop, as both are 1841 and we don't currently have a clear chronology.
• whose plot centred on one of Oxford's descendants—also called Edward Oxford—who travelled back in time to assassinate Victoria: works of fiction are written about in the present tense: whose plot centres ... who travels ... Later, the book includes...
• WL BBC Radio (and capitalise)

Many thanks UndercoverClassicist. Pretty much everything covered on a first run, although there are still a few points I've flagged up that I still need to cover. Any more comments always welcome, as well as any further pushback on rationales I've given for inaction above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the text: all outstanding to-dos are minor and should be no obstacle to the article's passing.

Thank you, as always, for your wonderfully detailed review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edward Oxford tries to shoot Queen Victoria in 1840 by JR Jobbins.jpg: we've given the date of the work as 1840, but do we have any evidence of the original publication? It's almost certainly PD but we need to evidence that correctly.

Added a note that Alamy class this as a PD image - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, there's a strong enough presumption of PD that we should be content here. Frustratingly, no image review was conducted when Queen Victoria, which also uses the image, was re-promoted to an FA in 2011, but overall my inclination would be to say "good enough" on this one. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:This accurate representation of Edward Oxford shooting at the Queen, on being held before a strong light, magically discovers the means which saved old England's hope from the assassin's LCCN2006678821.jpg is listed as "unpublished" in the info provided by the Library of Congress: we should therefore use a matching PD tag. At present, our licence contradicts this.

They've taken that description from the British Museum, whose classification of images is, frankly, woeful. It's so filled with errors as to be largely useless when determining PD status. I've added another reference from Alamy that the image is PD. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on the BM, but it seems to me like the balance of probability is for PD-US-unpublished (that it wasn't published before 2003, and was created before 1903). Unless we have good reason to think that the LoC/BM assessment is wrong, rather than simply unreliable, I'd go with that, as it's a "proper" PD tag and stronger than simply passing the matter to Alamy. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, swapped out the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edward Oxford's assassination attempt on Queen Victoria, G.H.Miles, watercolor, 1840.jpg: could include its "publication" c. 1871 or in Binyon's catalogue (that Laurence Binyon, apparently), which would solve the problem identified with the Jobbins image.

Added - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Edward Oxford in the dock for regicide.jpg: similarly, do we know anything about publication?

Missed this one: also now swapped over the licences. - SchroCat (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we can use CC 4.0 for File:Asylum for Criminal Lunatics, Broadmoor, Berkshire. Wellcome L0004829.jpg: the Wellcome page only has the affirmation that they believe it to be PD ("Public Domain Mark").

I think we're fine with this one. As it was published in the ILN in 1867, it's definitely PD. (If I upload a copy directly from the ILN, I'd certainly publish it as a PD image), - SchroCat (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, it's certainly PD, but we can't then release it under CC 4.0: only the copyright holder can do that, and we've established that we're not them, since nobody holds the copyright. We just need to change the licence templates to reflect the true reason why it's PD. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: swapped out for better licences. - SchroCat (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:John Freeman-Edward Oxford (1889).png: publication info?

None. Swapped the licences out for the right ones. - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Add PD-SCAN to File:Lights and Shadows of Melbourne Life title page.jpg: the work is clearly PD, and this indicates that the image is as well.

Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:"The Regicide Pot Boy" - Satire on Edward Oxford.jpg: again, PD as scan.

Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• File:The Old Curiosity Shop, illustration by Phiz (Hablot Knight Browne), 1840.jpg: fine, but the stain on the edge annoyed me enough that I've gone and fixed it.

Mostly formalities, as is often the case. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pass as far as I see it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schrocat, looking good. I've looked over changes since PR. Only a couple of comments...

• You were going to add an age or two. Maybe at "Oxford accepted, and on 22 October 1867 he was released." -insert 'after 27 years' or 'now aged 55' or somewhere else? (just to emphasize how looong he was in there.)

  Ah - I completely forgot about that! Now added in a couple of places (the sentencing and release points), which seem to be the most appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ref 55 Moran 1986, pp. 175–175. - tweak page number/s

  Done - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to add an external link to his papers at NLA, use the URL from this cite (provided by Trove)^[1]

  Thanks! Now added - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (Unrelated to Oxford article, but there's also a journal of Haydon's from his 5 years in Melbourne for when/if you change his red link to blue^[2])

  That's good to know - I'll try and run up a start article when I have time. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more that I can see to note:) JennyOz (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged to you once again. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All's good! Happy to s'port and thanks for another interesting bio. JennyOz (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JennyOz - I'm much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

• "He was dismissed from the Shepherd and Flock in Marylebone High Street after he attacked a colleague with a knife he lasted only a few months at the Hat and Flowers in St Luke's; and four months at the Hog in the Pound in Oxford Street, where he was on the equivalent salary of £20 a year." -- equivalent to what?

  Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trial

• "According to Murphy, the biggest weakness of the government's case was that they could not prove that the pistols were loaded." -- do we need the second "that"?

  From a strictly grammatical point, yes. - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "The judge, unhappy with the non-standard nature of the decision, bade them retire again to reconsider" -- typo?

  For "bade/made"? No - past of "bid" - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, of course. Cassianto^Talk 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incarceration

• "The case notes on him in February 1854—probably by Bethlem's superintendent, William Charles Hood—described how Oxford "from the statements of the attendants and those associated with him he appears to have conducted himself with great propriety at all times". Hood recorded that Oxford spent much of the time learning" -- we say it was "probably" Hood, then go on to state it was him. "The notes recorded that Oxford..."?

  Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read with gusto. A well written, well researched piece from a writer who has a real knack of picking fascinating, engaging subjects. Despite my nitpicks and any resolution to them, my support stands. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cass - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Cassianto^Talk 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 24 September 2023 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC), User:HurricaneHiggins[reply]

This article is about the non-ranking professional snooker article. A crazy one time event that featured incredibly large crowds and now holds the record for the highest attendance at a snooker event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski and HurricaneHiggins: I have no comments on the (very impressive) prose, so I'll focus on sources. I'll do a spotcheck once the following have been addressed so there's no mixups regarding numbering. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, all citations titles should use sentence case or title case
  • Now in title case. 12:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Most of the Eurosport UK citations need authors
• Refs 10, 12, 31 are dead
  • Fixed with archives Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 17, 21, 26, 30 need dates
• Ref 14 needs author
• For a number of the World Snooker citations, I see authors in the citations, but don't see authors in most of the actual webpages- am I missing something, or is the whole site written by "Ivan"?
  • I have no idea why that happened. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - Looks good now, great job MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Following Zhao Xintong's withdrawal, his replacement Mark Williams" - both linked in the previous section so no need to link again (or use full names rather than just surname)
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• "after Williams went in-off" - is there a link for this slightly esoteric term?
  • linked Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's all I got - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy peasy ChrisTheDude Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this version. Spot-check upon request and warning that this isn't a topic I know well. Is snooker.org a reliable source? #19 has a byline. Otherwise, the source formatting and information seem OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yeah, we use snooker.org as an award winning website for statistical results only (things like match results, brackets etc). I do need to write up a page for what sources are good for cue sports related media, but I've had this conversation on a series of FACs, and it's always been fine. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, any more to come on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More than three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress 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) 16:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good shape. Comments to follow. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Eight players were chosen to compete at the event, the six highest ranked players following the 2022 World Snooker Championship and two players from Hong Kong, Marco Fu and Ng On-yee. - feels incomplete as a sentence. Maybe a semicolon after "event", or "event. "They were..."?
  • I've split this into two sentences. I think it flows better now too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It set a new record for the largest live audience at a snooker match, with around 9,000 spectators attending the final - as it's a fairly short article, I'm not sure we need this info in lead, Format AND Final. Maybe remove from "format" and move The previous record of 3,000 spectators had been set at the 2017 edition of the event to the Final section?
  • Agreed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sure that snooker.org is not "in Norwegian"

• Article still has this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We often add cuegloss links for "frame" and "deciding frame" at their first mentions.
  • Done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• a match that lasted 52 minutes - if possible, add some context. (i.e. to explain that this is pretty quick)
  • I've put "only" so we can assume it's a quick amount, rather than a long amount. It's difficult to state an amount for how quick this is
• missed a red; the final blue; seventh frame on the pink; the third frame on the black - maybe add "ball" and/or cuegloss links. Does a general reader understand "won the frame on the pink" etc?
  • these should be fixed now.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• the yellow pocket - I'm not sure that a general reader will understand this term. There is a cuegloss link.
  • Linked. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Prize fund reference doesn't verify the highest break amount. I can probably find a source for this.
  • Do you have the Snooker Scene for this event? I couldn't find much. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the reference. It doesn't state a total, but I make it £314,000 rather than £315,000, so I amended that in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The external link to Hong Kong Billiard Sports Control Council Co. Ltd. (HKBSCC) seems to be broken, and the version Archived 6 January 2020 isn't of much relevance to a 2022 event.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the external link to Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) useful?
  • Removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Too_many_flags_(part_2) about flags in the draw. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this and possibly removing some flags.
  • Seen it. Doesn't look like we're going to get a consensus really. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 28 (Eurosport) does have a readable archive); author is missing from the citation.
  • Added. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't get back to this quicker. Had a long weekend. Shall take a look ASAP. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lee ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think that's it BennyOnTheLoose. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're happy with the amendment to the prize fund, then just the point about the snooker.org langauge pending, Lee Vilenski. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that's fine. Removed the lang=no. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2023 [8].

---

Nominator(s): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a television station that didn't broadcast in color at all for its first 19 years of broadcasting, channel 13 in western Washington sure has had a colorful history. A summary would run too long even for FAC, but it can be roughly divided into six periods: its foundation as KMO-TV, the short-lived television adjunct of a long-running Tacoma radio station; the J. Elroy McCaw and Blaidon years as KTVW, which saw it run second-fiddle among local independent stations and ended in bankruptcy and a year of silence; its operation by the Clover Park School District as an educational station, curtailed by changing financial circumstances and new local exigencies; return to commercial operation under Kelly Broadcasting, which included Fox affiliation (in 1986), relocation of facilities to Seattle (in 1997), and the beginning of a news department (in 1998) and left KCPQ the definitive fourth force in regional television; 20 years under Tribune Broadcasting, which built KCPQ up substantially in the area of news, and briefly Nexstar Media Group; and its operation as an owned-and-operated station of Fox after the network had coveted it since the 1990s. Along the way, readers will learn of its status as the "funny, fuzzy" station on Seattle's TV dial; the court-appointed trustee who saw enough during an episode of Batman; and Fox's almost-plan to abandon KCPQ and build a Fox-owned station out of the TV equivalent of sticks and stones.

My thanks go to Mike Christie for conducting a pre-FAC content review and providing the only comment on the first FAC last year, SounderBruce for taking a photo for this page (an exhaustive search for libre-licensed images in 2021 came up quite empty-handed), and to Trainsandotherthings for conducting the GA review in 2021. I welcome all comments and suggestions. Please don't be scared by my lowercase-lacking titles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating my support from last time. I've read through again and have just one suggestion: I would remove the "deceased" notes from the list of notable former staff -- this is not usual practice and I think adds an update burden that is unnecessary. That's a matter of opinion though and does not detract from my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good thought. Another one of those things our pages do that they shouldn't. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A school system owning a station? Now that is new- seems like an interesting article! It looks well-written already, my comments are just going to be on minor grammatical things (which, really, are on a take-them-or-leave-them basis)! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The buyer for channel 13 was Seattle broadcaster J. Elroy McCaw... - false title
• During Kelly's 19-year ownership of KCPQ, the station became a Fox affiliate; relocated its studios from Lakewood to Seattle; and established its present local news department. - why are semicolons used in this list of things?
  • Changed.
• Within a year of starting the TV station, after 27 years of broadcasting dating to the launch of KMO radio, owner Carl E. Haymond... - this is two dependent clauses stacked against each other; not against the rules, but it's rather odd to read (also, false title). Maybe just cut the 27 years detail, or rephrase
  • Flipped order
• owners of Seattle radio station KAYO (1150 AM) - false title
  • Leaving this one in because it is very hard to reword this well. I have removed most of the other false title issues except where they cause excessive commas.
• equivalent to $2.85 million in 2022 dollars - this needs a citation
  • Added to all of the inflation items.
• equivalent to $2.44 million in 2022 dollars - this too
• KTVW's general manager served as president of the team - "the" president of the team
• dropped the CBS Evening News with Douglas Edwards to - wouldn't "with Douglas Edwards" be part of the italicized title?
• which would have come with an upgrade to the maximum 316,000 watts;[7] local residents objected - semicolon is unnecessary, a period would work just fine
  • Leaving this one be, I think there's a causality here that binds the sentences.
• on short notice, Pat O'Day was called in to do commentary, starting a 46-year streak of announcing the races for various radio and television outlets. - IMO, better fits in her article, using it in this one seems out of focus
  • Fair point (though Pat's a guy)
    • My bad for assuming, thanks for the fix MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wl "the economic slowdown" to Recession of 1969–1970
• Might just be me, but adding a wl to insolvent would be helpful
• equivalent to $65.6 million in 2022 dollars - citation needed
• McCaw's estate sold KTVW to Seattle-based Blaidon Mutual Investors Corporation - sold KTVW to "the" Seattle-based...
• equivalent to $5.48 million in 2022 dollars - citation
• hosted by Las Vegas lounge entertainer/singer - false title
• Despite KTVW's improved and sometimes innovative programming and even ratings that at times were competitive with KTNT-TV - three ands, needs to be seperated with commas instead
  • Removed the "innovative" and the "even". This should not need a comma, even in its original form.
• approval of the CBN transfer; president Don Wolfstone - first, false title; second, is he the president of Channel 13 or CBN?
  • Reworded. Wolfstone has already been introduced at this point, so I shouldn't even need a title.
• equivalent to $22.1 million in 2022 dollars - citation
• As a result, court-appointed trustee Bruce Clements - false title
• decided he had seen enough - now, I didn't look at the source, but this seems like a very possible WP:OR issue; and, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic; I suggest cutting it and merging the rest with the following sentence
• By 1975, KPEC-TV's UHF aging equipment, which had been in service for more than a decade, was aging and needed replacement - aging is said twice here
• and a commercial group headed by Tacoma Twins manager Stan Naccarato also bid - false title
• equivalent to $1.42 million in 2022 dollars - citation
• equivalent to $1.98 million in 2022 dollars - this too
• equivalent to $19.1 million in 2022 dollars - triple threat
• equivalent to $1.26 million in 2022 dollars - another
• "8 p.m." should use an nbsp per MOS:TIME; same for 10 p.m. throughout
• Political reporter John Komen was the only holdover - false title
• IMO, "The winds of change" isn't a very encyclopedic header; if all the other headers describe the ownership, call sign, or possible sales, I suggest this section header do the same
  • Changed
• Having large sections that are multiple paragraphs long, followed by two sections only one paragraph odd, is odd. I think the last two sections can be merged under the header "Attempted sales" or similar
  • Combined with a different header than your suggested.
• hosted by anchor David Rose - false title; but, also, this detail is not needed, since his name is in the shows title

Sammi Brie, that's all I got, very nice work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MyCatIsAChonk: Just took a look at everything and did most of it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:37, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support - thanks for the quick responses! Great job! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Heya, MyCatIsAChonk! Would you mind removing the ((tq)) template? Per the banner at WP:FAC, templates that alter fonts shouldn't be used here 'cuz they slow down load times. Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pamzeis: Figured I'd do this by find-and-replace. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops, my bad- thanks for notifying me, and thanks Sammi for fixing it! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this down, expect to have few issues. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious low-hanging fruit: is citing the original NYP report necessary for reader understanding? To be clear, I'm reasonably convinced it is, just querying that because people will query less politely if a FAC passes without that being raised. (Prose comment: Tribune announced that it had been notified by Fox that its affiliation with KCPQ would be terminated is clause-stacking enough to be difficult to follow.)
  • Reworded that section.
• Sources otherwise seem unproblematic, with a comprehensive array of local and national news sources as appropriate for the subject matter, all archived when appropriate, no serious formatting qualms.
• Do refs 76, 124, and 154 (I think a handful of others too, but it's a fiddly text wall, you know) have any kind of byline or is it actually just 'no name given, not even an allusion to a staff writer'? I spotchecked a couple accessible sources that had no byline given and confirmed that they were, but it's easy to misformat a couple times in a huge list like this, so just querying.
  • Just checked all of those. No author.
• Not a FAC comment: Impressed that there's a real person named By Fish.
  • I later discovered his name is Byron (more on the author). He is indeed "By Fish" on this column ("By BY FISH").

There are a ton of sources here, as should be expected from the nominator's track record for comprehensiveness. These are minor queries considering the absolute number. The NYP one is really the only one that needs attention, and I tend to think "that's a reasonable primary use backed up by a reliable secondary source confirming this is something that matters", but I'm mentioning it in case anyone who reads source reliability differently and hasn't noticed it wants to object. Vaticidalprophet 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vaticidalprophet: I believe that citing the Post is justified here because its reporting was then cited by Deadline and Broadcasting & Cable and prompted Tribune to make public statements confirming the report. Also, its ownership—Murdoch—is relevant to the topic at hand. In addition, I have tweaked the clause-stacking issue. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass the sourcing here. I left this open for a few days to see if anyone would object or have other queries, and am happy with the general silence (I agree with Alien it'd be nice if we could-in-theory have more non-news sources, but for the individual station articles I get this is implausible, and you're certainly in-depth in your research). Vaticidalprophet 23:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General notes:

• There are a lot of semicolons in this article. For me at least, it can be distracting if there are more than a few.
  • I tend to have longer sentence structure, so I think this is more of an agree to disagree case.
• A few uses of "however" that can be removed. This word doesn't usually add any additional meaning to the sentence.
  • I left one in as having a bit of a causal link, but otherwise I removed them.
• I've never heard of any requirement for citations when having a template calculate inflation, especially since the template documentation page is already cited.
  • Believe it or not, this was added in response to early
• There are a few very short (1-2 sentence) paragraphs. These should be combined with other paragraphs when possible.
  • Done, though I left one or two in because the topical break is noteworthy.
• Fox is described as "coveting" three different times in the article, including one of the headings, causing it to stand out
  • I've reduced the use of "covets" except for the one header.
• The sources seem generally reliable, but it's more difficult to say that they're high quality. A lot of them are newspapers (especially local newspapers) rather than higher quality academic or analytic sources. I don't know how avoidable this is for this topic, but it's something worth mentioning.
  • Book sources are few and far between in local broadcasting, and academic sources are even rarer. The general mix I have in my articles of this type consists of trade publications (Broadcasting/Broadcasting & Cable, TVNewsCheck, Variety) and local/regional papers. I'm a bit lucky that there are several relevant papers (two Seattle dailies and the Tacoma newspaper), regarded as newspapers of record in their area, which each had media columnists with regular articles on the matter.

Lead:

• Is "signed on" a professional term for a radio station beginning operation?
  • Yes.
• "the adjunct to Tacoma radio station KMO" – Does the average reader know what an adjunct station is?
  • Reworded.
• "The buyer for channel 13 was J. Elroy McCaw" – To me, this feels backwards. I personally would write something like "Seattle broadcaster J. Elroy McCaw purchased channel 13 and changed the call letters..."
  • Reworded. I had reworded this earlier on a false title concern.
• "as a competitive independent." – "independent" is better served as an adjective than as a noun. I suggest rewriting this sentence so it can end in "as a competitive independent station".
  • It's used a lot this way in the industry, but changed.

History:

• "After 27 years of broadcasting dating to the launch of KMO radio and within a year of starting the TV station" – This is a little confusing. Could it be reworded or divided up a little bit for clarity?
• "the station's lack of network affiliation and financial losses" – This could be read as "lack of financial losses".
  • Added an "its"
• "warned that it appeared it would" – Reads awkwardly with these "it"s. Can "it appeared" be cut altogether?
  • Reworded
• "Two months later" – Two months from when the FCC stepped in or two months from when the deal was scrapped? A simple date or month would be clearer.
  • Changed.
• "with which several of its principals had connections" – Is there a clearer way to say this?
  • Reworded.
• "McCaw tried to make several moves" – Unclear what "moves" means in this context
  • Reworded.
• "the station increased its effective radiated power from the Ruston transmitter to 214,000 watts" – This doesn't tell the reader much. What was it before the increase?
  • 100,000. Added.
• "McCaw was regarded as a penny-pincher" – I'm not sure about this wording, both because it seems informal and because it's a charged claim that should probably have a stronger source.
  • Added a little more here and reworded from "penny-pincher" to "frugal".
• "fell into a tailspin after his death" – This feels like an idiom
  • Changed
• "consummate the purchase" – I'd use a different word here
  • I would too, except that's the legal terminology used in this industry and by the FCC.
• "to the tune of $3.5 million a year" – This feels informal
  • Reworded
• "it counterprogrammed election returns" – 1980 United States elections might be a more appropriate link target.
  • Changed.
• "expanded to include a strong offering of college sports (including Washington and Washington State football) and even tried its hand at a full local newscast" – Feels ever so slightly promotional
  • Reworded.
• The "Fox covets Seattle" section frequently uses the "in month/year, this happened" format, which makes it read like a list.
  • Reworded.
• "After lead FCC commissioner Ajit Pai publicly rejected the deal after" – Two "after"s in the same sentence
  • Reworded
• "$6.9 billion in cash and debt" – I understand "in cash" to mean physical paper notes.
  • In this case, companies do pay for M&A with cash (often in actual bank accounts) sometimes. The source states, Nexstar will be paying $46.50 [a share] in cash and values the transaction at $6.4 billion, including the assumption of Tribune’s debt. The cash portion is valued at $4.1 billion.

Local programming:

• "tried its hand at a regular local newscast" – Feels informal
  • Reworded.
• "proposed to produce" – Awkward wording
  • Reworded.
• "channel 13 "wasn't ready" for the venture" – According to whom? The quote suggests that this is someone's opinion.
  • Added.
• Was there no non-news programming prior to 2008?
  • Specifically this section is for current programming, for the most part.

Ping me if you have any thoughts about any of these comments or feel that they've all been addressed. The nominator and reviewers here might also consider reviewing my open nomination for Barbara Bush. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for taking this one. Addressed pretty much everything. I know this is the first thing of mine you've reviewed, and broadcasting topics can be kinda hard for reviewers, so thank you. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple more thoughts:

  • It now reads "who rebuilt the station as a more competitive independent station". I would swap out "the station" for "it".
  • I think a brief summary of past programming is necessary for comprehensiveness, if such information is available. Obviously it doesn't need to list every program, but a paragraph covering the general idea of what its non-news programming looked like and how it might have changed over time. Currently it's lopsided toward WP:RECENCY.

  Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thebiguglyalien First change is fine and done. Second isn't as convincing because there are already passages discussing the station's local programming in the history section. I did another exhaustive search to find more info on non-news local programming in the 1980–2008 period and came up fairly empty. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case I will support this as a featured article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 22 September 2023 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blood on the Floor is a modern concerto grosso that I stumbled upon while researching the works of Mark-Anthony Turnage, a composer whose works often fuse jazz and classical music. A relatively recent work by classical music standards (composed from 1993 to 1996), it's seen as Turnage's most extensive fusions of these two genres. The suite was written for a large orchestra including many unusual instruments and reflects Turnage's feelings on the death of his brother, Andrew.

I should note here that this is my first ever FAC, so I may need extra explanations if I don't understand some comments. I hope I have done justice to this wonderful work and hope that you will enjoy learning about this piece like I did. (Tim, here is the promised ping!) Thank you all, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very exciting to see this at FAC, will review soon! I'll note for other reviewers that I was present at the PR. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Footnote a needs ref

  done, must have been moved during the GA review - S

• Footnote b: Turnage had previously been a student of Gunther Schuller—the musician who coined the term "third stream"—at Tanglewood. - change the tense to past tense, "Turnage was a student of Gunther Schuller—the musician who coined the term "third stream"—when he attended Tanglewood."

  done - S

• ...first time that Turnage had integrated improvisation into one of his compositions. - cut "had"

  done - S

• Caption: "Elegy for Andy" incorporates musical quotations from Madama Buterfly - typo in Butterfly, and wl Madama Butterfly

  partly done: my spellcheck doesn't work on italics, thanks for spotting that. As for Madama Butterfly, it's linked in the prose just next to the image so I'm hesitant to link per MOS:REPEATLINK. Do you think it's necessary to provide a repeat? - S

Schminnte, I usually link things in captions; the aforementioned MOS:REPEATLINK states, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence in a section." MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk, I was noting that, but I was unsure due to the proximity of the image to the link. I can't see any harm in doing this though, so I've went ahead and linked. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ...fifteen and three-quarter minutes. - never seen time written this way, would be better as "fifteen minutes and 45 seconds"

  I've done this for consistency with the other written out times and MOS:NUMNOTES says to not use mixed figures and words in this situation. - S

Fair enough then. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• All citations should use the same casing (title case or sentence case)- this includes the citations under "Sources"

  Should be done, please tell me if I've missed any. - S

• Put "none" in the ref parameter of the templates under "Further reading"

  done - S

• My only other concern is the paragraph indentation. In a number of places, paragraphs are only one or two sentences long, which looks (in my opinion) rather un-encyclopedic. There's some MOS thing about this, but I can't find it for the life of me- oh, well, I'll just have to make another sacrifice to the MOS gods. I suggest formatting more sentences into larger paragraphs, particularly under "Performances"

  I think you're thinking of MOS:PARA? I've tried to combine some sentences to meet this, but it seems to be talking about single sentence paragraphs mainly. - S

Looks much better now! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schminnte, that's all I got- excellent work since the peer review! Please ping me in replies. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input again @MyCatIsAChonk! I have responded to all your points, some of which I am unsure on. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! There's one more thing I forgot- also per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the names of works in citation titles should be italicised too (e.g. imagine a hypothetical review article titled "Review of Turnage's Blood on the Floor") MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 13:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be done now as well @MyCatIsAChonk. Thanks, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 14:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - very nice work on this article since creation! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest adding alt text

  I've tried to do this, please correct me if I have made a mistake. This is (I think) my first time using alt text. - S

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  2nd point done, will need checking on 1st point. Thanks Nikkimaria. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mostly fine, except for a typo in Miller Theatre. Also noticed that a couple of the later images have fixed px size - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The fixed px should now be gone, thanks for catching the typo Nikkimaria. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed the progress of this article for a little while, and contributed to the peer review, where my various comments were duly dealt with. On rereading now I find nothing new to quibble at (except possibly for the spelling "infantalize" even though the cited NYT spells it thus). The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It appears to be comprehensive, is well sourced, easy to read and as well illustrated as one could ask for in an article about a work of recent times. Happy to support its apotheosis. Tim riley talk 16:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim! As an aside, the Cambridge, Merriam-Webster and Oxford all seem to accept "infantilize", not "infantalize". I've assumed that this is an error and corrected it per MOS:TYPOFIX. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but a few quibbles and comments:

• We don't usually give both ISBNs and OCLC numbers for books in the list of sources. I see no actual harm in such a work of supererogation here, but a judicious trimming might be in order.
• I don't think we need to be told in the list of sources that London is in the UK or that New York city is in New York state, or that Cincinnati is in Ohio (as opposed, perhaps, to the numerous Cincinnatis elsewhere).
• Discussing the sources before FAC, I think I recall concurring with another editor that although published doctoral theses are OK for WP:RS, MA theses might be iffy, but on reflection I don't think it's a problem: a major university has given its imprimatur. There are 16 citations to the Styles thesis, but I think that's all right.
• The capitalisation of the Styles work in the list of sources looks a bit odd.
• The magazine and newspaper sources are all eminently WP:RS.

Passing the source review. Tim riley talk 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quibbles above are fixed, I've whittled the identifiers down to ISBNs only and removed the unnecessary disambiguators in the location parameters. I did have rationales for the usages of the theses in case they were questioned, so I'll put these down here for anyone else who may be interested: all the doctoral theses have been cited in other works apart from Vellianitis, which can be explained by how relatively new it is. This should be made up for by the fact that the Vellianitis thesis was advised by Professor Peter Franklin, a respected musicologist who has served on the editorial boards of several journals (Nineteenth-Century Music Review, The Wagner Journal and 19th-Century Music). As for Lowery, I consider him a high-quality reliable source as he has served as a lecturer in musicology at institutions like Lewis University. He is also a member of the Society for Ethnomusicology and has given presentations at the society's conferences in the past. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! Just got some spare time to scroll through FAC, so I'll give this a shot. See invisible comments for my comments' division based on the sections! Additionally if you're interested, I have a FAC-awaiting PR. GeraldWL 10:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, I have attempted to respond to all of your many points. Some I have asked questions about, very few have been declined, and the vast majority have been actioned on. Are you happy with these changes? If I have messed something up or missed a note, please tell me. Thanks a lot for your comments, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis, more replies below, I hope these help! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, I did a couple more replies but they're just confirmations and I think this article looks all good now! I'll give my support once my last comment is resolved, the one about the archives down below. GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archives have now been added to the URLs. Thanks again for all of your comments! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then that makes a support! I tried listening to it (Decca ver.) and found myself enjoy Sweet and Decay :) Also no pressure but if you can stop by my PR that I linked above that'd be great! GeraldWL 08:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* "This event shaped"-- "which shaped" to merge two short sentences with the same theme I personally feel that the resulting sentence would be too wordy, is this a necessity? - S I won't go far as calling is necessity since it isn't a MOS, but the last three sentences of para 1 has a reading speed of 4.77s, 4.57s, and 4.97s when I tried reading in average pace. Generally paragraphs would sound less monotone when each sentence vary by length. In my view it would add to the engaging factor of the article. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Does this rewrite do anything for you? - S That looks pretty good, yeah. GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] "by Turnage's former"-- by his former, to avoid repetition Not done, I think the moving of the point below solves this too. - S "the suite. The suite"-- another repetitive Sentence has been moved to a better place, which also fixes the repetitive. - S "music critics. Some critics"-- ditch the second critics, maybe replace with "of them" Removed - S I think the premiere is a significant part of this article, thus worthy of inclusion in the lead, probably at para 3 Added - S Should probably link Ensemble Modern, and like the lead describe the nationality and what it is Does my change here work? - S I think so! :) GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] "in the jazz trio"-- in the jazz or in jazz? I think in the jazz trio is correct English - S I suppose you could coalesce the composition history and inspiration together? I imagine it would work well combined with paragraph 2 I feel that it makes sense to make a distinction between the history and inspiration, but I see your point. Does my removal of the section header do anything for you? - S That looks great to for me. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] "The suite reflects Turnage's personal feelings on the death of his brother Andrew"-- you should also mention how this event happens midway thru composition done - S Wikilink YouTube done - S "Blood on the Floor is a fusion of classical and jazz styles, and has been described as a "third stream" piece." Third stream AFAIK is a fusion of classical and jazz, but this sentence makes it seem like they're two different stuff. Rewriting to "Blood on the Floor has been described as a "third stream" piece, a fusion of classical and jazz styles" or stuff like that. This is also a problem in the lead. changed in both occurrences - S I think harmony and juxtaposition is overlinking I feel like if bar is being linked, then harmony is also warranted. Juxtaposition delinked. - S I think here and in the lead, bar must be linked linked - S "Juxtaposition features frequently in Blood on the Floor." This sentence I think can be ditched, as rephrasing the later sentence to "Turnage also frequently contrasts thematic ideas with no transitions in between them, creating a juxtaposition" would serve well Done - S "employed. These motifs appear" --> "employed, appearing" Changed to something similar - S You should probably write which movement number "Dispelling the Fear" is done - S Why are there two names (Blood on the Floor, Biting)? you should probably clarify what the second thing is they are tempo markings as they appear in the score. I tried to section these off using brackets like in Short Symphony. - S "minutes. The prologue" --> "minutes, and" Not done, instead I merged with the previous sentence. - S Why is the quote box so so thin? There's only 1-5 words per line in my display; suggest widening it a little Widened slightly, it looks fine to me but maybe not to others? Does this help? - S That looks better, though I found that in my display, a 25 or 28% width would make it more noticable as readers on desktop read the prose. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] I feel that this may produce too much blank space in the quote box: on my screen this leaves an undesirable blank space the size of the quote itself. So, not increased any more for now. - S "for the orchestra. It lasts" --> "for the orchestra, and lasts" done - S ""Shout" both starts" --> "It both starts" Not done to avoid repeating "it" from the previous sentence - S "scaffolding. Scaffolding is used" --> "scaffolding, which is used" done - S "The sketch was not used in the concerto" --> "The sketch was not used there" done - S "ABBA" Linked - S "This structure is one of the most fractured" --> "This structure is regarded as one of the most fractured" done - S "Puccini's Madama Butterfly" --> "Giacomo Puccini's opera Madama Butterfly" Not done to avoid a sea of blue - S I don't think it's seaofblue here, as both links are separated by "opera". GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, you're entirely right. Now done: - S Why is jazz fusion hyphen here but not in its article? It's most likely that the cited source used this styling and I mindlessly copied it :) Changed - S ""Crackdown" opens" --> "It opens" Done - S "pianissimo" Linked to Dynamics (music)#Dynamic markings - S "Betts. The movement is dedicated to Betts" --> "Betts, and is dedicated to her" Done - S "The movement's style is dissimilar to that of the other movements, bar "Sweet and Decay""-- meaning? Does the colon now in place clear that up? - S Maybe it's just my ESL position, but I just don't know what "bar "Sweet and Decay"" means. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] It is a preposition used in British English that means the same as "except for". I prefer this wording, but it can be changed if you think it would be helpful? - S No, it's totally fine! I just did a bit of Googling and it seems fine. Gives me a chance to learn new words and stuff too :) GeraldWL 03:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] "Floor. The chromatic" --> Floor: the chromatic" done - S The first four sentences here are repetitive "It premiered here. Performed here. Premiered here. Performed here." Suggest changing to "Blood on the Floor was premiered in London in May 1996 at the Queen Elizabeth Hall, before being performed by the Ensemble Modern at the Salzburg Festival in August 1997. It then had its American premiere on 28 September 2001 at the Miller Theatre, New York, performed by the Absolute Ensemble, conducted by Kristjan Järvi." I've moved around some sentences. Is this good? - S Should prolly link Miles David and Miller in their img captions. Done - S "The Berlin Philharmonic" --> The orchestra Done - S "This was a part of their Metropolis concert series, and featured" Good call, done - S Why not combine para 3 and 4? Also, suggest adding to start of para 3, "The suite also saw more performances." Done - S Suggest doing some paraphrasing here, this section is more of quotes after quotes. See WP:RECEPTION which is a common reference for WP FAs. I've tried to paraphrase some of the quotes and to make it a bit more interesting. Is this good? - S "Some critics, like Clements, praised the suite. Writing in The Guardian, Clements commented" --> "Some critics, like Clements, praised the suite, writing in The Guardian" Not done: I feel that this wording is fine as it is. - S Music critics is overlink Removed - S I don't see it removed yet. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Now done - S In the table, you can probably merge the Performers cells, & the conductor one Done - S Sorry, I meant merging cells as in having all rows with one cell; see To Fly!#Accolades "Recipient(s)" row. GeraldWL 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I see. Done - S Recommend adding archives to the further readings.

• 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) 12:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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